"No rules in English? " Topic

So reading: Destructive and formidable.
There are a lot of letters and AARs in the original period English from ECW to WSS.
And there doesn't appear to be any rules for how to write English.

Foote/foot
Blew/blue
Shot/shott/shotte
And they all appear to hate ed endings. So its all search'd or want'd instead of searched or wanted.

I've even seen ffirings.

Did they all just write how they thought it was written based on how they talked?

Pretty much. Spelling isn't standardised until the 19th (?) century, so before that its pretty idiosyncratic, the upside is it gives an insight into how people spoke, as often the are putting down how they say a word themselves. Bad spellers like me still do that of course.

Yes, Gunfreak. The entire world just wrote things the way they sounded until the very late 18th Century or the very early 19th. (The French started standardized spelling a little early, which is why written French bears even less relationship to spoken French than is true for most languages.) And I'll about bet money you SAY "search'd." You just spell "searched" when you write. (You might also want to speculate on what some of our twitter posts will look like to people four or five centuries from now.)

The good news is that this is a real help to people studying accents. Given 18th Century--or earlier--letters, it's pretty easy to figure out where people stop carrying their rifle on a sling and start carrying their rahfle on a slang.

And welcome to primary sources. Like dumpster diving, it's frustrating, but there's good stuff buried in there.

And welcome to primary sources. Like dumpster diving, it's frustrating, but there's good stuff buried in there.

LOL! I am totally going to quote that.

- Ix

I was kinda surprised, I've read lots of letters from WSS and around that time. And it was perfectly "normal"
But i guess the author "translated" into modern English.

And it is doubly difficult when one is trying to transcribe from a printed source into a Word document to keep the original spelling, grammar (I actually initially spelled it grammer, like I pronounce it), and punctuation. I did several chapters of 17th Century military writing for Nick Nascati several months ago. It was a chore, but rewarding.

Jim

I guess the author "translated" into modern English

Yeah. If you look at the introduction to a collection where the spelling looks normal, it will generally say something about standardizing punctuation and spelling, which is ScholarSpeak for "I'm going to tell you what I think the original writer meant." Also, you'll sometimes see a word in brackets like [this] which means "this is the word I think he meant." That sort of thing makes for quicker easier reading--but you do have to trust that whoever did the "translating" knew what he was doing and had no biases. It's the sort of thing you can let pass if it's confirming what you already knew or suspected, but before you base a rule on a passage like that, you'd better check the uncorrected version. Same thing with using translations out of a foreign language. (I own six different English translations of The Master and Margarita. Mostly, they agree on meaning--but not always.)

In one text from the early 18th century I saw "farrier " written "furyer" which is pretty close to how it would sound if it was spoken with a French accent.

Oh I'll live with that in primary sources, it's the spelling in rules books that is galling. Fortunately, I don't by them, only peruse them on the dealer table, chuckle, put them down and move on.

But in 40 years in business I am never astounded anymore. Don't know what they teach in Harvard Business School but whatever it is apparently spelling doesn't count.

"In lieu of " does not mean instead of.

"Quality control will have to determine witch pogrom to use." I have visions of Cossacks measuring quality by burning toothless old women.

"The opinion of the Engineering department is fellatious." As the CEO's daughter was head of engineering, we had a lot of laughs out of that one.

"The Electikal Underwruyters Ass. Has validated our desyne."

Perhaps the best was admittedly not a spelling mistake but when one graduate of Harvard applied for a job and I asked him as part of the interview "What is profit?" He replied "That's what's left after I get my commission."

Ah me… the stories I could tell.

"

In one text from the early 18th century I saw "farrier " written "furyer" which is pretty close to how it would sound if it was spoken with a French accent.

But liable to be mistaken for "furrier". He can make nice warm coats, but has no clue about shoeing horses.

Perhaps the best was admittedly not a spelling mistake but when one graduate of Harvard applied for a job and I asked him as part of the interview "What is profit?" He replied "That's what's left after I get my commission."

I'm guessing he was hired.

