Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!news
From: barbara@sapir.uchicago.edu (Barbara Need)
Subject: Re: Old- vs Middle Eng. words
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: bloomfield.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <Dnr67H.Br0@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: barbara@sapir.uchicago.edu  (Barbara Need)
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Computing Services
References: <Dnpn3J.5CH@clark.zippo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:06:53 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <Dnpn3J.5CH@clark.zippo.com> Berlant@dynanet.com (Stephen R.  
Berlant) writes:
>
> i recall reading somewhere that for some reason the written forms of 
> Middle English words reflect the pronunciation of the Old English words
> far better than did the latter's written form. 
> 
> I was wondering if anybody could confirm this; and, if so, shed any more
> light on the subject for me.
> 
No, I would not say that was true at all. What this may reflect, is that  
the spelling of Middle English is more recongnizably like Modern English  
than is that of Old English. However, anyone who has studied Old English  
knows how to pronounce it--and there are NO silent letters and very few  
alternate spellings (edh and thorn were both used for interdental  
fricatives, but that is minor).

Barbara Need
University of Chicago--Linguistics
