Talk:Ȥ

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capital Z with hook

In Unicode this letter is called U+0224 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z WITH HOOK, and can be seen here. There must be a wikipedian convention for displaying such a character in an article often viewed by browsers not configured to do so.

I noticed that this article doesn't even try, using Ȥ instead of Ȥ at the beginning of the article. 66.167.139.8 12:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Middle High German

I have no idea what this character was originally intended for, but nobody seems to be using it for Middle High German (the geschwänztes z looks rather different than a "z with hook"). (technical discussion in German [1]). dab (𒁳) 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People use the Ezh (Ʒ ʒ) instead, which (officially) is an IPA character. This is how this character (Z mit Unterschlinge) should look like, because Ezh is a straigth up copy of it (to make it easier to print books with phonetic transcriptions). But instead the unicode consortium just came up with some bullshit that doesn't look like the character it's supposed to represent at all. It's like they had some kind of chip on their shoulder against german.. They also maintain that blackletter is just a font, not a script, which would be fine if they at least provided codepoints for the additional charaters that demonstrably exists in many blackletters. But they don't. Eeeeeeeexcept for the characters that were used in non-german blackletter of course, which get their own codepoint, like R_rotunda, which never even represented a phonetic difference. It's super weird. 2A02:1205:C692:C420:2B49:B612:3A58:7F12 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the manuscripts typically used ⟨s⟩ to represent /z/" — This is inaccurate according to the reference grammar^[1]. MHG distinguished between a "front" and a "back" s-sound, <z> /s/ used for the former ("Lautverschiebungs-S", from PGmc *t) as well as the affricate /t͡s/, ⟨s⟩ /s̠/ for the latter (from PGmc *s). It's assumed that in some environments, a lenited (voiced?) pronunciation of ⟨s⟩ /s̠/ existed as an allophone. ⟨Ȥ⟩ (or alternatively, ⟨ʒ⟩) is only found in scholarly literature to disambiguate between <ȥ> /s/ and <z> /t͡s/ in normalized spellings, manuscripts use plain ⟨z⟩ for both the fricative and affricate. The new Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik^[2]^[3] even goes so far as to distinguish ⟨ȥ⟩ /s/ and ⟨ƶ⟩ /t͡s/ from IPA /z/ explicitly in quoting normalized spellings of individual word forms. 2001:9E8:17D4:9400:A0BC:8D8D:9E26:2BE8 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Paul, Hermann et al. (eds.). 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, §§ L 119–124 = pp. 169–175.
^ Klein, Thomas, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.). 2009. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Vol. 3: Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 579–581.
^ Klein, Thomas, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.). 2018. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Vol. 2: Flexionsmorphologie. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 989–991.

[1] Paul, Hermann et al. (eds.). 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, §§ L 119–124 = pp. 169–175.

[2] Klein, Thomas, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.). 2009. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Vol. 3: Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 579–581.

[3] Klein, Thomas, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.). 2018. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Vol. 2: Flexionsmorphologie. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 989–991.

[1]

[2]

[3]