Print

Print


> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bartlett


> > LFN does offer <k> as an option but I too wish it would 
> have been the 
> > standard.  The main objection to <c> has nothing to do with 
> tinkering 
> > so much as the fact that it has too many different uses across 
> > different languages.
> 
> I think it is all a matter of standards within one language.  
> I may be completely mistaken and will freely accept 
> correction, but somewhere along the line I somehow got the 
> idea that in Old Norse, <sk> was pronounced /S/ and not /sk/ 
> (<fisk> = /fIS/ or /fiS/), which would put the lie to the 
> notion of an invariant prnounciation of <k>.  I may be wrong. 
>  Kjell, can you enlighten us?  I myself do not have any 
> objection to <c> being pronounded as /k/, as long as it is 
> uniform and consistent.

It's a minor issue anyway.  I just think <k> makes a much better
choice.  It's used fairly consistently across languages, the biggest
exceptions being the Scandinavian languages where it softens to /c/
before front vowels.

Anglo-Saxon used <sc> where we now use <sh>.  It appears that /sk/
shifted to /S/ over time.