The guy who first wrote “eiland” spelled it as such. Then some idiot put an ‘s’ on it as a stylistic choice to latinize a word that has no Latin root. Now if you spell it any way other than “island” you are wrong because that is the way to word is used and understood.
Or, to put it another way, if you want to insist language is set in stone let me translate for you:
Se mann þe ǣrest wrāt “eiland,” swā hine stæfode. Þā sum dysig mann an ‘s’ onlēde swā stīlcræft, tō Lǣden sprǣce þæt word þe næfþ nān Lǣden rōt. Nū gif þū hine stæfian on ǣnige wīsan būtan “island,” þū bist wōh, forþām þæt is sēo wīs þe þæt word is gebrocen and understonden.
Se mann þe ǣrest wrāt “eiland,” swā hine stæfode. Þā sum dysig mann an ‘s’ onlēde swā stīlcræft, tō Lǣden sprǣce þæt word þe næfþ nān Lǣden rōt. Nū gif þū hine stæfian on ǣnige wīsan būtan “island,” þū bist wōh, forþām þæt is sēo wīs þe þæt word is gebrocen and understonden.
See, if that person that insists on using thorns in all their comments really committed like this, I think they’d get less flak, and more buy-in.
The guy who first wrote “eiland” spelled it as such. Then some idiot put an ‘s’ on it as a stylistic choice to latinize a word that has no Latin root. Now if you spell it any way other than “island” you are wrong because that is the way to word is used and understood.
Or, to put it another way, if you want to insist language is set in stone let me translate for you:
Se mann þe ǣrest wrāt “eiland,” swā hine stæfode. Þā sum dysig mann an ‘s’ onlēde swā stīlcræft, tō Lǣden sprǣce þæt word þe næfþ nān Lǣden rōt. Nū gif þū hine stæfian on ǣnige wīsan būtan “island,” þū bist wōh, forþām þæt is sēo wīs þe þæt word is gebrocen and understonden.
See, if that person that insists on using thorns in all their comments really committed like this, I think they’d get less flak, and more buy-in.