On Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:32:00 GMT <[log in to unmask]> said:
>I agree that most of the best books are out of print and I would welcome
>an extensive republication programme, but, emphatically, NOT one based on
>new editions where "outdated" spelling is standardised, but one that leaves
>the spelling as it was. In my view, despite the degree of variability which
>existed, the general trend of traditional spelling was vastly superior to the
>abbreviated standardised spelling. I have no inclination to argue that case
>here, but the controversies in print over the issue during the 40s and 50s
>and 60s are there for anyone to examine.
>Ciara/n O/ Duibhi/n.
My heart is with you much of the way, a chara na n-a/rann, but in practice,
the only way our children (who know only the new orthography) will access
older material will be in the new spelling. New editions are for them.
I would hold that, having tasted of the old stuff, even through the
new spelling, youngsters will not rest until they are able to read
everything, REGARDLESS of spelling. Reprints without any changes
at all are quite feasible. It is easy enough to reproduce books
in old "seanchlo/" typefaces, including long r, long s (ask
the fontmakers: Christopher Young, Mi/chea/l O/ Searco/id,
Michael Everson, et al.). I see our market in the future
wanting _both_ reprints & new editions: an la/mh dheas
agus an la/mh chle/ ag nigheacha/n a che/ile.
Go mbuanai/ Dia thu/,
[log in to unmask]