• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    þese sounds are already represented wiþ þe þorn

    Agreed, English orthography doesn’t match pronunciation very well, but what’s the point of changing th to þ if it doesn’t improve that situation? In this phrase, the thorn represents two different phonemes: While terminal th may be pronounced as þ (voiceless) or ð (voiced) depending on the English dialect, for example, ðe would be a different word than þe. Adding a new letter to the alphabet just to replace a perfectly-serviceable digraph would just add another letter to the alphabet.

    If we’re gonna bother, I’d say sort out the c / k / ch situation instead.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      100% agree, the c, k, s, ch situation is horrible in English when there are plenty of examples of doing it properly all across Europe. ch as č, ç for c that makes an s sound in case it’s in front a or u like Portuguese.

      I don’t have issues with English spelling personally and I like how it looks but I see it as one of the least intuitive languages to spell. Letters are silent, double, triple or quadruple duty all over with tons of exceptions. I think English could really use some diacritics like ğ, ç, š for denoting when a letter does not follow a clear and simple rule like “presšure”, “thouğh” and “façade”.

      But yeah, there’s no forcing anything anyway ever, it’s all organic evolution but now we don’t have a bunch go lazy monks trying to save pen strokes to advance the writing system further.