Language desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7

ЭЗ3

In Russian-language handwriting, how are these three glyphs typically distinguished, if at all? Are they generally identical, so you have to rely purely on context, or do Russophones typically have a method of writing them differently? The chart at Russian cursive shows a distinction between Э and З, but the chart doesn't show numerals (and it's a model script, from which typical manuscript may easily vary), and I'm also curious about printed characters. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 and З are nearly indistinguishable, both in cursive and in print -- to a degree that older typewriters used the same glyph (and the same key) for both of them -- same as for 0 and О. On the other hand, Э is easily distinguishable from 3 and З because its right side is smooth. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar manner, Georgian typewriters lacked a dedicated key for the digit 3, using the Mkhedruli letter ვ instead. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the Э and З in the image at the right (Э is the 3rd letter from the end; З is the 9th letter from the beginning). Then the digit 3 is written like an English 3. —Stephen (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Russians handwriting the Ээ as Əə. --Theurgist (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've also seen э and з mixed up in labels of children's toys and other stuff made in China. --Theurgist (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For video presentations of the letters being written, you can refer to the external link at the top of User:Wavelength/About languages/About Russian/Notes for "Russian World". The letter "З" (zeh) is shown in lesson 3, and "Э" ("eh", "eh oborotnoye") is shown in lesson 5.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, depending on the handwriting, it might be hard or impossible to distinguish the number 4 from the letter Ч. For the purposes of text messaging and the like, people use the Latin alphabet if the Cyrillic is not available or if the Latin is simply easier for them to type, and then they often use the 4 for Ч, both because of their alike shapes and because the word for the number 4 in the Cyrillic-written Slavic languages (Russian, Bulgarian, etc) starts with Ч. --Theurgist (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi (Panjabi) for "thirty-three" is "ਤੇਤੀ", which is "੩੩" in Gurmukhi numerals. See http://www.omniglot.com/language/numbers/punjabi.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: 1) These are slightly different in writing (in an accurate one at least). Number 3 is usually smaller than the capital З, but slightly bigger than the lowercase э, and both number 3 and the lowercase э are written slightly different as you can see. The lowercase з is written entirely different and confusion is hardly possible, unless the writer has his own form of the letter without the loop below. There are more chances of confusing the lowercase з, д and у. Here is the handwriting which Russian children learn.

2) In printing it is less obvious, however, native Russian speakers are used to pay attention to such nuances, like Ээ being round and slightly stretched, while Зз being more tight and upright. Ээ are more like mirrored Сс with a tongue, while Зз are like two half-ovals. Number 3 is slim and thin and lacks serifs, unlike the uppercase З. In good fonts these distinctions are deliberately maintained and more prominent. See, for example, the "Academic" typeface or the "Literature" typeface, two very widespread typefaces. See other examples here.

3) But most important is context, which practically totally eliminates any confusions. These two letters and the number hardly occur in the same context. In technical contexts the mixed usage of all these three is usually avoided, for example, in Russian car plates where there are no letters З and Э.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But most important is context, which practically totally eliminates any confusions. -- yes, and the unlikely ambiguity becomes the subject of jokes, such as [1]

A drill officer goes through the list of his recruits:
--Private Johnson!

--Aye sir!

--Private Peters!

--Aye sir!

--Private Three-thousand-and-thirty!

--Sir, my name is Zozo!

--217.140.96.140 (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, in Esperanto zozo is a placeholder noun. —Tamfang (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish video proposed as source

There is an IP editor trying to claim that Turkey (and Hawaii and American Samoa) are staying permanently in Daylight Savings Time, although the article, Daylight saving time by country, said before that these areas have left DST permanently. The IP has offered as a source a Turkish video. Since I don't understand Turkish, I would like to know if the source is suitable for proving this assertion. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the language, but the underlying issue — it's reasonable to say that a place has permanently adopted DST if it's always an hour ahead of its solar time. There's no fundamental difference between adopting a time zone that's "wrong" and permanently adopting DST without ever going back to standard time. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but is it reasonable to say that without a source? What about with a source that says the opposite? The sources currently provided (timeanddate.com) say that Turkey, for example, left DST in 2016 and won't be observing it in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of obviousness (almost WP:CALC) if we also have sourcing saying that they've permanently gone onto a one-hour-later time zone. Absent such sourcing, of course, it's a totally different matter, and not at all reasonable to say that. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of idle curiosity, I Googled, and found some sources saying one thing and some said another. As you say, there's no fundamental difference between the two, and it's merely an issue of semantics. Thank you for your help. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's is how to avoid the edit war over the words here: Don't use them. Simply indicate which time zone Turkey uses year round, like UTC+3, and leave it at that. There's no need to shoe-horn in a name for it if it creates dispute. --Jayron 32 13:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish your common sense ruled on other disputes I've had recently. Thanks Jayron. Elizium23 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]