Yes... Finally an Update

Greetings,

It has been much too long since I updated on the project which started this blog in the first place, so for those who are keeping track I have some information for you. There is also an extra bit of what I have been doing which is related to the overall project, mostly, but also related to other bits and pieces.

So, in my previous I indicated that version 2 of both the modern and Elizabethan forms of my fencing manual had been completed. I sent these off to an interested party to have a read of them. As expected there was some feedback about this and where I was going with it. The result of this was that I have completed a version 3 of the modern version. This was for more clarity in what was being spoken about and for more precision, less wordy so to speak. This was also a bit more modernising of the text also.

I have sent this off again to some interested people for review of the text, one for how it reads and the other for content to make sure that I have all my fencing bits and pieces all written properly and that there are no horrible breaches of fencing theory. Hopefully this means that there will be a final minor edit if nothing else just to polish a bit. Yes, it means that the end is in sight. The only real complication to this would be that it may require some changes in the Elizabethan version.

With this in sight there is the question of how this will be all made public when it is all completed. My initial thought was to simply give access to a .pdf or similar of the text for free. However, after some long thought and discussion with various people, I have made a decision that I will see if I can get it published in a hard-copy. This will more than likely be self-published. I think that this will give the best presentation of the text in the end.

In other news I have been slowly transcribing from the .pdf version of the 1595 version of Giacomo di Grassi's His True Art of Defence. Initially this was for my own purposes and convenience. It is much easier to cut and paste from a Word document than it is to troll through the .pdf every time that I needed a quote. I am not sure at this stage what I will be doing with this once it is finished. Various pieces of it has appeared on my fencing blog over the past months, however I think it should also be presented complete. Exactly how I will be doing this is something I am still thinking about. I have also considered changing it all into Modern English for people's convenience, however once again this is just a proposal with much thought required.

So this is what has been happening. The end is in sight. I do not think that this will be the end of this blog however, as I feel that there will be other pertinent subjects which will arise. Just have to wait and see for a lot of it I suppose.

Cheers,

Henry.

Version 2 Complete - Progress Update - 12 March 2014

Greetings,

Well it looks like I have come to the end, or at least for now. I have completed the version 2 of both the modern version and Elizabethan version of my fencing manual. I am hoping that sometime in the not too distant future that I will be able to post links to both versions on this blog for your reading, however that will not be today. I also have no doubts in my mind that this project is not finished and that there will be a version 3 of this project produced.

It has been an interesting process from version 1 to version 2. In many ways the most interesting step was the divergence element which I have noted previously. This is the point where there was a distinct divergence between the modern version and the period version. The modern version began to take more the shape of a lesson book with diagrams and information in a more easily digestible form including diagrams of elements of the manual. The period version on the other hand, developed more complexity in the language and also distinct changes in grammar and typesetting. This means that the words in the one are quite definitively not the same words as in the other, however they do both deliver the same information.

This difference in form though similarity in intent is the reason why this project was started in the first place. There are many people who shy away from sources of the medieval and Renaissance periods because the language is different from the modern. The information on many subjects is there just waiting to be found within the pages of these documents but the language and its format often scares people away from using it. It is this fear that was the original reason that this project was started.

This project is designed to present two manuals which describe the same things, but using different language, one older than the other. This was to demonstrate that while the language may be different the information which is found in it is the same. Rather than having to work out how weapons were used from some guess-work we can read what was written in the period, the trick here is to find familiarity with the language and this project was designed to do just that. The fact that it taught me a lot about the Elizabethan language and Early Modern English in the process which I was able to present in this blog was just a bonus.

Cheers,

Henry.

EE Version 2 - Progress Update - 2 March 2014

Greetings,

Just a short one to say that I have finished Book One of the Elizabethan English (EE) Version 2 of the project and will soon be moving on to Book Two. I can say one thing for sure and that is that the EE version of this manual is taking its time and that is good because it means I should be able to do a reasonable job at it. It is most definitely a "process" thing.

1. Remove heading and change it to the standard font and centre it.
2. Read through and edit the section changing the language or at least the words in to words closer to the ones of the period.
3. Formatting 1. Change the font of the entire section to a more period one. Insert Drop Cap for the first letter of the section and make sure the formatting is good. Add headers where required.
4. Ligatures. These are jointed characters used in the original formats of the printed word in the Elizabethan period, the addition of these adds to the "flavour" of the printing present.
5. Formatting 2. Alignment, making sure that the ends of the lines are at least close to even, this involves hyphenation. Follow-on words from the end of each page to the beginning of the next page. These are a feature of many documents of the period.

So, 5 steps to transferring the PDE to the EE versions. Most of this has to be done manually as the formatting is a little tricky and there are some font issues. In essence this is making it so the EE version is taking quite a bit longer than I thought, hence my gap in posting. I am hoping that I will at least have all the singular sections done by the end of the month, and hopefully even a completed version, but that will be a "wait and see" sort of thing.

Cheers,

Henry.

EE Version 2 - Progress Update - 9 February 2014

Greetings,

This will no doubt be a very short update. I have completed Version 2 of the PDE version of the manual and sent it off to be read and comments given back. I have also started on Version 2 of the EE version of the manual, and one thing is for sure and that it is going to take quite a bit longer than the PDE version. The PDE version was simply adding some headings, images and fixing some of the wording, the EE version is quite a bit more in-depth than that.

The language is the first part of the process and that is to turn the language backward to its earlier form. This requires reading through the manual and re-wording modern expressions into Elizabethan ones. It also involves removing modern terms and expressions and replacing them with Elizabethan ones. This only one place where the concept of "divergence" really comes into play. I would not be surprised if there is a Version 3 involving further changes to the language.

The next part is formatting. For the modern version that meant adding sub-headings and shortening paragraphs. For this Elizabethan version it means adding drop cap letters for the beginning of each section, ensuring that each page is justified correctly so that the ends of the lines are at least close to lining up, making sure that the follow-on words are present at the end of each page where it is required, and working on the headers to make sure that they are correct. Part of the formatting is changing the font, and that is another question altogether.

It is not just merely changing the font from a modern font to an Elizabethan looking font. There is also making sure that the sizing is correct for the page as compared to headings and footers and so forth. It is also adding ligatures where they are present in the font in order to change things as much as they can. I am using JSL Ancient as the primary font for changing it, unfortunately there is the missing "long s" issue, but only in a single case, in the ligatures it is present. I am hoping that the replacement is sufficient enough to cover this particular deficiency, or that I may be able to find a replacement. For the most part I am hoping that the average reader just won't notice.

There is the question of images with regard to this EE version and I have not decided yet what I will do about this. I would have to either hand-draw the images, something I am not particularly good at, or hope that I can do them electronically and give the final product the best final look. I will give this due consideration and make a decision about it later on.

The process of change from modern to Elizabethan is taking its time and I am fully expecting that this part will take some time to get right. It sure is not as easy as the PDE version and that is for sure. Updates will be written as I get to places where they are appropriate.

Cheers,

Henry.

Progress Report - 15 December 2013

Greetings,

This is another production progress report for the translation of the Present Day English fencing treatise into Elizabethan English. I have merely added to the previous update rather than just doing what I have done recently this way it has a little bit of context. I am getting closer and closer to finishing Book One, once this is finished I will be shortening the progress report.

