Wow, our whiteoctave David hasn’t made me laugh so much in a long time.
Let’s talk about this “Dr.” with a period after it, which seems to bother you so much. I’m not sure where you’ve been, M David, but English literature for quite a few centuries has been published from newspapers to novels with just such spelling conventions. Among other elements in English orthography, we find the personal pronoun “I” always capitalized, letters majuscule at the beginnings of sentences, periods to mark their end, spaces between words, and a whole set of other punctuation marks and styles.
And according to the above rules, you seem to err quite frequently in your own posts! Not that informal writing ought to be constrained by law to these however essential conventions.
Your criticism of the American mode of spelling is ridiculously laughable, miselle Davidule. An “error,” you say. The founders of our country were extraordinary classicists, and took great care in the restorations of the spellings which followed. Indeed, there is no conceivable reason to opine for extra 'u’s over their absence, among other isms associated with the British dialect. However, there is a certain justification which arrives to us by tradition, and therefore retaining an historical spelling is always justifiable. However, among other British conventions, the most ridiculous is “honour” with a ‘u’. The French Normans never spelled it with a ‘u’, nor did the American settlers. Its addition came quite late to England, based on an assumption by one too many unfortunate authors that “honor” was of a part with “colour” and “glamour;” and, moreover, simply to distinguish themselves from those uncivilized Americans. This is an optimum example demonstrating where the true error lies.
And also, as Benissimus and I have discussed recently, the most advisable orthographic course is to allow those words of ours cognate to Latin to resemble the ancient language’s spelling as closely as possible. Though there are some American examples like “license” and “connection” that stray from the rightward path, we deliberately altered our spellings in order to honor the orthography of the very same language whose vocabulary enriches our literature so profusely.
Thank you humbly, Nostos, for your kind remarks. I would like to add that the existence both of the British and American standards of spelling enhances and beautifies our common tongue. We all ought to have the option, truly, the right to use either in whatever manner pleases us best. Such is to enrich our language, not to denigrate it, as much as the numerous dialects of Greek have served to broaden the hellenistic pallet quite far. Nor do I mean to accuse directly the British orthography as an “error” — such pride and prejudice ought never to pass.
And wholeheartedly, I second the motion to commence a new Lingua Latina forum here at Textkit. I’ve had in mind the very same thought for a few months, but I wanted to wait upon my return to the States before mentioning it. Nevertheless, I volunteer to moderate for such a forum.
‘truly Latin’ is a text that was conceived in Latin and then so written.
When I write and speak Latin, I think in Latin, and then so write and speak it.
But I guess that’s me, thinking financial dealings before romantic dealings.
…