4 ms·

The whole thing made me think of "A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language" http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm htt

The whole thing made me think of "A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language" http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm

hyperpape 9y ago
To the best of my knowledge, that's not a joke, even though I assumed it was the first time I read it. Mark Twain believed in spelling reform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...). But I find claims that he didn't write it: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm
Avshalom 9y ago
Though of course 'th' should be replace by 'y' not 'x', which has historic precedent.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not actually true. It’s a common misconception that gave us fake pseudoarchaic old English like “ye olde whatever”. That comes due to the confusion of the old thorn character Þ or þ which got all mangled and misread.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    pronouncing it as a vowel when it was supposed to be a 'th' is psuedoarchiac, spelling/typesetting 'th' as 'y' is a kludge with precedent though.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      In the sense that early printing presses didn’t have a thorn character, yes. But it was an incorrect substitution then, and still would be now.
      - groovy2shoes 9y ago
        I've been studying paleography for about a year now, and I really don't find this to be true. This seems to be a common story, one that I've heard before and one which makes plenty of sense, but also one which seems to be false. Certainly, the use of <y> in place of <þ> for certain common abbreviations would've become most common in the early days of the printing press—not because presses couldn't have a thorn character, but because it didn't make sense to spend resources making one if it wasn't necessary. However, the substitution of <y> for <þ> in scribal abbreviations started happening in English manuscripts even before the introduction of the printing press in England. In the most common scripts at the time (cursiva anglicana and later bastarda anglicana), <y> and <þ> were already very similar (the only difference being which of the two strokes had the descender—both letters have a closed bowl in these scripts), so similar that it was common in bookhands to write a small dot above <y> to aid the reader even when <þ> was still visually distinct. You can see this clearly in [1], written c. 1399. Use of either character to represent <th> was already becoming quite rare in the late Middle English period, and remained in use almost exclusively as a scribal shorthand; it's not uncommon to encounter manuscripts in which <þ> and <th> are mixed freely. I can't say for certain why it is that <y> started to be substituted for <þ> in manuscripts. Obviously in the common hands of the time they're visually very similar, yet I'd imagine anyone who'd been educated as a scribe would be able to spot and write the difference. Perhaps it was a stylistic choice. But it did happen: you can see an example at [2]. This document was written c. 1445. Gutenberg's printing press is thought to have been invented at this time, but it wouldn't arrive in England until Caxton set one up c. 1476. It seems very unlikely to me that the printing press had anything to do with the initial substitution, though I'd imagine that the press was a major nail in thorn's coffin. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessio_Amantis#/media/File:Palaeography_(Quaritch)_plate15.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessio_Amantis#/media/File:... [2]: http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/examples/chancery6.htm http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/examples/chancery6... (both of these documents are written in a bastarda anglicana)
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        I’ve heard similar objections but the general consensus from what I’ve read still seems to lean to printing being the primary cause. That said, it’s rarely that black & white so it’s quite possible it’s a combination of everything.

hyperpape 9y ago

To the best of my knowledge, that's not a joke, even though I assumed it was the first time I read it. Mark Twain believed in spelling reform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...). But I find claims that he didn't write it: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm

Avshalom 9y ago

Though of course 'th' should be replace by 'y' not 'x', which has historic precedent.

abritinthebay 9y ago
Not actually true. It’s a common misconception that gave us fake pseudoarchaic old English like “ye olde whatever”. That comes due to the confusion of the old thorn character Þ or þ which got all mangled and misread.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  pronouncing it as a vowel when it was supposed to be a 'th' is psuedoarchiac, spelling/typesetting 'th' as 'y' is a kludge with precedent though.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    In the sense that early printing presses didn’t have a thorn character, yes. But it was an incorrect substitution then, and still would be now.
    - groovy2shoes 9y ago
      I've been studying paleography for about a year now, and I really don't find this to be true. This seems to be a common story, one that I've heard before and one which makes plenty of sense, but also one which seems to be false. Certainly, the use of <y> in place of <þ> for certain common abbreviations would've become most common in the early days of the printing press—not because presses couldn't have a thorn character, but because it didn't make sense to spend resources making one if it wasn't necessary. However, the substitution of <y> for <þ> in scribal abbreviations started happening in English manuscripts even before the introduction of the printing press in England. In the most common scripts at the time (cursiva anglicana and later bastarda anglicana), <y> and <þ> were already very similar (the only difference being which of the two strokes had the descender—both letters have a closed bowl in these scripts), so similar that it was common in bookhands to write a small dot above <y> to aid the reader even when <þ> was still visually distinct. You can see this clearly in [1], written c. 1399. Use of either character to represent <th> was already becoming quite rare in the late Middle English period, and remained in use almost exclusively as a scribal shorthand; it's not uncommon to encounter manuscripts in which <þ> and <th> are mixed freely. I can't say for certain why it is that <y> started to be substituted for <þ> in manuscripts. Obviously in the common hands of the time they're visually very similar, yet I'd imagine anyone who'd been educated as a scribe would be able to spot and write the difference. Perhaps it was a stylistic choice. But it did happen: you can see an example at [2]. This document was written c. 1445. Gutenberg's printing press is thought to have been invented at this time, but it wouldn't arrive in England until Caxton set one up c. 1476. It seems very unlikely to me that the printing press had anything to do with the initial substitution, though I'd imagine that the press was a major nail in thorn's coffin. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessio_Amantis#/media/File:Palaeography_(Quaritch)_plate15.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessio_Amantis#/media/File:... [2]: http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/examples/chancery6.htm http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/examples/chancery6... (both of these documents are written in a bastarda anglicana)
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        I’ve heard similar objections but the general consensus from what I’ve read still seems to lean to printing being the primary cause. That said, it’s rarely that black & white so it’s quite possible it’s a combination of everything.