Anglish Alphabet
This article is an overview of the orthography we propose for Anglish. The letters, their positions, and their names are based on textual evidence from Middle English manuscripts and inference from other Latin alphabets. The rules of this alphabet mostly conform to what we believe to have been the last dominant native spelling conventions (Spelling Timeline).
This article is the result of collaborative effort and research from the Anglish Discord, most notably the members Andwlite, Cascadia, Eadwine, Heystan, Hurlebatte, XoRoUZ, and Yose.
The Alphabet
|
We believe some letters would realistically be used in loanwords even if the Norman Invasion had failed: Old English used ⟨q⟩ and ⟨z⟩ for some foreign words, such as Latin and Hebrew names; Old English used ⟨u⟩ for /v/ and ⟨i⟩ for /j/ for Latin names, implying English would have eventually used ⟨v⟩ and ⟨j⟩ for these purposes; Old English sometimes used ⟨w⟩ for Norman names, though it was still a ligature at the time, and not a full-fledged letter.
The alphabetical positions of the nonstandard letters in the chart above were informed by: MS Harley 208 (9th century), which has ⟨ƿ⟩, ⟨þ⟩, ⟨æ⟩, then a sloppy character that might be ⟨ð⟩; Stowe MS 57 (mid 12th century), which has ⟨ƿ⟩, ⟨ð⟩, and ⟨þ⟩; Cotton Titus D 18 (15th century), which has ⟨ƿ⟩, ⟨þ⟩, and ⟨ð⟩. All three of these manuscripts place the nonstandard letters after the standard letters.
Commentary on the names:
- The best candidates for the name of ⟨h⟩ are /hɛj/ and /hɛjk/. The first is based on the other Germanic languages. The second is based on Stowe 57, which lists 'hake' as a name of H. More research might help us eliminate one of these.
- Since in our timeline we ended up spelling ⟨J⟩ and ⟨K⟩ with ⟨-ay⟩, we think we should go with ⟨-ag⟩ for representing /ɛj/ in the names of letters.
- For the name of ⟨j⟩ and ⟨z⟩ we can mimic other Germanic languages and base our terms on 'iota' and 'zeta', which we Anglishise as /j(ə~o)wt/ and /sit/. We went with the spelling of 'geote' over 'jote' because we have not yet decided that we want to promote ⟨j⟩ as a part of inborn orthography.
- Modern French apparently has spellings like 'effe' and 'esse'. That being so, we have not linked the English spellings 'ef' and 'es' to French.
- Manuscripts conflict on the name of ⟨ð⟩. Titus D 18 has thorn while Stowe 57 has ðet. Titus D 18 seems generally more reliable, however, as it shows the correct uppercase form of ⟨ð⟩ where Stowe 57 seems to be in error. Stowe 57 also has a strange, unexplained name listed for ⟨y⟩, which is at odds with Modern English, Titus D 18, and Junius 1.
Reversions
| # | FROM | TO | EXAMPLES |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ⟨c⟩ as /s/ | ⟨s⟩ | cinder→sinder ⁘ fleece→flees |
| 2 | ⟨ch⟩ & ⟨tch⟩ as /tʃ/ | ⟨c⟩ | chin→cin ⁘ match→mac |
| 3 | ⟨g⟩ as non-initial [g] | ⟨gg⟩ | tag→tagg |
| 4 | ⟨gh⟩ as historical [x~ɣ] | ⟨g⟩ | high→hige ⁘ night→nigt |
| 5 | ⟨le⟩ as /əl/ | ⟨el⟩ | nettle→nettel |
