Excellent, succinct evaluation. Almost anyone who's spent a little time analysing rune rows comes to the conclusion that Anglo-Saxon fuþorc runes are the best for writing modern English. It's almost like they were made for it.
I ultimately agree with all the statements made as younger futhark like you said is not useful for writing modern English and Medieval Futhark has more runes and sounds but nothing that futhorc does'nt well besides a V and F distiction but that's not really necessary but also most modern rune users either use Anglo-Frisian Futhorc or Elder Futhark so this partially proves that those are the best canidates and the 1 advantage of elder futhark that you state is that it has a Z rune but in my opinion such a rune is not needed as we already spell most Z sounds with an S so it would'nt be unusual much like the θ vs ð a distiction that is lacking in futhorc
I try to use Fuþorc for modern English as if it had continued alongside the Latin Script after the 1100s and changed with the language into the modern era when runes started being studied in earnest. In a parallel to how the Dalecarlian runes kept in use parallel with Latin Script. I've tweaked the system a lot over the years mulling it, but currently I analogise the developments of the ᛋ rune in Scandinavia with Fuþorc. The simpler and more standard looking rune shape ᚴ = /s/, while the more complicated rune shape ᛋ = /z/, but only morpheme initially because ᚴ/ᚴᚴ can make the distinction elsewhere. Both shapes would be considered different variations of same rune though. The /dʒ/ sound is my most innovative sound, ᚷᚳ & ᚷᚷ seem to represent more archaic geminate consonants that don't always correlate to modern /dʒ/, and they're not as intuitive after these runes became palatised. ᛞᚳ is my current preferred because it's the closest to sounding out /dʒ/ and close to Latin , but ᚳᚷ is a strong second place. Except for Morpheme initial /dʒ/ and /dʒ/ after open vowels (Wage vs Wedge), where I repurpose ᛡ by analogy with the use of Latin i/j (like in Iesus/Jesus), and because there's precedent to repurpose redundant runes instead of removing them, and because law of simplicity favours a single Rune over a digraph if both function he same in that context. Unfortunately there's no strong precedent to borrow for available /v/, and the f/v distinction is far more important in terms of distinguishing minimal pairs than the others, although you only needed it explicitly morpheme initially because ᚠᚠ/ᚠ for f/v can be used medially. ᚡ was my natural first inclination but it feels forced, like it's from someone who had access to the history of runes on a laptop. I'm currently using ᚤ for morpheme initial /v/, by analogy with the Latin alphabet, the same way U was used before vowels to mark /v/ in predominantly loanwords, it makes sense Rune carvers to use ᚢ at the start of words to mark /v/. And then the same way V eventually becomes a distinct letter form so to would consonantal ᚢ be marked distinctly as ᚤ. At least to me that feels like a more natural evolution during the middle ages as marking /v/ becomes more important in English than copying Fuþork. For vowels I mostly follow Northern English phonological developments from Old Eng to early modern Eng, which at first glance looks like someone is just calquing Mod Eng spelling, but it's far more nuanced and explicit what with having 9 vowel runes. It's amazing that there are only these few discrepancies between Fuþorc and Modern Eng all things considered though. In fact even Elder Fuþark can feasibly write a lot of English understandably well too, which is remarkable when looking at the amount of sound changes and innovation to letters other languages in Europe have been through over the same time period.
This video is of course based on highly standardised accounts of the runes and their sounds. The reality was much more complex than shown here.
Excellent, succinct evaluation. Almost anyone who's spent a little time analysing rune rows comes to the conclusion that Anglo-Saxon fuþorc runes are the best for writing modern English. It's almost like they were made for it.
I ultimately agree with all the statements made as younger futhark like you said is not useful for writing modern English and Medieval Futhark has more runes and sounds but nothing that futhorc does'nt well besides a V and F distiction but that's not really necessary but also most modern rune users either use Anglo-Frisian Futhorc or Elder Futhark so this partially proves that those are the best canidates and the 1 advantage of elder futhark that you state is that it has a Z rune but in my opinion such a rune is not needed as we already spell most Z sounds with an S so it would'nt be unusual much like the θ vs ð a distiction that is lacking in futhorc
I try to use Fuþorc for modern English as if it had continued alongside the Latin Script after the 1100s and changed with the language into the modern era when runes started being studied in earnest. In a parallel to how the Dalecarlian runes kept in use parallel with Latin Script.
I've tweaked the system a lot over the years mulling it, but currently I analogise the developments of the ᛋ rune in Scandinavia with Fuþorc. The simpler and more standard looking rune shape ᚴ = /s/, while the more complicated rune shape ᛋ = /z/, but only morpheme initially because ᚴ/ᚴᚴ can make the distinction elsewhere. Both shapes would be considered different variations of same rune though.
The /dʒ/ sound is my most innovative sound, ᚷᚳ & ᚷᚷ seem to represent more archaic geminate consonants that don't always correlate to modern /dʒ/, and they're not as intuitive after these runes became palatised. ᛞᚳ is my current preferred because it's the closest to sounding out /dʒ/ and close to Latin , but ᚳᚷ is a strong second place. Except for Morpheme initial /dʒ/ and /dʒ/ after open vowels (Wage vs Wedge), where I repurpose ᛡ by analogy with the use of Latin i/j (like in Iesus/Jesus), and because there's precedent to repurpose redundant runes instead of removing them, and because law of simplicity favours a single Rune over a digraph if both function he same in that context.
Unfortunately there's no strong precedent to borrow for available /v/, and the f/v distinction is far more important in terms of distinguishing minimal pairs than the others, although you only needed it explicitly morpheme initially because ᚠᚠ/ᚠ for f/v can be used medially. ᚡ was my natural first inclination but it feels forced, like it's from someone who had access to the history of runes on a laptop. I'm currently using ᚤ for morpheme initial /v/, by analogy with the Latin alphabet, the same way U was used before vowels to mark /v/ in predominantly loanwords, it makes sense Rune carvers to use ᚢ at the start of words to mark /v/. And then the same way V eventually becomes a distinct letter form so to would consonantal ᚢ be marked distinctly as ᚤ. At least to me that feels like a more natural evolution during the middle ages as marking /v/ becomes more important in English than copying Fuþork.
For vowels I mostly follow Northern English phonological developments from Old Eng to early modern Eng, which at first glance looks like someone is just calquing Mod Eng spelling, but it's far more nuanced and explicit what with having 9 vowel runes.
It's amazing that there are only these few discrepancies between Fuþorc and Modern Eng all things considered though. In fact even Elder Fuþark can feasibly write a lot of English understandably well too, which is remarkable when looking at the amount of sound changes and innovation to letters other languages in Europe have been through over the same time period.
For me:
If Latin origin: V -> W (E.g. "Vowel" -> "Wowel")
If English/Germanic origin: V -> F (E.g. "Every" -> "Efre")
It's my understanding that Old English borrowed Latin versus as fers, so I'd use ᚠ.