--- In
qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
> 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_.
>
>
The latter not always necessitating
the former. But one doesn't seek to
raise Germanic hackles unduly.
>
>
> > 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)
>
>
Bit of a coincidence when what seem
to be two such powerful indicators
of the prehistoric are unrelated, I
always think. Expand if you wish.
>
>
'prehistoric implement shaped like
a chisel
> or axhead'. Is there something
inadequate in calling them "Celtic
> letters"?
>
>
From perspectives magical,
competitive, and revivalist,
perhaps.
>
>
> > Richard Comaish (on my 42nd
> > birthday!) :).
>
> Happy!
>
>
Thanx, it has been, OTW, if not a
conventional 'night on the town!' :)