Talk:Heta

message: I copy from el:Συζήτηση:Ελληνικό αλφάβητο#Heta
Let me summarize my findings and try to clarify the issue. The english article is inaccurate and in that sense wrong. It should be merged with eta, they are the same letter.
*heta and eta are the same letter pronounced differently in different dialects ἧτα or ἦτα respectively.
*there is no distinct letter heta
*the same letter (H) represented in the beginning and in most dialects h (consonant)
*in the ionic dialect spiritus asper disappeared, so heta became eta and then H was used to represent the long e (as in the beginning of the word eta)
*after the ionic alpabet prevailed, H was used for long e
*but there was still need for the no longer represented h, so a derivative form of heta-H ("half H") appeared for this purpose, which later developed to the diacritic for spiritus asper we use nowadays. I found no special name for it.
*χητα appears to be a completely wrong transliteration
This article should either change its name or be merged to Eta (letter). Heta and Eta are the same letter pronounced differently. The name of the developed form of heta (half heta) used as a diacritic for spiritus asper is unknown to me, so I propose merge. A page about unicode signs is not a good source, as accurate as it might be, because it deals with the issue from a different perspective.--Archidamus (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd support merging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My bold merge attempt was reverted by another editor, on the grounds that these are two separeate letters. Well, maybe yes, but they are ultimately the same historical alphabetic entity, and their histories are inextricably linked so much that you can't really understand the one without the other. In fact, the existing Eta (letter) article did already cover the history of Heta all along - my merger just added a little bit more detail to what was already there. And this Heta (letter) article here is quite dubious: Heta "is[!] the eighth[!?] letter of the Greek alphabet"?  It also gives undue emphasis to just the one phase in its history when it was written with the half-H tack shape. Consonantal Heta was the same entity already in those variants of the alphabet where it had the full H glyph shape, or indeed any number of other alternative glyphs. For all these reasons, I still think treating them all together in a single article is the better thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Merge. There is no separate letter Heta, and anything that should be said about the left half of H belongs either in the Eta (letter) article or the Spiritus asper article (or both). --Macrakis (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, merger reinstated, thanks for the input. I've also now discussed this with User:Grk1011, who reverted me previously, so I guess we can call it consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On some reflection, I have un-merged this article after all. My main reason is that I now found there is substantially more modern scholarly usage of both the name "Heta" and the tack symbol than I was previously aware of. Most crucially, Jeffery, in her fundamental 1961 book on archaic scripts, seems to be not just talking about the tack glyph, but using it as part of her own analytic vocabulary, i.e. as her own conventional modern label to group together whatever different glyphs are used in the function of denoting /h/ in any of the epichoric alphabets she analyses. Here , her website uses the name "heta" but the symbol Latin h in this function, but in the 1961 book you actually find the Ͱ thingie in this role. For instance, she does tables like the following (partially reproduced here), and then in her following text refers to "H" as "Ͱ2". 
Letter	ϝ	ζ	η	Ͱ	θ
1     	 	 	–	 	
2     	 	 	 	 	
      	 	 	 	 	
Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmerged 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130901210905/http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis//unicode/unicode_aitch.html to http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/unicode_aitch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified