Talk:Sho (letter)

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Ughochonear in topic Thorn

Comments related to February 14, 2006 AfdEdit

I've found the following references to validate the existence of sho:

Seals it for me that a Greek university includes sho in their list of letters. —ERcheck @ 00:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What does this letter actually look like?? Georgia guy 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's now a picture. --Ptcamn 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be useful if the characters in the text could be surrounded with code to show it in some font which standradly exists in Windows XP/7/etc. and contains the character.
Anyway, it looks almost exactly like the obsolete English thorn. --Nahum (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How come when I was taught the Greek letters, it never even mentioned these so called "obselete" letters. I would have poster this on one of the other obselete pages, but this one was particular to me. I read the page, and it says this letter was ADDED to the alphabet. The reason this gets me is because most of these letters were removed. But if this was added, how have I never heard of it, and wh is it obselete?

It was added to the Greek alphabet as used in Bactria. It was never added to the Greek alphabet as used in Greece, which is what most people are familiar with.
It's obsolete because the Bactrian language itself is now extinct. --Ptcamn 01:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. When was this letter added?
  2. Which Greek words are written with a Sho?

--Bender235 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Greek words -- only Bactrian ones. It's like ð, which is a member of the Latin alphabet but not used to write Latin... just other languages using the same alphabet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Raster vs. vector imageEdit

I noticed the current image looks a bit jagged as displayed. Its page links to a vector version, which I wanted to substitute for the raster one, but I can't seem to figure out how. Could someone more knowledgeable help out? Lusanaherandraton 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is this not listed in the template? —DIV ( (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]


Why is this recondite Bactrian letter listed, but the letters added to the Greek alphabet for writing Coptic are not? Either both should be included in the alphabet template, or - preferably - none, since they are not Greek letters properly speaking.-- (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've moved this from "Sho (letter)" to just Ϸ, the character itself, per WP:USEENGLISH, because there is no reason to push ahead the use of a name that is nowhere in common use except in Wikipedia. The name "sho" was invented only in 2002, and only as a technical label for Unicode character listings (because for technical reasons, all characters must have a name spelled in Ascii Latin letters). This name is used nowhere else as far as I've seen; the original name in Bactrian is of course unknowable (if it had any), and in all the decades of modern philological scholarship on Bactrian scholars apparently never felt a need to give it any name either. Theirs is the model we should follow, per our naming policies. Fut.Perf. 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Funnily, I now find that the above is not quite true. Prior to Sims-Williams and Everson coining "Sho" for Unicode, some authors actually did have a name for this thingie - they called it "san", i.e. our San (letter). [1]. The story of "San" is getting more and more fun, it seems. We could, in principle, merge all of Sampi in there too, in addition to Arcadian Tsan. Fut.Perf. 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: on second thought, I've changed my mind, seeing the reasonable argument at WP:NAME#Special characters. So, we're back at "sho". Τόσοι και τόσοι βαρβαρότεροί μας άλλοι αφού το γράφουν ... --Fut.Perf. 13:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Isn't this related to thorn? I mean it looks like it and it has a similar name! Ughochonear (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no historical relation whatsoever, and the similarity of shapes is purely coincidental. Fut.Perf. 19:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! Ughochonear (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]