Recent comments in /f/history

Snooderblade t1_itu429o wrote

But it’s not an A with diacritics! A and Ä are objectively different letters, using an A (which in english sounds nothing like Ä no matter how you pronounce it) is misleading. You can’t just switch letters based on looks without regard for the sounds they represent. Case in point the closest letter to Ä is E, not A, the official way to transliterate Ä in english is Ae and if you look at the actual article they use Ä aswell.

1

flowering_sun_star t1_itu0zmd wrote

Q is a consonant, while O is a vowel that can have many different pronunciations. They perform very different roles.

It's hard for an English speaker to understand where you're coming from because in English a vowel can have many different pronunciations, and we are comfortable with that. We also understand that other languages use diacritics to provide hints on pronunciation.

It seems really weird to us to insist that a character, and that character with diacritics, are fundamentally different things. Especially when the base character in an English text could reasonably be used to represent both those sounds. And remember that this is all in the context of an English language text!

I'm perhaps just surprised at how up-tight all the swedes are over a simple choice in transliteration. Maybe it is you who need the reminder that not all languages share an alphabet?

0

Snooderblade t1_ittuyhc wrote

”Q blatantly is the character 'O' with a diacratic that indicates it is pronounced differently”

Different languages have different letters to accomodate that language, there is no objectively correct ”alphabet” and the english version of the latin alphabet isn’t the default. How is this so hard for english speakers to understand?

1

Select-Owl-8322 t1_ittgwih wrote

I man, the visual representation is an A with dots, yes. But it is it own letter. The english alphabet has 26 letters, the swedish alphabet has 29. On a swedish keyboard, Å Ä and Ö have their own keys. The pronunciation is entierly different.

2

Dynamiquehealth t1_ittcq8j wrote

Yes, I didn’t want to post unless asked. It’s called Passed. The podcast about those who would never rule. You can find it on Apple and most other podcast hosts (though not Google, we’re working on it). The hosting website is below. Please let me know what you think.

https://shows.acast.com/passedpod

17

katmekit t1_itt5cvt wrote

That book was very central to my reading history. I was about 11/12 when I stole it from my big sister’s reading pile (16/17) and to think that it was true really blew my mind.

I know now that there’s a lot more that we know about Katherine then when the historical novel was written in the 1950’s. But Anya Seton’s book is where a lot of people first learn of her.

Edit: I corrected the decade the book was written. I read it in the late 80’s

4

Dynamiquehealth t1_itt2n6v wrote

I have a history podcast and I just finished a series of three episodes on John of Gaunt. I think he gets overlooked due to the Wars of the Roses and being the younger brother of the Black Prince. I was actually really impressed by him marrying Kathrine Swynford years after their relationship ended and legitimising their children. It was probably both a romantic and thoughtful decision.

I find it interesting that every single monarch in Europe except the monarch of Andorra and the Vatican are descended from him (and with the number of children their daughter Joan had I wouldn’t be surprised if one of those three could be descended from him). I’m actually about to read Katherine’s biography even though I won’t be doing an episode on her. I’ll add this to my reading list.

24