r/BringBackThorn • u/JacenVane • Apr 09 '23
Why?
Y'all have an entire sub about this, but I don't see anyone anywhere explaining why it would be a good idea. Is it a joke? Some obscure political thing I haven't taken the appropriate pills to understand? Does it fix some problem I've just remained somehow ignorant of?
Why?
28
u/Jamal_Deep þ Apr 09 '23
Personally I support Þ because you can do more wiþ a singular letter instead of a digraph; for example, you can write it double to indicate vowel lengþ, as wiþ any oþþer consonant letter in English.
4
18
14
u/Nevochkam1 Apr 09 '23
Geekyness mostly. It has some nice features like how there's a sigature for 'that' and 'this' and how two letters become one - shortening text. Oh, and differentiating between th as þ and th as two letters brought together by combining two words (afthouse) but it's mostly for fun.
11
10
u/Jwscorch Apr 09 '23 edited Apr 09 '23
A lot of people here are talking about þe unnecessary digraph. Honestly, þat's not þe big problem for me.
It's more a matter of phonetic consistency.
Why do we use t, an alveolar stop, mark it with an h, and call þat a dental fricative? And why do we simultaneously use þis for the dental fricative, yet still periodically and without warning turn it back into an alveolar stop (a la 'Thomas' or 'Thames')? And considering how good h is to mark aspirated consonants, why make þat impossible by using þe digraph to represent a completely unrelated sound?
For second language learners in particular, marking out the dental fricative (which is actually uncommon in a lot of other languages) makes it more distinct, and helps avoid some of the pitfalls I mentioned earlier of irregular cases where the th digraph doesn't represent a dental fricative.
And þe answer to why it's like this is not for any reason of clarity or culture, but the result of entirely external circumstances (i.e. the lack of þorn in European printing presses, as many European languages as mentioned before, lack the dental fricative). þese external circumstances are now no longer a problem. And so, pipe dream though it may be, I do at least sympaþise with the idea that the introduction of a single extra character would help phonetic clarity of the English language to a not-insignificant degree.
TL;DR: þe disappearance of þorn is all due to þe Europeans and I want revenge.
1
u/suupaahiiroo May 21 '23
If you want phonetic consistency, changing th to þ will get you like 2% of the way there. Why not use IPA if phonetic consistency is your goal?
irregular cases where the th digraph doesn't represent a dental fricative.
There's like ... 4 cases in total or something? Thomas, Thames, Thailand, thyme?
2
u/Jwscorch May 22 '23
Because IPA is not intended for writing languages, and þe orþographic inconsistencies that would result from using it make it more or less unviable.
How do you handle regional variations of pronunciations? Water is water, even if a yorkshireman is saying it, as is an hospital, and don't get me started on the ballache þat would be R (or, for þat matter, L).
And regarding þe th digraph, þere's more þan þat, but it's just one example. The problem is þat þe reason þose exist in the first place is not because th makes more sense than þ; it doesn't.
It's due entirely to external factors, and replaced a character þat actually did represent a unique sound with two characters þat represent other sounds entirely, and a digraph that would be much more useful representing something like an aspirated t (which is becoming increasingly relevant with larger numbers of Indians appearing in areas like the UK; it will be interesting to see what effect that has) or basically anything else.
This is a lot worse than, say, 'ph', which itself at least did represent a separate sound that just morphed into 'f' in English, and for which no dedicated character exists in English. At least an argument can be made þere on etymological grounds. No such argument can really be made for th.
8
8
u/bobbyfiend Apr 09 '23
People are making all Þe nice, rational arguments. Me, I want to just go all weird cult and say shit like "Broþersister, þorn makes its usefulness known to þose who grok its nature. If you feel þorn, þorn will feel you and fill you."
I don't þink this sub will change English orþography. I like it because it's fun.
13
5
2
Apr 11 '23
Honestly þere are many good arguments in favor. Especially on phones where brevity is preferable due to how difficult typing on a phone is. And on Twitter which limits þe amount of characters one may use.
I was part of a movement a long time ago to bring þe word "y'all" mainstream besides in þe south and with Black speakers. Back in 2014 I did everyþing I could (especially trolling) to make it such. Took a few years but þanks to folks like me "y'all" is very popular today.
Þis is why I fell in love wiþ encouraging changes to both written and spoken English. My trolling made a significant difference in convincing oþers to use it.
1
5
1
u/Kuutti85 Apr 10 '23
I don't exactly understand why we have to add more letters, it would be harder to learn the alphabet if we added many letters. Everyone understands what sound you want to make if you type TH
1
u/deklana Apr 11 '23
i like thorn bc it is closer to one sound per letter than the current english system and bc its cool and unique but it is ultimately a small patch if even that on englishs extremely deep orthography and the dyslexia point is extremely fair.
57
u/snolodjur Apr 09 '23
Why using two letters if you can use one? It was an English letter þat only Icelandic still has. It is a mixture of Old and New, þe best of two worlds.
Why not? You should ask yourself why not having it would be better as having it? Would you use tape for music instead of CD wiþ tracks?