Wikipǣdiamōtung:Tutorial on Old English

Fram Wikipǣdian
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moved to the Wikipedia namespace because it is meta-content: an article in English about Old English, rather than an article in Old English. --Saforrest 12:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

seems to be a mix up in the numbers 70 is given as oe for 170, etc-- 12:26, 8 Blōtmōnaþ 2009 (UTC)

Spelling?[adiht fruman]

Is there any particular reason why Early West Saxon is favoured over Late West Saxon, here? Just curious. Thanks, Hayden120 00:45, 6 Ēastermōnaþ 2010 (UTC)

Alfred the Great.
But weren't Beowulf and many other works written (or at least, recorded) in Late West Saxon? My knowledge is limited, but it seems like you would have more historical content in this dialect, and therefore this would help to form a consistent, standardised Old English. Hayden120 01:29, 6 Ēastermōnaþ 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, Early WS is only an unofficial standard, as it's the mostly-used source of learning material that OE students will learn from (consider Standard High German for example), as well as that Beowulf was poetic as opposed to prose. -Wodenhelm

Wynn is Functionally Redundant, and Should be Excluded[adiht fruman]

There is no justification to include wynn throughout an article devoted to teaching beginners about Old English when the familiar and functionally identical w exists. Again, this is not an article primarily in Old English, but ABOUT it. Wynn should receive no more than brief mention, at most as an archaic alternative to w.

The Anglo-Saxons themselves chose to forsake most of the runes. A "rune" is a mystery, especially when it has no other use than to be mysterious. Today, that is the only purpose of wynn, to provide a veil on the substance beneath.

Wynn is a Little Idol. Anybody FORCING it upon others doesn't have the process of disseminating Old English in mind, but rather its curtailment.

The Learning Process of Old English should not be dragged down by secular idolators.

Williamclayton (mōtung) 05:35, 27 Mǣdmōnaþ 2019 (UTC)