Writing with Runes

I hav lately begun to play with writing with runes. It’s not near as hard as I thought it would be. In sum ways, it is even eazier.

I’m noting the 33-staf Anglo-Saxon futhor boosted by two other runes from other, later runes. I'm also shifting the meaning … sumwhat … of a few of them. So let's take a look:

Latin	Rune	comment	byspel	byspel
a	ᚪ		ᛗᚪᚾ	man
æ	ᚫ	ash	ᚫᛏ, ᛈᚫᚦ	at, path
ai, ay, ā	ᚫᚷ	long a	ᛞᚫᚷ, ᛒᚫᚷᛏ	day, bait	OE dæg
b	ᛒ		ᛒᚢᛞ	bud
ch	ᚳ		ᚳᚢᚱᚳ	church
cw	ᛢ	qu, kw	ᛢᛁᛁᚾ, ᛢᛠᚾ	queen
d	ᛞ		ᛞᚩᚸ	dog
e	ᛖ		ᛋᛖᛏ	set
ea, ee	ᛠ		ᛠᚱ, ᛒᛠᚾ	ear, bean
f	ᚠ		ᚠᚣᚱ	fire
g (soft)/y	ᚷ		ᚷᛠᚱ	year
g (hard)	ᚸ		ᚸᛖᛏ	get
h	ᚻ		ᚻᛟᛗ	home
i, y	ᛁ	short i	ᛋᛁᛏ	sit
ī	ᚣ	long i	ᚻᚣ, ᚠᚣᚱ	hi, fire	OE fȳr
j	ᛄ		ᛄᚢᛗᛈ	jump
zh	ᛃ	borrow'd	ᛈᛚᛖᛃᚢᚱ	plesure
k, hard c	ᛣ		ᛣᚫᚾ	can
l	ᛚ		ᛚᛁᛗᛈ	limp
m	ᛗ		ᛗᚪᚾ	man
n	ᚾ		ᚾᛟ	no
ng	ᛝ		ᛋᛁᛝ	sing
o	ᚩ		ᛏᚩᚾ	ton
ō	ᛟ		ᛏᛟᚾ	tone
oo	ᚩᚩ	o͞o	ᛈᚩᚩᛚ	pool
p	ᛈ		ᛏᚩᛈ	top
r	ᚱ		ᚱᚫᛏ	rat
s	ᛋ		ᛋᛖᛏ, ᛋᛁᛏ	set, sit
sh	ᛊ	borrow'd, z?	ᛊᛁ	she	ᛋᚻᛁ, ᚱᛁᛊ
st	ᛥ	maybe z? sh?	ᛥᛟᚾ	stone	ᛋᛏᛟᚾ
t	ᛏ		ᛏᚩᛈ	top
th	ᚦ		ᚦᛁᚾ	thin
u, ū (last staf)	ᚢ		ᛒᚢᛏ, ᛞᚢ	but, do
ew, yu	ᛇ		ᚠᛇ	few
uu	ᚢᚢ	o͝o	ᚹᚢᚢᛞ, ᚻᚢᚢᛞ	wood, hood
v	ᚡ	borrow'd	ᛚᚢᚡ	luv
w	ᚹ		ᚹᛁᚾ	win
x	ᛉ		ᛒᚩᛉ	box
z	ᛎ or ᛊ or ᛥ?	borrow'd	ᚱᚣᛎ, ᛈᛁᛊᛊᚪ	rize, pizza

One of the first things that you must understand is that the runes were for Old English. Since taking on the Latin stafs in OE, the sounds of the stafs hav shifted and new ones hav been ek't. In my eyes, the same would hav likely hav happt with runes. Thus, I'v put in a few runes from other runic writing ways.

The next thing is to keep things fonetic. A straight translit from today’s English spelling not only is unneeded but unwanted!

Also, I had to think about how the stafs were noted in OE. For byspel, the staf y in OE had the sound of German ü OR ī. In OE fire was spelt fȳr. The diacritic (the bar over the staf) was often left off. Well, I can't get the bar over a rune, so I'v chosen to hav ᚣ (y, ȳ) to show the ī. Thus, I write today’s my as ᛗᚣ. But that means that there cannot be a straight setting of the y into ᚣ and there is no need to do so. For the short i there is ᛁ. Thus, July is written ᛄᛇᛚᚣ while brotherly is written ᛒᚱᚩᚦᛖᚱᛚᛁ. While the temptation is great to write I as ᛁ that doesn’t match the ī sound. Thus I write ᚣ.

