Fuck G*rmans for ruining our alphabet

Why didn't we have a letter for the "she" sound?

I didn't say ðat. Þing and ðis is pronounced ifferentlh ðough

Ús gedafenað þæt wé wrítan swá swá menn of Angelcynne.

>unique, letters, import...
Þás sind Frencisc word, fréond. Hwý awrite þú þás word? Hwý ne brýcst þú þára Engliscra worda?

ooooh another Old English guy. nice. Highly recommend you study German sometime the similarities are interesting.

>you idiot both they and the were spelled with thorn not eth
Those letters were practically interchangeable. Eth was favoured medially at some points in history, but you generally speaking thorn and eth can be used as you wish.

t. speaks Old English
Ask my anything.

How did a Slovenian dude learn old English?

Wtf?????

>study German
icelandic is closer, but yes german has a lot of similarities
>ðat
again it's spelled with thorn
> Þing and ðis is pronounced ifferentlh ðough
how you say it doesn't matter. The letters thorn and eth were supposed to represent the unvoiced and voiced dental fricative, but in modern english the difference has become muddied. Just go to old english or middle english if you want to see the correct spellings.
see how he spelled that with a thorn and an ash, that is the correct
>Angelcynne
meme word, pls stop
>gedafenað
I don't think this is correct

you can double thorn as well.
>interchangeable
yes, but I have never in my life seen the or that spelled with eth in OE. have you?

>we
Your home is in the Americas you dumb faggot

Could elder futhark in theory replace latin? It looks like a full alphabet

Attached: 8900251-elder-futhark-and-other-runes-runic-script-used-all-over-northern-europe-till-the-xiii-centu (1300x975, 152K)

I am Serbian and I learned it in school.

>see how he spelled that with a thorn and an ash, that is the correct

Spelling it with eth is not incorrect and I can give you countless quotes by Alfred and Ælfric that prove it. The two letters are interchangeable.

>meme word
It is a perfectly valid word.

>I don't think this is correct
You think wrong because it is correct.

''Ús bisceopum gedafenað, þæt we þá bóclícan láre þe úre canon ús tǽcð, and éac séo Cristes bóc, éow préostum geopenigan on engliscym gereorde, forþon þe gé ealle ne cunnon þæt leden understandan.'' Letter to Wulfstan, by Ælfric.

I have, many times.

No because that alphabet was designed for early Germani and early Germanic only. You can't even write Old English using that.

depends on the language. the sound for yogh has been lost, additionally vowels would be tricky.
Maybe if you used it as an abjad alphabet.
You should read the run poem/riddles if you are a futhark-boo

>You think wrong because it is correct.
what my nigga
>I have, many times.
do you have a primary source from a scholarly source like the exeter book to back up your claim?
>Germani and early Germanic only.
the phonology wasn't so alien that it would be impossible. The persians spell their language with arabic, yet the languages are so different.

*incomprehensible babbling*

Attached: 1508597388447.jpg (1200x1017, 705K)

>what my nigga
I gave you a quote in which the word is used... It is a normal word, not incorrect at all.

>do you have a primary source from a scholarly source like the exeter book to back up your claim?
I do. Pic related.

>the phonology wasn't so alien that it would be impossible.
Err....yes it was lol.

Attached: That.png (799x418, 142K)

i think the serb who is fluent in old english might be my favourite poster

Y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-you too

>Err....yes it was lol.
Err....no it wasn't lol.
if it's vowels you're worried about then you should know we've made latin work for english while english has far more vowels.
If it's consonants you're worried about I have no idea why.
>pic rel
lol ok but Ælfric
I don't think we should throw away the original orthography because some late old english writer wrote it sporadically. Shakespeare made tons of mistakes for example, we wouldn't accept his mistakes and then say that his mistakes and the correct way are "interchangeable"

oh and I should add that oe used to be literally written in the younger futhark

>Err....no it wasn't lol.

Except it was? Old English had umlauts, lacked nasals in the classical period, had separate runes for diphthongs in ASF, had the /æ/ sound, had the /f/ sound, had the /v/ sound, had the /ʃ/sound, had the /tʃ/ sound... What are you on about? Why do you think the Norse speakers developed Younger Futhark? Because the language fucking changed.

>lol ok but Ælfric
Give him an example and he starts moving goalposts.

The earliest Old English manuscripts had instead of thorn btw, or just a simple . OP doesn't know what he is talking about. Pic related, from a leading scholar in Old English Richard Hogg in his extensive two-volume grammar of Old English.

No it was not. The English used the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_runes

The Younger Futhark was designed for Old Norse.

Attached: thorn.png (665x547, 121K)

>þorn
hehe :DDDDD

>Except it was? Old English had umlauts, lacked nasals in the classical period, had separate runes for diphthongs in ASF, had the /æ/ sound
You missed my point english has all these vowels that latin doesn't have and we still make it work.
See abjad scripts, it's completely possible to write languages with no vowels even.
>had the /f/ sound, had the /v/ sound, had the /ʃ/sound, had the /tʃ/ sound... What are you on about?
look at persian, old turkish, udru et cetera. You don't need a 1:1 correlation to use
Even in English's use of the latin alphabet, the letters aren't pronounced the same as they once were in Latin.
>No it was not. The English used the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.
Yes, you're right, apologies, I confused the two.
>Give him an example and he starts moving goalposts.
What I meant is I wanted an example of an OE first hand source saying it is interchangeable for "that" and "the". Looking at my previous post I realize how it may have been misconstrued.

My point is still superior: the native speakers of those languages made new sets of runes because the old ones did not cut it anymore. Who are we to say they were wrong and that it is perfectly fine to use whatever script you want?

If you take an Old English word and decide to spell it in Elder Futhark you will not do it with historical accuracy, that is the simple truth. Both the script and the language are dead (the script way 'deader' than the language), and if you add an alteration you are not longer using Elder Futhark but your own personal creation.

You can take a handful of Elder Futhark runes that do correspond with sounds in Old English, but you would have to reinvent the rest. If you are thinking of combining runes like we do Latin characters today (e.g. for the dental fricative) or doubling them, you would have something ahistorical.

You can try using Elder Futhark, but you will have to introduce changes to it within basically the first word you try to write, and that is no longer Elder Futhark.

>What I meant is I wanted an example of an OE first hand source saying it is interchangeable for "that" and "the".
The source for this is opening different books and seeing that they are used randomly in various manuscripts throughout the centuries and then confirming it by opening a scholarly book by people who have analysed these manuscripts in person and realised that yes, they do not reflect anything phonologically important and seem to be used randomly. The and not mattering at all thing is one of the first things you learn when learning Old English.

The English themselfs on Nordic writing

Ah, diss ar motsj better. Fainalli de Englisj languig hav bekomm beisd. Dir Inglisj folker, vy hæv'nt ju donn diss ålreddi?
Fainalli ai kænn sej:
Ronn, instedd ov Run
Hæv, Instedd ov Have
and odder sjit, ju gett de point

>My point is still superior: the native speakers of those languages made new sets of runes because the old ones did not cut it anymore. Who are we to say they were wrong and that it is perfectly fine to use whatever script you want?
they weren't wrong or right, but it's irrelevant to the question, "Could elder futhark in theory replace latin?"
>If you take an Old English word and decide to spell it in Elder Futhark you will not do it with historical accuracy, that is the simple truth. Both the script and the language are dead (the script way 'deader' than the language), and if you add an alteration you are not longer using Elder Futhark but your own personal creation.
>You can take a handful of Elder Futhark runes that do correspond with sounds in Old English, but you would have to reinvent the rest. If you are thinking of combining runes like we do Latin characters today (e.g. for the dental fricative) or doubling them, you would have something ahistorical.
Sure but the point is whether you could use the alphabet, not weather every word you spell with it would be 100% "historically accurate" whatever that means. That seems very prescriptivist. I could say that typing "the" with "th" instead of "y" like they did with the printing press is "ahistorical" but that would just be stupid.
>You can try using Elder Futhark, but you will have to introduce changes to it within basically the first word you try to write, and that is no longer Elder Futhark.
There's a difference between interpreting a particular letter in a particular instance different from someone else using the alphabet in a different language than changing the actual alphabet.
1/2

2/2
>The source for this is opening different books and seeing that they are used randomly in various manuscripts throughout the centuries and then confirming it by opening a scholarly book by people who have analysed these manuscripts in person and realised that yes, they do not reflect anything phonologically important and seem to be used randomly. The and not mattering at all thing is one of the first things you learn when learning Old English.
So if I show you rapists saying "we dindu nuffin n shieet" would you say dindu is a valid variation of didn't do and nuffin is a valid variation of nothing, and that they're interchangeable? No I think it more wise we look at scholars and the MAJORITY usage.

ask me literally anything about runes

Attached: raïhan.jpg (801x565, 338K)

ebin :DDDD

Attached: tenor.gif (498x369, 252K)

>our alphabet
Mutts

What's the meaning of the Tiwaz and Dagaz rune?

the primary value of the T rune was [t], later [tʰ] in many dialects, while the primary value of the D rune was definitely [ð].

Yr is a source of joy and honour to every prince and knight;
it looks well on a horse
and is a reliable
equipment for a journey.
What is yr?

>No I think it more wise we look at scholars and the MAJORITY usage.

That is what I said... Both the majority usage and the scholars, who based their claims on majority usage, say: it does not matter. Simple as. I don't see what this is so hard to accept.

>Elder Futhark [snip]
Changing it beyond recognition and calling it Elder Futhark, yeah, it can work like that. You have to alter it, you can't use the historical script following what historical rules are known. That is what I am trying to say.

Can Elder Futhark replace Latin?

>That is what I said...
no it's not...
>Both the majority usage and the scholars, who based their claims on majority usage, say: it does not matter. Simple as. I don't see what this is so hard to accept.
No, and no. I don't see what you are finding so hard to accept about majority usage.
>Changing it beyond recognition and calling it Elder Futhark, yeah, it can work like that. You have to alter it, you can't use the historical script following what historical rules are known. That is what I am trying to say.
i didn't advocate for changing it beyond recognition.

>Can Elder Futhark replace Latin?
No.

It is a secret to everybody.

Attached: Stentoften.jpg (900x1200, 278K)

English with Latin script is fine. You guy need some diacritics, though.

So you are just gonna keep being an obtuse buffoon after I have given you a citation by a leading fucking scholar on this subject who says that it literally does not matter? Interesting. Go on. Make a fool of yourself.

>It is a secret to everybody.
:(, I was hoping to get your opinion on what it might be
>diacritics
that's gay lol. It sucks if you're trying to learn english as a second language though.
>the prescriptivist cries out in pain as he strikes you

>he still thinks he can contradict actual written sources from the period and people with decades of experience in the field

Jesus, lad, you keep embarrassing yourself more and more. This is hilarious.

You can't draw any good conclusion from a hapax legomenon unless you at least have some plausible comparative evidence, which, in this case, I do not.
I can speculate but my speculation is not particularly important.
Old English is also not really my field.

>reddit spacing
>appeal to (selectively chosen) authority rather than actual arguments
>Jesus, lad
sweetie...

>Old English is also not really my field.
what is your field? Norse history or something?

North Germanic languages, particularly Norwegian.

Attached: 6om4a4z11.png (690x629, 347K)

>ad hominems and no arguments to counter me besides screeching "No!"

As expected from the utterly BTFO'd and embarrassed buffoon. Sad! Look at all those '''''fake''''' examples! Oh, no!

Attached: the.png (946x456, 20K)

wowow look, "da" is interchangeable with "the" :o

Attached: in da club.jpg (268x266, 18K)

Las Creaturas de la Americana rabbing once again....