this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
30 points (82.6% liked)

Political Memes

5442 readers
4882 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why should the indefinite article, “a”, a single character but the definite article, “the”, takes 3 chars? You know those that created our more modern English decided to respell could with -ould just for symmetry with would & should (Old English was cūþe, with our boy thorn for a dental fricative ending)—so it isn’t like words never changed to look nicer. Middle English often wrote the “the” as þͤ. /ðə/ is the normal transcription. “ð” without specially markers seems fine: single char for a very common word while indicating that it is a voiced (non unvoiced) sound (meaning not þ).

Aesthetic comes from Greek αἰσθητικός. θ is an unvoiced dental fricative (also the symbol in IPA) just like our boy þ (descended from the Futhark ᚦ). All transcriptions of English dialects I found show it with the “th” in pronunciation… so if you aren’t using a unvoiced dental fricative, you would be the weird one. 🙃

I would agree that fixing the vowels should be a higher priority. But English does not fit a five vowel system like most Latin languages whose letter were shoehorned onto English. The only way to fix it (ignoring the dialectal splits) would be to either invent an entirely new writing system or going back to the system prior to Latin script adoption since the old system properly encoded English sounds with few diagraphs & many more vowels to work with. In the latter case you would go for the Anglo-Saxon runes brought to the British Isles by the Angles, Saxons, & Jutes. I would support this too tho 😅

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, so you're just arbitrarily changing words. That's very nice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In recent years tho & thru have been increasingly more common than though & through. Common words tend to do this—the is a top-10 usage word in English. Makes sense.

Look on how you go from Latin ET/et to &. Turns a common word into a single symbol. Or similar a (and an) coming from Old English ān with cognates in Old Frisian, German, Norse, Saxon, and Gothic with forms like “ein” further being reduced.

If there is a historical precendence for this happening, there is no reason to assume the language’s writing would not, could not, or should not evolve similarly.