"Sex and age and the marks left by life were the principal differences between Zacharians." (p. 371)
And that is all! Imagine being a member of such a population - seeing yourself everywhere, not just in a mirror. In their island existence, the Zacharians can act as one and keep a secret from the rest of the planet but at what a cost, especially since they are alienated from the rest of their species and the secret that they keep is deadly.
(English spelling is dreadful. I typed "principle" instead of "principal." Fortunately, my lap top alerted me. I studied in a College where the headed notepaper referred to the "Principal" as the "Principle." When this spelling error was noticed, that headed notepaper had to be used just as scrap paper and more had to be printed, hopefully not repeating the mistake.)
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have had my own difficulties with the whims and oddities of English spelling! E.g., do we really need "qu" for words like "quadrangle," "quack," "queen," "quibble," "quick," etc.? The sound could be more conveniently symbolized using "kw." We would get, in that case: 'kwadrangle," "kwack," kween," "kwibble," "kwick," etc.
Ad astra! Sean
When I was taught spelling, we had a little mnemonic trick -- you thought of the 'pal' of principal to remind you that this was a person.
Sean: English spelling was fairly phonetic originally. The language changed, particularly the sound system, but the spelling didn't.
Chaucerian English is readable, but you'd need weeks to make head nor tail of the spoken version.
There's a perceptible difference between Henry VIII's letters and his daughter Elizabeth that shows the radical changes in the vowel system that were happening at the time.
Erse has the same problem, only more so, for the same reason.
Both languages are probably stuck with their odd spelling systems -- path dependency.
Zacharian society would be -boring-. I like myself, but I really, really wouldn't like to have to live with multiple versions of myself!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
the Middle English of Chaucer's time might be readable, but only with hard work.
Henry VIII wrote in English more like that of Chaucer's time? Elizabeth I wrote in recognizable early modern English?
Yes, we are stuck with the irrationalities of English spelling!
Ad astra! Sean
Re spelling:
I recall an article about a proposed modified alphabet which included a separate letter for each of the dozen or so vowel sounds in English.
The title was written in this proposed alphabet & I noticed that 'for' was written such that it would be pronounced the way I pronounce 'far'.
The variation in pronunciation in different English dialects is just one of the problems preventing adoption of some sort of rational spelling for English.
Kaor, Jim!
I don't think living languages spoken and written by untold millions of people can ever be fully "rational."
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment