No, not really.
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".
People like you seem to believe that language does _not_ change over time.
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."
That's a quote from what I consider to be one of the most splendid
works of English poetry.
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.
Many of the words have been replaced by French ones, many others have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.
Mark
On 29/05/05, Chad Perrin <perrin(a)apotheon.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:28:01PM -0700, Mark
Williamson wrote:
As I said before, even dirty perscriptivists (viz
Perrin, C.) always
come to accept language change _eventually_.
Otherwise, the text of your message would have read like something
more along the lines of "Spec þ?? fore þin sylf!" (Stephen Forrest may
correct me here in the case that ic may've spake me here in a
wrong-like manner yar)
In point of fact, the examples of archaic speech you provide owe their
obsolescence more to an imposition of standards than to a modification
of language by accepting corruptions. The fact that there is only one
"correct" spelling for "self" is, in fact, more a
prescriptivist-friendly alteration of language than descriptivist.
Semantic, syntactic, and even vocal standards have been adopted as
"correct" over the years in addition to descriptive drift over the
years. In any case, barring the development of an immortality
treatment, I doubt I'll outlive a time when "reknowned" is considered
technically incorrect by a substantial demographic.
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite |
http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE