With the history of the language investigated, it is time to move on to the language itself. The alphabet of the language is the building blocks of the language. This is the first part of the investigation of the language.
Introduction
Why is it
important to discuss the alphabet of the language? This would be the first
question that is asked about this particular part of the investigation into
Elizabethan English. The letters form the building blocks of the words which
form the language and some of the spelling idiosyncrasies which appear in the
printed words of the Elizabethan period are due to the changes in the letters
rather than a difference in spelling and this needs to be taken into account.
This part
of the overall investigation is to discover the way in which the letters in the
alphabet were used and also how they were not used as both elements of this
equation are important. The results give a clearer overall understanding of how
the letters were or were not used and also give some information about the
language which is useful to the overall investigation. Further, the information
presented by the investigation of the alphabet lays the foundation upon which
the formation of the words is based.
Many of the
specifics which will be related will seem to be more appropriate to printers
rather than authors. This is due to the simple fact that not much that was
hand-written has survived, whereas much more of the printed texts have. The
printed texts are also easier to deal with as they have less of an issue with
author preferences. In the end the product which is to be produced by this
investigation is the recreation of a printed work and thus the printed works
are actually more appropriate to the investigation overall.
What also
needs to be revealed before a real discussion of the alphabet and spelling is
possible is that there is a difference between the language and typesetting.
This will be revealed in this investigation and will also reveal the large
impact which printers had upon the language with regard to alphabet use and the
resulting spelling and orthography. Hence this investigation will be divided
into two areas the first being general rules and the second addressing
typesetting.
General Rules
Before a
detailed discussion is possible it is necessary to find out the general rules
of the alphabet as it stood in the period. It is helpful to relate this to the
modern alphabet as this gives a foundation of commonality. This foundation
allows for comparison and thus understanding of the alphabet of the period.
The alphabet much like that of
present with some archaic forms present, “-th” replaced thorn though “y” was still
present for closed words “ye” as “the” becomes less common in the later period
(Smith, 2005:125). The period being referred to here is the Early Modern
period, thus as the Elizabethan period is toward the end of this period, such
considerations need to be acknowledged. While it is difficult to isolate the
differences to a particular date an overall picture is possible. The easiest
way to look at this is through an examination of the letters themselves.
To begin with, “i” and “j”
interchangeable, the “j” form was rare in English, and was only used in Latin
words, and numerals in the final position (Crystal, 2008:46). For the most part
it could be accounted that the forms of these two letters were so much the same
that to discern between the two in general correspondence would have been
difficult. The same could be said also for “u” and “v”. The “v” used initial
and “u” elsewhere (Smith, 2005:126). Once again this could be seen as a result
of the similarity in the forms of the letters themselves.
Other letters used could also be
seen to be interchangeable due to their phonetic nature. The “y” was still used
in some, where “i” in modern (Smith, 2005:126), this is a hangover from the
older language and could be argued to be different from the “j”. Further, “-ie”
used for “y” frequently (Smith, 2005:126). Once again a phonetic argument of
similarity could be argued. The phonetic argument is one which is still used
and argued.
Even today there is still the
question of whether a word should be spelled with a “c” or “s” as in “defence”
or “defense”, this is an argument which extends back to the Elizabethan period
where “c” and “s” were sometimes changed (Smith, 2005:126). The general rules
were based on the phonetic nature of the letter influenced by previous rules
established. For phonetics, “-ic” appears as “–ick” (Smith, 2005:126), there
being no real difference in pronunciation of the words resulting. Of course in
special cases such as, the use of “- ph” for “f” in quasi-learned words (Smith,
2005:126), the idea was to emphasise the word by the spelling as important.
These issues and differences in the use of the letters of the alphabet make
spelling from the period interesting and often this was not assisted, and in
some instances made more confusing by the printers of the period.
Printer’s Influence
One of the
first things that need to be noted is that many of the printers in England in
the Elizabethan period were imported from other countries and as such English
was not their native language, this created problems in and of itself. However,
when examining the impact that they had on the language and the alphabet and how
it was presented they were the primary presentation of the language to the
world at large and our biggest resource. Most of the rules presented above were
established or reinforced by the printers of the period.
