Re: þe_getisbyrg_adres

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 06:08, Gary Shannon wrote:
> As my eyes get older I really hate decorated letters.
> I can't always make out which decoration I'm looking
> at.  But since we read by scanning the general shape
> of the word as a whole, I suppose it doesn't matter
> which decoration a given letter has.  But if that's
> the case, then the decorations are superfluous and can
> be left off with no loss of legibility.
>
> e.g.:
>
> e getisbyrg adres
> getisbyrg, pensilvania
> novembr 19, 1863
>
> for skor and seven jers ago ur fars brat for on is
> kontinent, a ny nasyn, konsevd in libyrti, and
> dedikatid to e proposisyn at al men ar kre-atid
> ekwal.
Well, no. Firstly, the difference between accented and unaccented is
still going to be significant. That way, an accent is needed but it
doesn't matter what is. Of course, the only time the accent is
significant is over an a, when it could either be á (using present
english terminology, a long a) or å (aw). I would have great difficulty
believing anyone who could distinguish between u and n couldn't
distinguish between å and á. But I'm sure some fonts are evil and
broken... Secondly, the existence of thorns and eths is certainly
important. They can't be left out, though they could be transcribed with
th if necessary...

My problems with it are that it doesn't note stress... It randomly gives
values to schwas so that I took some time to decypher frex. 'konsévd',
_onord_; _propósiśyn_ just looks absurd (sorry, can't type s-caron, can
type s-acute, treating as equivalent). You might as well write
'propósiśún'. _To_ for 'to' but _pur_ for 'poor' strikes me as amazingly
and unbelievably backward (historically the both represent the same
vowel---I could justify the lack-of-schwa on grounds of history---so why
not represent them the same?). There's also some random accents e.g. in
_háv_, _líviń_ which as far as I know reflects no English pronunciation
but rather the irregularity in the English orthography that prohibits
<v> from ending words or being doubled. Similarly, _śål_ for 'shall'.
Also, 'cannot' is one word, not two :)

If it's historical (of the if-english-were-different,-here's-how-it'd-
be-spelt-today sort), why not make it historical and spell vowels
according to Early Middle English values or whatever the intention is?
If it's revisionary, why not make it easier to read? As it stands, it's
not easier.

but, in a larjyr sens, wé kanot dedykát---wé kanot konsykrát---wé kanot
haló---þis grúnd. þy bráv men, liviń and ded, hw strugyld hér, hav
konsykrátyd it, far ybuv úr por (or pwr) púyr tw ad or detrakt.

alternatively:

butt, in a larjyr sens, wé kannot deddikàt---wé kannot konnsekràt---wé
kannot halló---þis grúnd. þe bráv menn, livviń & dedd, hw struggyld hér,
hav konnsekràted it, far abuvv úr por púyr tw ad or detrackt.

--
Tristan.

Replies