Title Page
Epistle Dedicatory
Author's Epistle to Various Noblemen
Author's Epistle to the Gentle Reader
Book One:
Theory:
    Principles
    Time
    Distance
    Lines
    Engagement
    Practice
Practical:
    Of Wards
    Footwork
    Defense:
         Void
         Parry
         Combination

    Attack:

         Thrust

         Cut

         The Attack

    Blade Engagement

    Time:

          In Time

          Priority

          Double

          Single Time

          Counter Time

          Half-Time

     Closes and Gripes

     Reading the Opponent

     Application - Wounds

I am currently working on the Sundry Notes which is the final part of Book One. It has only three elements in it so I expect that I should be getting close to finishing Book One reasonably soon. Once I have completed this the updates will only include what I have done from Book Two rather than the entire lot. Once it is all completed, then there will be an update with the lot for Version 1.

Cheers,

Henry.

Shakespeare: The Value of the Fiction

Greetings,

There has been a great question which has caused some consternation over several years as to the identity of the writer of Shakespeare's works. This entry in the blog is not designed to give an answer to this particular riddle, or even give my own particular thoughts on the matter. What will be laid before you is approaching this question from a different point of view.

One of the first accusations with regard to Shakespeare's works is whether or not it was written by one man, or whether it was written by many writers, resulting in the question of whether it is "Shakespeare's English" or "Shakespeares' English". This is a question which historians and many others have argued. If it was written by one man, then he is truly a great man and has given us a great wealth of works. But, even if it was written by multiple authors, the result may be spread over several but still there is a lot of information and value to be gained from the works as they are.

Assuming that the works were all written by one man, the question of the man is one which has also appeared as voraciously as the question of whether it was one or several authors. Was it the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-Upon-Avon or was it Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford? These are the two great contenders for the authorship. Evidence has been presented from both points of view supporting both men. Once again, regardless of which one of these men wrote the works, the result is the same.

In essence it does not matter whether it was one author or several, the son of a glove-maker or an Earl which wrote "The works of Shakespeare", the true value is found in the volume of the work produced and in the works themselves. The plays give us many things which need to be appreciated for what they are rather than who put pen and ink to paper to produce them. The increased lexicon as a result of Shakespeare's works is of great significance as has been indicated previously. Expressions of language found in Shakespeare's works are still found in film, and even everyday speech. In close examination of the plays we find demonstrations of other cultures of the period, specifically the Italian which gives us an insight as to how society worked in that period in that culture. Even in general examination of the historical plays we find elements of the social and political workings of the day that they were written and also a perspective of historical events. All of these elements are of great use to us in the modern era.

For the most part, the question of the authorship of "The Works of Shakespeare" is more of an historical argument more designed for those who want specific answers about specific things. Regardless of who wrote the works the impact of them upon the English language and indeed the culture of English-speaking people far outweighs any argument as to the authorship of the works themselves. Indeed even if it is found that the works were not written by the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-Upon-Avon, there is still much value to be found in the fiction, and more to the point much value to be found in the works themselves.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. For all of my regular readers, the production continues. Slowly, but it does continue.

Production Commenced!

Greetings,

I have been going on with this research now for about 3 years, and for the most part, to this current date, the research has come to an end. What does this mean? No more blogs? End of the series? No actually, I think that there will be more blogs in this series as I continue to learn more about the language. For me it means something much bigger.

The bigger thing is that I have started production of my "period" manual. This is a manual based on my own acquired fencing knowledge, written in Present Day English (PDE) and then "translated" into Elizabethan English (EE). The reason for this project has already been discussed in some of my earliest posts on this blog, however, it could be useful to give a reminder.

One of the things that I have noticed studying Historical European Martial Arts is that there are a lot of practitioners who, especially in their earlier years, are afraid of going near sources of the period they are studying. For the most part this is due to fear of the language and the differences, this is even the case when discussing those manuals which are written in English, admittedly earlier versions, but still English. This project was designed to address at least part of that problem.

There are three significant treatises which were written in the 1590s: Vincentio Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books, Giacomo di Grassi's (1594) His True Arte of Defence and finally George Silver's (1599) Paradoxes of Defense. Interestingly these are written in EE, but English nonetheless. My choice was to examine EE of the 1590's in order that I could understand these manuals better, as a result "translate" a manual from PDE to EE and present them side-by-side in order that the EE may be more accessible due to the lack of "noise" between the two manuals.

"Noise" is what happens when something is translated from one language to another, and across a time period does count. This is because the person in the modern period who is translating the older text is not the author and as such does not know exactly what the author's intent was in the writing. This results in "noise" which can reduce understanding of the original and result in misinterpretations of the intent of the original author. By writing both of the manuals it is my intent to reduce this "noise" as much as I can.

I expect that this project will take some time to complete. There will no doubt be updates, and possibly even a preview of my work presented here, for those who are interested. I am expecting at least two versions if not more in order to get this as correct as I can. I am also expecting quite a few bumps and blocks in the process of this production, but I feel that the end result will be worth the effort put in.

Cheers,

Henry. 

Language Rules Based on Personal Research

Greetings,

What is presented below is my list of rules, actually more accurately conventions, for spelling and word forms in the Elizabethan language. There are some important points which must be made before this is presented in order to clarify what is presented below.

The first point is that I do understand that there is research already done on this particular subject in a more general way. However, this research is clearly focused on the specific time period, dialect and form of the language which is presented, thus I believe that in some ways this presents a clearer picture of this specific part of the language.

The second point is that all of the research presented below is based upon the words presented in my lexicon of the language rather than any external sources. What this means is that this is based on a selection of the language rather than the entirety of it. This means that the rules are more specific to the language presented in the lexicon rather than any part which is not.

The third point is that these rules are, for the most part, presented in note form rather than paragraphs about the elements. This is important as any misunderstandings must be re-read and remembered that they are based upon what is presented.

Finally it is this set of rules and the lexicon on which I will be basing the final project upon which all of the research up to this point in time is based. It is hoped that with this information a reasonably accurate representation of the Elizabethan language of the 1590's will be formed and presented.

Elizabethan Language – Own Research

Foundation

Above all rules below, phonetic spelling of word is greatest consideration, rules then phonetics. The spelling was founded in speaking the words and thus the phonetics are most considered, following this would be the rules below, most of which are founded more in the typesetting of the print than actual spelling.

Most important of all these rules apply to printed works rather than hand-written or spoken texts, hence the importance of typesetting in the rules. Of note is also that this is for the London Dialect of Elizabethan English of the decade of the 1590s.

Use of “S”

General

Capitals always stay as “S”

“s” at end of word, or before punctuation mark e.g. “abus’de”

“Significant” words begin with “s” e.g. “skil” and “skirmiſh” most likely for emphasis

Use “ſ” in middle of word, or at the beginning of the word, not generally at the end

Specific instances of use will follow

Not replaced where “s” is before “f”, i.e. “-sf”

Plurals

Simple case of the addition of “-s” to the end of the root word, very few exceptions to this rule

Plural form of “-f” to “-ves” e.g. “wolf – wolves” remains the same

Plural form of “-y” to “ies” is followed in some circumstances and not others, in some cases the “-y” remains and followed with “-es”, some of this could be due to the “i” to “y” and vice versa convention.

Possessives

Absence of apostrophe to mark ownership

Plural conventions used for the addition of “-s”

No difference between singular and plural ownership indicators

Double “S”

In most instances a double “s” will have both changed to “long s”

Some instances a double “s” the first is changed the second is not i.e. “ſs”

No clear convention as to when the change is or is not made, however it is most common when followed by “-ing” or “-ion” or “-ity” ending

More than likely a typesetting rather than spelling convention

-ness

Two common endings “-nes” and “neſſe”

Both endings may be used on the same word

Typesetting rather than spelling convention

-less

Two common endings “-les” and “leſſe”

Both endings may be used on the same word

Typesetting rather than spelling convention

“S” and “C”

Phonetic spelling, change between “s” and “c” in the spelling is not constant, it is an individual determination

Also instances of additional change in words to accommodate change in spelling e.g. “decide” to “diſcide”.

