> You presented a highly altered version of a First Folio passage as if it
> were a fair representation of early-17th-century spelling, but it
Ah. I see. No, that wasn't my intention at all. I was demonstrating
that with a few systematic changes (down at the glyph level, basically,
from a 17th-C perspective) the First Folio orthography is perfectly
legible to a modern audience.
In fact, nowhere in the sequence Spenser-Shakespeare-Milton-Boswell-
Conrad-Tolkien-Wijk is there a real break in legibility in the sense
that Chaucer or the Gawain-poet is, on the one hand, or any of the
foonetik spelingz that Wijk compares his system against, on the other.