/lit/ - Literature

>>20323581
I disagree, we did it out of sheer laziness and lack of effort because we thought it would be cheaper to minimise the amount of letters in our printing presses and avoid having to reteach the script to people.
It's pure traditionalist cowardice which in reality has economic motivations in an archaic sense that has limited the exploration of an advanced script as a tool in our society.
Phonetic scripts are amazing to use when you understand them. It's like going from an 8bit colour scheme to a 256 colour scheme when painting - you can simply express more than you could before.

Why Johnson never complained about this when making the dictionary is beyond me. I know Shakespeare had problems with English to the point of making up words.

>>10537027
>Why would arts be called liberal arts if they weren't leftist?
I'm not sure whether to laugh or scream in rage...

>>5431120
how you define the word nation changes whether they were invented in the 19th century

if define a nation as:

a heat engine in which the combustion that generates the heat takes place inside the engine proper instead of in a furnace

then they would be a 19th century invention

but if I go by dictionary definitions then they are not a 19th century invention

>>5360372
>Why did capitalism and republican democracy only become major threats to feudalism after the industrial revolution?

>feudalism
>industrial revolution

what?

feudalism hadn't been a thing in Europe since the 15th century(with the exception of slav-land but it was still pre-industrial in 1861)

please remove yourself and stop shitting up the world with your existence

>>5326381
>Miasma theory was long disproved by the 1890s