“S” and “Z”

Both interchangeable in most instances

“s” in modern may be “z” in Elizabethan or vice versa

In most instances the consideration is phonetic rather than a typesetting consideration as there is evidence of other letters changing to accommodate the letter.

“E”

Some words have an extra “e” placed on the end, only after a consonant, possibly to extend the sound of a vowel or vowels in the middle of the word, most likely a typesetting consideration

“E” and “I”

Change from “em-” to “im-” and also “en-” to “in-”, for phonetic considerations

Also evidence of no change in some words with the these beginnings

Some change of “e” and “i” in the middle of words for phonetic change, however this does not always occur, could be typesetting or phonetic cause.

“I” and “Y”

Conventions not solid for the most part, very flexible in the use of the conventions. More likely to be typesetting conventions than spelling conventions

“i” to “y” in middle of word, not always, a vowel before is common

“y” to “i” in middle of word, rare but present

“ie” to “y” at end of word, not always

“y” to “ie” at end of word, not always

“y” to “ye” at end of word, not always

“J” and “I”

“j” to “i” in the middle of words, most instances

Roman numerals – last “i” to “j”

“j” to “i” at beginning of words, most instances, especially where a capital

(more research required: not distinct due to Latin derivation)

“L”

May be doubled where single in modern spelling, applies to middle as well as the end

May be single where doubled in modern spelling, especially in cases where a plural is formed, or ending added. Cases for both middle and end of word.

“U” and “V”

“v” to “u” in the middle of a word e.g. above – aboue

“v” remains unchanged at the beginning of the word

“u” to “v” changed at the beginning of a word

“u” remains unchanged in the middle of a word

The exception is in the title of a piece in which “u” is changed to “v” in the title where it is placed in capitals of any form

“W”

Instances of “vv” instead of “w” very much interchangeable

Typesetting consideration rather than any spelling, ligature or single letter used

Verb Forms

“To Do”

Both “-s” and “-eth” forms used on words

Some verbs may use different endings

Some instances of “-est” rather than “-eth”

Both forms used, newer form is less prevalent than older form, but increasing in presence

Archaic Endings

The archaic forms of verbs are present in the language, but are increasingly losing ground to more modern forms of the words

The form of the language depends in the subject and author

As with many spellings, many of these are dependent on typesetting as much as anything else

“-ed”, “-d” and “-t”

The past tense ending “-ed” may be replaced by “-d”, “-‘d” or “-t”

In some instances it may also be replaced by “-de”

The use of “-t” is mostly phonetic following “sh”, “ch” or “k”

While mostly phonetic there is an element of typesetting consideration present in this convention

Simple addition for past tense of word

Truncated Words

Truncations otherwise unspecified below are to do with spelling conventions of words, or lack thereof in most instances rather than deliberate truncation of words for a purpose.

Use of ~

Truncation using tilde (~) is for the replacement of “n” or “m”

The previous vowel has the tilde above it.

The replacement of “n” is more common than “m”

In the case of a double “m” or “n” the vowel before has the tilde and then it is followed by a single “m” or “n” depending on the word

No definitive choice where there is more than one either “m” or “n” in the word, this is clearly more of a typesetting choice for even lines in the document than any spelling or pronunciation factors

The vowel “i” is not used for vowel for truncation, other vowels all are

The most common vowels are “e” and “o”

Truncation using tilde is used both in the middle of words and also at the end

Use of ‘

Primary truncation is the removal of “e” in “ed” words

Other words truncated, primarily removal of “e”, but also “i” or “v” in “over-“ words

“E” sometimes accompanied by consonant in removal

Primary purpose is typesetting in prose, thus little to do with pronunciation or spelling, however can be used to change pronunciation and rhythm in poems and plays

“-ered” to “-red”

The removal of “e” following a consonant with past tense use e.g. “dismembered” to “dismembred”.

In some cases an apostrophe is used, as previously indicated, but in most cases it is not

This truncation is most likely due to typesetting, but does also change pronunciation

Ending Doubles

Double consonant at end of words in some cases. Short words ending in vowels extended by doubling phonetic compatible consonant. Ending doubles are more typesetting than spelling consideration, extending words in order to keep the ends of the lines even.

I hope that this is of use to people in their own endeavours. I considered cleaning this up and presenting it better, but decided that it is better presented as it is rather than in more formal language. These are rather loose rules of the language and should be used with some knowledge of more formal rules presented in reputable sources. It is only through the examination of the language ourselves that we can really get a feel for it, rather than simply following along with rules and theories presented by others. Needless to say that I will be using the rules presented here along with research already presented to present the language in a close form to what it would have been in the period.

Cheers,

Henry.

Lexicon Update and Research Update

Greetings,

In my last post I posted a link to my newly created lexicon for the 1590s, well I have had another look through this document and made some changes, some subtle, some not so subtle. As a result there is a new version available for your interest. This newer version is available here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32538238/Lexicon%20V2.pdf This document is free to use as reference material, however it would be appreciated if due credit was given where it is due for the origination of this document as there is several years invested in it.

I have been in the process of discovering rules about the spelling of the language and how the words were used. I do realise that much of this research has already been completed for Early Modern English and also Elizabethan English, however I decided that I needed such research done for the particular time and dialect which is the focus of the study. The result of this will be some elements which are very much the same as what has already been posted here, and there will also no doubt be some areas in which there are elements which are unique to the time and dialect which has been chosen. I will probably post this new research in blocks in order to keep up to date here, however this is a consideration dependent on how the research proceeds.

This a short post merely for updating how things are proceeding in the research. I am hoping to present something more substantial soon. I dare not place a time estimate on this due to the nature of the research being conducted. I hope that the next update will be sooner rather than later.

Cheers,

Henry.

Lexicon Complete and Update

Greetings,

The Elizabethan Lexicon which I have been working on as a partner to the language project which is found here, and I have indicated is complete, or at least in its first version. If you are interested in accessing this document for your own personal use it can be accessed here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32538238/Lexicon%20V1.pdf

With this part of the project completed for the most part, at least for now, it is possible to examine the words found within the lexicon for commonalities. Through these commonalities "rules" should emerge as to the spellings of them, and also the forms of the words. These can then form "rules" which could allow for the "translation" of Modern to Elizabethan English.

As the language, as indicated in previous posts, was in a process of change these "rules" can only be very general. While these rules may only a general indication as to the form of the words of the language, it is still useful to get an overall understanding of the forms of the words and how they are constructed. Some of these rules have already been indicated in previous posts on this blog, however, I feel it is important that I do my own discovery of the rules as the ones which I have found. These rules will also be more specific to the lexicon as it is presented rather than Early Modern English or Elizabethan English, as broad background reference points.

Once I have more information with regard to these rules and their form and complexity, this will make the decision as to whether I will publish these rules as individual posts or as a single complete post. The second version of the lexicon may also include these rules as part of the reference material found within it. Needless to say, either way that it goes, some form of these rules will be found on these pages.

Cheers,

Henry.

Elizabethan Vocabulary

Greetings,

The subject of vocabulary would seem to be the next logical step in the progression and examination of the English of the Elizabethan period. Here follows the examination of this subject.

Introduction

            The vocabulary of a language determines how flexible and comprehensive the language is. The enhancement of the language through vocabulary is something that the Elizabethans were dedicated to and thus created, borrowed and even re-used words in order to increase their vocabulary. This is a discussion which is necessary in order to understand how the words were formed and where they came from which will describe some of the influences on the language and thus how it developed over time.

            This investigation will start with an overview of the vocabulary discussing the changes in the language and also how the words may differ from our own. The aim of this is to provide a general overview of the approach of Elizabethans to the vocabulary and also make a small comparison to our own laying the foundation for the following subjects. Glossaries discuss different and difficult words the two must be defined so that the difference between the two types of words can be clearly seen and understood, this is once again for the modern reader to understand the Elizabethan’s language. These must also be compared to some of their modern counter-parts for better understanding of the differences in meanings.

            With the introduction for the modern researcher established it is then possible to examine the vocabulary of the Elizabethans and where it came from. The first place is to examine native words and how they came about as the formed the foundation of the vocabulary. These were enhanced by new words created through methods which will be described in some detail for a complete explanation. The investigation of word formation presents the origins of the words and how the vocabulary and the words changed.

            Loan words are those which come from other languages and were inserted into the language, for the most part. Some were created within the language, but these are the ones which were for the most part borrowed to fulfil particular roles. They were not always popular and they did not always survive as will be demonstrated. The introduction of words and the changes in the language also resulted in some changes in meaning of words, this is especially important to understand for the modern reader.

            The vocabulary of the language is what allows the users of the language to express themselves. The words from the vocabulary are the building blocks of the language and determine what people can describe and talk about. This is important for the understanding of the language and the changes in the vocabulary can have a marked change upon the language itself as changes in vocabulary have demonstrated in the modern world.

Vocabulary Overview

            The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. For the most part the collection of the vocabulary of a language comes from the creation of words or the borrowing of words from other languages. These words are specific, but for the most part not collected in any recognised manner. “Vocabulary is the area of language least subject to generalization. … the learning of vocabulary is largely ad hoc and of indefinite duration.” (Crystal, 2008:146). What this means is that words are plugged into the language as they are required to fulfil a role which the language otherwise could not fill. With the great expanse in knowledge in the Renaissance period, it is of little surprise that the English language was subject to extreme growth.

“the Early Modern English period is marked by an unprecedented lexical growth. It is achieved both by extensive borrowing from other languages and by exploiting native resources by means of word-formation.” (Lass, 1999:332)

            The subjects of borrowing and word-formation are ones which will be discussed in some detail further along in this investigation. The language expanded dramatically, which makes the study of the vocabulary in this period exciting. For the modern reader it is important to realise that while there are words which are very familiar if not the same as the modern words, they were not necessarily used in the same way (Crystal, 2008:98). This is where the idea of different and difficult words emerges in the discussion.

Easy, Different and Difficult

            The first time a modern reader comes upon the language of the Elizabethan period, or indeed any period before their own, it can be a little daunting as the language looks very different. For most people this will happen in high school when they are confronted with Shakespeare. In order to assist the modern reader researchers have compiled glossaries. These glossaries focus on difficult and different words, difficult and different are not the same, some words are unused and others are the same words with different meanings (Crystal, 2008:146).

            In order to be clear about this, classification is required of the words in order to better understand them and see how they are organised. There are some words which are found in the Elizabethan texts which are familiar if not used frequently in modern speech, these are easy words; these are often used in a special context, or are very familiar e.g. oft, perchance, morrow (Crystal, 2008:147). These words sometimes appear in the glossaries but not often.

            It is the difficult and different words which appear in the glossaries the most, and it is useful to know the difference between the two. Difficult words are “words where it is not possible to deduce from their form what they might mean” (Crystal, 2008:152). These are often those which come from different languages or are situational or require previous knowledge, one example of such previous knowledge is classical study (Crystal, 2008:147). Without such previous knowledge it can be very difficult to determine the meaning of the word and this makes them difficult. In general, difficult words are difficult either because it was an Elizabethan usage no longer current or because it would pose a problem to a modern readership despite its continued currency.” (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii).

            Different words are often simply different. They have a similar form as the modern word but a different meaning was attached to them in the Elizabethan period. In some cases, some words different due to extra syllable for metre – for the effect of verse and keeping meaning of word (Crystal, 2008:150). This changes the pronunciation of the word and sometimes the spelling, but the same meaning is kept. Further, some words of the period are still used in the modern period but their meaning has changed over time which is different to their original (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii), this makes them different.

In the Elizabethan period the language was extremely malleable and the writers of the period used the words which they saw fit at the time. In cases these usages were different to how they would be used in the modern period and this makes them sometimes difficult to understand, simply because they have a different use. Some words were converted from other forms to verbs for example and others simply assembled to suit the situation (Crystal, 2008:148).

With the change in meaning of words the modern researcher and reader needs to be careful about the meaning derived. There are false friends (faux amis) where the modern meaning is different from the period meaning, these are familiar words which actually are not, the context of the word is important for definition (Crystal, 2008:156). The reader, in order to gain the correct understanding of the language needs to approach the language with some care and understanding in order to appreciate and gain a true understanding of the language.

            The meaning of words can and often do change over time. This is a prime example of the reason why the old words taken from the previous language were not as readily accepted as the new words, something discussed further along. There are many examples of this which can be pointed out one example is “politician”. The word politician comes from politic which means to be “shrewd” over time it gradually gained a double-meaning as “crafty” thus the word is left with a two-faced meaning of the word, one describing political office and the other describing the person as a “schemer” (Gooden, 2009:78). In the research of language, especially languages of the past the reader and investigator both need to be careful of this.

Learning the Vocabulary

            In learning the language of the Elizabethan period a person must sit back and have a look at exactly what they are embarking upon. The language of the period and indeed toward the end when Shakespeare was beginning to make his mark was very similar to the modern language; the idea of perspective is important (Crystal, 2008:175).

In order to achieve this correct perspective it is important to take into account the history of the word, even more so for its correct meaning (Crystal, 2008:157). The historical perspective of the language is important as the history which surrounds the language has a huge effect upon the language. This is even more important as the language of the period was not the same for all as it was going through changes.

“When we study Shakespeare’s vocabulary, it is important to recognize that his period off the language – as all other periods – is not linguistically homogeneous.” (Crystal, 2008:159)

            The process of learning the Elizabethan vocabulary and indeed the language as well is the same as learning any foreign language (Crystal, 2008:152). The past is a foreign place and as such needs to be treated as such including the language, and just as with learning a foreign language it needs to be approached with formality and regularity. Limited, spaced learning makes it difficult to build up intuition about “normal” vocabulary of Early Modern English (Crystal, 2008:152). Familiarity with the language and the words makes them easier to understand.

            In the investigation of the words, it is best to discover and investigate words as they are come across, this allows for better comprehension, they are best learnt in contextual situation (Crystal, 2008:153). What this means is that the words should be identified and researched as they are found rather than noted and investigated later on. The context of the word is very important as it gives determination to the meaning of the word. The associations between word assist with their comprehension such as antonyms, hyponymy (inclusion), synonymy, collocation (specific association), semantic fields (Crystal, 2008:154).

            The most frequent case is a difficult word in amongst words which are reasonably familiar; however this is not always the case. Clusters result in variability of comprehension, resulting in patches of difficulty (Crystal, 2008:165). These patches of difficulty can cause issues for the reader in the comprehension of the passage. However the context of the words is important and the further surrounding words can help with comprehension. It is important to read the entirety of speech/passage before worrying about difficulty in part of it (Crystal, 2008:177). The entire passage can give some direction toward the meaning of the individual words. This is a perfect example of the use of context in order to achieve comprehension. In some instances the same word will come up again and again. This can be most useful as it allows for the reading of a word in a different circumstance and thus allowing for a better understanding of the word. Words which are repeated ensure meaning established and demonstrated to be apt usage (Crystal, 2008:168).

