At 15:37 +0000 2003-01-21, etaonsh <rcom@...> wrote:

>Every little attempt to reassert the identity of a semi-conquered
>people seems worthwhile to an activist, especially where it seems
>justified from a 'Celtic Studies' perspective.

Piffle. Want to help the formerly oppressed Celtic peoples? Do
something useful. Visit my web site for examples. Revisionism of the
type you espouse won't get you anywhere, and irritates others. The
Latin alphabet was taken up by all of the Celtic peoples, and they
borrowed, and later naturalized, the word for letter. Litera (la) >
litir (ga), litir (gd), lettyr (gv), llythyr (cy), lizher (br),
lytheren (kw). These terms are perfectly good.

>'Ogham' ('Owm') is a whole system of alphabets and classification.
>Apart from the basic 'celts' there is a sign language, a 'colour
>ogham,' a 'bird ogham,' a tree ogham,' etc. It opens the door to the
>Druids' whole concept of alphabet as mnemonic aid to (e.g.,
>scientific) classification.

Those cryptic oghams are not to be taken seriously in terms of being
a "whole system of alphabets and classification". They were fun.
People liked to copy the lists. There isn't any science in it. The
Ogham letter names did not, by the way, all refer to trees in
antiquity, though I imagine you believe that they do.

>When talking about runes as a writing system, the terms 'futhark(s)'
>and 'rune' are more precise.

Than letter? Nonsense. "Futhark" corresponds to "alphabet", not to
"letter of the alphabet". In Scandinavian languages, these are called
staves, cf bookstaves which literally translates "letter".

Methinks thou wastest thy time and ours with this kind of thing.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com