<< Peter Metcalfe:
> I am so implying. I have pointed out before that the 25%
> limit on Auld Wyrmish only applies to the spoken form and to
> not the written form, which is stated to have been invented
> by "clever humans".
Yes, but again, how do you write alphabetically a word which you cannot pronounce. >>
Why would that be a problem? Sure, you'd have to invent a new alphabet, including letters for assorted unpronounceable (by humans) sounds, but since we know that it *is* a new alphabet, what's the problem?
<<A word, which, indeed, does not even have a phonetic component?>>
Since Auld Wyrmish has a 'spoken' form I'd be rather surprised if it doesn't have a phonetic component. Is there some reason to suppose otherwise? I agree, BTW, that it has non-phonetic components as well, but they can be represented by letters or by accents and the like without problem AFAICS, in the same way that some early forms of sign language used various gestures to represent letters (only the other way about, obviously).
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail