Thanks for the correction! That's good to know. I also noticed it isn't dreizig but dreissig, whereas it is vierzig (and not vierssig). I have to double-check whether it is my source that's wrong or just another exception to memorize.

▲ 1718627440 5 days ago | parent [-]

> dreizig but dreissig

Actually it's 'dreißig'. It can't be 'dreissig', since a double consonant like 'ss' indicates a short vowel, which a diphthong like 'ei' can never be.

▲ chmod775 4 days ago | parent [-]

A hundred years ago you might've still commonly seen it spelled "dreiszig".

▲ 1718627440 3 days ago | parent [-]

They are the same thing, when you don't use latin characters.

▲ chmod775 2 days ago | parent [-]

Interesting nitpick, but I must be missing your point somehow.

>They are the same thing

No, that's in fact not the same characters (obviously?), even if they can be used to represent the same phoneme and could thus be viewed as interchangeable. I've made it explicitly clear my comment concerned spelling though.

>when you don't use latin characters.

I have no idea how to parse this, given that all three of them are letters used in latin script. I suppose one of them wouldn't be considered part of the basic latin alphabet, but then your sentence still doesn't make sense to me.

▲ 1718627440 a day ago | parent [-]

In German characters, there is now difference between 'sz' and 'ß'. 'ß' is in fact just the concatenation of the glyphs of 's' and 'z'. 'ß' only became relevant when the glyphs switched to Antiqua.

I don't know it German characters are considered to be Latin script or not. The number and meaning of characters is mostly the same, besides stuff like 'ſ', but the glyphs are all different.

	▲	1718627440 a day ago \| parent [-]
		`s/now/no/ s/it/if/`