| 6 | ⟨o⟩ as OE ⟨u⟩ | ⟨u⟩ | son→sun ⁘ some→sum |
| 7 | ⟨ou⟩ & ⟨ow⟩ as /aw/ | ⟨u⟩ or ⟨ue⟩ or ⟨uCe⟩ | hound→hund ⁘ sow→sue ⁘ loud→lude |
| 8 | ⟨ough⟩ as /aw/ & /ʌf/ | ⟨uge⟩ | plough→pluge ⁘ tough→tuge |
| 9 | ⟨qu⟩ as /kw/ | ⟨cƿ⟩ | queen→cƿeen |
| 10 | ⟨sh⟩ as /ʃ/ | ⟨sc⟩ | ship→scip |
| 11 | ⟨th⟩ as /θ/ or /ð/ | ⟨ð⟩ or ⟨þ⟩ | the→þe ⁘ other→oðer ⁘ forth→forð |
| 12 | ⟨u⟩ as historical /ju/ | ⟨eƿ⟩ | hue→heƿ |
| 13 | ⟨ui⟩ & ⟨uy⟩ as OE ⟨y⟩ | ⟨y⟩ or ⟨i⟩ | build→bild ⁘ buy→bye |
| 14 | ⟨v⟩ as [v] | ⟨f⟩ | leave→leaf ⁘ over→ofer |
| 15 | ⟨w⟩ | ⟨ƿ⟩ | water→ƿater |
| 16 | ⟨wh⟩ as historical /hw/ | ⟨hƿ⟩ | whelp→hƿelp |
| 17 | ⟨y⟩ and ⟨i⟩ replacing ⟨g⟩ | ⟨g⟩ or ⟨ie⟩ | yes→ges ⁘ day→dag ⁘ sunny→sunnie |
| 18 | ⟨z⟩ as native [z] | ⟨s⟩ | graze→grase |
1 ⟨c⟩ for /s/ came into regular English spelling from French, so we revert it: 'cinder' to 'sinder'.
2 ⟨ch⟩ for /tʃ/ came into regular English spelling from French, so we revert it.
"Anglo-Saxon scribes sometimes clarified the pronunciation of c using two devices. . . one device was to show the /tʃ/ value where it might otherwise not be apparent by inserting an E or I after the C; thus þencan could also be written þencean. The other device was to replace C by K to show its /k/ value before a front vowel: cyn 'kin', cyning 'king', cycen 'kitchen' were sometimes written kin (so contrasting with palatalized c in cin 'cin'), kyning, kicen. Likewise the genitive case of folk 'people' could be either folces or folkes 'of the people'." –The History of English Spelling, Upward & Davidson
3 Words such as 'pig' were typically written 'pigge' around 1200–1500, apparently even when such words did not originally end with a vowel, as shown by 'hag' being written 'hagge' despite probably coming from Old English 'hægtesse'. We suspect ⟨gg⟩ would have remained ⟨gg⟩ if French influence had not turned ⟨g⟩ to ⟨y⟩ at the ends of so many words.
4 There seem to be links between: ⟨th⟩ replacing ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩; ⟨w⟩ replacing ⟨ƿ⟩; ⟨q⟩ replacing ⟨cƿ⟩; ⟨y⟩ and ⟨gh⟩ replacing ⟨ȝ⟩. Shortly after 1066 some scribes began using ⟨w⟩ in English, and began replacing ⟨ƿ⟩. By 1250 ⟨ƿ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ had become rare, the latter having been mostly replaced with ⟨th⟩ and/or ⟨þ⟩. Throughout the 1300s ⟨þ⟩ began to also lose ground to ⟨th⟩, while ⟨ȝ⟩ lost ground to ⟨y⟩ and ⟨gh⟩ (with ȝh being a kind of transition). ⁘ ⟨gh⟩ seems to be based on the many French or French-inspired digraphs found in Middle English spelling. The mainstream way of writing [x~ɣ] before the introduction of ⟨gh⟩ was Insular ⟨g⟩. Contrary to some people's assumptions, Insular ⟨g⟩ does not seem to have been given the job of [x~ɣ] by the Normans, instead, Insular ⟨g⟩ had been standing for [ɣ] since Old English times, and around 1250–1300 it became popular to use Insular ⟨g⟩ for [x] as well.
5 ⟨le⟩ at the end of words seems to have rubbed off onto English from French loanwords like 'people'.
"The development of people offers a good paradigm for many words ending in -LE: Lat populum > OFr poeple > ME peple > people. The final syllable of people and similar words was commonly spelt in ME with a wide variety of vowel letters, as -EL, -IL, -UL, -YL, etc. In EModE, printers showed a growing tendency to prefer the Fr -LE spelling in many words of both Franco-Lat and OE descent." –The History of English Spelling, Upward & Davidson
6 ⟨o⟩ in Middle English taking the place of ⟨u⟩ is linked to French, and is reverted in this system. Relevant words include: 'come'; 'some'; 'son'; 'wone'; 'love'; 'above'; 'dove'; 'shove'; 'honey'; 'wonder'; 'wolf'; 'wool'; 'worm'; 'wort'; 'worse'; 'worry'. The Latin loans 'monk' and 'ton' were also affected by this.
"The convention of using o for earlier u begins in late Latin and is extended first to French and then to English." –Venezky, Richard L. Visible Language; Detroit, Michigan etc. Volume 10, Issue 4, pages 351-365
"In the handwriting of the ME period much more than in that of the OE, the letters i (and j), u (and v), n, m, and w tended to be made simply by one, two, or three short upright strokes (technically called minims) without horizontal connecting strokes at the top of bottom between minims forming parts of the same letter, and sometimes without a dot over the single minim standing for i (or j). The result was that any word containing two or more of these letters in sequence became difficult to read, a succession of, say, four minims being interpretable as nu, un, mi, wi ,im ,iw, ini, iui (ivi), nii, uii (vii), iin, or iiu (iiv). In some contemporary French dialects, o had come, in certain phonetic situations, to indicate the same sound as u; French scribes were not slow to substitute o very generally for u whenever u was etymologically called for in the neighborhood of other letters made up of minims. This practice came to be widely imitated in writing English, and hence ME sone, which was easier to read than sune. . ." –Early English: An Introduction to Old and Middle English, Clark, page 122
7 ⟨ou⟩ standing for /uː/ was borrowed from French. Beforehand, early Middle English represented /uː/ with ⟨u⟩, ⟨ue⟩, and ⟨uCe⟩, depending on the writer and the circumstances. ⁘ Modern spelling conventions do not allow magic-E to occur after ⟨nd⟩, so a word like 'ground' should go to 'grund' not 'grunde'. ⁘ Special cases: should→sculd, would→ƿuld, could→culd (although these words had short vowels, they seem to have been caught up in the shift to ⟨ou⟩).
8 In cases where /uːx/ became /aw/ or /ʌf/ (like the words 'plough' and 'rough'), it should be written ⟨uge⟩. Some instances of ⟨ou⟩ are native, having arisen through vowel breaking; words ending in ⟨-ough⟩ which rhyme with 'dough' and 'trough' have the "English ⟨ou⟩" and should retain ⟨ou⟩.
9 ⟨q⟩ was borrowed into regular usage under influence from French. It seems to have become common in the 1200s. We chose ⟨cƿ⟩ over ⟨kƿ⟩ because it seems to have remained the most common spelling before the introduction of ⟨q⟩.
10 ⟨sh⟩ is very likely modelled on ⟨ch⟩, or a shortening of ⟨sch⟩ which was modelled on ⟨ch⟩, making it a French influenced spelling.
11 There seem to be links between: ⟨th⟩ replacing ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩; ⟨w⟩ replacing ⟨ƿ⟩; ⟨q⟩ replacing ⟨cƿ⟩; ⟨y⟩ and ⟨gh⟩ replacing ⟨ȝ⟩. Shortly after 1066 some scribes began using ⟨w⟩ in English, and began replacing ⟨ƿ⟩. By 1250 ⟨ƿ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ had become rare, the latter having been mostly replaced with ⟨th⟩ and/or ⟨þ⟩. Throughout the 1300s ⟨þ⟩ began to also lose ground to ⟨th⟩, while ⟨ȝ⟩ lost ground to ⟨y⟩ and ⟨gh⟩ (with ȝh being a kind of transition). ⁘ Given the suspicious circumstances surrounding the loss of ⟨ð⟩, its dismissal from English spelling seems related to Latinate influence. Manuscripts around 1150–1250 which lack ⟨ð⟩ almost always replace ⟨ƿ⟩ with ⟨w⟩, and ⟨cƿ⟩ with ⟨qu⟩. Also, given that many scribes by the 1100s had largely adopted a standard involving ⟨þ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩, where the former would usually take initial positions and the latter would usually take medial and final positions, it can hardly be argued that ⟨ð⟩ was bound to be discarded for the sake of standardisation. The practice of some scribes to keep ⟨þ⟩ in initial positions but to replace ⟨ð⟩ with ⟨th⟩ in medial and final positions is also worth considering.
12 ⟨u⟩, ⟨ue⟩, and ⟨uCe⟩ standing for /ju/ developed from French influence. English borrowed French loanwords which contained /y/, and writers chose to represent this sound with ⟨u⟩, ⟨ue⟩, and ⟨uCe⟩. Previously these spellings stood for English's native /uː/, but that phoneme began to be spelled in the French manner with ⟨ou⟩, leaving ⟨u⟩, ⟨ue⟩, and ⟨uCe⟩ open to being repurposed. Making matters more complicated, this French /y/ merged with English's native /iu/, resulting in words with /iu/ sometimes being respelled with ⟨u⟩, ⟨ue⟩, and ⟨uCe⟩. Because of this we write 'hue' not 'hew'.
13 ⟨u⟩ standing for /y/ is linked to French. Although /y/ had merged with /e/ or /i/ for many English speakers by 1066, some in the Southwest and the West Midlands retained /y/ which started being written as ⟨u⟩ in the French manner. However, some instances of the southwestern Middle English reflex of OE /y/ were retracted to the strut vowel. The ⟨ui⟩ and ⟨uy⟩ digraphs, being unambiguously linked to French, we recommend changing: 'build' to 'bild'; 'buy' to 'bye'.
Already in OE times (around 900), ⟨y⟩, ⟨'ý⟩' (phonetic value: /y/, /yː/) had become /e/, /eː/ in Kent and Surrey, Essex and Suffolk. It remained /y/, /yː/ in the South West and the West Midlands, where it was spelled ⟨u⟩ according to French custom. In the East Midlands and throughout the north, however, it was unrounded to /i/, /iː/. The position of London explains how all three developments can be found with Chaucer.
Translated into English from the original German:
"Bereits in ae. Zeit (um 900) war in Kent und Surrey, Essex und Suffolk y, ý (Lautwert: y, y:) zu e, e: geworden. Es blieb y, y: im Südwesten und im westlichen Mittelland, wo es nach frz. Gewohnheit u geschrieben wurde. Im östlichen Mittelland und im ganzen Norden wurde es hingegen zu i, i: entrundet. Aus der Lage Londons erklärte es sich, daß sich bei Chaucer alle drei Entwicklungen belegen lassen." –Bähr, Dieter (1997). Einführung ins Mittelenglische. UTB, Stuttgart.
14 ⟨v⟩, or more accurately the practice of using ⟨u⟩ for /v/, seems to have caught on in England under Norman Influence. While English manuscripts before 1066 did sometimes use ⟨u⟩ for /v/, this was mostly reserved for foreign names. After 1066 the practice seems to have spread to native English words.
15 ⟨w⟩ seems to have entered English with the Norman Invasion (although Anglo-Saxon writers had been familiar with the practice of using ⟨uu⟩ in Latin to render Germanic /w/). ⟨w⟩ was used in Norman French in the 12th century (Bodleian Library MS. Douce 320), and judging by the shape of this character when it appears in English texts from the 12th century (Bodleian Library MS. Laud Misc. 636) it was apparently borrowed directly from French.
16 ⟨wh/ƿh⟩ is deemed French influence. The lack of manuscripts with ⟨wh/ƿh⟩ but not ⟨ch⟩ and ⟨sch/sh⟩ is too striking to not conclude there is a link between ⟨wh/ƿh⟩ and the Norman Invasion. Related is the spelling ⟨lh⟩ in 'lhoud' found in Harley MS 978. Possibly related is 'rhedmonath', a Latinized spelling of 'hrædmonað/hredmonaþ/hreðmonaþ' wherein ⟨hr⟩ was changed to ⟨rh⟩, indicating a general Latinate preference for putting ⟨h⟩ after consonants and not before.
17 Around 1150–1300 English swapped from spellings like 'dæg/dæȝ' and 'blodig/blodiȝ' to spellings like 'dai/dæi/day' and 'blodi/blody' after many centuries of using runic ⟨-ᚷ⟩ then Latin ⟨-g⟩ in such contexts. This spelling change seems to have been based on the French -y, -ay/-ai, -ey/-ei, -oy/-oi, -uy/ui spellings ('roy/roi', 'seyt' 'ny', etc) which were used in French (including Norman French) before and during English's adoption of similar spellings. ⁘ Around 1300-1400 English also swapped from spellings like 'bi' to ones like 'by', apparently modelled on French spellings like 'ny', 'dy', 'cy', etc. ⁘ One might think that English swapped to spellings like 'day' to avoid confusion with /g/ words, but words such as 'pig' were typically written like 'pigge' around 1200-1450, apparently even when such words did not originally end with a vowel, as shown by 'hag' being written 'hagge' despite probably coming from Old English 'hægtesse'. Spellings like ⟨-ei⟩ are attested in Old English, but apparently only really in old texts from the 700s, Kentish texts, and texts from after the Norman Invasion. ⁘ ⟨-ig⟩ started becoming ⟨-i⟩ and ⟨-y⟩ in the 1200s, perhaps modelled on French. However, we recommend ⟨-ie⟩ and not ⟨-ig⟩. Although the ⟨g⟩ in ⟨-ig⟩ was pronounced one point, it was very long gone by 1400, and the suffix had come to be /-iː/. This same sound was commonly written with ⟨-ie⟩ by 1400 as part of the magic-E system, so we imagine ⟨-ie⟩ would have eventually overtaken ⟨-ig⟩, especially since around 1300-1400 the old ⟨-lic/-lich⟩ suffix was being overtaken by ⟨-li/-ly/-lie/-lye⟩, and unless we imagine writers settling on an unetymological ⟨-lig⟩ spelling then this ⟨-li/-ly/-lie/-lye⟩ suffix would likely have encouraged the discontinuation of ⟨-ig⟩ by analogy. Later on, because of the Great Vowel Shift, instances of /-iː/ split into /-ɑj/ and /-iː/, while ⟨ee⟩ became /iː/, but by this point spelling was freezing due to printing, so these developments are not reflected in spelling. One might wonder why Anglish ⟨-ag⟩ should not become ⟨-ae⟩ based on a similar pattern. One reason is because those spellings would have still represented different values when spelling began to be standardised (something like /ai/ and /aː/). Another reason is because ⟨-ae⟩ is not likely to have arisen in southern English as a common spelling the way ⟨-ie⟩ did, because words like 'tā' ended up as 'toe', not 'tae'. ⁘ In Old English and Early Middle English, Some scribes would insert a silent ⟨e⟩ or a silent ⟨i⟩ after ⟨c⟩ and ⟨g⟩ to "trigger" their palatalised values. We recommend this "⟨e⟩ insertion" convention to fight ambiguity. ⁘ ⟨ja⟩, ⟨jo⟩, and ⟨ju⟩ are arguably valid alternatives to ⟨gea⟩, ⟨geo⟩, and ⟨geu⟩, given that some Old English writers used ⟨i⟩ for /j/ in such contexts.
"In the early Merc glossaries also the normal spelling for the sound was ⟨g⟩, but note. . . EpGl, ErfGl 947 bōdæi 'body', Epgl, Erfgl 473, CorpGl 981 grēi 'grey' for final /j/." –A Grammar of Old English, Volume 1: Phonology, Richard Hogg
18 ⟨z⟩ was rarely used in Old English, and virtually never in native words (apparently when it did it stood for /ts/, like in German today). The letter began to appear in native words after English had taken in many French loanwords which contained it. It is hard to predict whether or not English, without ⟨z⟩ and soft ⟨c⟩, would have relied more on ⟨ss⟩ than Modern English does now; perhaps a spelling like 'lisse' instead of 'lice' could have become standard, where in Middle English it was common but not necessary.
"It was probably pronounced /ts/, as implied by the variant OE spellings 'milze', 'miltse' 'mildness'." –The History of English Spelling, Upward & Davidson
"In OFr. . . Z served a variety of functions and under Fr influence it came into ever wider, though inconsistent, use in Eng through the ME and EModE periods." –The History of English Spelling, Upward & Davidson
Misc Reversions
Many scribes would insert ⟨e⟩ or ⟨i⟩ after ⟨c⟩, ⟨g⟩, and ⟨sc⟩ to "trigger" their palatalised values. We promote this convention, and promote ⟨e⟩ over ⟨i⟩ for this purpose because that seems to have been the more common convention. Examples: 'choke' to 'ceoke'; 'yoke' to 'geoke'; 'shall' to 'sceal'.
Some consonants were doubled under Latin influence. We recommend reverting: 'accursed’ to 'acursed'; 'afford' to 'aford'; 'affright' to 'afright'; 'allay' to 'alay'; 'anneal' to 'aneal'.
"The form anneal, however, derives from OE anælan; spellings of this word with NN are first attested in the 17th century, by analogy with Latinate forms such as annex (compare similar doubling of C, F, L in accursed, afford, allay)." –The History of English Spelling, Upward & Davidson
Because French pronounced ⟨g⟩ as /dʒ/ in some instances, it became desirable in some cases to distinguish ⟨g⟩ making /dʒ/ from ⟨g⟩ making /g/. That is the origin of the ⟨gue⟩ and ⟨gui⟩ spellings. That being so, we recommend reverting: 'guess to gess'; 'guest to gest'; 'guild' to 'gild'; 'guilt' to 'gilt'.
The ⟨i⟩ in 'anvil', 'devil', 'evil', and 'weevil' are probably the result of French influence. They were historically spelt mostly with ⟨el⟩ but swapped to ⟨il⟩ consistently in the late 1400s. This coincides with the time other ⟨el⟩ words (cradle, needle, little, etc.) were swapped to ⟨le⟩, which we know to be the result of French influence. Perhaps anvil/devil/evil/weevil went to ⟨il⟩ instead because ⟨vl⟩ is not allowed orthotactically. There were several French loanwords primarily spelt with ⟨il⟩ at the time such as 'civil', 'pupil', and 'peril'. We recommend reverting: 'anvil' to 'anfel'; 'devil' to 'defel'; 'evil' to 'efel'; 'weevil' to 'weefel',
Sundry reversions: 'ache' to 'ake'; 'acre' to 'aker'; 'garlic' to 'garlick'; 'ghastly' to 'gastly'; 'ghost' to 'goast'; 'hair' to 'hear'; 'harbour' to 'harbor'; 'island' to 'iland'; 'liar' to 'lier'; 'lily' to 'lilly'; 'mould' (meaning: 'loose earth') to 'mold'; 'neighbour' to 'neigbor'; 'Rhine' to 'Rine'; 'rhyme' to 'rime'; 'sailor' to 'sailer'; 'scythe' to 'siþe'; 'tongue' to 'tung'.
Example
The following is an Anglish translation of 'The North Wind and the Sun.' Grounded on the English language version published in the 1999 IPA Handbook, and translated into Anglish by users on the Anglish (Anglisc) Discord.
Usual Spelling
The North Wind and the Sun were fliting which was the stronger, when a wayfarer came along wrapped in a warm shroud. They settled that the one who first overcame in making the wayfarer take his shroud off should be thought stronger than the other. Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew, the more tightly did the wayfarer fold his shroud about him; and at last the North Wind gave up the bid. Then the Sun shone out warmly, and at once the wayfarer took off his shroud. And so the North Wind was bound to acknowledge that the Sun was the stronger of the two.
Anglish Spelling
Þe Norð Ƿind and þe Sun ƿere fliting hƿic ƿas þe stronger, hƿen a ƿagfarer came along ƿrapped in a ƿarm scrude. Þeg settelled þat þe one hƿo first ofercame in making þe ƿagfarer take his scrude off sculd be þougt stronger þan þe oðer. Þen þe Norð Ƿind bleƿ as hard as he culd, but þe more he bleƿ, þe more tigtlie did þe ƿagfarer fold his scrude abute him; and at last þe Norð Ƿind gafe up þe bid. Þen þe Sun scone ute ƿarmlie, and at ones þe ƿagfarer took off his scrude. And so þe Norð Ƿind ƿas bund to acknoƿledg þat þe Sun ƿas þe stronger of þe tƿo.