Just as
with many of the rules above there was some confusion as to when certain
letters were to be used and when others should be used. “Printers made no
progress, however, in establishing the use of <j> and <v> to
represent consonants, <u> and <i> vowels.” (Lass, 1999:28). As a
result just as above in the general rules established the two sets of letters
remained interchangeable. Of course it was not just these two sets of letters
where the use of the letters was reflected by the printers of the period. “They
[printers] did not distinguish the uses of <i> and <y> either,
although there was a preference for <y> or <ie> in final position.”
(Lass, 1999:28). Of course being a preference this was not always adhered to.
The point is that the letters use is reflected by the printers as much the same
in general as the rules reflected above. However, there were also typesetting
considerations that need to be made.
Typesetting
is the process by which a printer constructs the text for printing. In this
process a printer may make alterations to the words in order that they are
presented better or to suit the type which is being used. Combine this with the
use of the letters as described, and it is of little surprise that there were
spelling issues in the Elizabethan period.
To relate
this process back to the rules established, there are those rare times where a
“v” will be positioned next to a “u”, thus resulting in “uu”, this was unpalatable
unless in original word (Crystal, 2008:46). In this case it was unpalatable for
presentation’s sake and ease of reading the text. Thus spellings could be
changed for appearance. A similar case is with “s”. There were three forms of
“s” present; standard, capital and long (ſ) (Crystal, 2008:43), the use of the form was dependent on the
word and the fit in the typesetting. This idea of the fit in the typesetting
resulted in changes in spelling.
There are
several typesetting tools which were used in order that letters did not have to
be used too many times as there was a limited supply of the letters. An example
of this letter-saving are ligatures (“joined letters”), a single piece of
typeset for two letters such as ct, ff, ſ
i, ſ t (Crystal, 2008:44). This
was designed not only to save letters but also to save space so that the type
lined up. Another example of a typesetting tool used in this way are the
logograms which are symbols standing for words, “&” for and, &c for et
cetera or for things which are assumed knowledge (Crystal, 2008:55). As stated
before these tools were used in order to ensure that the type lined up at the
end of the line to make things neat in the printing. Two more tools for the
same purpose were to omit letters and use superscript letters, omitted letters
were marked by placement of tilde (~) over letter to show following missing,
most commonly “m” or “n” especially when doubled (Crystal, 2008:56). In the
doubled cases, it was the second letter that was omitted. Superscript letters
were used in a similar vein to shorten common words, “y” with “u” for thou, “t”
for that, “e” for the (Crystal, 2008:57), once again for typesetting purposes.
Another example of this which was to affect spelling was the addition of a
final “-e” on words (Mugglestone, 2006:150) in order to fill in a space for
typesetting purposes. These typesetting elements alone make it difficult for
the modern reader and also made spelling in the period problematical.
Conclusion
While an
alphabet may be standardised and commonly used, it is the use of this alphabet
which can affect the orthography of words and change their spellings. This can lead
to confusion and misrepresentation of words. The modern reader who picks up an
Elizabethan text is confronted by an alphabet which is for the most part the
same as his own but has variations which affect the readability of the document
which has been accessed. This is especially the case with regard to spelling
which, while phonetic in most cases will jar the modern reader.
The
situation with the variations in use in the alphabet were not established
firmly in the Elizabethan period, though it is possible to lay down some useful
guidelines as to how it was used and these can assist the modern reader in
understanding texts from the period. What should be noted is that these general
uses were not universal and printers also had their own ideas about how the
texts should be printed and this does affect the spelling of words and the
presentation of what was written. This is especially the case where typesetting
tools were used in order to present the text in a more professional manner,
ensuring that the ends of the lines all lined up properly.
The
alphabet forms the building blocks for the words which form a language and thus
it is important that this is taken into account before even considering looking
at the words themselves, little less the language. This is especially the case
for the modern reader attempting to make his way through a period text. In the
study of a language especially of a previous period, the alphabet and its use
gives clues as to how the words, and thus the language will be formed and thus
a key to understanding the language overall.
Bibliography
Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think
on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Lass, R. (ed.)(1999) The
Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume III: 1476 – 1776,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Mugglestone, L. (ed) (2006) The Oxford History of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Smith, J. (2005) Essentials
of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA
