New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Re: Leigh vs Lee
in reply to a message by thegriffon
What I wrote is not "entirely wrong" - please note my phrase from above: "There is much more to it all than these broad generalizations, but for the sake of brevity, I hope these help".
Were you present when "after Y lost its original value as a front-of-mouth u"? Did it occur on a specific date at a specific place?
Were you present when the supposed "compromise was made with the spelling gh"? If so - who was involved - when and at which location?
Can you please explain to me why the word 'Apophthegm' is spelled differently within different dictionaries published during the last fifty years?
Please let me know. I'm interested. I love this stuff.
Were you present when "after Y lost its original value as a front-of-mouth u"? Did it occur on a specific date at a specific place?
Were you present when the supposed "compromise was made with the spelling gh"? If so - who was involved - when and at which location?
Can you please explain to me why the word 'Apophthegm' is spelled differently within different dictionaries published during the last fifty years?
Please let me know. I'm interested. I love this stuff.
This message was edited 6/17/2018, 4:32 AM
1
Replies
Y in English lost it's value as a front-of-mouth u (a.k.a. the i umlaut of u or close [or high] front rounded vowel) in the dominant "official" dialects in the late OE period, and was generally replaced in spelling by i. Naturally some scribes persisted with the y spelling despite the change in speech longer than others.
the change from g to gh to indicate the change to an aspirate occurs from late Middle English to early modern English. The form ʒ, ȝ and similar (derived from g) called yogh was used from the middle English period to also represent both front g (pronounced as y) and the aspirate. This yogh is then replaced (not all at once) with simplification of the alphabet (moveable type is partly to blame, although it occurs earlier) by y and gh in common words. although sometimes s (in demesne, in a deliberate archaism where yogh was never used, the earlier spelling being demeine) and z (mostly in names such as Menzies [pronounced Menyes] and Dalziel [Dai:yel]) are used.
"Apothegm" is an American simplification, made by some writers and editors. As the roman transliteration of a foreign word it doesn't follow normal English orthography.
the change from g to gh to indicate the change to an aspirate occurs from late Middle English to early modern English. The form ʒ, ȝ and similar (derived from g) called yogh was used from the middle English period to also represent both front g (pronounced as y) and the aspirate. This yogh is then replaced (not all at once) with simplification of the alphabet (moveable type is partly to blame, although it occurs earlier) by y and gh in common words. although sometimes s (in demesne, in a deliberate archaism where yogh was never used, the earlier spelling being demeine) and z (mostly in names such as Menzies [pronounced Menyes] and Dalziel [Dai:yel]) are used.
"Apothegm" is an American simplification, made by some writers and editors. As the roman transliteration of a foreign word it doesn't follow normal English orthography.
1
Thank you
I simply seek to ensure that we do not argue - life is too short; the history of English - as with any language, cannot be entirely separated from a social history - with the confluence through the "hundred years war" amidst the English & French brought additional Latin influence via francais (I am not attempting to be correct with my francais phrase - only to lighten intentions).
So perhaps the Leigh spelling may also sound as "Leif".
I love that among many other words - the word 'Apophthegm' still bears traces of "editorial difficulties".
I intend these questions rhetorically - not toward you.
Once we edit the 'ph' (and eventually the g) from "Apophthegm" to "Apothegm" to "Apotheme" - (moving from 'g' to 'y' to silent 'e') have we given commercial book / dictionary publishers the right to remove traces of history for profit? Indeed we have! Who is to decide the correct spelling? If I were a student at a spelling B, or even just a (weekly?) spelling test, would I be incorrect to spell the with the "ph" when lexicographers themselves use the 'ph' for words borrowed from Greek? I find it disturbing that children are graded, and sadly degraded, for spelling when there is no source of absolute validity.
I simply seek to ensure that we do not argue - life is too short; the history of English - as with any language, cannot be entirely separated from a social history - with the confluence through the "hundred years war" amidst the English & French brought additional Latin influence via francais (I am not attempting to be correct with my francais phrase - only to lighten intentions).
So perhaps the Leigh spelling may also sound as "Leif".
I love that among many other words - the word 'Apophthegm' still bears traces of "editorial difficulties".
I intend these questions rhetorically - not toward you.
Once we edit the 'ph' (and eventually the g) from "Apophthegm" to "Apothegm" to "Apotheme" - (moving from 'g' to 'y' to silent 'e') have we given commercial book / dictionary publishers the right to remove traces of history for profit? Indeed we have! Who is to decide the correct spelling? If I were a student at a spelling B, or even just a (weekly?) spelling test, would I be incorrect to spell the with the "ph" when lexicographers themselves use the 'ph' for words borrowed from Greek? I find it disturbing that children are graded, and sadly degraded, for spelling when there is no source of absolute validity.
This message was edited 6/18/2018, 3:31 AM
1
Despite spelling Bs and spell checkers, there is no "correct" or standard spelling (or punctuation) in English (some other languages have government or paragovernment institutions which attempt to regulate and occasionally reform spelling). It is all a matter of "style". English dictionaries merely record common usage that has persisted long enough to be relevant. The nebulous arbiters of style have settled on a balance of maintaining consistency of spelling between word variants, despite differences in pronunciation; maintaining some archaisms (e.g. the aforementioned nigh and cough etc.) or foreign conventions (e.g. the ph of apophthegm) for semantic clarity; and having an otherwise consistent orthography. Different authorities and publishers, particularly of news and textbooks, have their own standards, and some even publish guides (e.g. the AP stylebook, the NY Times or the Chicago Manuals of style), but authors of fiction and poetry are allowed more leeway to be "creative". The guiding principal is generally readability — changes in established spelling can trip people up and can create semantic confusion, making a text more, not less difficult to read for the existing reader base. Chaning the spelling of an unusual foreign word such as apophthegm doesn't present much difficulty to a reader, but change nigh to nie or ny and people have to stop and think "nie? Oh nigh!".
This doesn't apply to names of course, which have generally been decoupled from their original semantic and linguistic origin. Spelling accordingly varies quite a bit and is altered with every cultural shift. At the same time names may reflect archaic spellings that may have little relation to changes in prosaic language, or be reformed in ways prosaic language is not (as people are more likely to employ names they've only heard and be less concerned with "correct" spelling).
This doesn't apply to names of course, which have generally been decoupled from their original semantic and linguistic origin. Spelling accordingly varies quite a bit and is altered with every cultural shift. At the same time names may reflect archaic spellings that may have little relation to changes in prosaic language, or be reformed in ways prosaic language is not (as people are more likely to employ names they've only heard and be less concerned with "correct" spelling).
This message was edited 6/18/2018, 5:12 PM
1