[2017-05-02-1]ε˰³ƤꡥαѸ˾ˤϡԤɥĸˤˤƤΤᤤȤΤϡפѤɥĤˤƻϤޤäԥ륿 (Martin Luther; 1483--1546) ȡΩĻγǰѤȯԥƥ٥륯 (Johannes Gutenberg; 1400?--68) λǤ롥
륿Υɥĸ (1521) ¯ɥĸϰ̤¤ˤĤơ (35--36) β
륿ϡɥĸˤǤפʰ֤Ƥ롥ɥĸˤϡ¿ͤ¸ߤŪʶ̸ϤޤƤʤä륿ϡ˺ݤơ餷ʣɽǤϤʤäդ¿Ѥάϡ˼ǻȤƤˡΧθդǤʤ̱θˤ˭ɽȴơ¿Ѥ륿θդϡ߽Ф줿ΤǤϤʤƤɥĤΤ٤ƤθŪη褦Ǥä륿ϡïˤǤ狼ߤΤǤ롥Τ褦˽뤳Ȥˤäƥ륿ϡΤ̱Ω褦ȳƮ륿ϡʤȤƻԾ̤㤵졤̲ɤޤ뤿νʪȤʤäʹߥ륿Υɥĸϡɥĸؤ֤̱ζȤư졤ɥʸؤθΰĤȤʤꡤȤƤΥɥĸΩ˴ͿȤϴְ㤤ʤױư˲äƶŵǤ¯λѤ¥ʤΤǡ̤ȤƤΤȤǤϻŪǤäƥλϰϤᡤ¯ϰ̤뤳Ȥ˷Ҥäޤ륿ϡƥʤɤαˤʱƶͿΤǤ롥
륿ϡ¯ɥĸǽ뤳ȤˤäơưȻפƤƥθҤȤˤơɥĸ˾礭ʰյͭƤ롥ˡΤȥåθҤȷӤĤ졤Ūϰ̤³ƥθҤŪ˱ϤΤǤ롥αƶϤ˶ٹؤꡤɤˤƤ¯줿Ѹؤ˴褵졤ƤȤˤʤäꤷǰϥƥ٥륯ȯȾФơƻ˾Ϥᡤפ٤붯ϤʿϤȤʤäɥĸƱ͡ѸƥйҤȤɤθȤǧ褦ˤʤäƤ
ʾ (41) θդǤޤȤ褦
ױưͻʺ濴Ǥơŵ˰͵¯ǤȤˤäơ̱ˤȤäľܿ뤳ȤΤǤȶ¸ߤؤƤβḢ¯ͤ˳줿ϡ٤ƤμҲؤ˿ƩǮɤޤϤΤǤ롥η̽פϡ衼åѤζˤƥθҤ㲼դȤƤ¯ϰ̤ᡤɸη˴Ϳƥ٥륯γǰѤȯΤ褦ư岡
ʡ֥ɥĽ״ˤȶƱΡסƥȤȶƱΡ١ʸԡ2017ǯ29--42.
ˡػˡ٤ɤˤˤĤƤϡ#2465. ̺ȤƤλˤ ([2016-01-26-1]) Ǥⰷä̩ܤ˴ϢѤΥƥΥȹ碌ơ椬ʸ˰ʹʤȤϵ褦ʤ
λˤνҤϰʤƥΥˤ˴ؤŪʸλŦ⼨٤Ǥ (11)
ƥΥˤؤ֤٤פʤȡ̤˸äʤƤ뤳ȤϤۤˤ⤢롥ƥΥϸŤƥΥӽȤΤΤҤȤĤϤäˤϵʤѥԥ륹ϻ椬ƳƤ泤ߤ濴ȤϰDzȤĤŤϤޤ˻ȤƤ롥ŵȡ֤ȯƤϧʤʤ뤳ȤϤʤäǤ褦ˤʤäƤͤϥڥǽȤʤäƥӤϥ饸षʤäDzϷʤʤäۡӥǥDzۤʤʤäΤϤɤäͽ¬Ƥ줿ФλѤ餻뤳ȤǤʤäΤˡơŪ«줿ŵõȡޥͿ줿ȬǯʾФäߤǤ⡤ꥫ罰ǻɴҤϹ¤ȼԤ¸ߤ褽ͤνȰۤǯ֤ɥʾ夲Ƥ롥κǽνǯˤϹ夲ӤۤɤϹλȤӤ礭Ѥäɤ⡥ƱͤΤȤ¤ˡӤˤĤƤⵯäʥƥΥϸŤƥΥӽȤ䤹Τԥ塼ϤޤʤѤ椬ä뤳ȤϤäƤʤ
Τˡ˰줿Ҥ줿ȤĹ餯ϤȤ櫓ʸˤդ路ǺȤߤʤ³18ΥꥫΩˤƤǽ٤Ȥ⤫줿ۤɤǤ롥
νҤŻҽҤζˤĤƤε (461--62) Ͼ嵭ΥƥΥѤ˲ʤơΤ褦˽Ҥ٤롥
ǥ˾äƤ椯ǤΤͽ¬ޤˡʸĤäƤȤȤפФƤߤΤ⤤ܤ¥ʤǺǽˤʤ륤٥ȤԤˤϯɲǤäꤹΤϡͤˤϼʹΤɤߤʤ뷹뤫ǥ֥å͵ȤʤäƤ롥
ʤۤɡŤƥΥϿƥΥˤ֤ȤϡäʵǽݻĤġ¸³Ƥ椯Ȥ¿Τ⤷ʤϡ礦ɸŤ줬֤ΤǤϤʤˡѰòƤ֤ȤĤäƤͤˤƤ롥ŤΤϼҲΰय⤷ʤѴƤޤ櫓ǤϤʤषΰĤȤѤ߽ŤͤƤɽΥꥨ˭ˤƤΤʤΤ
ޡˡ һҡˡػˡˤͤư줿ѡ١ֽŹ2016ǯ
(230) ϡػˡ٤10ϡְȽספˤơѤȤǿƥΥפưȤˤĤơΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