            The approach to learning the vocabulary and indeed the language of a different period needs to be approached in the same manner as a foreign language. This needs to be methodical in process and needs to appreciate the origins of the overall text and also the individual words. The context must be used and accounted for as it is often the greatest tool the researcher will have in order to determine the meaning of words.

New Words

            New words are the way in which vocabulary expands and becomes more comprehensive. There are also cases, however in which old words are given new life and new meaning in order to fill a gap. New words are important but also old ones were given new use and meaning in change (Crystal, 2008:164). This allows the vocabulary of the language to expand in new directions. In the case of the Elizabethan vocabulary these new words combined with the old words resulted in a many and varied vocabulary.

“An influx of foreign words and a habit of creating new English words out of foreign elements made the early modern vernacular lexicon a ‘hotch-potch’ of native and alien forms.” (Mugglestone, 2006:212)

            The Elizabethan period is really located at the highest point of this influx of new words and this was only increased by writers such as Shakespeare. The expansion in the vocabulary was massive and while much of the study is focussed upon the introduction of new words, old words and those developed natively cannot be ignored.

            Words in the Elizabethan language were borrowed from other languages it is true but many were also developed at home. Words also formed in English through affixation, compounding and conversion, probably more words by these methods than borrowed (Barber, 2000:182). The formation of words through these methods will be discussed in some detail further along in the discussion. These words were developed in order to meet the challenge of an ever-changing language.

            This method of word formation was actually the dominant way in which words were introduced into the language. It is true that many foreign words were also borrowed an added to the language where native words could not fill the gaps, however this process was not totally accepted by all, based on the transparency of meaning of the native words over the borrowed ones.

“many writers and translators in the sixteenth century were against excessive foreign borrowing and promoted native means of word-formation as the basis for creating new terminology.” (Nevalainen, 2006:59)

            Shakespeare is considered by many as one of the most influential writers of his time, indeed even across the history of the English language. Shakespeare had a talent for using the language at his time in order to express what he needed and thus he was able to manipulate the language as he saw fit. “Like the English language in which he revelled, Shakespeare was a literary magpie,” (McCrum, 2010:76). He would pick and choose words from the language and use them as he felt they would fit into what he was writing at the time. Along with this ability he is credited with the invention of about 2,000 words, he did not necessarily invent them but was the first to record them (Crystal, 2010:42). The influence of Shakespeare is undeniable not only across his own period but also across the language and into the modern period.

The words Shakespeare recorded or invented, it does not really matter, filled holes for words which were not present in the language at the time and some are less obvious than others (Crystal, 2008:161). These new words were not only the work of Shakespeare but also others as well. The fact that about 10% can be credited to him in some form makes him the most prolific.

New meanings were attached to the new words and then they were merely slotted into the existing semantic network (Crystal, 2008:163). In this way the new blended in with the old giving the vocabulary of the language more room to move and the ability to express things it could not before. The coinages themselves reveal patterns of literacy or dramatic interest (Crystal, 2008:171) and thus the ability to follow the development of the language and even how the words themselves were formed as word formation is significant in the understanding of how the vocabulary was formed.

Word Formation

            Word formation is one of the most significant ways in which words are added to a vocabulary. Even in our modern language the process of word formation still introduces new words to the vocabulary, and for the Elizabethans the process was much the same. “Early Modern English is modern as fixed base forms are used in all word-formation processes.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). This means that there were fixed base forms of words and then additions were made to these words in order to create new words. However for the Elizabethans the strict controls on these formations were relaxed allowing for different words to be created.

“It is often assumed that an established word blocks the derivation from the same base of another word with the same meaning. In Early Modern English this strict economy principle was often relaxed. Synonymous operations were applied to one and the same base quite freely.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60)

            What this means is that words were developed side-by-side with the same base form resulting in the different meaning, or even with a different base resulting in the same meaning. This meant that there were words which meant the same even though the original word was different in its base form. This process allowed for the expansion of the vocabulary at a huge rate, and the process was not restricted to native words.

“In principle, word-formation does not make a basic distinction between loan words and native vocabulary in Early Modern English. Both provide material for compounding, affixation and conversion.” (Nevalainen, 2006:70)

            Compound words are those which are formed by the attachment of one word to another resulting in a new word. This process is referred to as compounding. The compound word becomes a new word in and of itself. “Compound words behave like non-compounds in that they have a form and a meaning of their own.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). These compound words could be formed of words which have different parts of speech depending on what was required by the writer at the time. Not only were there compound adjectives using a noun and an adjective, but also compound verbs consisting of a particle and a verb often with a variable meaning, either concrete or abstract, depending on the result (Nevalainen, 2006:61). This process is simply taking a word and attaching it to another, a simpler process, used in the language and in the modern is the use of prefixes and suffixes.

 “As new loan words were integrated into Early Modern English, prefixes and suffixes adopted from foreign sources came to be applied to older loan words and ultimately to the native word-stock as well. It took some time before the affixes derived from loan words established themselves. Many of them continued to be associated with borrowed lexis.” (Nevalainen, 2006:61)

            Prefixes and suffixes can alter the meaning of a word and allow the development of new words, especially where multiple additions are used. These additions need not necessarily come from the native language, as indicated above, but can be derived from other languages resulting in words different from their originals.

The process of conversion was one which Shakespeare used quite often it takes place where a words is changed from one part of speech to another, e.g. noun to verb in “lump”, and adjective to verb in “dirty” (Nevalainen, 2006:64). These conversions were a common form of word formation in the Elizabethan period. This is a simple change in the use of the word rather than a change in the word itself, making the process different and in some ways easier than other word formation processes.

New Concepts

            The Renaissance period revived much of the learning which was lost to the western world over the early medieval period. This encouraged learning and investigation into many different fields of endeavour. One thing that had to happen in order for this to be truly achieved was for the language to also catch up with the latest concepts. The solution to this problem was to increase the vocabulary.

“When new concepts need to be named, borrowing and word-formation are not the only solutions – an existing word can also undergo a change of meaning.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65)

            Old words were also used to explain new concepts through a change of meaning in the word. These changes in the words allowed the vocabulary to be expanded to include new concepts. These changes in meaning were widespread and connected not only to scientific advancements but also other aspects of the culture. “Early Modern English semantic changes can often be related to the social and cultural developments of the time.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65). These changes in meaning in the words is one of the reasons why the modern reader may have issues with reading and understanding what an author is discussing as the word written may not have the same meaning now as it did when it was written. In order to achieve understanding the reader needs to appreciate the context and understand what the author is indicating.

“Meaning generalisations also took place with many specialist terms in Early Modern English,” e.g. “humour” being physiological, disposition and modern understanding of amusement dependent on context (Nevalainen, 2006:66)

Loan Words 

“The focus of interest was vocabulary. There were no words in the language to talk accurately about the new concepts, techniques, and inventions which were coming from Europe, and so writers began to borrow them. Most of the words which entered the language at the time were taken from Latin, with a good number from Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Loan words were used to fill in those gaps where native development could not, or it was felt that the native words did not adequately fill the role required. Much of the foreign words and their introduction was also as a result of the general feeling, especially of the upper classes, that foreign was more refined, expressed in the requirement of travel for education. This feeling of superiority also resulted in a dual purpose for the introduction of new words.

“two different motives for the loans: a utilitarian one (‘necessity’), because the language needs new words to say new things; and ‘mere brauerie’, which means ‘sheer ostentation’.” (Barber, 2000:179)

            The use of a foreign word instead of a native one was thought to demonstrate some sort of education on the part of the user of the word, and there were those who supported this idea. For the most part they were thinking of the increase in the vocabulary of the language rather than for other purposes, but this did not prevent the other from being the case. New words were designed to allow people to express new concepts and ideas and were this required to expand the vocabulary.

“Some writers, such as Thomas Elyot, went out of their way to find new words, in order (as they saw it) to ‘enrich’ the language. They saw their role as enabling the new learning to be brought within the reach of the English public” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            As with the introduction of anything new to an established system, there were those who would resist the changes which were taking place. In some cases it was thought that the language was already robust enough to handle the new ideas and that the new words from other places were not required, “the influx of foreign vocabulary attracted bitter criticism, and people leaped to the language’s defence.” (Crystal, 2003:60). This resistance was small and felt that the invasion of foreign words would damage the language, but as with most things the new would take over the old.

“The increase in foreign borrowings is the most distinctive linguistic sign of the Renaissance in English. Purist opinion did not, in the event, stem the influx of new words – nor has it ever,” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Latin is one of the root-languages of English and it is of little surprise that in the search for new words to explain concepts Latin would be a source for words to explain these new ideas. But Latin had a more lasting effect than the simple introduction of new words to the language. “Not only did Latin influence bring in new words; it also caused existing words to be reshaped in accordance with their real or supposed Latin etymology.” (Barber, 2000:180). Thus the language was in some cases brought back to its roots and these roots used to influence the new vocabulary and thus the language.

            What is interesting is that many words from Latin already present from earlier (Barber, 2000:178). This is a result of the monastic domination of the language previously and their attachment to Latin through religious teachings and through the Bible, being printed in Latin. However this adoption of Latin into the English language was not universal or with particular emphasis on accuracy, as some words given Latin endings others had endings omitted (Barber, 2000:179). Thus the words were manipulated to suit what was required at the time by the author. The dominance of Latin in loan words is not to say that others were not present, indeed they were and these can even be seen in the present. Latin was the main source of loan-words but certainly not the only one, words borrowed from French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch (Barber, 2000:181).

            An example of the use of two languages resulting in one word is colonel. It is from the French coronelle adopted from Italian colonello – mid-sixteenth century spelled with “r” but Italian spelling and pronunciation challenges it, for a time both were used however the final word has French pronunciation and Italian spelling (Bryson, 2009:113). Thus a single word is affected by two languages simultaneously, one for spelling and the other for pronunciation. This is a prime example of the manipulation of the language in order to suit what was required. Of course this attitude toward the language also led to some problems as well.

“The fundamental problem with neologisms was that, even granting their utility, they remained hard to interpret. … the use of ‘inkhorn’ terms … depended on knowledge of the very language they were designed to translate and supersede.” (Mugglestone, 2006:222)

            “Ink-horn” terms are those which are manipulated by the author to suit what the author required at the time from the language. Often these were so twisted that they defeated their own purpose and actually led to more misunderstanding. The term “ink-horn” comes from the idea of inserting something where it really does not belong, “inkhorn terms” were words added but not needed, used in order to seem more important, often rebelled against (Barber, 2000:180).

These new words were a problem of the language at the time as writers struggled both to express new ideas but also to do so in such a way that their use of the language would attract attention to their skills. As can be expected these new terms people argued strongly against their use, indeed as were the use of words of the old language which were used but had lost their original meaning, ‘inkhorn’ and archaism examples of extremity and departure from accustomed English (Mugglestone, 2006:229).

Old Words

            One of the alternatives, as already indicated above was the use of archaisms, or old words. These words were taken from previous forms of the language in order to fill in some holes present in the language. This was an attempt to solve the problems of the present with information from the past and with native language.

“By the sixteenth century, old words, generally culled from Chaucer and other Middle English writers, were often set forward as native alternatives to foreign borrowings and inkhorn languages as resources for enriching the language.” (Mugglestone, 2006:228)

            While these words were native as compared to the inkhorn and foreign introduction words that were being used and seen as an alternative. However, as has already been expressed old words not universally supported due to being “too distant and removed” for contemporary (Mugglestone, 2006:229). These words had been used previously and can be seen by the modern reader reading from a previous era, the language and meaning changes, thus the old words were seen as less useful and too confusing to be useful by many, especially to express new concepts.

New Words and Survival

            New words were not guaranteed their survival just because they were new. The survival of a word was dependent on its acceptance and therefore its usage. It was not enough to invent a word, but it had to become common in usage. Of course even in such a process there was room for abuse, in much the same way as a child with a new toy. New terms were used to impress, baffle and for exploration of the language, and sometimes all of the above (Gooden, 2009:75). The same can be seen in the modern language with the latest catch phrases, often used by the media.

            The invention of such new words was meant to fill in the gaps in the vocabulary where another word was not present. However, in many cases some words were created even where synonyms already present (Gooden, 2009:76). This was even the case where a new word had been created to fill in a gap in the language and then another is created for the same purpose and to fill the same gap in the language.

The survival and use of words was more instinctive than deliberate and without obvious logic (Gooden, 2009:76). Some words came to exist and be used and thus accepted into the language and others did not and without any real logical reason behind them. It could be attributed to the creator of the word and who used it but details for this are rather thin and thus the reader is left with the same absence of reason. There are many examples of words which did not survive into the modern language, cohabit [restrain], deruncinate [weed], eximious [excellent], illecebrous [delicate], suppeditate [supply], demit [send away] (Crystal, 2003:61), in the terms of the language of the time and a perfect example of the use of one of these words, these words were deruncinated from the language.

Conclusion

The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. A limited vocabulary limits the things which the language can express and with new concepts being introduced to the Elizabethans, new words had to be found to express these new concepts, thus there was a requirement for the vocabulary to expand. The result of this expansion was that the Elizabethan period saw a huge expansion in the vocabulary of the English language. Understanding this expansion and the vocabulary which resulted is essential to understanding the language.

The first part of the process of examining the vocabulary of Elizabethan English was to examine the words and attempt to isolate them into different types based on the difficulty in comparison to the modern language. This resulted in three types of words, easy, different and difficult. These are very flexible in their determination as to which category a word fits into in some instances. The vocabulary then is learnt like any other language and is a process which needs to be attended to in a systematic manner in order for the reader to gain a real understanding of the language.

In examining the vocabulary, it is the new words which are the most significant as they describe the change in the language in the period. In this process it is useful to examine how the words are formed, both from the original language and also as a result of the introduction of foreign words. Both sets of words need to be looked at as often words from the native language would be combined with those of foreign and vice versa.

The new words were designed to deal with the new concepts which the language in its original form was not ready to deal with or simply did not have the words to do so. In this process there are three roots from which the new words came. The first was as a result of word formation using the language as it was. The second was using words borrowed from foreign languages and the third was using words taken from an older form of the language in order to fill the gaps. Each of the three processes had their successes and failures. Regardless of the objections to a particular process of word formation, or its origin, each had their part to play and each gave the language words in order to express new concepts which were being introduced.

The survival of a new word was not guaranteed and, for the most part, dependent on the acceptance and thus use of the word. This acceptance was of a more instinctive nature rather than based on any particular plan. For the most part it could be claimed that the acceptance of one word over another was based on how the word fitted into the language. These new words were like new toys, bandied about and used by authors and orators alike in order for them to seem more educated. The interesting thing in this process was that words were created where they were not even needed just because they were new.

Regardless of the rhyme or reason for the creation of the words, the result was a richer, though occasionally more difficult language with the ability to express new concepts as they arose. Understanding the vocabulary of a language is part of the struggle in order to understand the language as a whole. The words found in the Elizabethan language are sometimes the same as the modern language but also are sometimes very different and the researcher needs to understand that both types exist and that the language needs to be understood for what it was understand it completely.

