How homogeneous was Old English spelling?












3















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?










share|improve this question





























    3















    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?










    share|improve this question



























      3












      3








      3


      1






      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?










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 min ago









      JEL

      27.1k45191




      27.1k45191










      asked Jan 5 at 5:01









      vectoryvectory

      1708




      1708






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          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.






          share|improve this answer


























          • 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











          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          4














          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.






          share|improve this answer


























          • 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
















          4














          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.






          share|improve this answer


























          • 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














          4












          4








          4







          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.






          share|improve this answer















          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.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 5 at 5:48

























          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



















          • 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


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Усть-Каменогорск

          Халкинская богословская школа

          Высокополье (Харьковская область)