etaonsh wrote:

>
> Both here and at the Sawndspel 2
> spelling reform forum we have
> discussed Celtic letters recently,
> and I have wanted to call them
> 'runes,' in the sense of
> 'mysterious, old, often carved
> letters, not those of the current
> alphabet, with a suggestion of
> another culture and a possible hint
> of some kind of special magic or
> "magic."' But in both places
> objections were raised, apparently
> from different sources, that 'runes'
> has to refer to the Germanic

Not that it _has_ to; but that it simply _does_.

> systems. I disagreed with the
> objection at first, but when it was
> raised a second time I started to
> feel it was irresistable, and that
> we needed a corresponding Celtic
> word to reflect our increasing
> interest in Celtic alphabets. I
> looked first at 'glyff,' but that
> appears to be simply a Manxification
> of 'glyph' of unknown age.
> The idea I myself came up with was
> inspired partly by the alternate
> meanings of 'rune:' 'whisper,'
> 'secret,' which poignantly reflect
> the futharks' defeat by the Roman
> alphabet. My suggestion: 'celt,'
> from the Gaelic word for 'hidden.'

Except that "celt" in English already has meanings like 'person
belonging to one of the groups speaking a Celtic language' and
(etymologically unrelated) 'prehistoric implement shaped like a chisel
or axhead'. Is there something inadequate in calling them "Celtic
letters"?

> Richard Comaish (on my 42nd
> birthday!) :).

Happy!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...