Bibliography

Barber, C. (2000) The English Language: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Bryson, B. (2009) Mother Tongue: The Story of the English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2^nd ed), Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Crystal, D. (2010) Evolving English: One Language, Many Voices, The British Library, London, UK

Crystal, D. and Crystal, B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion, Penguin Books, London, UK

Gooden, P. (2009) The Story of English: How the English Language Conquered the World, Quercus Publishing Plc, London, UK

Lass, R. (ed.)(1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume III: 1476 – 1776, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

McCrum, R. (2010) Globish: How the English Language Became the World’s Language, Penguin Group (Australia), Camberwell, Australia

Mugglestone, L. (ed) (2006) The Oxford History of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Nevalainen, T. (2006) An Introduction to Early Modern English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland

Smith, J. (2005) Essentials of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA

Elizabethan Orthography

Introduction

            Orthography is more than just spelling, but it is often recognised as the most significant part of the concept. As a result most of this investigation will focus on the spelling element of orthography. This discussion will relate back to the alphabet of the language as the orthography describes the use of the language. The use of the alphabet is important to the formation of words especially with regard to phonetics and pronunciation. As a result of orthography’s relationship to the alphabet the result is that some of the discoveries found in the alphabet will re-emerge in the discussion of orthography.

            Again the subject of printers will emerge as they present the highest volume representation of the language which is accessible. Indeed most of the spelling examples which are available to the reader and researcher in the current period come from printed works as hand-written ones are rare and often inaccessible. The printers will present an effect which was both positive and negative in effect, while their printed word established a standard for spelling; they also changed spellings to suit themselves.

            The discussion will proceed with a general overview of the subject of orthography and then proceed to look at the important impact of the Great Vowel Shift which altered pronunciation and as a result spelling as well. This will be followed by a more in-depth investigation of spelling and the various aspects of this which need to be taken into account. The final part of the discussion will examine what has already been hinted at, the impact of printers and typesetting on spelling.

  

General

What is orthography? Orthography is “practically synonymous with spelling, but refers more especially to the system as a whole” (Lass, 1999:33). Orthography also refers to the way in which words are formed and how this relates to issues such as phonetics and pronunciation. For the most part in this discussion it will be more focussed on spelling.

In the Early Modern Period there were two standards of orthography, a standard for scribes and professionals, second for private correspondence affected by local dialect or regional orthography (Lass, 1999:15). What this meant was that there were two different, at least, sets of spellings of words in the period. With little surprise this was bound to cause issues, especially with the spelling being so closely related to the pronunciation of words. In this all manner of variations had to be considered.

“Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the problem of the orthographical representation of variations of pronunciations became an even more important topic of discussion. Age, class and region were recognised as potential sources of variation;” (Lass, 1999:17)

            The spelling of a word tells the reader how the word should be pronounced, thus with different spellings there would be also different pronunciations. Indeed the reverse could is also true, and this is where dialect is important. Each dialect has its own idiosyncrasies which affect the pronunciation and spelling of the language. Attempts were made in order to remove such idiosyncrasies, and there is evidence of similar orthography present c.1570 and further along, but due to various idiosyncrasies it failed to take hold, but attempt was made (Lass, 1999:26ff). This was evidence of the standardisation of the language, or at least a beginning attempt at such a process. The attempt at standardisation through orthography was influenced by a process which was already in the process from the beginning of the Early Modern Period.

Great Vowel Shift

“Some scholars date the beginning of the Early Modern English period from the effects of the Great Vowel Shift (GVS), a series of sound changes affecting the quality of all Middle English long vowels.” (Nevalainen, 2006:7)

Great Vowel Shift occurred in the Middle English period and resulted in changes in the pronunciation and use of vowels in the English language indeed converting more to a language of its own rather than heavily based upon either French or Latin as it had been previously influenced.  The Elizabethan period was toward the end of the Early Modern English period, meaning that this process had for the most part been completed. The spelling of the Elizabethan period is more reflected in the Modern English due to the completion of this process. Thus much of what is found in Middle English seems to be foreign.

“Present-day English spelling does not reflect the outcome of the sound change because the principles of spelling conventions had largely been fixed before the chain shift was completed.” (Nevalainen, 2006:7)

            The Great Vowel Shift is significant for the Elizabethan period in that it demonstrates the willingness to use language and experiment with how it should sound for the people of the period. This phenomenon also demonstrates the beginning of the language establishing itself as significant and as a language in and of itself. It could even be claimed that this shift was one of the prompts for the examination and experimentation with the language.

Spelling

“it is true to say that most people throughout much of the history of the English language have seemed remarkably unconcerned about niceties of spelling” (Bryson, 2009:116)

            The Elizabethans were no exception in this particular instance. The spelling in the Elizabethan period was a mess (Crystal, 2008:58). There were no real rules established for correct spelling of words during the period and people more or less spelt words as they felt they sounded. It is actually the pronunciation of the words that became the key to establishing a standardised spelling, “we may be pretty confident from spelling evidence or other descriptions that a particular pronunciation was emerging or increasing in the period,” (Mugglestone, 2006:154)

            This pronunciation is directly related to the dialect which is being spoken and while it is a subject which fills an examination of its own, as a dialect becomes more dominant in an area, and thus the pronunciation so too does the spelling move in the same direction. One of the great pressures which assisted this particular process was that of printing which was focussed, for the most part in London, thus as the dialect of London dominates through printing so the language becomes to become more regular.

“throughout the early modern period, English is becoming more familiar to the modern eye, as spelling … becomes more regular, encouraged by the commercial pressures accompanying the introduction and spread of printing.” (Mugglestone, 2006:150)

            The important point here is that it is becoming more regular, the standardised forms of spelling which we are so familiar with in Modern English were an advent of a period beyond the Elizabethan. Even in the time of the great bard Shakespeare, spelling still had not established itself in any form of standard. In the period variations in spelling were something which were expected and part and parcel of the way things were.

“there was no system of standardized spelling at the time he [Shakespeare] was writing; the concept of ‘correct spelling’, with its associated social sanctions, did not clearly emerge until the eighteenth century.” (Crystal, 2008:31)

            What does need to be noted is that even in the process of regularisation the variations in spelling have not disappeared from the language by the end of the Elizabethan period. Thus the idea of the ‘correct spelling’ of a word in the Elizabethan, aside from a vaguely phonetic orientation is essentially absent. While this is the case the words did begin to tend toward a standard and many words of the period can be found which are spelt the same way as in the modern language (Crystal, 2008:60).

            The process of change is something which has to occur for a reason and these reasons are primarily influenced from within and from without, either separately or in combination. In the case of Elizabethan English it was a combination of influences from within and without which would affect the spelling of the words in the language. Several factors influenced the spelling in Elizabethan English: the influence of French on Old English (OE), continental printers bring spellings with them, new foreign words introduced into the language, pronunciation shift in spelling, and finally the influence of spelling reformers (Crystal, 2008:58).

            Some of these factors have already been addressed previously, what needs to be noted is that it is the combination of these influences which makes the result rather than any one individual influence. Locally it was the influence of the reformers attempts to formalise the language and also the printers which had the greatest effect on the language.

“authoritative norms of spelling in English only appear in the practices of printers in the sixteenth century, alongside the writings of the orthoepists and spelling reformers such as Hart and Cheke.” (Mugglestone, 2006:136)

            With the general ideas about spelling and its background addressed, it is possible to address some of the specific spelling idiosyncrasies of the period. These idiosyncrasies allow the reader to approach the language with some very general rules to follow in the understanding of the language. Indeed it is useful to look at the language in comparison to the modern. In reality there are five processes which mark 80% of the difference between the languages: 1. Addition of final “e” (againe); 2. Apostrophe used to replace letter “e” (arm’d); 3. “ie” instead of “y” at end of word (busie); 4. Double instead of single consonants; and 5. use of “ie” or “ee” for phonetic “ee” (neere) (Crystal, 2008:61). Each one of these differences can be related to either typesetting or phonetic reasons. The double consonant had a purpose for being used.

