The most persistent misinterpretation of linguistic structure is embodied in the employment of the concept ‘littera’, which has been widespread for many centuries, particularly among language historians – though carefully avoided by Wełna (1978, 1987), for instance. A comparably influential misconception has waited till recently for the introduction of the –eme, followed by the more drastic ‘transformation’ and ‘systematic phoneme’ and their consequences; and their adoptions were comparatively short-lived. However, (positive and negative) concern with the latter concepts has obscured for many researchers the persistence of the earlier prominence of the littera, which has recently been maintained, often with no acknowledgment (or awareness?), only among a traditionalist body of philologists, such as Ringe (2006) or Lass – Laing (2012) (if we ignore, as is usually advisable as concerns language, some recently fashionable French ‘philosophers/littérateurs’). Here I offer some possible remedies for the phonological aberrations that this history has encouraged, directly or indirectly.
3 lis 2022