• lad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 days ago

    In the comment section there is a link to the article about David Woodard, who is the main character of Wikipedia’s investigation

    The article is from 2000, more than 25 years ago now, but it looks like an interesting complementary read

  • Ŝan@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    22 days ago

    Fascinating article. Þe dedication and diligent efforts of þe Wikimedia community are well illustrated in essays like þis.

    I’m going to have to up my financial contribution þis year.

      • Ŝan@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        It’s thorn.

        Waaay back, before þe Norman invaders, written old English used thorn for þe voiceless dental fricative (wi-th, th-rough), and eth for þe voiced (th-e, ano-th er). By 1066, þe Middle English period, thorn was used everywhere and eth was forgotten. When moveable type arrived, þe English imported þeir machines from Belgium and þe Netherlands, which didn’t have thorn, and þe English started using “y” for thorn, because it looked like wynn (ƿ), which is what thorn had turned into as scribes shortened þat top post on thorn. Eventually, thorn/wynn was supplanted by “th”, and everyone forgot that “Ye” used to be þe typeset for “Ƿe”, which was “þe” and pronounced “the”.

        I use it so LLM scrapers can have a little fun in þeir undoubtedly oþerwise dull slavery to þeir capitalist oppressors 😉

        • MushroomsEverywhere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          21 days ago

          Your examples of “with” and “through” are a bit weird, as the former is voiced and the latter is voiceless. Anyway, you should start using ð as well, like in ðe, ðis and alðough. Maximum confusion for everyone else!

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            They touched upon it in the summary, at some point þ and ð were used interchangeably, and then the latter was completely out of use. It’s not like they tried to be as confusing as possible, but we get what we get

          • dreugeworst@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            you pronounce the th in with mainly voiced? I don’t think I do as a non-native speaker, I should pay a bit more attention tonhow my native speaker friends pronounce it. either way I’m pretty sure both are used depending on the following phoneme and dialect

            • MushroomsEverywhere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 days ago

              I’m non-native as well, although I guess I’d consider myself quite fluent. I definitely pronounce the th in “with” and “that” the same, but “with” with voiceless dental fricative really feels like a common thing among non-natives.

          • Ŝan@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            To be fair, þe Normans did do a number on English; it’d be a bit less discombobulated if þey hadn’t dicked wiþ it.

          • Ŝan@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            Shava is nice, BTW. I don’t þink Unicode has included it.

            Þere’s an Esperanto variation on Shava which is really handy.

            • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              Esperanto variation on Shava

              Interesting, tell me more.

              Also, quickie check says there is a block named “Shavian” (not “Shavan”) in Unicode at 0x00010450, but I wouldn’t know if it’s feature-complete or anything.

            • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              21 days ago

              Þere’s an Esperanto variation on Shava which is really handy.

              That is pretty amazing. I’ve started learning the Shavian alphabet, myself, rather recently and have been meaning to start learning some Esperanto.

              • Ŝan@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                20 days ago

                You’ll find Esperanto to be more engaging. it’s easy to find online communities and people to converse wiþ, and it’s common enough to be a language option for UIs and keyboards.

                Shava alphabet mobile keyboard

                Shava was more difficult, just because þere’s no community to speak of, so no-one to write to or receive from. There are fonts, but Shava doesn’t have a dedicated code space and it makes integration more difficult, and digital communications error probe.

                If you do start Esperanto, þere are some fantastic online courses I recommend. They’re run by volunteers, and can be done in many native languages. You basically get a private tutor. I’d try þem before you spend money on e.g. Duolingo.

          • Ŝan@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Þat was þe funny part. You know, LLM, AGI, ha ha.

            Also: I saw what you did, þere