ε#5648. <l> ֻŤͤ뤫ݤ ([2024-10-13-1]) ³<ll> ꡥϥꥹѸǤ <ll> ȽŤ͡ꥫѸǤ <l> 1ĤΤߡȤΤη̤ȤơɤΤ褦ñˤ <ll> 뤫ʬۤߤƤߤ
Τ褦˽Ҥ٤
<ll> ϤȤȸŵˤ椫ΤֻäŵǤե줬װȤƻƤեϸŵͳνŤͤ <ll> ΤޤѤ1Ų <l> ǷѾ뤳ȤФФäˡ餬ߤƤѸäˡ <l> Ťͤ뤫ݤˤĤƤळȤˤʤäΤ
<ll> ʬۤˤĤơCarney (250) ñѤ褦
Normally, <l> would double after a short vowel in a monosyllable (bell, cell, doll, mill, etc.), but there are some exceptions. There are all marginal in various ways, usually by abbreviation: technical loan col ('gap between hills' < French); gal (< girl), pal (< Romany); technical abbreviations bet (< the name '(A. G.) Bell', = 'unit of power comparison'), cel (< celluloid . . .), gel (< gelatine), mel ('perpetual unit of pitch'), mil (< millimetre), nil (contraction of Latin nihil); short names Hal (< Henry), Sal (< Sally) . . . .
Examples of <-ll-> with prefixes . . .:
- (reduced vowel): alleviate, alliteration, allude, allusion, ally (v.); collate, collateral, collect (v.), collide, collision.
- (unreduced vowel): Allocate, ally (n.); collect (n.), colleague, college, collimate, colloquy; illegal, illegible, illicit, illimitable, illuminate, illusion, illustrate; pellucid.
There are quite a few words which resemble the above and in which the <-ll-> is not covered by other doubling conventions: allegory, allergy, alligator. There is some etymological uncertainty about allot, allow, and allure. Allay has come to have a §Latinate appearance in spite of its Old English origin (a + lecgan). To the average reader these spellings must seem to belong with the §Latinate prefixes.
A good many words . . . have <-ll-> in the third syllable from the end of a free-form after a stressed short vowel. The ending <-ion> seems to require this spelling, but not in all instances: billion, bullion, galleon, million, mullion, pillion, postillion, stallion, but also battalion, pavilion, verlion. Compare doubled and single <r> in carrion--clarion.
Other examples of <-ll-> unaccounted for are: ballerina, ballistic, balloon, bellicose, brilliant, bulletin, calligraphy, calliopsis, camellia, colliery, ebullient, ellipse, embellish, fallacious, fallacy, fallible, gallery, gallium, halleluja, hallucinate, hellebore, intellect, intelligent, mellifluous, miscellany, palliate, pallium, parallel, pollute, shallot, shillelagh, tellurium.
Pseudo-compounds are: ballyhoo, bulldozer, hullaballoo, lollipop, scallywag.
<ll> ᤰ뾯ηȽκ٤ĤΤǤϤʤѸˡϤʣǤ롥
Carney, Edward. A Survey of English Spelling. Abingdon: Routledge, 1994.
ѸˡǤϡ<l> Ťͤ뤫ɤȤʤ륱ʤ餺롥
ޤפ⤫֤Τ traveler traveller ΰ㤤Ǥ롥#240. ֻαƺ礭 ([2009-12-23-1]) Ǥߤ褦ˡŵŪ˥ꥫֻǤ <l> 1ĤˤȤɤޤ뤬ꥹֻǤ <l> ŤͤΤ§Ǥ롥ȻפСꥫֻ fulfill Ϥष <l> Ť͡ꥹֻ fulfil ϽŤͤʤΤǡˤʤ롥
<l> Ťͤ뤫ݤֻΥꥨϸűѸꤢȤФꡤȤƤˤȤäƤ褤ֻȤ <l> 1ĤǤ2ĤǤ⡤̤ȤƼϤȯˤϱƶͿʤΤǡǤȤˤƤ
伫ȤϡŤͤ <ll> ֻܼϡľ첻Ūˡû첻Ǥ뤳ȤѶŪ˼ȤˤȹͤƤ뤬¤ˤϤۤɤ䤹դǤϤʤѸˡ Carney (250) ϡ"Distribution of <ll>" ꤹ1ˤơƤ롥ƬʬѤ롥
There is more difficulty in accounting for the occurrence of double <-ll-> than for the double spelling of any other consonant. This is partly due to the frequency of <-ll-> in Latin and Greek stems and partly because §Latinate words borrowed by way of French may no longer have recognizable constituents.
<ll> ϤȤȸŵˤ椫ΤֻäŵǤե줬װȤƻƤեϸŵͳνŤͤ <ll> ΤޤѤ1Ų <l> ǷѾ뤳ȤФФäˡ餬ߤƤѸäˡ <l> Ťͤ뤫ݤˤĤƤळȤˤʤäΤʤۤɡѸ餷ȤбѸ餷̤ȤäƤ褤ǰǤ⤢ʤ⤢롥
Ѹˡθ§ȤƤʤС褽ε§ΩΤΤǤ (Carney 251fn)
In the Hanna (1966) spelling rules, <l> is the default spelling and:
1 <ll> word-final accented after /ɔː/ or a short vowel (tall, mill, bell, pull, hull).
<ll> ˤĤƤϡVoicy heldio Ǽ夲Ȥ롥#456. -l ʤΤ -ll ʤΤ till/until, travel(l)er, distil(l)İС
Carney, Edward. A Survey of English Spelling. Abingdon: Routledge, 1994.