Standardised spelling in English started to happen a little earlier than the dates (19th cent) given above, but I think it ma have taken time in a period of little education. There is a period of English called "The Great Vowel Shift", where English pronunciation changed significantly. It is why English of Chaucer sounds so odd. Shakespeare has more in common with modern English than he does with Chaucer, despite being closer chronologically. It was after this that there was a move towards a standard English. If you read Anglo-saxon it sounds like Chaucer, which, incidentally, always sounds Geordie to me (North East England – Sean Bean without him toning down his accent).

Fęder ure žu že eart on heofonum;
Si žin nama gehalgod
to becume žin rice
gewurže šin willa
on eoršan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedęghwamlican hlaf syle us todęg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfaš urum gyltendum
and ne gelęd žu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele sožlice

(note: the old english "ž" is pronounced "th")

That is almost recognisable, so is little surprise when people find it is the Lord's Prayer.

Sean Bean is from Sheffield in Yorkshire, and therefore a Tyke not a Geordie (unless you are from Rotherham, Doncaster or Barnsley, in which case he's a Dee-Dar).

Ottoathome,

I can't resist pointing out that you did not spell "buy" correctly in your first sentence. I mean no offense; I have been known to make an occasional uncorrected typo myselfeeee!

I'd grant you "started to happen," but it's only a start until you start printing dictionaries with the words in alphabetical order. (I'm serious: they didn't start that way.) But now we're up to Johnson in England and Webster a little later in the US. Spelling was still pretty flexible for the American Revolution. By the Napoleonic Wars, even enlisted spelling was closer to standard, and by the American Civil War, non-standard spelling was the mark of a poor education.

I once saw a report use "sight" "site" and "cite" in two paragraphs, and get it wrong each time. The author of that one had at least a high school diploma--admittedly, a fairly recent one, but still…

Early 17th century English doesn't seem to odd to southern Protestants of my age because most of us grew up reading the King James version of the Bible.

in lieu of = in place of = instead of
according to my dictionary
What do you think it means Otto?
In light of is not correct.
The perils of pedantry

The "in lieu of" comment got me going too. To give Otto the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he meant to write that it does mean instead of.

Writing is a lost skill…..

"I once saw a report use "sight" "site" and "cite" in two paragraphs, and get it wrong each time. The author of that one had at least a high school diploma--admittedly, a fairly recent one, but still…"

Reminds me of a document I once received from the Rugby Football Union when I was Club Secretary. The RFU were introducing a process whereby incidents of foul/violent behaviour could be reported (cited) to the RFU when missed by the referee. There were several passages where "siting foul play" had been used instead of "citing foul play" which conjured up the slightly surreal image of players discussing where they would site their foul play before the fight began.

"In lieu of" does indeed mean "instead of":
link

I would agree with the original post. Poor grammar, word usage, spelling, and syntax plague many wargaming rule books.

I think Otto was just demonstrating his superiority?

Judging from the calibre of writing in today's newspapers, magazines, and wargame rules I'd say we're rapidly regressing to the 18th century.

Martin
I'd accept "attempting to demonstrate"
;-)

"In lieu of " does not mean instead of.

This statement also struck me as a missed note in the symphony. I'm all ears for Otto's alternative view, though. Can we have an Ottolucidation?

- Ix

"I'd say we're rapidly regressing to the 18th century."

With the exceptions of human rights, hygiene and medical treatment, that might actually be an improvement.

Yes fantasque!

Well I've gotten to the WAS period and unless the author suddenly has started to modernise the letters and other original text. Then the language is much more modern. Much more what I've been used to reading.

Just wait until you start into hand written primary sources Gunfreak. Then the fun really starts. In England there is a very different alphabet to the modern one prior to the 16th Century and some writers hadn't started using more modern handwriting even during the 1640s. It can be like reading coded messages!

Elenderil: i can't read my own handwriting, let alone anyone ells handwriting moden or otherwise. The wonders of dyslexia!
If it ain't typed I'm screwed.