|From:||Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 14:14|
On Aug 3, 2004, at 3:15 AM, Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
> _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
> _háv_, _líviń_ which as far as I know reflects no English
> <v> from ending words or being doubled. Similarly, _śål_ for 'shall'.
What kind of system do you have that makes it easier to form S-acute
and N-acute than S-hacek and N-tilde?
When i was a co-editor of my high school Spanish magazine, i remember
getting a submission from a student who had written all eÑes as eŃes,
and thinking that although it looked really cool having all the
((insert fancy word for 'over the letter'; i keep thinking
_superlittoral_ but that can't be it :P )) diacritics being the same
mark, I had no idea why someone would go to all the trouble to produce
N-acutes when N-tildes were so much easier to find in your common
American computer systems.
"...I believe there were no flowers, then, / In the world where the
humming-bird flashed ahead of creation. / I believe he pierced the slow
vegetable veins with his long beak. // Probably he was big / As mosses,
and little lizards, they say were once big. / Probably he was a
jabbing, terrifying monster. // We look at him through the wrong end of
the long telescope of Time, / Luckily for us."
~ 'humming-bird' by d h lawrence