“The usual way of marking a short vowel was to double the following consonant … But a tendency had also emerged to add a final e as well – thus producing such forms as fitte, hadde, sette, and gette.” (Crystal, 2008:60)

            The differences in spelling are related closely with how the alphabet is used and thus the positions of letters in words resulting in differing spelling, even if the different spelling has the same phonetic result. The additional “-e” which appears on some words in Elizabethan texts had at least two reasons, “In EModE, it became generally conventional to distinguish the historically long vowel by adding –e,” (Smith, 2005:126). To present a long vowel is only one reason that the addition was made, there was also a printer’s reason as well, the final “–e” was added for justification of type or decoration (Smith, 2005:126). This is an issue which will be addressed below. The other changes where letters changed but not the phonetic spelling of the word are more and issue with the alphabet rather than the actual spelling. For the most part “u” and “v”, and “i” and “j” were interchangeable (Crystal, 2008:44). This affected the spelling but not the pronunciation. Even in the spelling of personal names there is variation present.

            One of the places where it would be expected that spelling would be an important factor is in the name of the individual and their family. In actual cases in the Elizabethan period this does not seem to be the case. In this instance Shakespeare will be used as an example of this. “More than eighty spellings of Shakespeare’s name have been found,” (Bryson, 2009:116). It could be considered a little self-destructive to have so many different spellings of a name especially if you are, or wanted to be a public figure as was the case with Shakespeare. Even in the modern world attempting to determine the correct spelling of a person’s name through their signature would be foolish.

“a person’s signature, whether he be an Elizabethan playwright or a modern orthodontist, is about the least reliable way of determining how he spells his name.” (Bryson, 2009:116)

            However, in this particular example it was not only in his signature that his name was spelt in various different ways. The name also appeared differently in print depending on who published it and the original source material. This reflects the nature of spelling in the Elizabethan period being fundamentally unestablished.

Elision, the removal of letter or reduction in the spelling of a word was common in Shakespearean English, more so than in Modern English. Most of these were quite common though there are more unexpected ones also (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:146). Elision appears in print and in hand-written documents and presents a blending of words together, in the case of printers it would have been to save space, for the average writer it would have served a similar purpose as well as reducing the amount written, this shortening of words and blending using deletion common in period, in some interesting variants (Lass, 1999:179). Elision is one of the examples which can be seen where the hand-written and the printed used a technique in order to save space, however the printers had more tools at their disposal to achieve their end.

Printers and Typesetting

            The printing press and those who operated them had a surprisingly large effect upon the spelling of words. It was through the printing press that documents became public and as a result the printing press enabled spelling to become more uniform (Bryson, 2009:118). This was because the spellings were put into the public eye where they would be recognised and used as they were printed. It was not just the printer’s spelling of words that changed things, the actual printing process also had an effect, typesetting and letter form also changes spelling of words (Crystal, 2008:34). In some instances this would change the spelling of the word from the original as the author had written them, for the modern researcher, this is something that has to be taken into account.

“Students of Shakespeare’s language need to be aware of the layers of uncertainty surrounding the texts we have available, and understand the bibliographic variables involved,” (Crystal, 2008:40)

            In the case of the printers themselves choices had to be made as to how the work was to be presented, and thus there had to be considerations about the spelling of words in the final print. Simply following the author’s spelling was one option, but as there was so many variations in spelling at the time, a choice had to be made about the spelling of words, ideographic, logographic or phonetic spelling (Lass, 1999:16). This was further complicated in that most of the printers came from other nations and thus English was not their first language, resulting in spelling issues.

            Even with the issues present the fact that attempts were being made to formalise or at least standardise the spelling of words is significant, “it appears that, in general, printers of the later sixteenth century were making some attempts at both regularity and consistency.” (Lass, 1999:27). This would inspire the reformers at the same time to work on the standardisation of the language, not just in spelling but also in grammar and punctuation. Even with these inspired individuals it would still be a long time before the need or want of a standard spelling would emerge. “In general, however, printers of the early sixteenth century demonstrate little obvious interest in working towards a standard orthography.” (Lass, 1999:25).

            In the case of printers it was more important for them to present the work well so that the material would be saleable. For them it was more of a financial consideration more than any consideration of correct spelling. This was even more important for works such as plays which would have to be performed after being printed and thus the spelling affected pronunciation and thus presentation, “The ‘correct’ relationship between the spoken and the written word was an issue which occupied printers and grammarians alike;” (Lass, 1999:18).

            Even with the need for the presentation of the words correctly in order that they could be pronounced and thus presented correctly, there was still a financial issue which hovered over the printers’ heads, along with one of presentation. The idea of full-justification so that all the ends of the lines lined up was one which was an obsession of printers, this combined with the fact that such measures would result in less paper used, thus making the work cheaper meant that they developed space saving measures for typesetting (Crystal, 2008:53).

            There are many examples of these space-saving techniques, some which would have an effect on spelling and others which would not. Some even appear in the modern language, a perfect example of this is logograms, symbols standing for words, “&” for and, &c for et cetera or for things which are assumed knowledge (Crystal, 2008:55). While not so commonly used in normal texts they do appear in the modern language. Assumed knowledge was an area in which the printers identified as a place to save space in the printing and typesetting, thus abbreviations were used for money and titles for example (Crystal, 2008:55). While these did not have a great effect on spelling their presence is significant. The effect of printers and their typesetting measures should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

            While the focus of this investigation has been on spelling, it is important to remember that orthography is much more than that. It is the formation of the words also and this is based on phonetic principles due to the pronunciation of the words. The result of this is that this discussion has focussed on several different areas which affected the spelling of words in the Elizabethan period.

            The Great Vowel Shift marked the end of the Middle English period and the presentation of Early Modern English. This is significant in that it describes how the language began to be recognised for itself. This is significant for Elizabethan English in that this process was well and truly complete by that period resulting in the language being much more refined than it could have been, not complete but more refined.

            Spelling is something which is very vague in the Elizabethan period and much of the spelling was still up to the person who was writing at the time. There were efforts made to standardise the language and some recognisable patterns which can be used to better understand the language and its spelling. These form a foundation for relating the language to our own where differences are present. Even with these differences present there are many words which are spelt the same as they are in the modern world.

            The impact of printers can be seen in both a positive and negative light. The printing of the words enabled some standardisation of some spelling practices. However, the printers themselves were not always so fluent in the language in order to understand the effect that they had on the language. This resulted in some spellings which were not so close to the original text as they might have been. For the modern researcher, who is for the most part reliant on printed works, this effect is something that needs to be taken into account in the study of the language.

            Spelling is something that cannot be ignored in the study of a language regardless of its age or its origin. The spelling of words is related to their pronunciation and the formation of the words and thus is extremely significant. It is so closely related to the alphabet which is used and how they are used that it is often difficult to separate the two subjects. In the case of Elizabethan English there are many good examples of the language present in many formats, and the only real way to understand the formation of the words is to read them in as close to their original format as possible.

Bibliography

Bryson, B. (2009) Mother Tongue: The Story of the English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK

Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Crystal, D. and Crystal, B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion, Penguin Books, London, 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

Nevalainen, T. (2006) An Introduction to Early Modern English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland

Smith, J. (2005) Essentials of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA