3 ms·

One of my favorite fun facts about Anglo-Saxon education is that they had an alphabet that ended with "&" which they called "per se and" meaning "(the character

One of my favorite fun facts about Anglo-Saxon education is that they had an alphabet that ended with "&" which they called "per se and" meaning "(the character) & by itself (is the word) and". Since it was that the end, they would say "and per se and" which became "ampersand" over time. Moreover, the "&" glyph evolved from the Latin "et" (meaning "and"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand

sdrg822 5y ago
Just a slight comment - "&" was indeed called "and" (not "per se"), but in reading the alphabet, it was confusing to say "and and." To clear up confusion, one could say "and per se and," which was smooshed to become "ampersand." "per se" was used for letters that could also be words "in themselves"
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Just a slight comment - "&" was indeed called "and" (not "per se") Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was only in reading the alphabet. > but in reading the alphabet, it was confusing to say "and and." To clear up confusion, one could say "and per se and," I'm not sure if this is quite right. Per the above wikipedia link: > Traditionally, when reciting the alphabet in English-speaking schools, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself ("A", "I", and, "O") was repeated with the Latin expression per se ('by itself'), as in "A per se A". It seems that it wasn't about & being at the end of the alphabet after all, but rather that it was a logogram that could be used as a standalone word? Or maybe "because it was at the end of the alphabet" meant that the "per se" convention was uniquely useful for &, and thus it survived longer than "I per se I" and "O per se O"?
  - sdrg822 5y ago
    Good points!
tomsto 5y ago
It’s a fun fact but I’d challenge whether it was the case in Anglo-Saxon education. Do you have a source? The Anglo-Saxons definitely had an early ampersand. I don’t know of any source where they give it a name. It’s still plausible they recited the alphabet in this way. But the practice of reciting ‘and, per se, and’ is only attested in England and the US in the 19th century as far as I’m aware, and that’s where the corruption came from.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I heard it on History of English Podcast, but I might be misremembering. I suppose it was probably post-1066; not sure what the bounds on "Anglo-Saxon" are.

sdrg822 5y ago

Just a slight comment - "&" was indeed called "and" (not "per se"), but in reading the alphabet, it was confusing to say "and and." To clear up confusion, one could say "and per se and," which was smooshed to become "ampersand." "per se" was used for letters that could also be words "in themselves"

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Just a slight comment - "&" was indeed called "and" (not "per se") Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was only in reading the alphabet. > but in reading the alphabet, it was confusing to say "and and." To clear up confusion, one could say "and per se and," I'm not sure if this is quite right. Per the above wikipedia link: > Traditionally, when reciting the alphabet in English-speaking schools, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself ("A", "I", and, "O") was repeated with the Latin expression per se ('by itself'), as in "A per se A". It seems that it wasn't about & being at the end of the alphabet after all, but rather that it was a logogram that could be used as a standalone word? Or maybe "because it was at the end of the alphabet" meant that the "per se" convention was uniquely useful for &, and thus it survived longer than "I per se I" and "O per se O"?
- sdrg822 5y ago
  Good points!

tomsto 5y ago

It’s a fun fact but I’d challenge whether it was the case in Anglo-Saxon education. Do you have a source? The Anglo-Saxons definitely had an early ampersand. I don’t know of any source where they give it a name. It’s still plausible they recited the alphabet in this way. But the practice of reciting ‘and, per se, and’ is only attested in England and the US in the 19th century as far as I’m aware, and that’s where the corruption came from.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I heard it on History of English Podcast, but I might be misremembering. I suppose it was probably post-1066; not sure what the bounds on "Anglo-Saxon" are.