ϽפοҤȤäۤۤɿ¤˶ᤤפάȤưѤϤƤαưäפä餳Ϥλˡξȯ줿ΤĤޤȤ衼åѿͤϰ¤ˡ⡤°Ħ⡤¤⡤Ħ줿˥Ĥƺˡ⡤֤ޤΤäƤơεˤʤСĤǤưǰϤ줿κ俷ۤѲؤߵʨ֤äƤɥĤǰȯ줿Τ϶ǤϤʤץƥȤνױưˤϡοƥΥβǽľŪϤäΤץƥȤϹߤ˰Ȥʤ衤ͥåȤδޤޤǡϤ뱿ưȿμܤȤƤεǽ̤
ϡۤʤȤСƬⶵ餤ΤΤä͡μΨ夬äƤȡʸ𤬤ŪʼʤȤƬƤ롥פߤƤۤȤȿ͡μΨθ塤ưѤȤƥΥŪˤԤä礷ΤǤ롥ơפȰѤϤͻӤǿʤळȤˤʤä
16ƬΥɥĤǻϤޤäͻӤϡ˥ɤˤäޡȥå䤷ƥɹΩإ8ϡɹ̱λٻդ뤿ˡʸĤޤѤѤΤǤ롥 (258) ϡˤĤƼΤ褦Ƥʸʸ˵ϲؤƤˡ
ɹˤ罰λٻɬפǤꡤɤνޤؼ뤳Ȥϵ٤ǤϤʤȤĥʤ罰ζ뤫⤷ʤäʤФʤʤʢȥޥ०ϤάIJȶĤɥĤΥץƥȤΤ褦˰ȼԤѤ罰λٻᤵ०ϡȿĤαѸϢξʸǤѥեåȤ⤽ΤʤƤͤ罰˽ʬ˼ΤäʪʤݤοϤطʤǽϻ夷Τ
०뤬ѤѤƾʸȤʸˤإ8̱˼줵褦ȤפǤ롥ơ줬ޡȥåȷӤĤƥǤϤʤǤ줿ѸǤäȤ˽פǤ롥ˤơסѡαѸ3ĤӤĤȤˤʤäפʤСޤޤ¿αѸ줬դƤϰ̤夹뤷Ѹϰ̤夷ư뵡Сפϩ줿츫ӤĤʤ褦͡ʸݤ16ΥɼҲ礭ưƤΤǤ롥
ޡˡ һҡˡػˡˤͤư줿ѡ١ֽŹ2016ǯ
ɽ2ĤνϡѸ˾礭ʱƶϤäѸǽ줿ʸǤ롥Ĥ䤫ѿۤǹϤĤΤǡơ1դΥͿƤʲåʸɤǡˡ
![]() | ![]() |
| Book of Common Prayer (Of Matrimonie) | King James Bible (Title-page) |
15Ⱦ˰ (printing) ⤿餵줿塤³16δ֤ɸŪˡؤϺϤޤäκݤηƻֻˤȤɤޤ餺ˡ (punctuation) ˤڤ֤Ȥˤʤä
ΩμܤλˤϡƼζɵ椬̣ŪŪȤϲɤΤΥɤȤ͡ѤƤ¿ϰλʹߤ˾äƤޤäο30ĶȤƤΤƱζɵ⤢äμܤǤϤεǽɬ⸽ΤΤƱǤϤʤäʾФƽؤȸФβϴȤƤꡤѸˤ⤤ޤʤä
ΰȼԤϴŪˤϼܤˤäɵƸ褦ȤбʤΤ⤢ꡤ뤳Ȥ¿äŪˤϡ</> (virgule) <.> (point) Ϲǧ줿</> εǽϸߤ <,> (comma) 1520ǯ夫鸽ߤΤ褦 <,> ֤褦ˤʤäȼԤˤäƤξԤȤѤΤ⤢äˡ
ΰǤϡۤ <:> (colon), <> (paragraph mark), <//> (double virgule) ʤɤѤ졤ɵȤƤ <( )> (parentheses), <;> (semicolon), <?> (question mark) ʤɤƳ줿ˤϻ֤פ㤨С<;> ʤɤϡCoverdales ˤ1538ǯοθ˸줳뤬ɤѤ褦ˤʤΤ1570ǯʹߤȤäƤ褤
17äƤ⡤ޤˡ³㤨СShakespeare First Folio (1623) Ǥ⡤ȴò䡤ȥߥλȤʬϰӤƤʤäݥȥե (apostrophe) ϥե (hyphen) ͽʤȤ˸줿 (ex. advan'st (= advanced), cast-him (= cast him)) ꤵϸ Shakespeare ιˤȿǤƤꡤۤʤǤۤʤѤȤ֤ˤʤäƤ롥
ݥȥեˤĤưäƤζɵ϶οǤꡤάѤФΤ1559ǯǤ롥ʤߤΥݥȥեˡȤƽͭʤɽ魯 <'s> ǤλѤ뤬ȯãϤä٤18ΤȤǤ롥
Τ褦ˡǤˡΰĤȤˡޤäƤζɵ⡤ѸǤϤޤ夷ƤʤäