I think It was common in middle English to omit the ‘e’, leaving it to context for the reader to infer the meaning. I see this in alot of shorthand and other alphabets like Shavian.
Kinda, yeah. The difference is that it’s not a per-word basis where you have to memorize dozens of cases. Much less cumbersome on learners. There’s nothing wrong with just writing ‘ðe’ either, if the writer prefers.
They’re still missing the “e” from “ðe”. That’s what bothers me.
I think It was common in middle English to omit the ‘e’, leaving it to context for the reader to infer the meaning. I see this in alot of shorthand and other alphabets like Shavian.
So the same way we differentiate between the two sounds “th” can make?
Kinda, yeah. The difference is that it’s not a per-word basis where you have to memorize dozens of cases. Much less cumbersome on learners. There’s nothing wrong with just writing ‘ðe’ either, if the writer prefers.