Not directly related but I don’t know where else I’ll get the chance to bring this up:
I’ve always though that if the existence of “th” bothers you, adding a diacritic to consonants to indicate the sound change makes more sense than the þ.
For instance,
the = ţe
she = şe
che = çe
Obviously I wouldn’t argue for replacing ţose compounds wiţ ţose I’ve şown, since it wouldn’t be close to being worth çanging, but I do ţink it would still make more sense ţan bringing back ţe ţorn.
Yes, but that would take more space and take more time to write, and “this replaces a letter” is how a lot of diacritics have appeared. For example, the ñ replaced a “nn” in spanish. This would also remove some ambiguity in pronunciation on words like rathole and foothill.
Also, letter like that are written with dead keys, usually, so it would be more like one new character.
Again, not worth the effort of changing, but it would be an improvement.
Not directly related but I don’t know where else I’ll get the chance to bring this up:
I’ve always though that if the existence of “th” bothers you, adding a diacritic to consonants to indicate the sound change makes more sense than the þ.
For instance,
the = ţe she = şe che = çe
Obviously I wouldn’t argue for replacing ţose compounds wiţ ţose I’ve şown, since it wouldn’t be close to being worth çanging, but I do ţink it would still make more sense ţan bringing back ţe ţorn.
Hey, I’ve got an idea!
You could replace those three additional character by using an h!
Yes, but that would take more space and take more time to write, and “this replaces a letter” is how a lot of diacritics have appeared. For example, the ñ replaced a “nn” in spanish. This would also remove some ambiguity in pronunciation on words like rathole and foothill.
Also, letter like that are written with dead keys, usually, so it would be more like one new character.
Again, not worth the effort of changing, but it would be an improvement.