From: Haukur Thorgeirsson
Message: 3231
Date: 2003-06-11
> Okay... number one: I was trying to simplify the pronunciation forIsn't that assuming a bit too much? Especially considering the hombre's
> someone who probably has no real interest in the language as a whole.
> Number two: the poor hick doesn't understand what a trill (rolling 'R')My point is that whether or not he understands it doesn't change the reality.
> is, so the point is lost on him.
> Let's be a *little* understanding of levels of understanding (or lackI didn't give anything like "a complete discourse on pure pronunciation".
> thereof), eh? Trying to help someone out who obviously doesn't want a
> complete discourse on pure pronunciation doesn't ensure accuracy, but
> for SCA stuff, I didn't see a big problem with it.
> > The Old Norse spelling of the above names is Haukr and Þorsteinn respectively.There's an amazing amount of packet loss in our communications.
>
> Haukr = Right
>
> Thorsstein = More correct for ON/b than ON/I. Depends on the source as
> to whether or not the double-S is necessary. I find both spellings in
> old texts. The single-S version is more favored in the Eastern dialects
> such as those found on the mainland, but in Iceland the double-S seems
> to be about even, where preferences are concerned.
> In addition, I was using 7-bit ASCII characters to try to lower theYeah. Ðæt was much better. Glæd you're coming around. ;)
> confusion threshold. Oh, excuse me: Þreshold...