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Many of the words have been replaced by French ones, many others have changed in their pronunciation so drastically as to be quite literally unrecognisable.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 ]