4 ms·
> If anything, except for spelling mistakes like syd vs. syde, I think that's actually more consistent than modern English. I.e. I'd say syd for side is perfect
by kevin_b_er 3y ago
> If anything, except for spelling mistakes like syd vs. syde, I think that's actually more consistent than modern English. I.e. I'd say syd for side is perfect. A y by itself makes the "why" sound. So syd is exactly how I'd write it if I was told to write it just from hearing the word once and knowing the alphabet.
Because it used to be pronounced with the e, not unlike Seite, but has long since been dropped. In the 1300s, in the time of Chaucer and The Canterbury Tales, this would've been pronounced with the trailing e.
- tharkun__ 3y agoThat is awesome info! Very interesting that English used to be more like German in that regard then, i.e. being able to actually kinda write things like you say them (or vice versa). Do you know if this is more of an exceptional case or was it common for many words?
- kevin_b_er 3y agoI'm no expert on the subject, but I'm to understand things were somewhat cleaner in the past. A critical problem is that, like many languages, English's pronunciation shifted over the years, but the spelling did not. In truth, I think the spelling was somewhat unstable. It was somewhat subjective back then. But the spelling became exceptionally bad after the printing press with movable type (i.e. Gutenberg's printing press). The printers decided for themselves on certain spellings and the spellings really froze in place based on the choices the printers made. This was also the period of rapid changes in pronunciation, particularly vowels. But English never really had a spelling reform except Webster's small one in early USA. And yet the spelling was locked in place. Whoops!