--- In norse_course@..., longgren@... wrote:
> thjofr
> th for the "th" sound. This is so obvious.
Haukur was being kind of impolite (KnÍB), because he is, and I am
admittedly too, frustrated by this whole discussion. Your pointing
out of what is obvious and what not is rather undiplomatic, and
frankly, disrespectful of our intelligence. I ask you, with all due
respect, to assume a less patronizing tone.
Haukur's point was, though he wasn't clear about it, that there is
no "l" in that word whatsoever. Perhaps you mistyped. According to
your scheme, which I am not opposed to at all, the word "þjófr" would
be "thjofr". That would fail to indicate the length of the vowel,
though, unless you'd write "thjoofr".
> What is the problem? I can't write the symbol for th in English
that so
> I use "dh". Incidentally, dh is used to represent the same sound in
> Arabic.
Again, I believe Haukur was pointing out that your ON there is simply
wrong; "þat" is _not_ pronounced as English "that". The "þ" character
is always pronounced as an unvoiced "th" in "thick"; for the voiced
sound, as in "that", there is the character "ð", which never occurs
at the start of a word. "Þat" would thus _not_ be "dhat", but rather
just "that".
I would ask that we stop this discussion about your scheme. Neither I
nor Haukur are opposed to it, at all. I will not use it in my own
writings, as I do have Icelandic keyboards, and until now, few or
none have complained of not being able to read the special characters
that I produce. You have said that you don't have problems reading,
but rather writing; you're not the only one, and others have written
ON to me in almost exactly the same way as you, without fuzzing about
it. So by all means, write the language as you find most convenient.
I'm more intelligent than a sheep or a fish, so I'm perfectly able to
recognize your (or another's) "dh" as "ð", etc.
Óskar