Re: Logographic English was Re: Divergent Scripts
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, September 1, 2002, 21:38|
Quoting Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
> John Cowan wrote:
> >Peter Clark scripsit:
> > > I can easily imagine a scenario in which students five
> > > hundred years hence are still able to read Hemingway in the "original"
> > > only glosses at the bottom of the page for obsolete words (much like
> >what we
> > > do for Shakespeare today), even though pronunciation has completely
> >The only reason students can do that with Shakespeare is that we almost
> >completely rationalize and modernize the spelling.
> The Shakespeare I've seen in school, appart from the Swedish translations,
> has been packed with spellings like "deliuer", "vpon", "e're" and "dar'd".
> Are you telling me that the original spelling was way weirder? Ooga ...
It could be considerably weirder, yes. <u> and <v>, though,
were in complementary distribution: <v> at the beginnings of
words, <u> elsewhere.
Dept. of Linguistics "Nihil magis praestandum est quam ne pecorum ritu
University of Chicago sequamur antecedentium gregem, pergentes non qua
1010 E. 59th Street eundum est, sed qua itur." -- Seneca
Chicago, IL 60637