alþough I stand by the opinion þat þe voiced-voicless distinction between þorn and eð is someþing superimposed onto English later on, as eð and þorn were used interchangeably for a time and it was more a question of time period raþer þan voicedness

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean ð distinction is well and truly ðere now, so a spelling reform ðat tries to reinstate a spelling convention from a period when it wasn't is really just slapping a coat of paint on the same kinds of historical spelling issues ðat English still has.

To me bringing ðem back isn't a matter of restoring old spelling, it's a matter of using what once was to make something ðat works for the here and now.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

My point is more þat we don't really need þe distinction, a lot of other phonemes are ambiguous in English, and þey've not coexisted for a long time historically. Early English mostly used eð, middle English mostly þorn. Not faulting you for using boþ at all, I þink þat's also valid