| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » The "u" and "v" in older written English is...
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| 2.7182818284590...... |
 Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In older written English, there seems to be one written letter which
served the purpose of 2 functions: to transliterate both the "u" and
the "v". The symbolic representation was the "v". So, in the older
days, a word like "Massachusetts" would be "Massachvsetts".
I've got qvestions on this arrangement:
1. How would the word "vulgar" be spelt? As "vvlgar"?
2. When did the letter "u" come about?
3. I noticed that the "W" is pronounced "Double-u", when in fact,
it's a "double-v". Any comments?
4. How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 14, 10:38 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: In older written English, there seems to be one written letter which
served the purpose of 2 functions: to transliterate both the "u" and
the "v". The symbolic representation was the "v". So, in the older
days, a word like "Massachusetts" would be "Massachvsetts".
Please check the facts before complaining.
In Latin studies, V is the capital, u the lower case.
In English, v was initial, u was medial.
Quote: I've got qvestions on this arrangement:
1. How would the word "vulgar" be spelt? As "vvlgar"?
vulgar
Quote: 2. When did the letter "u" come about?
ca. 1800 BCE or earlier
Quote: 3. I noticed that the "W" is pronounced "Double-u", when in fact,
it's a "double-v". Any comments?
See above. u and v were not finally separated until the early 19th
century.
Quote: 4. How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
They knew their language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wed, 14 May 2008 19:38:13 -0700 (PDT): "2.7182818284590..."
<tangent1.57 at (no spam) gmail.com>: in sci.lang:
Quote: I've got qvestions on this arrangement:
1. How would the word "vulgar" be spelt? As "vvlgar"?
Possibly yes. Such spellings certainly do occur in older Portuguese
text, in a period when v and u certainly were already different
sounds. But thet were spelled alike.
Quote: 2. When did the letter "u" come about?
3. I noticed that the "W" is pronounced "Double-u", when in fact,
it's a "double-v". Any comments?
Double v in French, double u in English. Because u and v were
originally just variants of the same letter (like like i and j were),
it makes no difference.
Quote: 4. How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
They simply knew the words they read in the context, so there was no
problems. Cf. how literate people easily read English (despite all its
irregularities) or vowelless Hebrew of Arabic.
Not that stress and intonation aren't written in English either,
although they are important. People can easily fill these in too.
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ranjit_mathews at (no spam) yahoo.com... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 14, 7:38 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: In older written English, there seems to be one written letter which
served the purpose of 2 functions: to transliterate both the "u" and
the "v".
I've got qvestions on this arrangement:
1. How would the word "vulgar" be spelt? As "vvlgar"?
How would an ancient Greek spell "yip yip"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yip_Yip_Yaphank
With iota iota pi?
Not with eta, presumably, since that was [e:] in Attic Greek.
Quote: 4. How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
From context; the same way that the Portuguese know whether to
pronounce the <i>s in their words as [i] or [j]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ranjit_mathews at (no spam) yahoo.com... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 15, 5:00 pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
Quote: ">" == 2 7182818284590 <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women", "won"?
Not on the basis of context.
Quote: --
Lee Sau Dan $BM{<iFX(B ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page:http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 15, 10:18 pm, "ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 15, 5:00 pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
">" == 2 7182818284590 <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women", "won"?
Not on the basis of context.
Vallins, *Spelling* (2nd. ed., ed. Scragg, 1965), quotes this passage
from the early 17th century:
"Vnadvised cunning, or not suffientlie aduised, doth plaie to much
vpon the foren string, being verie loth to leaue out anie one letter,
as _elliemonsinarie_ for _amner_, _hospitall_ for _spitle_, and
_victuall_ for _vittle_." (Cited only as Mulcaster, Elementarie) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: ">" == 2 7182818284590 <tangent1.57 at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women", "won"?
--
Lee Sau Dan §őŠuŽ° ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul J Kriha... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<ranjit_mathews at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9b5654b-125c-46ff-8210-4243b122aa8e at (no spam) u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On May 15, 5:00 pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
">" == 2 7182818284590 <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women", "won"?
Not on the basis of context.
Don't the other letters in those words constitute a context for the "o"?
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:25:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in
<news:5c554929-5cbe-4dce-b0f0-91c36c3b2120 at (no spam) y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
Quote: Vallins, *Spelling* (2nd. ed., ed. Scragg, 1965), quotes this passage
from the early 17th century:
"Vnadvised cunning, or not suffientlie aduised, doth plaie
to much vpon the foren string, being verie loth to leaue
out anie one letter, as _elliemonsinarie_ for _amner_,
_hospitall_ for _spitle_, and _victuall_ for _vittle_."
(Cited only as Mulcaster, Elementarie)
Presumably Richard Mulcaster's 'Elementarie', first
published in 1582. He was an early champion of the
suitability of English for all purposes:
I do not think that anie language, be it whatsoever, is
better able to utter all arguments, either with more
pith, or greater planesse, than our English tung is, if
the English utterer be as skillfull in the matter, which
he is to utter.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Paul" == Paul J Kriha <paul.nospam.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> writes:
How did people know how to pronounce words which
ambiguated the "u" and "v"?
How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women",
"won"?
Not on the basis of context.
Paul> Don't the other letters in those words constitute a context
Paul> for the "o"?
Don't the other letters in the words also constitvte a context for the
"v", when "u" is spelt vsing "v"?
--
Lee Sau Dan §őŠuŽ° ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 16, 9:02 pm, Joe Fineman <jo... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: Here is an odd datum on the transition: In Dr Johnson's dictionary
(1715), the entry on V reads
1755
Quote: V, Has two powers, expressed in modern English by two characters,
V consonant and U vowel, which ought to be considered as two
letters; but as they were long confounded while the two uses were
annexed to one form, the old custom still continues to be
follows.
By "the old custom" he means that U & V are treated as the same letter
in alphabetization -- all the va- words are followed by all the ub-
words, and so on.
Similarly, I & J, i & j are distinguished according to present usage,
but are mixed in alphabetization.
Raven McDavid's Introduction to a reprint of Webster's smaller (1808)
dictionary mistakenly claims that it was the first one to separate I/
J, U/V. According to Abercrombie citing Venezky, it was William
Perry's Royal Standard Dictionary of 1801. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Fineman... |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Here is an odd datum on the transition: In Dr Johnson's dictionary
(1715), the entry on V reads
V, Has two powers, expressed in modern English by two characters,
V consonant and U vowel, which ought to be considered as two
letters; but as they were long confounded while the two uses were
annexed to one form, the old custom still continues to be
follows.
By "the old custom" he means that U & V are treated as the same letter
in alphabetization -- all the va- words are followed by all the ub-
words, and so on.
Similarly, I & J, i & j are distinguished according to present usage,
but are mixed in alphabetization.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f at (no spam) verizon.net
||: Perhaps even this you will someday remember with pleasure.  | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Wordingham... |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"LEE Sau Dan" <danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:87iqxf86el.fsf at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
Quote: How do you know how to pronounce the "o" in "woman", "women", "won"?
The first step for "woman" and "won" is to recognise that the vowel is
short. The word "woman" is one of a large, irregular group where for no
apparent reason the shortness is not indicated by consonant doubling. Then
you apply 'magic w' (as some schools call it) to effectively convert <o> to
<u>. The next step is relevant only if, like most English-speakers, you
speak a dialect that distinguished the vowel sounds of "put" and "putt".
The vowel in "woman" is surrounded by rounding-friendly consonants, and so
you get /U/ (as in "wolf"), while "won" gets the more regular /V"/.
A great many English speakers do not know how to pronounce "won" - they
pronounce it with a short 'o'. (I was going to write '/wA.n/ or
equivalent', but that is probably less clear a statement.)
In most varieties of English, the spelling "women" is morphophonemic - it
indicates the vowel-mutation plural of "woman". (Why the plural should
retain the more original vowel - the Old English is _wifman(n)_, with late
OE spellings in -mm-, and spellings wum-, wom- appear in the 13th century -
is another question.)
Richard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 May 2008 03:00:08 +0100, Richard Wordingham
<jrw0602 at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<news:U_qXj.15453$U61.4618 at (no spam) newsfe12.ams2> in sci.lang:
[...]
Quote: A great many English speakers do not know how to pronounce
"won" - they pronounce it with a short 'o'. (I was
going to write '/wA.n/ or equivalent', but that is
probably less clear a statement.)
Where? I don't think that I've ever heard a native speaker
do this.
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Brian" == Brian M Scott <b.scott at (no spam) csuohio.edu> writes:
A great many English speakers do not know how to pronounce
"won" - they pronounce it with a short 'o'. (I was going to
write '/wA.n/ or equivalent', but that is probably less clear a
statement.)
Brian> Where? I don't think that I've ever heard a native speaker
Brian> do this.
Maybe, those people are talking about shopping in Korea? :)
--
Lee Sau Dan §őŠuŽ° ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:51 pm
|
|
