On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:10:13PM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
This has little to do with spelling - even in the most recent times
when English spelling was largely up to the individual author, they
would've branded that as "incorrect".
This seems almost without context. What?
People like you seem to believe that language does _not_ change over time.
I'm curious where you get that impression. Really. I have no such
belief.
In that case I say to you, behold:
"Ne sorga, snotor guma; selre bið æghwæm þæt he his freond wrece,
þonne he fela murne. Ure æghwylc sceal ende gebidan worolde lifes;
wyrce se þe mote domes ær deaþe; þæt bið drihtguman unlifgendum æfter
selest."
I fear some characters aren't rendering properly. Your example, thus,
is not presented accurately.
What, you say, English? Isn't that Icelandic or some other crazy
langauge like that? No, it is indeed English, and that is how it was
written. Even if you replaced the spelling of words that have cognates
in modern English with their current standard spelling, it would be
quite literally incomprehensible.
Really? Why don't you do so, and let others judge it for themselves?
Maybe it'll be more comprehensible to me if it uses characters I can
see.
Many of the words have been replaced by French ones, many others have
changed in their pronunciation so drastically as to be quite literally
unrecognisable.
I don't see how that in any way invalidates what I said.
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]