ε#5555. kh ֻ ([2024-07-12-1]) ˰³2Ż (digraph) <kh> ˤĤơUpward and Davidson (257) ˤޤȤޤäҤΤǰѤ롥
KH
The KH spelling reflects an aspirated consonant (somewhat like [k] + [h]) or a fricative (like [x] as in Scottish loch) in the source or carrier languages, all from the Middle East or Indian subcontinent. In English, there is no difference in pronunciation between KH and K.
In initial position: khaki (< Hindi); khamsin 'hot wind' (< Arabic); khan (spelt caan when first borrowed in the 15th century; < a Turkic language)
- Khazi, a slang word for 'toilet' dating from the 19th century, is not, despite its spelling, of eastern origin, but probably derives from Italian or Spanish casa 'house'. It has various spellings in English (kazi, kharzie, karsey, etc.).
In medial position: astrakhan 'fabric' (< Russian place-name); bakhshish 'tip or bribe' (a spelling baksheesh --- see under 'K'); burkha (a spelling of burka/burqa --- see under 'K'); gymkhana (< Urdu gend-khana, altered by influence of gymnastics); kolkhoz 'collective farm in USSR' (< Russian).
In final position: ankh 'emblem of life' (< Egyptian 'nh); lakh '100,000' (also lac; < Hindi and Hindustani); rukh 'mythical bird' (another spelling of roc, which is the more common spelling in English; < Arabic rokh, rukhkh, Persian rukh); sheikh (< Arabic shaikh).
ۤܤ٤Ƥñ줬졤ɥΦνͳ褷θ̣ݻ뤿ˡŪˤϱѸߤΤʤ <kh> ȤֻѤƤΤդֻˤϡäդȯǤɸʤñͳ뵡ǽʬŪǤäƤȤפǤ롥
Upward, Christopher and George Davidson. The History of English Spelling. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

khelfʷѸ˥եˤǤرѸ˿ʹȯԤʤɡѸˤhel (helkatsu) ͡ŸƤޤ
khelf ȤƾΤ "Keio History of the English Language Forum" Ƭ (acronym) ǡ伫Ȥ¤ʤΤǤܸȯǤϡ֥աסѸȯǤ /kɛlf/ ȤʤΤȻפޤkhelf <kh> ֻϢ³ʤȤޤΤǡѸֻˤ 2Ż (digraph) ˤĤܵǼ夲ޤ
<kh> ϡѸˤƤϷ褷٤ι⤤ʸȤ߹碌ǤϤޤkhaki ʥˡkhan ʥϡˡKhmer ʥ͡ˡKhoisan ʥ²ˡSikh ʥ̡ˤʤɤ˸졤ñǤ <kh> /k/ бطޤ٤ƼѸͭ̾ǤꡤѸˡ˴ƱƤ뤫ȤвȤǤCarney (221) Ǥϡ<kh> ˸ڤĤ astrakhan ʥȥ饫, gymkhana , khaki, khan, khedive ʥץˤƤޤ
Carney (328) Ǥϡ<h> 2ʸܤȤƤġҲɽ魯¾2ŻȤȤ <kh> ƤޤϢսѤޤ礦
The clusters <ch>, <ph>, <sh>, <th>, <wh>, are treated as spelling units. So are the clusters <gh>, <kh>, <rh>, but there is a difference. In the first group, the <h> has the natural function of indicating the features 'voiceless and fricative' in representing [ʧ], [f], [ʃ], [ʍ]; <th> represents only 'fricative' for both voiceless [θ] and voiced [ð]. In the group <gh>, <kh>, <rh>, the <h> is empty and arbitrary; there is some marking, however: <rh> is §Greek, <kh> is exotic.
<kh> <h> ϲŪˤưŤΤʤۻ (silent_letter) ȤäƤ٤Ǹ˿ƤȤꡤñ줬 "exotic" Ǥ뤳Ȥɸ뵡ǽͭƤ褦khelf ˡ̥ŪȤ̣Ǥ "exotic" ʳưܻؤ
Carney, Edward. A Survey of English Spelling. Abingdon: Routledge, 1994.
ܥ֥ǤϱѸֻȯЪΥ (spelling_pronunciation_gap) ¿夲Ƥΰ1ĤȤȤ⤢뤬Ȥ櫓ܤαѸؽԤؿ䤹ȥԥåȤȤиΤäƤ뤫Ǥ⤢롥
ѸֻȤˤᤰäƤϡޤޤʸ̽ǤƤǶΩäȤǤ Horobin, Simon. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: OUP, 2013. ꡤإڥαѸˡ١˼2017ǯȤƻ伫ȤȤƽǤƤаޤ⤢롥
ϡɤߤ䤹ѽȤܥ֥Ǥⲿ٤ѡȤƤ Vivian Cook ˤ The English Writing System (Hodder Education, 2004) Ҳ𤷤̤꤫⤭Ѹֻˡˡˡֻؽˤ꤬ڤ֡㼨ꡤ§ɽɡʸƤꡤɤͥʲܼ

1 Ways of writing
1.1 Meaning-based and sound-based writing
1.2 Two ways of processing written language
2 The multi-dimensions of spoken and written English
2.1 Differences between the visual and acoustic media
2.2 Special features of written English
3 Approaches to English spelling
3.1 Basic rules for English
3.2 Venezky: correspondence rules and markers
3.3 Albrow: three systems of English spelling
3.4 Noam and Carol Chomsky: lexical representation
4 Punctuation and typography
4.1 Grammatical and correspondence punctuation
4.2 The typography of English
5 Learning the English writing system
5.1 English-speaking children's acquisition of spelling
5.2 Acquisition of English spelling by speakers of other languages
6 Historical changes
6.1 Before English
6.2 Old English
6.3 Middle English
6.4 From Early Modern English to Modern English
7 Variation in the English writing system
7.1 Differences of region: 'British' and 'American' spelling styles
7.2 Novel spellings of pop groups and business names
7.3 Adapting English to modern means of communication
References
IPA transcription of English phonemes
Index
ѸֻθѤܤǤ
Cook, Vivian. The English Writing System. London: Hodder Education, 2004.
Horobin, Simon. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: OUP, 2013.
ۥӥˡ δˡإڥαѸˡ١˼2017ǯ
ɸѸŪפϤɤˤ뤫ϱѸˤǤνײǤ롥ˡ˴ؤ¤ꡤѸ Chancer English ˵롤ȤΤ Samuels (1963) ͭϤǤ롤ˤĤƤϡ#306. Samuels ѸȯãȤɸ4ס ([2010-02-27-1])#1228. ѸˤˤɸѸȯŸȳΩäơ ([2012-09-06-1])ˤ#3214. 1410ǯ夫30ǯˤƤ Chancery English ˨ ([2018-02-13-1]) ϤȤ chancery_standard εȤ줿
Chancery ȤϡˡģפΤȤǡȤδνȿؤǤϡ̾ˤ䤫äƸ Chancer English Chancery Standard ȸƤФ뤳ȤˤʤäѸѼȤϡŪˤϲΤȤʤΤFisher et al. (xii) ꡤ̤ͿƤ
We follow M. L. Samuels, in calling the official written English of the first half of the 15th century "Chancery English" although it emanated from at least four offices, Signet, Privy Seal, Parliament, and the emerging Court of Chancery itself. The generalized term is valid in an historical sense. By the end of the 15th century the term "Chancery" had come to be restricted to the royal courts of law, but until the departmentalization of the national bureaucracy into various offices, which began in the reign of Henry VII, Chancery comprised virtually all of the national bureaucracy except for the closely allied Exchequer. Thomas Frederick Tout, who made a life-time study of the workings of Chancery and its affiliated offices, begins his Chapters in The Administrative History of Mediaeval England by quoting Palgrave's observation that "Chancery was the Secretariat of State in all departments of late medieval government."
Chancery Ȥϡ̼ (Signetˡ (Privy Seal)IJ (Parliament)ˡȽ (Court of Chancery) 濴Ȥ (Exchequer) ۤܤ٤ƤιȻ̳ɤؤȤȤѤ줿Ūֻͤˤäɽ蘆ѸѼ郎Chancery English ȤȤˤʤ롥ǤϤʤȤϤ̤Ϥǽʬ
Samuels, Michael Louis. "Some Applications of Middle English Dialectology." English Studies 44 (1963): 81--94. Revised in Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems. Ed. Margaret Laing. Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1989.
Fisher, John H., Malcolm Richardson, and Jane L. Fisher, comps. An Anthology of Chancery English. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1984. 392.

khelfʷѸ˥եˤδȤơ̤ˤ⻲äƤĤŸƤѤʥե٥åɽפĤ˴ޤ轵34khelf رѸ˿ʹ8ȯԤޤ4̤ˡѤʥե٥åɽפǺܤƤޤ
ѸֻȯЪΥ (spelling_pronunciation_gap) ռˤȤäơˤͷǤޤȤǤ饹դե٥åɽ A Z γʸǻϤޤñ줬ǤƤޤñȯȤδطDzѤʡƬֻƤޤѸؼԤˤȤäƤϡְϰʡסäơͤΡץե٥åɽȤȤˤʤޤ
ܴȯ衤khelf Ǥôɤȿ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ǿĽʤȯؤƤޤޤ̤˸ƤӤơʸǻϤޤѤʡñθޤθ塤khelf ǼޤȤˡʸǻϤޤñθΤʤ顤ǤѤʡñƤɼƤӤޤN ñˤĤƤϷɼˤޤǤĤळȤˤʤޤʤǡ⤽ֻΡԡ˵§ȤϲʤΤȤܼŪˤ֤ĤʤɤޤǽŪˤϾ嵭̤Ѥʥե٥åɽפž夬ޤñΥ饹Ȥ khelf ꥸʥǤΤǡҤܤ̸ȰɼȤdzˤϤȤơ˴λݤ𤷡ƴտ夲ޤ
رѸ˿ʹ84̤ˤϡѤʥե٥åɽפΤۤɼ̤ʤɤǺܤƤޤñʤɤƤޤΤǡįʤֻȯЪΥȤ˻פ餻ƤФȻפޤ
ޤǡѤʥե٥åɽ״˴ؤ륳ƥĤheldio, helwa, hellog, YouTube ʤɤ͡˸Ƥޤʲ˰Ƥޤä heldio ǤϡѤʥե٥åɽפθ⡤ɽ˷ǺܤƤñȴϢϤƤޤۿˤ⤴Ԥ
heldio #872. Ѥʥե٥åɽȻפäƤޤ --- khelf
heldio #873. ڥε§ȿ§ --- Ѥʥե٥åɽ״˴ơ
heldio #887. khelf ߷ȡѤʥե٥åɽ״
heldio #924. ϡѤʥե٥åɽפΤɼ֤Ǥ
heldio #933. Ѥʥե٥åɽפɼϺѤޤޤ --- khelf ߷ɼθƤӤ
heldio #966. Ѥʥե٥åɽפ n- ñΤηɼ --- khelf ߷θƤӤ
heldio #1011. Ѥʥե٥åɽפδȸ with ߷
heldio #1015. cello --- Ѥʥե٥åɽפ
heldio #1016. schedule ȯϡ֥塼פ֥ǥ塼פ --- Ѥʥե٥åɽפ S ιܤ
helwa ͭۿ ֡ڱѸˤ #42Ѥʥե٥åɽ
helwa ͭۿ ֡ڱѸˤ #43Ѥʥե٥åɽؤȿ
hellog #5303. رѸ˿ʹ7椬ȯԤޤ ([2023-11-03-1])
hellog #5341. ϡѤʥե٥åɽ״ɼ֤Ǥ ([2023-12-11-1])
hellog #5426. رѸ˿ʹ8椬ȯԤޤ ([2024-03-05-1])
YouTube ֤Τۤإͥ #185. eye ϤäȤؤʤĤŤäʸ§߽Фݤ?---ؤʥե٥åɽñ罸

ɽʸϲɽ魯ɽʸϰ̣ɽ魯ɽʸϸɽ魯ΤΤҤ٤ƤǡΤ褦˻פ뤫⤷ʤºݤˤϤ줾ʸϡǽŪ˸ߤ˾뤳Ȥ¿ޤޤʸŪƤ롥
ؤδʸߤȡʸȯäή졤۲ɽ魯ȤǤ롥Ūˤϡʸϲᡤ⡼顤Ҳ첻ʬĶʬɽ碌롥Ūˤϡʸϸ졤ޡֲŪñ̤б롥ŪˤϡʸϹǹ¤ù¤롥Ūˤϡʸ϶Ĵݥ饤ȥͥɽ魯Ȥ⤢롥ʸ餤Ūϡۤˤͤ
Daniels (69) ϡָػˤȤƤʸˡפꤹͤηǡʸˤƤϡʸɽ路Ūμܤ뤳ȤɬפǤ⤯
What emerges from this survey is the unsurprising conclusion that aspects of linguistic structure that are most salient to the language user---the most accessible to conscious control: words, syllables, discourse, emphasis---are the most likely to be taken into account in their orthographies. Other features have emerged more or less incidentally over the centuries, and have either been incorporated into common usage or have dropped out of fashion. Needed is investigation of the origin and persistence of all these features in all the world's orthographies (vs the prevailing concentration on the evolution of the shapes of characters and beyond the recent attention to the acquisition of orthographies). It may show that imposition of script reform outside the context of adoption or adaptation of a script to a new language is an otiose and even futile exercise. The twin examples of Sassanian conservatism and Turkish innovation reveal that only in extraordinary circumstances can either of these extremes succeed. In every case, a writing system must be understood through the pens of those who write it.
줫ʸΤ˼ͿƤפƶ
Daniels, Peter T. "The History of Writing as a History of Linguistics." Chapter 2 of The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Ed. Keith Allan. Oxford: OUP, 2013. 53--69.
䤿ʻȤѸ켭ܸ켭ʤɤǤϡФΤȤˤɤΤ褦ʾܤƤФ줽켫Τϡե٥åȽ礢뤤ϸ¤٤줿ǡƸ줬ˡ§äʸǷǤƤΤ̤θȯʬĶʬˤξܤƤ뤳Ȥ¿θ塤ʻƼʸˡ졤1İʾΤŵǤ롥ȥˤϡˡ졦Ϣ졤츻¾ʤɤդƤ뼭⤢̤μ (dictionary) Ȥˡܺ٤ϰۤʤ褽Τ褦ʥ쥤ȤǤ롥
Ǥϡ䤿üԤƬˤ뼭 (lexicon) ϡɤΤ褦ƤꡤƸιܡʤõܹ (lexical entry) ˤϤɤʾֵܡפƤΤϡ̣ŪǤ롥
ޤùܤ¤Ӥե٥åȽǤϤʤȤľ롥ޤʸɤ߽ǤʤλҶƬθõܹܤˤϡˡξäƤʤˡʻʤɤΤ褦ˡ̤˸츻˴ؿΤüԤǤʤ¤ꡤƬθõܹˡָפΤ褦̻ŪʥʡꤵƤȤϹͤˤ
ȯʻƼʸˡˤĤƤϡμ (dictionary) ȤϰۤʤȤͽۤ뤬餫ΥեޥåȤƬμˤֵܡפƤȹͤ롥ǤϡŪˤɤʥեޥåȤʤΤ
ϸ̣ʬŪǤꡥ줾ȤǤƤƤ櫓ǤϤʤľƬƤߤ櫓ˤϤʤ绨Ĥʹդ뤳ȤΤѸñǹͤ¤ꡤ㤨СBauer (192--93) ϡLyons Ȥ¾ΤĤԸˤۤꤷĤġ4ܤƤ롥
(i) stem(s)
(ii) inflectional class
(iii) syntactic properties
(iv) semantic specification(s)
(i) stem(s) ʸ촴ˤȤ뤬ȤƤ뤳ȤϲʬĶʬˤξΤȤǤ롥(ii) ϷŪ(iii) Ū(iv) ϰ̣ŪǤ롥Ǹιܤϡ¿ξˤϡʣԡפˤ錄
ؤθϤϡˡ츻;ϤϤʤΤǧᤶʤʸȸ츻Ǥ˸ؼԤˤȤäơäȼ䤷ȤǤϤ롥
Bauer, Laurie. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.
Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP, 1977.
3ָ224ڡˤ 15:30--18:45 ˡī㡼ɶˤƥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ4ȤʤֶѸֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơ֤ޤ

ιֺ¤ϡ4Υ4ȤʤޤΥ饤ʥåפϰʲ̤Ǥ
1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤʽա429
2űѸֻ --- μʤʲơ729
3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡʽ107
4Ѹֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơߡ224
٤4ˤĤƤϡ Voicy heldio ˤ#971. Ѹֻ --- 224ڡˤīΥֺ4˸ơȤƳפҲ𤷤ƤޤΤǡİйǤ
ޤǤ3ιֺ¤ǤϡѸֻɸಽˤįƤޤϤ褤ḽˤɸಽμ֤ޤޤ15 Chancery Standard ˻Ϥޤꡤ1617ˤƤ Shakespeareض١αѸ켭λФơ18--19μ˻ޤǤλܤñֻɤɤޤθ塤ꥫѸֻƸֻפưޤǤեơѸֻβˤĤͽǤƻαñֻζʤ⤷ޤΤǡ»Ҥˤʤ뤳ȤϤޤ
ֺܹ¤ˤؿΤϡΥڡꤪߤֺϡ̤Τۤ饤ǤλäǽǤޤϿޤȡָ1ָ֡ƨۿפİǤޤԹΤ褤ˡǤäФȻפޤֺ¤ǤϤޤƲƤΩƤޤΤǡΤߤñȯΤäǤޤäꤢޤʤֺ¤ѤϡüԤγͤŻŪۤͽǤ
ܥȴϢơʲ hellog Voicy heldio ۿ⤴Ȥ
Ρ1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤꡡ
heldio #668. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ2023ǯ330
hellog #5088. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ ([2023-04-02-1])
hellog #5119. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ1ޤ ([2023-05-03-1])
Ρ2űѸֻ --- μʤ
hellog #5194. 729ڡˡīΥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ2ָűѸֻ --- μʤס ([2023-07-17-1])
heldio #778. űѸʸ --- 729ڡˤīΥֺ2˸ơ2023ǯ718
hellog #5207. īΥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ2ָűѸֻ --- μʤפޤ ([2023-07-30-1])
Ρ3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡ
hellog #5263. 107ڡˡīΥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡס ([2023-09-24-1])
heldio #848. Ѹɸʤֻ --- 107ڡˤīΥֺ3˸ơ2023ǯ926
Ρ4Ѹֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơ
heldio #971. Ѹֻ --- 224ڡˤīΥֺ4˸ơ2024ǯ127
¿ΤäԤƤޤ
ѸΥڥᤰäơ#1238. Υޥ̻οá ([2012-09-16-1]) Ȥ꤬롥Ϥޤ夲ʤʤäʸǸڤ뤳ȤϤ롥ѸΥڥűѸεϤæƤ¤ؤơ̻ϱѸäʤΥޥͤ˰㤤ʤȲ᤹Ǥ롥
ˤ⸽ߤˤ⡤ѸüԤǤäƤѸݤ˥ڥߥȤȤӤνֳ꤬͡פǤȤϡñ˷ŤΤǤϤʤѸ̾ˤĤƤ Clark (548--49) ⡤ȽŸƤ롥
Orthography is, as always in historical linguistics, a basic problem, and one that must be faced not only squarely but in terms of the particular type of document concerned and its likely sociocultural background. Thus, to claim, in the context of fourteenth-century tax-rolls, that 'OE þ, ð are sometimes written t, d owing to the inability of the French scribes to pronounce these sounds' . . . involves at least two unproven assumptions: (a) that throughout the Middle English period scriptoria were staffed chiefly by non-native speakers; and (b) that the substitutions which such non-native speakers were likely to make for awkward English sounds can confidently be reconstructed (present-day substitutes for /θ/ and /ð/, for what they are worth, vary partly according to the speakers' backgrounds, often involving, not /t/ and /d/, but other sorts of spirant, e.g., /s/ and /z/, or /f/ and /v/) Of course, if --- as all the evidence suggests --- (a) can confidently be dismissed, then (b) becomes irrelevant. The orthographical question that nevertheless remains is best approached in documentary terms; and almost all medieval administrative documents, tax-rolls included, were, in intention, Latin documents . . . . A Latin-based orthography did not provide for distinction between /θ/ and /t/ or between /ð/ and /d/, and so spellings of the sorts mentioned may reasonably be taken as being, like the associated use of Latin inflections, matters of graphic decorum rather than in any sense connected with pronunciation.
Clark ΤǤ롥̾Υڥ˴ؤ¤ꡤ⤽ѸǤϤʤƥǡʤ뤤ϺˡȤƥƥˡ֤ΤäΤ顤ѸüԤȥΥޥüԤΤȯΥåפʤɤȤǤޤΤǤ롥
̾ʳΰ̸ΥڥˤĤƤɤΤ褦ʾäΤϡǤϤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2. Ed. Olga Fischer. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 542--606.
2ָ107ڡˤ 15:30--18:45 ˡī㡼ɶˤƥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ3ȤʤѸֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡ֤ޤ

ιֺ¤ϡ4Υ3ȤʤޤΥ饤ʥåפϰʲ̤Ǥ
1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤʽա429
2űѸֻ --- μʤʲơ729
3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡʽ107
4Ѹֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơߡ̤
ޤǤ2ιֺ¤ǤϡޤѸ˰ʸե٥åȤεȯãǧ˸űѸ449--1100ǯˤˤѤμºݤѻƤޤ3ܤѸ1100--1500ǯˤǤλޤǤ˱ѸüԤϥˤϤäǤޤ1066ǯΥΥޥη̡ɸѸפüñ֤ȤѸ˾Ǥޤʻ֤ŸƤޤ礲˸СġαѸν꤬פפ˹ʤ褦ñ֤äǤȤߤХͥƥȤʤޤͳȤߤХݥƥǤϤƤξϡαѸѸΥڥˤʤƶͿΤǤ礦Ѹ쥹ڥˤˤơäȤ㥯ʻǤ餳⤷Ƥޤֺ¤ΤʤǤѸ츶ʸɤߤʤ顤λΥڥįƤߤȻפޤ
ֺ¤λäˤؿΤϡΥڡꤪߤ̤Τۤ饤ǤλäǽǤޤϿ줿ˤϡƨۿȤƥưؤΥͽǤԹΤ褤ˡǤä4ΥΤǤϤޤƲƤΩƤޤΤǡñȯǤΤäⴿޤǤ
ܥȴϢơʲ hellog Voicy heldio ۿ⤴Ȥ
Ρ1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤꡡ
heldio #668. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ2023ǯ330
hellog #5088. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ ([2023-04-02-1])
hellog #5119. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ1ޤ ([2023-05-03-1])
Ρ2űѸֻ --- μʤ
hellog #5194. 729ڡˡīΥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ2ָűѸֻ --- μʤס ([2023-07-17-1])
heldio #778. űѸʸ --- 729ڡˤīΥֺ2˸ơ2023ǯ718
hellog #5207. īΥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ2ָűѸֻ --- μʤפޤ ([2023-07-30-1])
Ρ3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡϡʰʲ2023/09/26(Tue)θ嵭
heldio #848. Ѹɸʤֻ --- 107ڡˤīΥֺ3˸ơ2023ǯ926
轵729ڡˤ 15:30--18:45 ˡī㡼ɶˤƥֺ¡ʸֻαѸˡפ2ȤʤָűѸֻ --- μʤ֤ޤ
ϡʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤפꤷ3429ڡˤ˳֤ޤ2ϡѸäƤܳŪѤϤűѸ˾ƤޤűѸüԤϡˤƼƤƮʤ⼫ƻȤƼʤƤäΤƻڤɤޤºݤ˥ǽ줿űѸΥƥȤɲˤĩ路ƤߤȻפޤ
ؿΤϤҤäֺ¾Ҳ𤪤ӻäߤɤ̤Τۤ饤ǤλäǽǤޤϿ줿ˤϡư1ָۿˤΥͽǤԹΤ褤ˡǤä4ΥΤǤϤޤƲƤΩƤޤΤǡñȯΤäⴿޤǤ
4Υȥϰʲ̤Ȥʤޤ
1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤʽա429
2űѸֻ --- μʤʲơ729
3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡʽ̤
4Ѹֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơߡ̤
ܥȴϢơʲ hellog Voicy heldio ۿ⤴Ȳ
hellog #5088. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ ([2023-04-02-1])
heldio #668. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429Ϥޤޤ2023ǯ330
2023/07/18(Tue) 嵭heldio #778. űѸʸ --- 729ڡˤīΥֺ2˸ơ2023ǯ718
ֻηϤϡäդǤ˼̤äƤɬפϤʤüԤˤȤäƤϡäդΥҥȤͿнʬǤ롥ާƤСֻηϤüԤΤˤꡤüԤΤȯãƤΤǤ롥ȤŪˤΤ褦ʤΤ
Lass and Laing ϡֻηϤԴ;ˤĤơ"A spelling system is a mnemonic for native speakers." ȳˤƤ롥
A spelling system is a mnemonic for native speakers. . . . [A] literate native speaker can routinely understand spellings that may seem strikingly 'defective'.21 All spelling systems have built-in redundancy, and interpretation of even bizarre spellings is possible as long as the reader knows the system and has a good idea in advance of what a word is likely to be, or what the range of choices is. In the present context, no reader who knows English would have any difficulty reconstituting the defective representations <spllng> or <rthgrphc>.
21 For instance, the Cypriot syllabary failed to represent half the vowels and two-thirds of the consonantal contrasts . . . ; and Latin did not represent vowel length, which means that roughly half of the possible graphic word-forms available were potentially ambiguous.
ϡѸüԤѸֻɾݤ˺ƤϤʤʤǤ롥ѸüԤȤƳؤǤ䤿ϡФбѸֻ˷¿Ȥܤ䤯⤽ΤϤǡѸֻηϤϡѸüԤΤ˲ɤǤκ¤ΥҥȤͿФ褤ȤۤɤθȯãƤΤ⤽üԤ¸ߤǰƬ֤Ƥʤ
Lass, Roger and Margaret Laing. "Interpreting Middle English." Chapter 2 of "A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English: Introduction." Available online at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme_intro_ch2.html .
ѸϿ LAEME Ի Lass and Laing LAEME ȤĹȥϡΤȤѸκɤƳŪȤäƤ褤ɮԤΰ Roger Lass ȤȤΤسνäǤꡤΥȥˤƤ⡤Ͽޤ䥳ѥԻˡۤȸ¤顤ȯθѸϿ LALME γػŪյޤǽIJ̵ԤƤꡤǡΤ롥
"Interpreting Middle English" ꤹ2ǤϡѸֻܺ٤Ƥ롥ξϤϡѸΤߤʤ餺̤˱ѸֻŪȤʤäƤꡤ̤˴ؿΤˤɬɤǤ롥äȤСֻȤϲȤܼṲ̄鰷äƤΤǤ롥Lass and Laing (3--4) 1Ѥ롥
A spelling system is a mapping of some chosen set (or sets) of linguistic units into a set of visual signs.5 The standard inventory of linguistic units is the word, the morphophonemic representation, the syllable6 and the 'phoneme'. In relatively rare cases allophones of certain phonemes may be represented (e.g. the velar nasal in the elder Futhark, Gothic and Greek).
5 Just what kind of units is a complex matter. In the earlier part of this exposition we will be considering phonemes, allophones and other traditional kinds; later on we will adopt a more medieval and less anachronistic perspective. The mapping need not be one-to-one and in no case does it have to involve one level of unit only.
6 We will be concerned here only with segmental styles of representation, as syllabaries are not part of the Germanic tradition. Even the oldest Germanic writing, the runic inscriptions in the Elder Futhark, are in principle alphabetical, if often 'defectively' so.
ֻη ("spelling system") Ȥϲ嵭ʬɤǡͽۤʾʣʪǤ뤳Ȥ٤˸ŪʬϤפ롤1ĤνפΰǤ롥
Lass, Roger and Margaret Laing. "Interpreting Middle English." Chapter 2 of "A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English: Introduction." Available online at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme_intro_ch2.html .
ڥαѸˤ路 Horobin ˤȡ17αѸҲˤϽΥޥե٥åȤǤϤʤ̤ʸͰƤ褦ȤưƤ
16--17ˤ (orthoepy) ȯãȼäˡ (orthography) ؤδؿޤäǾ뤵줿Τϥޥե٥åȤԴäռΤȤǡʤŪʸηϤϺ뤳ȤˤʤäȤɬȤɬä17ʸιͰƤưˤϤ⤦1ġƱͭװäΤǤϤʤȤĹ餯衼åѼҲȤǧƤƥοǤ롥Ťסָפ줫ȤˡסʸפϺ褦ˤʤäȤΤϡήȤƤ⤷Horobin (25) Ѥ롥
Attempts have also been made to devise alphabets to overcome the difficulties caused by this mismatch between figura and potestas. In the seventeenth century, a number of scholars attempted to create a universal writing system which could be understood by everyone, irrespective of their native language. This determination was motivated in part by a dissatisfaction with the Latin alphabet, which was felt to be unfit for purpose because of its lack of sufficient letters and because of the differing ways it was employed by the various European languages. The seventeenth century also witnessed the loss of Latin as a universal language of scholarship, as scholars increasingly began to write in their native tongues. The result was the creation of linguistic barriers, hindering the dissemination of ideas. This could be overcome by the creation of a universal writing system in which characters represented concepts rather than sounds, thereby enabling scholars to read works composed in any language. This search for a universal writing system was prompted in part by the mistaken belief that the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics was designed to represent the true essence and meaning of an object, rather than the name used to refer to it. Some proponents of a universal system were inspired by the Chinese system of writing, although this was criticized by others on account of the large number of characters required and for the lack of correspondence between the shapes of the characters and the concepts they represent.
21θߡʸȤƤγʸԥȥ (pictogram) βǽܤƤ롥ˤȤ٤Ѹ줬17ΥƥΤ褦˿षƤ櫓ǤɬʤΤΡʸȤƤΥԥȥϺؤδؿޤäƤȤΤ϶̣17ȸξϤɤΤ褦оȤǤ
Ϣơ#2244. ԥȥβǽ ([2015-06-19-1])#422. ʸμ ([2010-06-23-1]) ȡ
Horobin, Simon. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: OUP, 2013.
ۥӥˡ δˡإڥαѸˡ١˼2017ǯ
4֤ۤɸ塤429ڡˤ 15:30--18:45 ˡī㡼ɶˤʸֻαѸˡꤹ륷ֺ¤ץޤ4ΥǡѸʸֻᤰˤˤĤƤäƤޤ
ˤؿΤϡҤäֺ¾Ҳ𤪤ӻäߤɤ̤Τۤ饤ǤλäǽǤޤ쥳ǥ1ָۿͽꤵƤޤΤǡԹΤ褤ˡǼ֤Ƥޤ
Τγפʲ˼ޤ
ե٥åȤϸǺǤѤƤʸηϤǤꡤѸ⤽ƤޤΤ褦ʱѸ⥢ե٥åȤȤˤβǽвäΤˤֻȤƼʤƤΤǯʾǯפޤֺܹ¤ǤϡѸ줬ʸֻȳƮƤˤɤޤ
4Υȥϰʲ̤Ǥ
1ʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤʽա429
2űѸֻ --- μʤʲơ̤
3Ѹֻ --- ɸʤ˱ɡʽ̤
4Ѹֻ --- ɸಽܻؤơߡ̤
Ȥʤʸεȯã --- ե٥åȤγȤפǤäƤϼ̤Ǥ
ʸϿǶȯ1ĤǤʸ뤳ȤˤʸȯŸƤޤǤϡʸϤġɤǡɤΤ褦ȯ졤ŤƤΤǤ礦ˤβ͡ʸηϤޤƤޤΤ1Ĥե٥åȤǤե٥åȼȤѲѰ֤ۤ¿ͲƤޤ1Ĥ䤿Τ褯Τޥե٥åȤǤѸϵ6ˤڤܳŪʸäƤȤˤʤޤ
ܥΰϡhellog λǡǤ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פ#668. īֺ¤οʸֻαѸˡפ429ϤޤޤǤ⤪ϤƤޤҤİ
¿γͤλäԤƤޤ
Cordorelli (5) ˤȡľ30ǯۤɤαѸֻ˴ؤŪʸϡ̣ "sociolinguistic" ʤΤä礵Ƥ롥ǰƬ֤Ƥ濴ŪʻϡѸ줫ѸˤƤȻפ롥ʲ˰Ѥ롥
The first studies to investigate orthographic developments in English within a diachronic sociolinguistic framework appeared especially from the late 1990s and the early 2000s . . . . The main focus of these studies was on the diffusion of early standard spelling practices in late fifteenth-century correspondence, the development of standard spelling practices, and the influence of authors' age, gender, style, social status and social networks on orthographic variation. Over the past few decades, book-length contributions with a relatively strong sociolinguistic stance were also published . . . . These titles have touched upon different aspects of spelling patterns and change, providing useful frameworks of analysis and ideas for new angles of research in English orthography.
