• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Oh, a “rune”, is it? Those old English were too stupid for “letters”? Sounds like someone’s epoch-ism is on full display.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The preceding Runic thorn was ᚦ. While similar to the Latin character Þ/þ, it makes sense to classify one as a rune (since it fits with other runes, which all have constant height) and the other as a letter (since they exist as uppercase and lowercase).

      Similarly, the characters 칭 or 🐝 are not letters but a Hangul syllable and emoji, respectively.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Interesting! I always thought a letter was a thing that mapped to a sound. So obviously not Chinese characters. But the thorn as the th sound would qualify.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Nope. Phonemes or their groups, most commonly represented by IPA characters, map to a sound. If you know anything about English spelling, you’ll know that letters and sounds don’t correspond in many cases.

          However, you are right that “letter” can be used for any segmental (phoneme-based) writing system, including runic (examples)

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      This glyph is so old, it comes from the times the Angles and Saxons actually used runes. The thorn was more edgy back then, too. Just think about why it is called thorn.

      Its nice round belly is just a modern interpretation.