Re: Antique forms (was Re: Magick (...))

Jörg Rhiemeier scripsit:

> The same way as in English: by using antique forms.  For example,
> "magick" would be translated into German as "Zauberey" (a spelling
> common in the 18th century; the modern spelling is "Zauberei").
Historically, of course "magick" was /m&dZIk/, as is "magic", but
people who write "magick" today often say /meidZIk/ as an unhistorical
but useful way of making the difference, and perhaps also to emphasize
the etymological connection with "mage" /meidZ/.

>   Esperanto, for example, cannot do
> that, because it doesn't have that historical depth.
Actually it can.  This message was posted here in 1993:

> Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 09:14:26 -0700
> From: D Anton Sherwood <dasher@...>
> Message-Id: <199305021614.AA22829@...>
> To: conlang@diku.dk
> Subject: diachronic conlang
>
> Dad tells me that dialect is traditionally rendered in Esperanto with
> Zamenhof's proto versions (how much material on those is available?), but I
> used to have a book called "Arcaicam Esperantom" in which someone invented a
> five-case paradigm, a pseudo-Romance orthography and so on.
>
> *\\* Anton                                                     Ubi scriptum?
--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
        --Douglas Hofstadter

Reply