ǤСֻɸಽ (standardisation) βϡ褦ʤΤǤϤʤ˼ҲŪʥѥˤѰۤȼʤ顤ʣŪ˿ʹԤƤȤȤơΤȤ30ǯۤɤθǷ֤ǧƤȤȤˤʤ
ѸˤˤƸ츽ݤѰۤȼäʣŪ˿ܤƤȤϡֻ˸¤äȤǤϤʤǯαѸ˸Ǥϡȯ֡졤äΤ٤Ƥ¦̤ˤơƱݤΤȤ֤ĥƤسǤϤΥäȷ졤ܴۤ夷ƤȤäƤ褤سΰ̤μҲˤϡְαѸˡפȤϤޤĤäƤѸ˸ԤˤϡοѸ˴Ѥ̤˼Ƥ̳ȹͤ롥
30ǯۤɤαѸֻ֤äƤߤǤϺϤɤΤ褦ŸƤΤCordorelli ϥԥ塼ѤŪοʼˡƤ롥1ĤȤܤ٤ߤȻפ
Cordorelli, Marco. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Cambridge: CUP, 2022.
ѸɸֻϤΩѸɸಽ (standardisation) λԥݥȤǻŦ뤳Ȥɸಽβϡ¿쾯ʤ˿ʹԤƤΤcf. #2321. ֻɸಽδĬή ([2015-09-04-1])ˡ
Ϥ褽γΩ1650ǯդȹͤƤ뤬ԤˤäƤϥץ饹ޥʥɴǯȤͽۤĤ#4093. ɸѸλϤޤϥͥ ([2020-07-11-1]) Ǹ褦ˡˤѹͥ (renaissance)뤤Ϥ˴ˤѸ (emode) ȽҤ٤ƤΤǤ̵
ºݡCordorelli ˤѸֻɸಽ˴ؤǿθƬǤ "the Early Modern Era" ȸڤƤ (1)
English spelling is in some ways a product of the Early Modern Era. The spelling forms that we use today are the result of a long process of conscious development and change, most of which occurred between the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. This portion of history is marked by a number of momentous events in England and the Continent, which had an immediate effect on English culture and language.
ѸȤ͡ŪҲŪĬή«ˤʤäơѸֻɸಽ䤷ʤȤäƤ褤ˤĤʤˡϡλˡװʣ߹礤ΤʤΩƤΤʤΤǤ롥ʲ˴Ϣ뵭ؤΥƤ
#297. ѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤ ([2010-02-18-1])
#871. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ ([2011-09-15-1])
#1312. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ (2) ([2012-11-29-1])
#1384. ֻɸಽ˹Τ17ؼԤȶա ([2013-02-09-1])
#1385. Caxton ֻɸಽ˹ʤäȹͤ뺬 ([2013-02-10-1])
#1386. Ѹʹߤ˳ΩƤɸֻηϤħ ([2013-02-11-1])
#1939. 16ˡᤰ ([2014-08-18-1])
#2321. ֻɸಽδĬή ([2015-09-04-1])
#3243. Caxton ֻɸಽˤɤΤ褦˹ ([2018-03-14-1])
#3564. 17ؼԤˤֻɸಽؤι ([2019-01-29-1])
#4628. 16Ⱦ17ˤƤؼԤ --- Ѹ˾ܳŪֻԤ ([2021-12-28-1])
Cordorelli, Marco. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Cambridge: CUP, 2022.
줿 YouTube ְʼδѸظإͥκǿǤϡѸˤδܸɽ뤿ΥˤĤơȤ櫓إܥˤĤƸäƤޤֺǶ褯 shichiji ʤɤΥɽϡ¤ϱѸŪǤϤʤǤ17ʬưȤʤäƤޤɤİ
͵Ѥ˴ؤǡϡǯ930ʸģ줿2021ǯ٤ֹ˴ؤĴη̤Ǥܺ٤3ǯ١ֹ˴ؤĴפη̤ˤĤơ (PDF) ꤴǧޤ
ܸɽ뤿ΥλѤˤĤƤϡޤǤ͡ʵꡤܥ֥Ǥ romaji ε¿夲Ƥޤ YouTube ưȤȤ櫓ϢοؤΥĥäƤޤΤǡ碌ƤȤ
#3427. ἰܼإܥΥĤŤоɽ ([2018-09-14-1])
#1892. ֥ΤĤŤס ([2014-07-02-1])
#1879. ܸˤˡ ([2014-06-19-1])
#2550. 붵եɥå褬ȯ줿 ([2016-04-20-1])
#4905. ְΡפ Aichi Aiti ([2022-10-01-1])
#4925. ɽɤȱѸ쥹ڥ ([2022-10-21-1])
#1893. إܥ <sh>, <ch>, <j> ϤɤΤ餤Ѹ ([2014-07-03-1])
#3251. <chi> ϡ֥פ֥פ֥פ֥ҡפ ([2018-03-22-1])
ܸҲˤƥȤե٥åʸηϤƤѤʤ褦ȤƤ֤뤳Ȥϡ줫ѸϤȤθʸȤɤդäƤͤǤʤȤȹͤޤư̤ơܸɽ뤿ΥѤˤĤƲƹͤƤߤƤϤǤ礦
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow