Talk:Latin epsilon

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Vanisaac in topic Latin epsilon or open-e

Title

edit

Can this be moved to an article title that actually works with default character sets? -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why not start at Wikipedia:Requested moves? It could move this page to open e. The reason I started it here was because most of the others' titles are characters. --Merovingian (t) (c) 21:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is this letter not based on the Greek letter epsilon? If it is, that could be mentioned. --70.29.60.170 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It should be called Latin epsilon, not an Open E as it is named. See http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn27/ -- Hello World! 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

References to African language orthographies

edit

I modified the first para and added a See also link. I'm not sure that it is accurate to say that any language uses the African Reference Alphabet, which was adopted as a kind of guideline based on earlier conferences and existing practice. ----A12n 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Latin epsilon or open-e

edit

The form of the letter is obviously like, and apparently based on, the Greek epsilon. However the term "open-e" is still current, and certainly 1) helps describe the sound usually associated with the character and 2) offers a symmetry with "open-o" in discussions of orthographies and vowel systems they represent. I don't see "open-e" as a "misnaming" but rather as a naming from a different perspective. Can there be two equivalent names in Unicode for the same character?--A12n (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because of Unicode stability policy, the character name is the character name, good, bad, right, wrong, misspelled, typos and all. There do exist a standard set of aliases for badly named characters, however. Latin letter epsilon is already the alias for latin letter open e, but the character name will never change, and no character will ever be named latin small/capital letter epsilon. VIWS talk 01:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply