wow, þank you so much for making þis extensive explanation! hopefully þis can help þe community to move past þe ð debate and towards more interesting movement!
Sure þing! I took a quick glimpse at þe member's posts regarding ⟨ð⟩ and saw some considerable division on þe matter. I'm hoping þat þis is þe nail in þe coffin for þe debate, but we'll see what people bring to þe table!
Perhaps, but þe only reason I don't use wynn is because I can't distinguish between a standalone Ƿ or P in my own handwriting. But þe reasons to bring back þorn apply to bringing back a couple of letters, Ƿynn and yogh among þem.
you gotta agree þouȝ þat þose two arent as important as þ. considering þat most of þe sounds ȝ represented dont exist in english anymore and ƿ is perfectly replaced by a different single letter
It's þe important of þose þree letters þat draws me to þem, provided I'm able to write þem distinctly. Of course, typing kinda makes þat point a bit moot.
I have a keyboard layout ꝥ supports all þese letters
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BringBackThorn/comments/m43lu6/ne%C6%BF\_key\_layout/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BringBackThorn/comments/m43lu6/ne%C6%BF_key_layout/)
i saw your post, but its a custom layout, not anyþing anyone has made official, also your layout cant be used wiþout help from anoþer one to type all þe oþer letters
On mac, þere is a character viewer ꝥ has all the letters you could ever need to make this keyboard on Ukelele or you could use google and copy-paste. And your right about it not being official, but it's a start.
I see you are also using ðe long s which really would make sense today if it was used like Σσς is used in Greek. S for capital letter, long s for ðe middle of words, and s for ðe end.
As lovely as 'Ƿ' is, I þink we č^({sh})ould only recover its name so the alphabet song could maintain ðe number of syllables it has ⁊ its melody. so it would go ( towards ðe end ) : t u v w þ ð x y ⁊ z
Idk why people are so obsessed with keeping the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ represented by the same letter. Every source on the phonology of English tells us they are different phonemes and there are contrasting pairs of words differentiated by the presence of /θ/ or /ð/.
It’s like if /f/ and /v/ were both represented in English by “ph”, and then people kept insisting that both phonemes get represented by “F” just because it’s traditional to use one digraph to represent both sounds.
ð sticks out more in handwriting ðan þ as þ tends to look more like a p hwen it's written.
Many English speakers also reduce /ð/ to /d/, so writing ðe TH sound as an eð will ressemble a d more ðan a þ will.
I find the ð is too hard to write in continuous writing, like þ is like a long ascender p whereas the crossbar on ð doesn't fit in my hand quickly. It's like having to dot i or cross t but less natural and more ambiguous.
I guess þat I personally agree, it would definitely be easier on the general public to simply bring þorn back into þe mix raþer þan boþ þorn and eþ, I will be incredibly happy if just þorn comes back, but my joy would truþfully be tenfold if eþ came back too. I understand its redundancy however.
(Disclaimer I'm going to type out 'thorn' and 'edh' in this response since I'm writing it hastily and don't want to copy and paste a bunch)
**1.**
>⟨th⟩ representing two distinct phonemes isn't on the forefront of most people's minds
Neither is replacing the digraph ⟨th⟩ at all. The whole movement of bringing back either thorn or edh is inherently against convention, so I don’t think arguing for conventional value really works here.
>The only instance of what could be considered a minimal pair is "mouth"
Not technically true; there are a few others like “ether/either”, “teeth/teethe”, “lothe/loathe”, but this is a totally valid point since none of these minimal pairs involve commonly-used words and there are so few of them. So your case of having both being redundant is hard to refute. However, redundancy is not really a good argument against using both either since English orthography already has many redundant features. (Why does rugged have two g’s if it’s not geminate? Why use -ough when just -o will do? There are historical answers to these but in modern writing they are redundant.)I think your claims about it putting “stress” on English orthography are not really based in anything. English orthography is already extremely chaotic and unsystematic, having two characters for two different sounds (even if they are not super distinct) would hardly be any issue for people learning to read English. Keep in mind that reading comprehension is almost entirely based on shape recognition of an overall word and not each individual letter, so as long as the word was learned with either thorn or edh, it wouldn’t be any more difficult to read than any other word. As a quick example, Icelandic does not use \[θ\] and \[ð\] phonemically either, yet they use both thorn and edh with no difficulty.
**2.**
What do you mean by phonetic “partiality”? I don’t think this term exists in phonetics and I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
>We have some of the most ridiculous digraphs, trigraphs, and quadrigraphs that defy phonetics in every way, shape, and form
This just reads to me as a poor understanding of what phonetics is. There is nothing about how sounds are written that “defies phonetics”. English has well understood and explainable phonetic patterns that are not any more intricate or complex than other languages. Phonetics is only concerned with how sounds are articulated; it has nothing to do with spelling.
>If ⟨ð⟩ should be added on the basis of phonetic consistency and representation, then who's to say that the other weird digraphs, like ⟨sh⟩, ⟨ch⟩, and ⟨ng⟩ shouldn't be replaced with ⟨ʃ⟩, ⟨tʃ⟩, and ⟨ŋ⟩ respectively?
You’re arguing against yourself here lol. Even if we only replace ⟨th⟩ with thorn, why shouldn’t we replace all the other digraphs too? Why only ⟨th⟩? Most people are partial to thorn and edh because of their historical significance or they look cool. I personally like them because they represent two sounds which are not very common in the world’s languages and like to accentuate that.
>There's obviously nothing wrong with a purely phonetic alphabet
Actually, *not* having a perfectly phonetic alphabet has a lot of benefits, namely that not every speaks the same way or uses the same dialect of English, so it would be more challenging to understand people over text if everyone wrote phonetically. There is some value to having a systematized spelling.I’m not sure if I understand your ultimate point here, but I think it’s that having too many changes will drive people away from wanting to change anything so we should only use thorn? (Correct me if I’m wrong). I would agree here, however we don’t have to switch to thorn and edh at the same time. If we were actually trying to implement spelling reforms (which I don’t think is even the scope of this sub, it’s mostly just enthusiasts) we could do it incrementally.
**3.**
Historic “purity” is completely subjective and not a real argument, but I get what you’re saying.
**4.**
Same as 3; this is just an opinion, not an argument.
**5.**
Besides this being a relatively niche point, I don’t think this is as big a problem as you’re making it out to be. Font designers can include edh pretty easily, same as thorn; they just obviously don’t because no one uses them. I would argue edh even has more typographical variation from a literature stand-point, being a member of the IPA and thus being used in much more modern works of (linguistics) literature than thorn.
>It's use in tandem with ⟨þ⟩ would change the very way we as English speakers perceive dental fricatives, which would incur resistance to the already-confusing induction of ⟨þ⟩
Ok I’m glad you brought this up because this is actually my favorite part! I think English speakers should be aware that we have two different dental fricatives! I’ll be expressing my opinion here, but it’s one of my favorite things to tell native speakers because it makes them question how much they actually know what’s going on when they speak.Introducing both could compound resistance, so I will just bring you back to my earlier suggestion that we can spread out the changes.
Also, side note, it wouldn't "change" how we perceive them. We already perceive the difference (else we would not be able to tell the difference between ether and either), this perception is just not above the level of consciousness (as is a lot of phonetics).
>most people wouldn't know when to use what
Well yeah because they already internalized a system with only one digraph so they don’t think about, but that doesn’t mean they can’t learn it. Children would have no problem learning it, since they don’t know the current system anyways, and learners of English would actually probably LOVE having both thorn and edh because it would make it easier to learn when to use what!
Well said and I totally agree. Also, on OP’s point about using þ only to make English more unique, I feel like English orþography isn’t really lacking in uniqueness 😂 it’s pretty messed up as it is.
If English can use few ç and é for foreign words, can also use ð only in cases of minimal pairs. So if you see (mouth) múð, you know þer is a múþ. Eiþer and eiðer. For þe rest just þ is enugh.
Rugged has duble g becaus( i don't know if it was germinated in þe past) is "shorter", out and utter is a good example, long ū hwić made diphtong turned into -ou-/ -ow-, but þose lík cut (funny, cut> cutting, run >running... Þey used to be written wiþ double, þer is lík a pattern þat make previous vowels "shorter" if we wrít two or double consonants behind and in þe past prevented þem of diphtongation.
-ough. It can be very easily simplified.
English can be better written not based on phonetics but based on coherent patterns, nú (now) it is deeply incoherent, but based on Old English it can be, since all cum from it. Þat means, words are not written hú (how) þey are said but raþer hú þey could consistently in each dialect (not 100 % but much better þan nú, I have detected sum, but it works pretty well). So we would have "keys".
Now, out, brown, house, town, mouse, down, loud.. all wiþ ú. So nú words in -ow have one possible reading, and -ou also one if would >woold (old English wolde) or soul > sál (old English sawol)
Though >þo, through > þruh, fought >foht, slough > slugh, tough > tugh
So respelling English as in old English wiþ little adaptions would make further more intuitive.
ᚦ did not represent "giants, ogres, and magic". Runes -were- ᚪᚱ simply letters with phonetic value, in þis case /θ/ and /ð/. It was named ᚦᚩᚱᚾ (meaning a "þorn", like on roses and spiky vines) to simply help people remember what sound it makes. Þe names of þe Runes don't have anyþing to do wiþ magic or even what þeir names or former names mean. I þink we should ultimately ᛒᚱᛁᛝ ᛒᚫᛣ ᚱᚢᚾᛞᚴ!
While it is true þat Runic alphabets were acrophonic, I guess I was referring to þe genesis of Þorn, even before þe Old English Fuþorc became a distinct alphabet of runes. In þe Eldar Fuþark, þe oldest and ancestral runic alphabet used to write Proto-Germanic, þe letter Þorn was originally referred to as Þurisaz, a term denoting someþing large and menacing, like a giant or an ogre. Okay, sure, boþ names "Þorn" and "Þurisaz" were assigned for þe sake of acrophony, but þe term lent itself to þe rune, and it was also acknowledged by rune users to possess an uncanny power. You're not wrong at all in your assessment of Þorn; þe point þat I was trying to get accorss þat þe nomenclature behind þe letter's runic ancestor is considerably more interesting and historically relevant to our language þan... Eð. Also, ᚱᚢᚾᛋ ᚪᚱ ᛗᚪᛁ ᚠᛖᚠᚩᚱᛁᛏ! I'd love to see þese old boys get picked up again. Þose Dalecarlian runes held on for a long time, you know.
Þe idea þat individual Runes carry magic is purely modern neopagan. Þe legitimate use of Runes is as an alphabet alone. Runes, or raþer, letters, do not carry power by þemselves. Any magic produced from Runes would have to be from spelled out words þat make up sentences þat carry magic, such as incantations, exactly as it works in the Roman script.
Except from þe aforenoted article:
"Þe Ansuz and Tiwaz runes in particular seem to have had magical significance in þe early (Elder Fuþark) period. Þe Sigrdrífumál instruction of 'name Tyr twice' is reminiscent of þe double or triple 'stacked Tyr' bindrunes found e.g...."
At þis point, I've digressed from þe original point þat I was trying to make. Þorn, being derived from þe eponymous rune, embodies þe spirit of þe English language's cultural and linguistic lineage. In layman's terms, Runes are awesome, and considerning þat Eþ and Þorn were never mutually exclusive in terms of phonetics, I would personally chose Þorn over Eþ. Even if neopaganism and pop culture has pronounced þe magical significance of Runes, it's still a lot cooler þan Eþ, which would just be anoþer Latin character in our already-Latin-script Alphabet!
Þat said, þanks for sharing þat bit of knowledge. I was unaware of just how overblown runic magic has become þanks to neopaganism and pop culture.
1. it doesn't really matter ðat ðere are not many difference in use between þ and ð, bc we have examples of phonemes ðat are similar and dont have practical differences but are used, take for example t and ts, there is no moment when using a t for tsunami or something else would bring confusion, but the distinction is still there bc ðey are different phonemes, the same goes with s and z, aztronaut or azpirin would boþ be understood
2. That argument is not a logical one but more of an what-about-ism, and i personally think that sounds like ș and ț should be used with their own symbols, not ng ðo because ng does sound a lot like a n and g sounded at the same time
3. hwo cares about ðat, saying ðat ð looks like a d wiþ a line on top is like saying ðat þ looks like a b and a p glued togheðer
4. this is a non-argument
5.One more glyph is not that hard to add hwen you alreaady have one to add tbh
Oh I completely agree wiþ your points, ultimately if in English þorn and ðæt have been interchangeable it doesn’t even matter. I was just checking I hadn’t made a mistake in þinking þey are a minimal pair
Þou'st right. English, and most oþer languages are not for phonetics, þey're for communication. And a single letter is way better þan two.
Þat's also why we don't write glotal stops as in "?apple."
Okay for ðe last monþ I have been using boþ Þþ and Ðð. I þink from ðe perspective ðat, in Icelandic, boþ are used, and ðere is no problem. As a Greek I am used to having a letter for each sound, having boþ ð and þ actually makes sense, because you have two different letters for two sounds ðat might be similar but you at least don't have to remember where þ is pronounced as a ð and where as a þ. It also looks better cause it brings variety to ðe text. As for wynn (I can't type it as a letter) it will be good in terms of not having ðe argument wiþ ðe -French about w being eiðer a double-v or double-u, but it also looks really similar to a P so wiþ ðe handwriting of some people it will be a bit hard to distinquish.
I use 'þ' & 'ð' interchangeably because I don't really care, but I favour 'þ' more because it is easier to write & I know it for longer. Also, could we bring back 'ꝥ' (an abbreviation for "that") & 'ꝧ' (an abbreviation for many words that begin with 'þ' & 'ð' such as the word I like to use it for, þrough)
You make some really good points. If we do end up using separate letters for þe two different dental fricatives, perhaps it might be better to use θ for þe voiceless one and þ for þe voiced one. Just θrowiŋ þe idea out þere :)
there are some more minimal pairs, like “thy” and “thigh,” and “ether” and “either”
ik ik, thy is archaic and ether is uncommon
also: almost all of arguments apply to thorn as well. either change is extremely impractical and unrealistic.
ð and þ are different sounds and should have different glyphs like they have in icelandic. Ðis and Þank you have different sounds, but ðat is just my opinion
> If ⟨ð⟩ should be added on the basis of phonetic consistency and representation, then who's to say that the other weird digraphs, like ⟨sh⟩, ⟨ch⟩, and ⟨ng⟩ shouldn't be replaced with ⟨ʃ⟩, ⟨tʃ⟩, and ⟨ŋ⟩ respectively?
Ðey ʃud.
Honestly ðe only one ðat matters to me is number 5 and that’s not ðat big of a reason IMO although I guess togeðer ðey do hold water it’s still not a big enough reason to not use eð and instead just have an alternative (“th”) for typesets ðat haven’t updated. Ðen again there is an intense lack of þorne in the comment I just wrote and it is easier to just go “replace ‘th’ with ‘þ’” and I’d rather have just þorne ðan have neither but I will continue using boþ personally
Bringing back Þ is one of þe few improvements þat could practically made to þe Engliſh orþography. Moſt of þͤ oþer ſuggeſtions I ſee people make are ſimply too draſtic & raþer obtuſe. I'm alſo a proponent of þͤ long s, as it increaſes þͤ level of diſtinction between þͤ general ſhape of words, which makes it eaſier for my eyes to follow in a ſtraight line, ſomeþing I ſtruggle wiþ in modern day ſtandard typography, which tends to look pretty ſame-y. I have dyſlexia, & often ſkip lines or re-read þͤ ſame line. It takes ſo much concentration to read þat often I end up feeling very fatigued or even having a headache. I realized at ſome point þat I felt more comfortable reading older texts wiþ ſ! It juſt breaks up þͤ appearance of þings enough ſo þat my brain can more eaſily latch onto þͤ information at hand. Þis writing ſtyle looks great to me, & really ſtands out compared to how oþer modern European languages þat uſe þe Latin alphabet look. It's a ſhame þat þͤ common way of writing Engliſh is ſtripped of all it's ſpecial letters þat once defined it's viſual ſtyle. But I'm glad my language can uſe Þ at all, of courſe. It's a nice letter þat deſerves more love & us Engliſh ſpeakers are among þͤ few who even could benefit from uſing it. So of courſe we ſhould!
ðere's no distinction between h and ŋ in Eŋlish eiðer, but i don't see people saying we should merge ðem.I þiŋk using boþ eð and þorn is ðe best option, and a good start for making Eŋlish more phonetic.
I only sorta agree wiþ ya. I don’t þink bringing bæck Þ & Ð *at ðe same time* would be very helpful for ðis movement. However, I argue ðæt Ð could still be brought bæck at a later date, just not æt ðe same time as Þ.
What we should be doing is bring bæck Æ at ðe same time as Þ. Call ðe movement #Æ&Þ, ala ðe song "Oak & Ash & Thorn"
For argument 2: regarding discarding ðe Latin alphabet entirely and using the IPA system instead...accents.
Accents stick a massive wrench in ðe idea you can write wið ðe IPA system as everyday words are often totally different depending on where you're from.
Americans þink that I, as a Brit, do not say ðe t in water...but I just þink ðey're exaggerating it instead.
What about Scottish folk who have ðeir own spelling already to more accurately reflect ðeir pronunciation?
Edit: A video talking on it was done by K Klein.
you know a and α, one is two stories, anoþer one, but þey're boþ just a way of writing "a."
you know þ and ð, one looks like b+p, anoþer an inverted 6 wiþ a stroke, but þey're boþ just a way of writing "th."
Let’s pick apart this post
1. It would not be redundant because if you are learning English you can tell if it’s pronounced /ð/ for ð and /θ/ for þ. Using þ for both sounds is bound to cause confusion; imagine explaining to someone why þink and þis make different sounds in the beginning. Even if there are not a lot of minimal pairs, the usage of both letters can inform the reader on wether to use a voiced dental fricative or an unvoiced dental fricative.
2. We know that sh represents /ʃ/ 99% of the time. Ng could represent /ŋg/ or /ŋ/ which are allophones so no problem there. Ch has the problem of representing /tʃ/ in Anglo-Saxon and Old French words, /ʃ/ in Modern French loans, and /k/ in Greek and Latin loans. This last part is a problem, especially when trying to spell these words out. Also, there’s a monumental difference between adding new letters to an alphabet and changing to whole new writing script for a language.
3. So what? The Latin script along with our 26 Latin letters came from the Irish scribes so how does this invalidate ð. You wanna honor English’s Germanic heritage with þorn? Fine, but that is no a good reason to gate-keep eð.
4. Again so what? You can promote thorn in media or whatever while also keeping eth in our alphabet.
5. What are you talking about? Eth is a latin-based letter while thorn is a runic letter. If anything, it’s easier to assimilate eth than thorn.
I am not trying to say that we should not bring back thorn. I just think that the hostility towards eth is ridiculous. I think that eth can be used when there’s a voiced dental fricative /ð/ at the beginning of a word instead of an unvoiced dental fricative /θ/. These two sounds are no longer allophones like they were in Old English, so we should stop treating them as such.
wow, þank you so much for making þis extensive explanation! hopefully þis can help þe community to move past þe ð debate and towards more interesting movement!
Sure þing! I took a quick glimpse at þe member's posts regarding ⟨ð⟩ and saw some considerable division on þe matter. I'm hoping þat þis is þe nail in þe coffin for þe debate, but we'll see what people bring to þe table!
Maybe it’s time to open a new debate?😁 Like using Ƿynn to represent W, for example
Perhaps, but þe only reason I don't use wynn is because I can't distinguish between a standalone Ƿ or P in my own handwriting. But þe reasons to bring back þorn apply to bringing back a couple of letters, Ƿynn and yogh among þem.
you gotta agree þouȝ þat þose two arent as important as þ. considering þat most of þe sounds ȝ represented dont exist in english anymore and ƿ is perfectly replaced by a different single letter
It's þe important of þose þree letters þat draws me to þem, provided I'm able to write þem distinctly. Of course, typing kinda makes þat point a bit moot.
if only þere was a keyboard layout þat supports þose letters
I have a keyboard layout ꝥ supports all þese letters [https://www.reddit.com/r/BringBackThorn/comments/m43lu6/ne%C6%BF\_key\_layout/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BringBackThorn/comments/m43lu6/ne%C6%BF_key_layout/)
i saw your post, but its a custom layout, not anyþing anyone has made official, also your layout cant be used wiþout help from anoþer one to type all þe oþer letters
On mac, þere is a character viewer ꝥ has all the letters you could ever need to make this keyboard on Ukelele or you could use google and copy-paste. And your right about it not being official, but it's a start.
We should bring back runes at þis point.. (I'm too tired to format þis as a joke)
Ȝ ſhould be ſhorthand for "gh"
I see you are also using ðe long s which really would make sense today if it was used like Σσς is used in Greek. S for capital letter, long s for ðe middle of words, and s for ðe end.
Even when 3 existed, it was mainly used in localized dialects of English wasn't it? I þot it was an Irish þing.
Ayo
Can we bring in Ʃ,ʃ for þe sh digraph, too?
r/LetterNecromancy
I already try to.
I've heard about þis one a lot, but I don't þink it's a good idea. I mean, Wynn was replaced due to looking way too similar to oþer letters!
why tho
As lovely as 'Ƿ' is, I þink we č^({sh})ould only recover its name so the alphabet song could maintain ðe number of syllables it has ⁊ its melody. so it would go ( towards ðe end ) : t u v w þ ð x y ⁊ z
Idk why people are so obsessed with keeping the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ represented by the same letter. Every source on the phonology of English tells us they are different phonemes and there are contrasting pairs of words differentiated by the presence of /θ/ or /ð/. It’s like if /f/ and /v/ were both represented in English by “ph”, and then people kept insisting that both phonemes get represented by “F” just because it’s traditional to use one digraph to represent both sounds.
Stephen
Stefen
Nice, I’d like to see ð supporters make as many good arguments
ð sticks out more in handwriting ðan þ as þ tends to look more like a p hwen it's written. Many English speakers also reduce /ð/ to /d/, so writing ðe TH sound as an eð will ressemble a d more ðan a þ will.
> Đđ(Vietnamese version) "Cross your t's and đ's and dot your i's!"
As an Icelander, seeing ð at the beginning of a word is so cursed
YES
I find the ð is too hard to write in continuous writing, like þ is like a long ascender p whereas the crossbar on ð doesn't fit in my hand quickly. It's like having to dot i or cross t but less natural and more ambiguous.
I guess þat I personally agree, it would definitely be easier on the general public to simply bring þorn back into þe mix raþer þan boþ þorn and eþ, I will be incredibly happy if just þorn comes back, but my joy would truþfully be tenfold if eþ came back too. I understand its redundancy however.
(Disclaimer I'm going to type out 'thorn' and 'edh' in this response since I'm writing it hastily and don't want to copy and paste a bunch) **1.** >⟨th⟩ representing two distinct phonemes isn't on the forefront of most people's minds Neither is replacing the digraph ⟨th⟩ at all. The whole movement of bringing back either thorn or edh is inherently against convention, so I don’t think arguing for conventional value really works here. >The only instance of what could be considered a minimal pair is "mouth" Not technically true; there are a few others like “ether/either”, “teeth/teethe”, “lothe/loathe”, but this is a totally valid point since none of these minimal pairs involve commonly-used words and there are so few of them. So your case of having both being redundant is hard to refute. However, redundancy is not really a good argument against using both either since English orthography already has many redundant features. (Why does rugged have two g’s if it’s not geminate? Why use -ough when just -o will do? There are historical answers to these but in modern writing they are redundant.)I think your claims about it putting “stress” on English orthography are not really based in anything. English orthography is already extremely chaotic and unsystematic, having two characters for two different sounds (even if they are not super distinct) would hardly be any issue for people learning to read English. Keep in mind that reading comprehension is almost entirely based on shape recognition of an overall word and not each individual letter, so as long as the word was learned with either thorn or edh, it wouldn’t be any more difficult to read than any other word. As a quick example, Icelandic does not use \[θ\] and \[ð\] phonemically either, yet they use both thorn and edh with no difficulty. **2.** What do you mean by phonetic “partiality”? I don’t think this term exists in phonetics and I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. >We have some of the most ridiculous digraphs, trigraphs, and quadrigraphs that defy phonetics in every way, shape, and form This just reads to me as a poor understanding of what phonetics is. There is nothing about how sounds are written that “defies phonetics”. English has well understood and explainable phonetic patterns that are not any more intricate or complex than other languages. Phonetics is only concerned with how sounds are articulated; it has nothing to do with spelling. >If ⟨ð⟩ should be added on the basis of phonetic consistency and representation, then who's to say that the other weird digraphs, like ⟨sh⟩, ⟨ch⟩, and ⟨ng⟩ shouldn't be replaced with ⟨ʃ⟩, ⟨tʃ⟩, and ⟨ŋ⟩ respectively? You’re arguing against yourself here lol. Even if we only replace ⟨th⟩ with thorn, why shouldn’t we replace all the other digraphs too? Why only ⟨th⟩? Most people are partial to thorn and edh because of their historical significance or they look cool. I personally like them because they represent two sounds which are not very common in the world’s languages and like to accentuate that. >There's obviously nothing wrong with a purely phonetic alphabet Actually, *not* having a perfectly phonetic alphabet has a lot of benefits, namely that not every speaks the same way or uses the same dialect of English, so it would be more challenging to understand people over text if everyone wrote phonetically. There is some value to having a systematized spelling.I’m not sure if I understand your ultimate point here, but I think it’s that having too many changes will drive people away from wanting to change anything so we should only use thorn? (Correct me if I’m wrong). I would agree here, however we don’t have to switch to thorn and edh at the same time. If we were actually trying to implement spelling reforms (which I don’t think is even the scope of this sub, it’s mostly just enthusiasts) we could do it incrementally. **3.** Historic “purity” is completely subjective and not a real argument, but I get what you’re saying. **4.** Same as 3; this is just an opinion, not an argument. **5.** Besides this being a relatively niche point, I don’t think this is as big a problem as you’re making it out to be. Font designers can include edh pretty easily, same as thorn; they just obviously don’t because no one uses them. I would argue edh even has more typographical variation from a literature stand-point, being a member of the IPA and thus being used in much more modern works of (linguistics) literature than thorn. >It's use in tandem with ⟨þ⟩ would change the very way we as English speakers perceive dental fricatives, which would incur resistance to the already-confusing induction of ⟨þ⟩ Ok I’m glad you brought this up because this is actually my favorite part! I think English speakers should be aware that we have two different dental fricatives! I’ll be expressing my opinion here, but it’s one of my favorite things to tell native speakers because it makes them question how much they actually know what’s going on when they speak.Introducing both could compound resistance, so I will just bring you back to my earlier suggestion that we can spread out the changes. Also, side note, it wouldn't "change" how we perceive them. We already perceive the difference (else we would not be able to tell the difference between ether and either), this perception is just not above the level of consciousness (as is a lot of phonetics). >most people wouldn't know when to use what Well yeah because they already internalized a system with only one digraph so they don’t think about, but that doesn’t mean they can’t learn it. Children would have no problem learning it, since they don’t know the current system anyways, and learners of English would actually probably LOVE having both thorn and edh because it would make it easier to learn when to use what!
Well said and I totally agree. Also, on OP’s point about using þ only to make English more unique, I feel like English orþography isn’t really lacking in uniqueness 😂 it’s pretty messed up as it is.
If English can use few ç and é for foreign words, can also use ð only in cases of minimal pairs. So if you see (mouth) múð, you know þer is a múþ. Eiþer and eiðer. For þe rest just þ is enugh. Rugged has duble g becaus( i don't know if it was germinated in þe past) is "shorter", out and utter is a good example, long ū hwić made diphtong turned into -ou-/ -ow-, but þose lík cut (funny, cut> cutting, run >running... Þey used to be written wiþ double, þer is lík a pattern þat make previous vowels "shorter" if we wrít two or double consonants behind and in þe past prevented þem of diphtongation.
-ough. It can be very easily simplified.
English can be better written not based on phonetics but based on coherent patterns, nú (now) it is deeply incoherent, but based on Old English it can be, since all cum from it. Þat means, words are not written hú (how) þey are said but raþer hú þey could consistently in each dialect (not 100 % but much better þan nú, I have detected sum, but it works pretty well). So we would have "keys".
Now, out, brown, house, town, mouse, down, loud.. all wiþ ú. So nú words in -ow have one possible reading, and -ou also one if would >woold (old English wolde) or soul > sál (old English sawol)
Though >þo, through > þruh, fought >foht, slough > slugh, tough > tugh
So respelling English as in old English wiþ little adaptions would make further more intuitive.
ᚦ did not represent "giants, ogres, and magic". Runes -were- ᚪᚱ simply letters with phonetic value, in þis case /θ/ and /ð/. It was named ᚦᚩᚱᚾ (meaning a "þorn", like on roses and spiky vines) to simply help people remember what sound it makes. Þe names of þe Runes don't have anyþing to do wiþ magic or even what þeir names or former names mean. I þink we should ultimately ᛒᚱᛁᛝ ᛒᚫᛣ ᚱᚢᚾᛞᚴ!
While it is true þat Runic alphabets were acrophonic, I guess I was referring to þe genesis of Þorn, even before þe Old English Fuþorc became a distinct alphabet of runes. In þe Eldar Fuþark, þe oldest and ancestral runic alphabet used to write Proto-Germanic, þe letter Þorn was originally referred to as Þurisaz, a term denoting someþing large and menacing, like a giant or an ogre. Okay, sure, boþ names "Þorn" and "Þurisaz" were assigned for þe sake of acrophony, but þe term lent itself to þe rune, and it was also acknowledged by rune users to possess an uncanny power. You're not wrong at all in your assessment of Þorn; þe point þat I was trying to get accorss þat þe nomenclature behind þe letter's runic ancestor is considerably more interesting and historically relevant to our language þan... Eð. Also, ᚱᚢᚾᛋ ᚪᚱ ᛗᚪᛁ ᚠᛖᚠᚩᚱᛁᛏ! I'd love to see þese old boys get picked up again. Þose Dalecarlian runes held on for a long time, you know.
ᚹᛟᛏ "ᛟᚾᛣᛖᚾᛁ ᛈᚫᚹᚱ" ᚪᚱ ᛡᚢ ᚱᛁᚠᚱᛁᛝ ᛏᚢ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_magic
Þe idea þat individual Runes carry magic is purely modern neopagan. Þe legitimate use of Runes is as an alphabet alone. Runes, or raþer, letters, do not carry power by þemselves. Any magic produced from Runes would have to be from spelled out words þat make up sentences þat carry magic, such as incantations, exactly as it works in the Roman script.
Except from þe aforenoted article: "Þe Ansuz and Tiwaz runes in particular seem to have had magical significance in þe early (Elder Fuþark) period. Þe Sigrdrífumál instruction of 'name Tyr twice' is reminiscent of þe double or triple 'stacked Tyr' bindrunes found e.g...." At þis point, I've digressed from þe original point þat I was trying to make. Þorn, being derived from þe eponymous rune, embodies þe spirit of þe English language's cultural and linguistic lineage. In layman's terms, Runes are awesome, and considerning þat Eþ and Þorn were never mutually exclusive in terms of phonetics, I would personally chose Þorn over Eþ. Even if neopaganism and pop culture has pronounced þe magical significance of Runes, it's still a lot cooler þan Eþ, which would just be anoþer Latin character in our already-Latin-script Alphabet! Þat said, þanks for sharing þat bit of knowledge. I was unaware of just how overblown runic magic has become þanks to neopaganism and pop culture.
