How homogeneous was Old English spelling?
Are varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show?
Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?
orthography old-english lexicon
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
add a comment |
Are varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show?
Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?
orthography old-english lexicon
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
add a comment |
Are varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show?
Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?
orthography old-english lexicon
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
Are varying spellings available, or was Old English rather uniform, as far as the sources show?
Variant spelling may have indicated different verbal dialects, but written dialects, involuntary eye dialect, may allow greater insight into the pronunciation. Is this cleaned up and normalized in OE dictionaries?
orthography old-english lexicon
orthography old-english lexicon
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
edited 5 mins ago
JEL
27.1k45191
27.1k45191
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
asked Jan 5 at 5:01
vectoryvectory
1708
1708
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform (I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform.) An Old English word certainly could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization (most obviously, in the use of symbols like ċ, ġ to represent palatal consonants, or ā, ō, etc. to represent long vowels, or the exclusive use of w instead of ƿ).
For one thing, "Old English" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as "Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences.
But I believe that we also see variation even within a single document in some aspects of spelling. Unfortunately, I can't give a specific example.
"Essentials of Old English" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters "a" and "o" before nasal consonants.
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479962%2fhow-homogeneous-was-old-english-spelling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform (I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform.) An Old English word certainly could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization (most obviously, in the use of symbols like ċ, ġ to represent palatal consonants, or ā, ō, etc. to represent long vowels, or the exclusive use of w instead of ƿ).
For one thing, "Old English" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as "Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences.
But I believe that we also see variation even within a single document in some aspects of spelling. Unfortunately, I can't give a specific example.
"Essentials of Old English" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters "a" and "o" before nasal consonants.
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
add a comment |
Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform (I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform.) An Old English word certainly could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization (most obviously, in the use of symbols like ċ, ġ to represent palatal consonants, or ā, ō, etc. to represent long vowels, or the exclusive use of w instead of ƿ).
For one thing, "Old English" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as "Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences.
But I believe that we also see variation even within a single document in some aspects of spelling. Unfortunately, I can't give a specific example.
"Essentials of Old English" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters "a" and "o" before nasal consonants.
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
add a comment |
Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform (I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform.) An Old English word certainly could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization (most obviously, in the use of symbols like ċ, ġ to represent palatal consonants, or ā, ō, etc. to represent long vowels, or the exclusive use of w instead of ƿ).
For one thing, "Old English" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as "Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences.
But I believe that we also see variation even within a single document in some aspects of spelling. Unfortunately, I can't give a specific example.
"Essentials of Old English" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters "a" and "o" before nasal consonants.
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
Old English spelling wasn't entirely uniform (I don't know how to judge the precise degree to which it was non-uniform.) An Old English word certainly could have more than one spelling, and dictionary entries certainly make use of normalization (most obviously, in the use of symbols like ċ, ġ to represent palatal consonants, or ā, ō, etc. to represent long vowels, or the exclusive use of w instead of ƿ).
For one thing, "Old English" comprises at least four main dialect groups that Wikipedia gives as "Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon". There were differences in pronunciation between these dialects that were made manifest in various spelling differences.
But I believe that we also see variation even within a single document in some aspects of spelling. Unfortunately, I can't give a specific example.
"Essentials of Old English" (University of Glasgow) mentions the existence of variation between the letters "a" and "o" before nasal consonants.
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
edited Jan 5 at 5:48
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
answered Jan 5 at 5:43
sumelicsumelic
48.5k8114219
48.5k8114219
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
add a comment |
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
I might add that the spelling variations could have been much more confounding to a reader had the scribes not been generally well founded in Latin. Principles of Latin pronunciation were followed in writing the various OE dialects. There was enough correspondence of sound in the dialects and Latin that a "proper" spelling of many words was obvious. This gave readers of English 1500 years ago a certain advantage over many today, as spelling today, although largely uniform, can only give a rough guide as to pronunciation.
– J. Taylor
Jan 5 at 10:49
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479962%2fhow-homogeneous-was-old-english-spelling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