The other vowels a bit of a mess as well. Sumtimes one must think along the lines of how it might be written fonetically in today’s English. Do could be du or doo. I'v chosen to go with ᛞᚢ and set the wiss that, as is often now, an ending vowel is long as in hi, be. To make the long u anywher else, it should be twaind … ᚢᚢ ‘uu’, ᛗᚢᚢᛏ ‘moot’, ᛗᛇᛏ ‘mute’ (myoot).

The ā sound as in day is found in OE as dæg. I keep this by noting ᚫᚷ. Thus day, make are: ᛞᚫᚷ, ᛗᚫᛣ. No silent e's!

One of the tuff ones at first was the for-, fore- forefasts. However, in OE, I hav found the for- forefast written as fer-. Indeed, often in English the forefast is said as fer. The say-way guide for forgiv is |fərˈgiv|. That solvs the problem. For the for- forefast, I write ᚠᛖᚱ- (fer-); for the fore- forefast ᚠᚩᚱ (for-). BTW, the matches up mor nearly to the German ver- forefast to which the for-, fer- forefast is akin. Thus, forgo is ᚠᛖᚱᚸᛟ; forego (meaning to precede, go before) is ᚠᚩᚱᚸᛟ; and forgiv is ᚠᛖᚱᚸᛁᚡ.

In one chart, the was listed at st and on another, also as a z. We don’t truly need an st but an sh would be good. As I write this, I'v chozen ᛊ for z. However, I still write s for plurals and declensions … thus is, givs. With the vowels unmuddl'd, one doesn't need the staf-twaining like kiss to show a short vowel but I still do it mor as a wunt. However, it is still good to show the long s as in hiss, lapss (lapse), and so forth.

Sadly, I can't get the runish thorn to cross like this Latin thorn: ꝥ which was often written for the. I sumtimes put on the thorn itself for the.

A byspel:

1. Psalm 23 (in Anglish)

 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

 He maketh me to lie down in green fields:

he leadeth me beside the still waters.

 He aneweth my soul:

he leadeth me in the paths of rightwizeness for his name’s sake.

 Yea, tho I walk thru the dell of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;

thy rod and thy staff they beqweem me.

 Thou reddyest a board before me in the shadow of my foes:

thou anelst my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

 Wisly goodness and liss shall follow me all the days of my life:

and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

ᛋᚪᛚᛗ 23

ᚦᛁ ᛚᚩᚱᛞ ᛁᛋ ᛗᚣ ᛋᚻᛖᛈᚪᚱᛞ, ᚣ ᛋᚻᚫᛚᛚ ᚾᚩᛏ ᚹᚪᚾᛏ᛫

ᚻᛁ ᛗᚫᚷᛣᛖᚦ ᛗᛁ ᛏᚢ ᛚᚣ ᛞᚩᚹᚾ ᛁᚾ ᚸᚱᛠᚾ ᚠᛁᛚᛞᛋ᛬

ᚻᛁ ᛚᛠᛞᛖᚦ ᛗᛁ ᛒᛖᛋᚣᛞ ᚦᛁ ᛋᛏᛁᛚᛚ ᚹᚫᛏᛖᚱᛋ᛫

ᚻᛁ ᚪᚾᛇᛖᛏᚻ ᛗᚣ ᛋᛟᛚ᛬

ᚻᛁ ᛚᛠᛞᛖᚦ ᛗᛁ ᛁᚾ ᚦᛁ ᛈᚫᚦᛋ ᚩᚡ ᚱᚣᛏᚹᚣᛊᚾᛖᛋᛋ ᚠᚩᚱ ᚻᛁᛋ ᚾᚫᚷᛗ’ᛋ ᛋᚫᚷᛣ᛫

ᚷᛖ ᚦᛟ ᚣ ᚹᚪᛚᛣ ᛏᚻᚱᚢ ᚦᛁ ᛞᛖᛚᛚ ᛁᚾ ᚦᛁ ᛋᚻᚫᛞᛟ ᚩᚡ ᛞᛖᚦ,

ᚣ ᚹᛁᛚᛚ ᚠᛠᚱ ᚾᚩ ᛠᚡᛁᛚ᛬ ᚠᚩᚱ ᚦᚩᚣ ᚪᚱᛏ ᚹᛁᚦ ᛗᛁ᛫

ᚦᚩᚢ ᚱᛖᛞᛞᛁᛖᛋᛏ ᚪ ᛒᚩᚱᛞ ᛒᛁᚠᚩᚱ ᛗᛁ ᛁᚾ ᛋᚻᚪᛞᛟ ᚩᚡ ᛗᚣ ᚠᛟᛋ᛬

ᚦᚩᚢ ᚪᚾᛠᛚᛖᛋᛏ ᛗᚣ ᚻᛖᛞ ᚹᛁᚦ ᚩᛁᛚ; ᛗᚣ ᛣᚢᛈ ᚱᚢᚾᚾᛖᚦ ᚩᚡᛖᚱ᛫

ᚹᛁᛋᛚᛁ ᚸᚢᚢᛞᚾᛖᛋᛋ ᚫᚾᛞ ᛚᛁᛋᛋ ᛋᚻᚪᛚᛚ ᚠᚩᛚᛚᛟ ᛗᛁ ᚪᛚᛚ ᚦᛁ ᛞᚫᚷᛋ ᚩᚡ ᛗᚣ ᛚᚣᚠ᛬

ᚫᚾᛞ ᚣ ᚹᛁᛚᛚ ᛞᚹᛖᛚᛚ ᛁᚾ ᚦᛁ ᚻᚩᚢᛋᛋ ᚩᚡ ᚦᛁ ᛚᚩᚱᛞ ᚠᚩᚱ ᛖᚡᛖᚱ᛫

What Does Umbe Mean?

Umbe? What is “umbe” you ask? And, more importantly, why should you care? It was once a very well known and well used preposition that I have chosen as a byspel to highlight the fettle of the English tung. Oh I’m not here to sound off about where a comma should or shouldn’t go or to moan about the usage of a flat adverb or an -ly adverb. There are enuff pedantic grammarians to do that.

I know, alreddy you scoffing at me for my spelling. Why should you bother with someone who writes “enuff”, “alreddy”, and “tung”? ... And, oh the horror, I put my commas outside of the quotes! Let me sidetrack here for a moment. If someone can justify the use of the “ough” cluster for the ‘o’ or ‘u’ sound, then I might think about it. Otherwise, it is enuff, tuff, thru, tho, and altho for me. The “ough” cluster needs to go the way of the dodo bird. While there may be a few reasons here or there for having ‘ea’ to be both ‘ee” and ‘ĕ’, overall, it should be one or the other. I chose for it to be ‘ee’ as in meat, beat, seat, asf. Thus I write reddy and alreddy. And tung ... truly, can you justify “tongue”? ... What’s up with that “ue” at the end? In Old English it was tunge and the ‘e’ was pronounced. So let’s drop the ‘ue’ and change the ‘o’ back to the ‘u’. OK, that’s enuff for spelling. I may do a whole blog on that later.

Are you still wondering what umbe means? If you tried the Oxford Dictionary online, it doesn’t show up. If you try Merriam-Webster’s, you need a paid subscription but at least you know it exists. Wiktionary has it. But then, anyone could have put that in. Albeit, the administrators do a good job of keeping out made-up words. You can find an old Webster’s online and find it there. If you’re waiting for me, then it simply means “around or about”. Thus, I can walk umbe the house.

So why should you care about umbe? Why not just use “around”? There are two reasons that I can think of.

First, not only is umbe a standalone preposition, it also works as a forefast (prefix) either whole, umbe-, or in its shortened form of um- or sometimes umb-. You can still find it in a few words that are still clinging to life: umbeset (to surround), umbecast (to cast about), umthink (bethink, meditate, consider), umgang (circuit). It has the same meaning as its German sibling um- and appears in the loanword umwelt (environment). This is a useful forefast that should not be put into the dustbin named “archaic”.

The second reason is more philosophical. English, at its heart and roots, is a Germanic tung. However, it was forever altered on that fateful day nearly a thousand years ago in the year 1066 when the skull of King Harold of the Saxons was thirled thru the eye by an arrow while likely only about 30 minutes from victory at the Battle of Senlac Ridge (Hastings). I won’t go into the battle here, it is enuff to know that in the following confusion the Norman-French won and took over England. The following uprisings were brutally and bloodily suppressed. For about the next 100 years, for all practical purposes, English as a written language ceased to exist. (Kemmer)

Worse than the words that were introduced that would eventually take the place of their Saxon counterparts, was the mindset that the Saxon tung (English) was inferior to French and Latin and suitable only for the peasants. Centuries later we still see this attitude presented:

"The every-day vocabulary of the less educated is of Old English, commonly called Anglo-Saxon, origin ..." from the opening of The Romance of Words, 1912, Chapter 1.

Even today, if one writes a paper or a book, huru in academia, there is a strong bias towards using Latinates as if the use of these words somehow implies a higher level of intelligence. This is not new and there have been several backlashes against Latinates from the resistance to inkhorn terms to the nowadays attempts at Anglish. Indeed, George Orwell wrote about it in 1946:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers." George Orwell Politics and the English Language (1946)

I can hear you now ... but, but, but ... YOU are using Latinates in this blog! Yes, I am and sadly so. I’ve peppered in a few more Anglo words instead of Latinates ... Did you know them? Kudos if you knew or even guessed the meaning of huru (It means "especially" ... from Old English húru).

Only for the sake of it, let’s rewrite this in Anglish with the following fettles (conditions): No aft-1066 Latinates aside from the quotes and grammar terms like preposition. For this, the meaning of a Latinate is a word with Latin root. So you’ll know before we begin, problem has a Greek root.

---


In Anglish:

Umbe? What is “umbe” you ask? And, mainly, why should you care? It was once a very well known and well brooked preposition that I have chosen as a byspel to highlight the fettle of the English tung. Oh I’m not here to sound off about where a comma should or shouldn’t go or to moan about the brooking of a flat adverb or an -ly adverb. There are enuff fussy grammarians to do that.

I know, alreddy you scoffing at me for my spelling. Why should you bother with someone who writes “enuff”, “alreddy”, and “tung”? ... And, oh the shock, I put my commas outside of the quotes! Let me sidetrack here for a moment. If someone can give grounds for the brooking of the “ough” cluster for the ‘o’ or ‘u’ sound, then I might think about it. Otherwise, it is enuff, tuff, ruff, thru, tho, and altho for me. The “ough” cluster needs to go the way of the dodo bird. While there may be a few sakes here or there for having ‘ea’ to be both ‘ee” and ‘ĕ’, overall, it should be one or the other. I chose for it to be ‘ee’ as in meat, beat, seat, asf. Therefore I write reddy and alreddy. And tung ... Truly, can you answer for “tongue”? ... What’s up with that “ue” at the end? In Old English it was tunge and the ‘e’ was said. So let’s drop the ‘ue’ and change the ‘o’ back to the ‘u’. OK, that’s enuff for spelling. I may do a whole blog on that later.

Are you still wondering what umbe means? If you tried the Oxford Dictionary online, it doesn’t show up. If you try Merriam-Webster’s, you need to give gelt for an underwriting but at least you know it can be found there. Wiktionary has it. But then, anyone could have put that in. Albeit, the reeves are truly good at keeping out made-up words. You can find an old Webster’s online and find it there. If you’re waiting for me, then it anfaldly (onefoldly) means “around or about”. Thus, I can walk umbe the house.

So why should you care about umbe? Why not just brook “around”? There are two thoughts that come to mind.

First, not only is umbe a standalone preposition, it also works as a forefast either whole, umbe-, or in its shortened form of um- or sometimes umb-. You can still find it in a few words that are still clinging to life: umbeset, umbecast, umthink, umgang. It has the same meaning as its German sibling um- and shows up in the loanword umwelt. This is a brookful forefast that should not be put into the dustbin named “archaic”.

The second sake is more thoughtful, more of the mind. English, at its heart and roots, is a Germanic tung. However, this was forever changed on that wanweird day nearly a thousand years ago in the year 1066 when King Harold of the Saxons skull was thirled thru the eye by an arrow while likely only about 30 minutes from winning at the Battle of Senlac Ridge (Hastings). I won’t go into the fight here, it is enuff to know that in the following bewilderment the Norman-French won and took over England. The following uprisings were ruthfully and bloodily put down. For about the next 100 years, for all things, English as a written tung came to an end. (Kemmer)

Worse than the words that were brought in that would, in time, take the sted of their Saxon matches, was the mindset that the Saxon tung (English) was beneath French and Latin and good only for the peasants. Hundred-years later we still see this mindset put forth, 

"The every-day vocabulary of the less educated is of Old English, commonly called Anglo-Saxon, origin ..." from the opening of The Romance of Words, 1912, Chapter 1.

Even today, if one writes a paper or a book, huru in higher learning, there is a strong unfairness towards using Latinates as if the brook of these words somehow hints at a higher rank of smartness. This is not new and there have been sundry backlashes against Latinates from the gainstand to inkhorn words to the nowadays tries at Anglish. Indeed, George Orwell wrote about it in 1946:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers." George Orwell Politics and the English Language (1946)

---

There, now that wasn’t so hard ... but liken the two ways of writing. You tell me ... Do you like one more than the other? And why?


Marks
Latinates


I'll list them here later