Live data from Hacker News

Letter of Recommendation: Old English

nytimes.com

21–22 of 22 posts

Re: Letter of Recommendation: Old English

#21
The grammar of modern English is its strength. Its spelling is its curse.

When I first started learning Russian I couldn't believe how easy it was. Once I could hear and pronounce the differences between ы / и and ш / щ / ж I could guess how to spell or pronounce a word and I'd be right like 90% of the time. I don't even hit that with English words I know, but rarely use.

But the ridiculous spelling situation in English is caused by the same thing that lead to it becoming an analytical language with all these helper words in the first place: It's a disastrous mismash of at least 4 different languages.

Our grammar couldn't grow to handle the complexity. In a Bayesian free energy sense, the complexity got pushed into the language instead. But this actually makes English much easier to use for commerce because partial speakers can stumble word to word without having to think it all out first. It's a smoother learning curve.

With Russian it's the opposite. The grammar is how the words all apply to each other, so the word order is very flexible. Instead it's used to indicate emphasis, which is why Russians can sound kinda displeased when they talk. Well, one of the reasons why, anyway. It's why their literature is so great. We have to do all these gymnastics to avoid using italics to indicate emphasis, whereas it just falls out naturally.[0]

Longterm life goal is to get to at least a strong B1 / weak B2 with Russian and to read the classics slowly. Right now I'm stuck with side-by-side English-Russian short stories.

[0] Though our language does have the advantage of a huge vocabulary, so though our literature might not be quite as good as Russian it's still pretty great.

Re: Letter of Recommendation: Old English

#22
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I thought ð was voiced in old english, but it's been a very long time since I tried to learn it. I do recall that ð was voiced in the old norse that I was taught in college. It probably doesn't matter too much since you don't have an old englishman to speak to.

Both used to refer to the same sound (the first sound of thing), which mutated into what we have today (as in the), in part due to surrounding sounds (note, for example, that words ending in th are soft/unvoiced). The presence of two different characters has something to do with the integration of Latin and runic alphabets, but the choice of which was used isn't clear to me.

I dug up my old norse text* and thought I'd share the relevant details in case someone finds it interesting (this is Old Norse, not Old English):

p.266 > Of these additional letters þ and ð were borrowed from Old English. The rune þ was known already, but its use in manuscript came from England.

p.268 > þ in the oldest Icelandic manuscripts was used both for the voiceless sound of th in English thin and the voiced sound in then. About 1225 ð was introduced, and gradually þ came to be used only initially, and ð in other positions. þ then represented only the voiceless sound, while ð, except when following a voiceless consonant (rare, as ð then usually became t) was voiced, as in faðir, við.

This is where I got the impression that ð is voiced.

*: An Introduction to Old Norse, E.V. Gordon, Oxford Univ. Press.

Post reply on HN