The use of silent letters and the common non-phonetic spelling in English I mean. I always assumed it was because of the influence of French but I've never asked about it.
Is it because of French?
Well,
if it's silent 'h' then sometimes it is French (cf. honest, herb, etc)
otherwise, silent letters are not attributed to French.
take for instance silent 'k' and 'g'
"knee"
"gnaw"
those fell out due to shortening the first "syllable"
others like 'gh' (where it is truly silent, not as in "laugh") fell out due to lengthening of the preceding vowel (night [nikht] > night [neekht > neet > nait]
Hope this helps...
if it's silent 'h' then sometimes it is French (cf. honest, herb, etc)
otherwise, silent letters are not attributed to French.
take for instance silent 'k' and 'g'
"knee"
"gnaw"
those fell out due to shortening the first "syllable"
others like 'gh' (where it is truly silent, not as in "laugh") fell out due to lengthening of the preceding vowel (night [nikht] > night [neekht > neet > nait]
Hope this helps...
To a large extent, the way that English is spelt today still reflects old Norman orthography, like 'oa' for a broad 'a' sound (as in "broad"). [This has normally transitioned to a long 'o' sound in modern English.]
Other characteristics are the use of consonantal 'y' as in "year" and also vocalic 'y' in "my"
mandatory 'y' for 'i' before certain consonants, like 'm' (cf. M.E. 'hym' - "him") has largely disappeared though.
other Norman influences can be seen in 'ou' for O.E. long 'u' ("south"), which has become a diphthong in Mod.Eng. (au), and 'o' for short 'u' ("come", "honey", "money", "son")
As far as English orthography goes, it is a blend of O.E. and Norman, where the O.E. influence really represents standard use (like 'd' for "d", 'a' for "a", etc), and Norman for those cases that are typical to that type (as mentioned above).
Other characteristics are the use of consonantal 'y' as in "year" and also vocalic 'y' in "my"
mandatory 'y' for 'i' before certain consonants, like 'm' (cf. M.E. 'hym' - "him") has largely disappeared though.
other Norman influences can be seen in 'ou' for O.E. long 'u' ("south"), which has become a diphthong in Mod.Eng. (au), and 'o' for short 'u' ("come", "honey", "money", "son")
As far as English orthography goes, it is a blend of O.E. and Norman, where the O.E. influence really represents standard use (like 'd' for "d", 'a' for "a", etc), and Norman for those cases that are typical to that type (as mentioned above).
With silent e's (such as in words like come, like, love, and so on) it is simply due to the fact that they used to be pronounced and, after the vowel shift, aren't anymore.
<<With silent e's (such as in words like come, like, love, and so on) it is simply due to the fact that they used to be pronounced and, after the vowel shift, aren't anymore. >>
Ahh, Skippy, you bring up a good point here!
In most of the words listed they were pronounced: like in 'come' and maybe 'love' ('love' likely lost the pronunciation of the -e very early in M.E.)
However, in words like 'some' there was never an -e, and it was never pronounced as two syllables (< O.E. "sum"). This *is* a spelling attributed to Norman orthography similar to the short 'o' above (for 'money', 'son', etc.)
For the word 'like' the -e acts only to lengthen the vowel, as in analogy with words like 'name' that lost the second syllable due to lengthening of the first. Alternate M.E. spellings for 'like' were 'lyk', "lijk" and "liik"
Ahh, Skippy, you bring up a good point here!
In most of the words listed they were pronounced: like in 'come' and maybe 'love' ('love' likely lost the pronunciation of the -e very early in M.E.)
However, in words like 'some' there was never an -e, and it was never pronounced as two syllables (< O.E. "sum"). This *is* a spelling attributed to Norman orthography similar to the short 'o' above (for 'money', 'son', etc.)
For the word 'like' the -e acts only to lengthen the vowel, as in analogy with words like 'name' that lost the second syllable due to lengthening of the first. Alternate M.E. spellings for 'like' were 'lyk', "lijk" and "liik"
<<However, in words like 'some' there was never an -e, and it was never pronounced as two syllables (< O.E. "sum"). This *is* a spelling attributed to Norman orthography similar to the short 'o' above (for 'money', 'son', etc.)
>>
...cont.
Let me clarify...
O.E. 'sum' had to be spelt 'some' by Norman writers because the graph 'som' [without the 'e'] would have been pronounced differently, with an 'o' sound instead of short 'u'.
>>
...cont.
Let me clarify...
O.E. 'sum' had to be spelt 'some' by Norman writers because the graph 'som' [without the 'e'] would have been pronounced differently, with an 'o' sound instead of short 'u'.
>>For the word 'like' the -e acts only to lengthen the vowel, as in analogy with words like 'name' that lost the second syllable due to lengthening of the first. Alternate M.E. spellings for 'like' were 'lyk', "lijk" and "liik"<<
Actually, this is not really correct. What happened here is that first open syllable lengthening occurred and *then* the loss of final schwas happened (rather than the loss of final schwas triggering the lengthening of preceding vowels).
It should also be noted that "like" had a long vowel to begin with, though, and is not a good example of such. Such may very well be why spellings like "lijk" and "liik" also showed up for "like", as orthographic long vowels generally marked pre-open syllable lengthening vowel lengths.
Actually, this is not really correct. What happened here is that first open syllable lengthening occurred and *then* the loss of final schwas happened (rather than the loss of final schwas triggering the lengthening of preceding vowels).
It should also be noted that "like" had a long vowel to begin with, though, and is not a good example of such. Such may very well be why spellings like "lijk" and "liik" also showed up for "like", as orthographic long vowels generally marked pre-open syllable lengthening vowel lengths.
<<Actually, this is not really correct. What happened here is that first open syllable lengthening occurred and *then* the loss of final schwas happened (rather than the loss of final schwas triggering the lengthening of preceding vowels). >>
Yes, that is what I said, for 'name'
'like' uses the -e to mimmick the lengthening (O.E. 'liic' was always long and didn't have an -e in the nominative) of the other types of words that had -e, in the *spelling* only
i.e. nama, liic > name, lyk > naam(e), lyk > neim [splt. "name"], lik + -e mimmicking "name"--this is the period where final -e came to signify long vowels in the preceding syllable
Yes, that is what I said, for 'name'
'like' uses the -e to mimmick the lengthening (O.E. 'liic' was always long and didn't have an -e in the nominative) of the other types of words that had -e, in the *spelling* only
i.e. nama, liic > name, lyk > naam(e), lyk > neim [splt. "name"], lik + -e mimmicking "name"--this is the period where final -e came to signify long vowels in the preceding syllable
Okay, I misread your post; I thought you were actually saying that there was an -"e" whose loss resulted in lengthening of the vowel, and I had heard the misconception that compensatory lengthening occurred during this period before.
And with all those problems some people dear to say English is the easiest language... please!