Talk:Yogh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Yogh as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Neutrality 2 Yogh Page on French Wikipedia 3 "boxes" 4 Replace 3s with Yoghs 5 Removed from article 6 Scots names 7 Yogh font problem 8 Fonts containing yoghs 9 Trouble adding Yogh in other wikipedia articles. 10 Middle English "Ȝogh" 11 Bring back the Yough 12 Comment removed 13 Use of <font> elements 14 Unicode value

[edit] Neutrality

THIS ARTICLE IS CLEARLY BIASED. HOW COULD SUCH A BIASED ARTICLE SLIP THROUGH THE FILTERS OF THE MODERATORS HERE? MY GOD AM I OFFENDED! 204.108.148.12 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Um. If you're serious, you might want to be more specific. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 19:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Judging by this IP address' past edits, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is the complete opposite of seriousness. POV warning removed. Also, Muke, loving your Frath wiki. Matsu 03:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yogh Page on French Wikipedia

Has anybody else looked at this? It's freaking amazing! I don't speak French or else I would heavily consider adapting the entire thing to the current English entry. Seriously, it was a Featured Article in the French Wikipedia. --anon

[edit] "boxes"

When I first read the caption next to the Yogh graphic it was confusing. When it said the lowercase was "right" I thought it meant literally to the right of the text, meaning the uppercase was to the left and the lowercase was on the right. For example:

3 (uppercase) blah blah explanation blah blah 3 (lowerrcase)

No big deal. Maybe this?

Capital yogh (the upper '3'), lowercase yogh (the lower '3').

I don't like the boxes, if I were browsing here and was told to go download something and come back later I wouldn't be too impressed. I'd replace the boxes with ' 3 ' and a brief explain why it isn't the true letter Yogh (especially the lowercase Yogh.)--Dhughes 21:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Boxes... argh. I wish some browsers would adopt a better display for chars they can't render. I'll replace them with 3's as that is what is usually done for Yoghs. Apologies for editing your comment but the white lines are annoying! — Jor (Talk) 21:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd much rather the correct Unicode letter be used, especially since there's already a picture so the font-impaired can see what it's supposed to look like. Lots of people don't have fonts for Chinese, but that doesn't mean we have to go around replacing 十 with + because they look kinda the same. DopefishJustin 05:16, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

On my browser (IE6) all I see is a box. I can see thorn and edh, but yogh doesn't work for me.

I'm on Netscape 7 and I see a question mark or a 3 where the yogh apparently should be. Adam Bishop 21:55 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Font issue, it does not matter what browser you use. Darkelf 00:12, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Replace 3s with Yoghs

It is ok to replace the 3's with ȝ's? Or does this make it hard for too many people to read? --Spikey 00:07, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should be okay. People just have to get Unicode fonts: Arial Unicode MS, Code2000, Junicode and Titus Cyberbit Basic all have a yoch. Arial Unicode MS comes with Office, Code2000 is shareware, but the last two are freeware fonts. — Darkelf 00:12, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)

actualy most of them don't :-( Jordi·✆ 01:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links: Code2000: license info and download link, Junicode: license info and download link, Titus Cyberbit Basic: license info download link — Darkelf 00:18, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)

I am on Mozilla Firefox and I see all the yoghs just fine. --142.166.96.192 17:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They don't presently show up in Internet Explorer, which generally treats odd characters like an idiot. I'm changing all the yoghs to show up in Arial Unicode MS—most people have that on their machine already, so they'll be able to see the yoghs even in IE. —Simetrical (talk) 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wait, take that back. I'm not changing it over. I didn't realize we were using Template:Unicode. However, the fact remains that the characters don't show up in IE. I'll comment over at the template page. —Simetrical (talk) 23:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who added {{Unicode}} here. Yogh works for me now in MSIE. I'll test if there's an easy solution, doubt it however. Jordi·✆ 01:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

Removed:

ghost is Dutch — from the standpoint of English, the Dutch confuse the letters g and h, so here's a spelling pronounceable in both.

Ghost is not Dutch, nor does it resembled normal Dutch spelling. Gh is not a combination which occurs naturally in Dutch. The Dutch equivalent of Ghost is geest, which is pronounced close to *ghayst. Jordi·✆ 09:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scots names

Can someone give me the Yogh-spellings of the Scots names listed? I am very interested in how a name which doesn't carry a 'Z' sound at all can be spelt that way. Was it really just ignorance based on the glyph's form, as in þe→ye? Jordi·✆ 12:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was base on the glyph form as some forms of the z had a tail which made it identical to the Yogh. This form has carried over to the cursive handwriting form of the z that we use today.

Yeh, that's right. If you read the <z>s as yoghs, that is the original spelling. Exactly like "ye" in "ye olde alehouse". Maybe that comparison would be useful in the article? --Doric Loon 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogh font problem

Despite adding Template:Unicode to this character, Yogh will still not display for most people using Internet Explorer. The problem is that there are just two large Unicode fonts which are likely present on most Windows machines: Lucida Sans Unicode, and Arial Unicode MS (for people who have MS Office). Neither font contains the character, nor do other relatively common (but still obscure) fonts listed by the template, such as Bitstream Cyberbit or its derivant Titus. Going over a relatively clean WindowsXP system (no user fonts installed), I can't find any font which contains yogh. This means that even in better browsers, such as Opera or Firefox, there will be no yoghs displayed. Other than asking people to install a real Unicode font, there does not seem to be a real solution (replacing yoghs with 3s or images is out of the question as far as I'm concerned). Jordi·✆ 01:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The yoghs display fine in Firefox, at least for me. I have no idea why—could I have an unusual font installed? I don't have Code2000/Code2001, I know that. —Simetrical (talk) 00:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having large fonts helps, as does using any browser except MSIE. MSIE is fundamentally broken, and cannot change fonts if it encounters characters from certain Unicode ranges unless specifically told to. The Unicode template does just that: it adds a font declaration in such a way that only MSIE applies it (Firefox, Opera, Safari just do what they always do).

You must have some other font which includes a yogh: Firefox is not broken, so it will use a yogh if it knows about a font which contains it. Jordi·✆ 00:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any fonts on the lists below (#Fonts containing yoghs), but yoghs still show up in Firefox. Are you sure it doesn't have any inbuilt character support? —Simetrical (talk) 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100% sure (Firefox is not a font!). I am certain there must be other fonts which contain yoghs, but I don't have any others (at least, character map can't find yoghs in other fonts). Jordi·✆ 08:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fonts containing yoghs

These fonts I know contain yoghs:

• Chrysanthi Unicode
• Code2000
• Doulos SIL
• Everson Mono Unicode
• Gentium
• GentiumAlt
• Junicode
• TITUS Cyberbit Basic (new version)

These fonts do NOT contain a Yogh:

• Arial Unicode MS
• Bitstream Cyberbit

Jordi·✆ 01:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Lucida Grande has it. Evertype 09:17, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

• Bitstream Vera doesn't have yogh either. --KelisFan2K5 22:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three more fonts that contain the yogh:

• Cardo
• Thryomanes
• Free Mono

For the moment, I'm lackng a sans-serif font with yogh. --chryss 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble adding Yogh in other wikipedia articles.

The yogh, Ȝ, appears fine on the Yogh article page and when I paste it into my Windows XP notepad. However when I was sourcing The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology for a Proto-Germanic constructed form of 'God' which used a yogh, and added it under the 'etymology' heading in the wikipedia article 'God', it simply appears as this block. It shouldn't have to do with the font, as it appears fine in this article (& in notepad), but not in the java page editing area for wikipedia. Any help? Nagelfar 11:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is actually the font. Try using {{unicode|Ȝ}} instead, which shows up as Ȝ in contrast to Ȝ. It mightn't show up all nifty-like in the edit box, but when you view it, it will. It's got to do with how Internet Explorer on Windows handles fonts; the Unicode template sets some specific fonts when using IE, but is specially designed so that other browsers ignore it. Another option that'll make it work for you is to use Mozilla Firefox or some related browser, but for the benefit of IE-users, you'll still need the template. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My thanks Cassowary, it appears you're correct as I cannot change the font here in IE. But the {{unicode|etc}} was indeed the command I sought and explains why it appears. My thanks again. Nagelfar 16:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middle English "Ȝogh"

The page says that the ME spelling of the letter was "ȝogh". I am not an expert, but given the information contained in the rest of the article, and my limited external knowledge, I would have expected "ȝoȝ". Can anyone comment on this?

Rdr0 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the spelling 'ȝogh' in. It was a surprise to me as well; when I didn't know how it was spelled, I thought it to be yoȝ. Ȝogh, however, is the prior spelling given in the Oxford English Dictionary. (I'm sure of the spelling, but I'm not entirely sure of the reference—it has been several years since I've had access to look it up. If someone can verify it that'd be great.) —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

> Very funny, I thought th same thing myself, but only momentarily. Actually, I'm curious as to how it's pronounced, maybe I skimmed over any given pronunciation, but I thought it's either homonymous w/ "yoe" or "rogue." That is, is it 3og3 or 3o3? Essentially, I wonder if the is "g" is distinctly pronounced.

>>I don't know for sure, but given what I know about the history of the English language, I would have assumed that the "gh" was pronounced as a voiceless velar fricative, as in the German "Ach-laut." 71.214.134.239 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whee, the online OED has been giving out free access occasionally. Okay, the word is given as pronounced /jɒɡ/ or /jɒx/ in British English, so yes, g or ach-laut. The spelling of this word doesn't seem to have been set: the earliest quotation they have, c1300, has yoȝ, and later: a1400 yogh (variant readings: ȝogh, iogh, ȝok), 1410-20 ȝogh (variant readings: ȝoch, ȝoche, ȝoghe, ȝouh, yowh, yough, ȝouȝ, ȝowȝe, ȝow, ȝoux, youx), 14xx yogh. It's also Latinized as iugum in 1440 which the OED takes as translating an underlying 'ȝok' (iugum = yoke). —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bring back the Yough

Why not? After all, the Scots use the letter z in place of letters that would otherwise be used by other English speakers. I'm sure otherwise will argue the reverse, make Scots adopt a universal spelling; if for no other reason, because it makes things easier for the rest of us. I contend, however, that there is something to say for posterity, but more importantly I think the fulcrum point of the arguments rests on the fact that English is already a very difficult language to read and write. There is also a direct correlation between pronunciation and spelling. I think ressurecting Eth and Thorn would prove confusing; however, I see potential for 3/Yough as a clarifier. Furthermore, I think it would be an easy letter to adopt. With the percentage of native speakers going to school - not only at a very early age, but also going on to further education - and the widespread use of computers, I can forsee instant exposure and means for usage. Finally, with the staggering number of non-native speakers (globally) now learning English - which has no shortage of confounding spellings and, in turn, pronunciations - the letter 3/Yogh would ease their already burdensome task.

As postscript, I feel that other changes would be excessive. Changes such as reverting to the orginal pronunciations of vowels (ei: adopting Continental vowel pronunciation, thus pronouncing most words as they did in Chaucer's time)or changing they way we spell words so that they become phonetically appropriate (ex: night becomes nite). The former would certainly help Europeans, and those who speak some European langauge other than English as a first language, but it would be appreciated even more by the number of Latin American immigrants coming to America as un-skilled laborers looking for jobs; the latter would help any young student struggling with his first book or her first writing assignment - not to mention their teachers. Still, I feel that such changes would be too drastic and if they were once feasible they are no longer. I also understand that there could be difficulties in waking 3/Yough from its dormancy, I just can't forsee those difficulties out numbering or out weighing the attributes.

Thou3ts...

[edit] Comment removed

I removed the following line from the top of the page:

The word yogh has sometimes been used as a colloquial backformed verb meaning "for milk to become yoghurt".

for two reasons: (1) the claim is unsourced, (2) sourced or not it's a neologism and a dicdef. Angr/talk 10:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of <font> elements

The HTML <font> element has been deprecated for a very long time (at least since HTML 4.01 in 1997). Modern HTML should always use CSS instead. Is there any reason to use it instead of {{Unicode}}? Hairy Dude 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I insterted the <font> tags because the unicode template wasn't working to display the characters. The only font I know of that displays the yogh is Microsoft Sans Serif.--Primetime 06:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly specifing a font would be an unreasonable compromise, as only Windows+IE suffers from Unicode problems, and this overrides the font on all other broser/OS combinations. It is strange that Arial Unicode and Lucidia Sans Unicode do not include that character, while Microsoft Sans Serif does. To have this character displayed corretly I suggest you install the (free) Gentium font. I will see if Microsoft Sans Serif can be given a giher priority than Arial Unicode or maybe fork {{unicode}} to a separate template for Middle English. —Ruud 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about your browser, but it displays OK in both Opera as well as IE on my computer with the font tags. My view is that we should make it visible to the most readers possible. So, it has nothing to do with me seeing it but allowing the majority of other people to see it. Your suggestion to install a font is of no use to them. We shouldn't make it invisible to IE + Windows users in order to make it visible to Macintosh or Linux users.--Primetime 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed, as this means we should images for every non-ASCII character (with a proper alt-tag of course). My point is that this particular solution is not acceptable (deprecated, not portable and creates and much problems as it solves, as I doubt the number of Win2K/WinXP+IE users that are viewing this articles is that much larger than the Win9x/MacOS/Linux/Firefox users. —Ruud 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Internet Explorer had an 89% market share of the web browser market in 2004.^[1] So, no we shouldn't make it invisible for 90% of our readers. As for other technical issues, can you be more specific? As for a precedent, the only time I've ever had to use the tag is here.--Primetime 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good.--Primetime 03:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode value

I added the Unicode values, which were not to be found anywhere on the page despite the comment is present "In Unicode 1.0 the character yogh was mistakenly unified with the quite different character Ezh (Ʒ ʒ), and yogh itself was not added to Unicode until version 3.0." At first I put them into that sentence, but then decided they belonged up in the top section -- certainly they have at least as good a right to be there as the Microsoft Office input method!

ISTM that any article about a character should include its Unicode codepoint(s) as a matter of course

Thnidu 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)