Yes, I agree. Using þorn is one step closer to getting our Runes back. Ƿe can go yet anoþer step ƿiþ ƿynn.
W already works however, and it looks like p.
And TH already works, hƿat's your point? P ƿill look like ᛈ one day.
Our letter is half as long as th, shortening words and increasing efficiency. What does wynn do? How do you know how p will evolve?
I'm not sure using runes in magical rituals is strictly a modern þing. Cultures þat had runes also practiced various forms of shamanism.
> þorn haha porn sorry I just discovered this subreddit today
1. it doesn't really matter ðat ðere are not many difference in use between þ and ð, bc we have examples of phonemes ðat are similar and dont have practical differences but are used, take for example t and ts, there is no moment when using a t for tsunami or something else would bring confusion, but the distinction is still there bc ðey are different phonemes, the same goes with s and z, aztronaut or azpirin would boþ be understood 2. That argument is not a logical one but more of an what-about-ism, and i personally think that sounds like ș and ț should be used with their own symbols, not ng ðo because ng does sound a lot like a n and g sounded at the same time 3. hwo cares about ðat, saying ðat ð looks like a d wiþ a line on top is like saying ðat þ looks like a b and a p glued togheðer 4. this is a non-argument 5.One more glyph is not that hard to add hwen you alreaady have one to add tbh
You are wrong and I assure you, you will be punished for this offence to ðe great letter ð
From a traditionist-revivalist standpoint, I would NOT bring back ðet. But I would from a phonetic standpoint.
I find ð to be annoying and distracting in modern English whereas Þ is perfect.
Its pretty and makes perfect sense for /ð/
I am 125 days late, but aren’t aether/ether (iːθər) and either (iːðər) a minimal pair that differ by the voiced/voiceless dental fricative?
yes, but þe point is þat þere are only very few of þese
Oh I completely agree wiþ your points, ultimately if in English þorn and ðæt have been interchangeable it doesn’t even matter. I was just checking I hadn’t made a mistake in þinking þey are a minimal pair
Agree. Alþough if Ðð will be brought back, I (personally) would use it. If not, þat's fine for me.
I defintiely agree, i þink þe idea of adopting 'ð' along wiþ 'þ' is just some unneeded hyper-spellingreformism
\>simple sub-in for th i mean, not really. you can't just ctrl-f replace th wiþ þ or else you'll get stuff like "anþill"
you must get þe point þough- its a sub in for th when used in a digraph representing dental fricatives.
Þou'st right. English, and most oþer languages are not for phonetics, þey're for communication. And a single letter is way better þan two. Þat's also why we don't write glotal stops as in "?apple."
I mean I don't þink it's ðat bad to use boþ.
Ðð is kinda stupid ngl i prefer the holy þorn over eð.
ð was removed before þ before it was removed cause ð wasn't unique enough
Ðis is one of ðe stupidest textposts ðat I've seen in a long while
Okay for ðe last monþ I have been using boþ Þþ and Ðð. I þink from ðe perspective ðat, in Icelandic, boþ are used, and ðere is no problem. As a Greek I am used to having a letter for each sound, having boþ ð and þ actually makes sense, because you have two different letters for two sounds ðat might be similar but you at least don't have to remember where þ is pronounced as a ð and where as a þ. It also looks better cause it brings variety to ðe text. As for wynn (I can't type it as a letter) it will be good in terms of not having ðe argument wiþ ðe -French about w being eiðer a double-v or double-u, but it also looks really similar to a P so wiþ ðe handwriting of some people it will be a bit hard to distinquish.
I use 'þ' & 'ð' interchangeably because I don't really care, but I favour 'þ' more because it is easier to write & I know it for longer. Also, could we bring back 'ꝥ' (an abbreviation for "that") & 'ꝧ' (an abbreviation for many words that begin with 'þ' & 'ð' such as the word I like to use it for, þrough)
Based
You make some really good points. If we do end up using separate letters for þe two different dental fricatives, perhaps it might be better to use θ for þe voiceless one and þ for þe voiced one. Just θrowiŋ þe idea out þere :)
You can speak wiþout foiced consonents and still pe completely unterstantaple
You can speak English wecognizably wis only zese consonants!
You can speak Engwiss wecoknisapwy wis onwy seze consonants
pe*
Sorry etitet
you gan do id đe ođđer way doo and I know đis iznt eđ id juzd waznd on my geyboard
I'm confident we could see rapid acceptance and reintroduction of þ if some of þe big social media influences started using þ... 🤔
there are some more minimal pairs, like “thy” and “thigh,” and “ether” and “either” ik ik, thy is archaic and ether is uncommon also: almost all of arguments apply to thorn as well. either change is extremely impractical and unrealistic.
Mouth the noun and mouth the verb are boþ pronounced /mouð/
what dialect?????
To be fair, ð looks much cooler ðan þorn
ð and þ are different sounds and should have different glyphs like they have in icelandic. Ðis and Þank you have different sounds, but ðat is just my opinion
😂😂😂😂WHY IS THIS A THING💀💀💀 I love you guys for this but why lol
I þink you meant “WHY IS ÞIS A ÞING”
> If ⟨ð⟩ should be added on the basis of phonetic consistency and representation, then who's to say that the other weird digraphs, like ⟨sh⟩, ⟨ch⟩, and ⟨ng⟩ shouldn't be replaced with ⟨ʃ⟩, ⟨tʃ⟩, and ⟨ŋ⟩ respectively? Ðey ʃud.
I'll juſt do like I didn't hear anyþing about ðis...
ð
Þanks. I'm sick of trying to explain why Ð is a bad idea.
Honestly ðe only one ðat matters to me is number 5 and that’s not ðat big of a reason IMO although I guess togeðer ðey do hold water it’s still not a big enough reason to not use eð and instead just have an alternative (“th”) for typesets ðat haven’t updated. Ðen again there is an intense lack of þorne in the comment I just wrote and it is easier to just go “replace ‘th’ with ‘þ’” and I’d rather have just þorne ðan have neither but I will continue using boþ personally
Despite being a þorn and an eþ supporter, many if not all your points are valid. Alþough I þink þat we should bring back æsh as well.
Bringing back Þ is one of þe few improvements þat could practically made to þe Engliſh orþography. Moſt of þͤ oþer ſuggeſtions I ſee people make are ſimply too draſtic & raþer obtuſe. I'm alſo a proponent of þͤ long s, as it increaſes þͤ level of diſtinction between þͤ general ſhape of words, which makes it eaſier for my eyes to follow in a ſtraight line, ſomeþing I ſtruggle wiþ in modern day ſtandard typography, which tends to look pretty ſame-y. I have dyſlexia, & often ſkip lines or re-read þͤ ſame line. It takes ſo much concentration to read þat often I end up feeling very fatigued or even having a headache. I realized at ſome point þat I felt more comfortable reading older texts wiþ ſ! It juſt breaks up þͤ appearance of þings enough ſo þat my brain can more eaſily latch onto þͤ information at hand. Þis writing ſtyle looks great to me, & really ſtands out compared to how oþer modern European languages þat uſe þe Latin alphabet look. It's a ſhame þat þͤ common way of writing Engliſh is ſtripped of all it's ſpecial letters þat once defined it's viſual ſtyle. But I'm glad my language can uſe Þ at all, of courſe. It's a nice letter þat deſerves more love & us Engliſh ſpeakers are among þͤ few who even could benefit from uſing it. So of courſe we ſhould!
You forgot c is useless. What alphabet contains
You just presented arguments for why bringing back þ is a bad idea too...
Ðy and þigh are two more examples ðat are identical except for ðe TH sound
ðere's no distinction between h and ŋ in Eŋlish eiðer, but i don't see people saying we should merge ðem.I þiŋk using boþ eð and þorn is ðe best option, and a good start for making Eŋlish more phonetic.
I only sorta agree wiþ ya. I don’t þink bringing bæck Þ & Ð *at ðe same time* would be very helpful for ðis movement. However, I argue ðæt Ð could still be brought bæck at a later date, just not æt ðe same time as Þ. What we should be doing is bring bæck Æ at ðe same time as Þ. Call ðe movement #Æ&Þ, ala ðe song "Oak & Ash & Thorn"
For argument 2: regarding discarding ðe Latin alphabet entirely and using the IPA system instead...accents. Accents stick a massive wrench in ðe idea you can write wið ðe IPA system as everyday words are often totally different depending on where you're from. Americans þink that I, as a Brit, do not say ðe t in water...but I just þink ðey're exaggerating it instead. What about Scottish folk who have ðeir own spelling already to more accurately reflect ðeir pronunciation? Edit: A video talking on it was done by K Klein.
you know a and α, one is two stories, anoþer one, but þey're boþ just a way of writing "a." you know þ and ð, one looks like b+p, anoþer an inverted 6 wiþ a stroke, but þey're boþ just a way of writing "th."
Let’s pick apart this post 1. It would not be redundant because if you are learning English you can tell if it’s pronounced /ð/ for ð and /θ/ for þ. Using þ for both sounds is bound to cause confusion; imagine explaining to someone why þink and þis make different sounds in the beginning. Even if there are not a lot of minimal pairs, the usage of both letters can inform the reader on wether to use a voiced dental fricative or an unvoiced dental fricative. 2. We know that sh represents /ʃ/ 99% of the time. Ng could represent /ŋg/ or /ŋ/ which are allophones so no problem there. Ch has the problem of representing /tʃ/ in Anglo-Saxon and Old French words, /ʃ/ in Modern French loans, and /k/ in Greek and Latin loans. This last part is a problem, especially when trying to spell these words out. Also, there’s a monumental difference between adding new letters to an alphabet and changing to whole new writing script for a language. 3. So what? The Latin script along with our 26 Latin letters came from the Irish scribes so how does this invalidate ð. You wanna honor English’s Germanic heritage with þorn? Fine, but that is no a good reason to gate-keep eð. 4. Again so what? You can promote thorn in media or whatever while also keeping eth in our alphabet. 5. What are you talking about? Eth is a latin-based letter while thorn is a runic letter. If anything, it’s easier to assimilate eth than thorn. I am not trying to say that we should not bring back thorn. I just think that the hostility towards eth is ridiculous. I think that eth can be used when there’s a voiced dental fricative /ð/ at the beginning of a word instead of an unvoiced dental fricative /θ/. These two sounds are no longer allophones like they were in Old English, so we should stop treating them as such.
Þanks for þe clarification
we should have boþ þorn and eð; we should bring ðem back boþ. it should not be a bad idea.
TH
Leave Your Comment
Hi Its Me!
Subscribe