Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.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: <Dnww2A.CKo@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: <4hn3vu$427@ss1.cam.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:13:22 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <4hn3vu$427@ss1.cam.nist.gov> koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E  
Koontz) writes:
> In article <4hhauu$elf@clark.zippo.com>, Berlant@dynanet.com (Stephen R.  
Berlant) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> |> largely, unwritten. The early Middle English manuscripts that we have 
> |> inherited simply represent late Old English spelled in whatever way  
seemed to 
> |> the local scribe (who was likely to be a Norman) to duplicate the  
sounds of 
> |> the language as he heard it. This at least has the advantage of  
giving us 
> |> clues to the changes that had been taking place in spoken Old English  
for many 
> |> decades-changes that to some extent were concealed as long as the  
scribes used 
> |> the standardzed and relatively fixed literary language."
 [ more stuff deleted]

> You're both right, in a manner of speaking.  Presumably the OE
> standard does a good job of representing Wessex OE, but neglects the
> other dialects.  I seem to recall that West Saxon usage was not so
> much a universal standard, as the form best represented in what has
> been preserved of OE literature, largely due to the comparative
> success of the West Saxon Kingdom.  The more northerly and easterly
> kingdoms and their dialects suffered from being caught between the
> Scandinavian invaders and the Kingdom of Wessex.  Of course, Wessex
> usage would have served as a standard in non-West Saxon areas under
> the sway of Wessex.
> 

I would be reluctant to say there WAS a written standard for Old English.  
While it's true that most OE classes teach a standardized writting (based  
on West Saxon), my experience with the manuscripts shows great variation  
in spelling. Anglian and Kentish and other OE dialects did not generally  
follow Wessex traditions in spelling (in part because the written texts  
from Wessex post-date many of the texts from other areas.

Of course, it is true that writing tends to be more archaic than speech  
(when was the last time you pronounced the _k_ in _knife_ [Dad! Shut  
up!]?). However, older Old English texts clearly show that the scribes  
were not able to relate spelling and pronunciation: you can find almost  
any vowel written in unstressed syllables (a and e being most popular)  
whether they are ethymologically correct or not.

Barbara Need
University of Chicago--Linguistics
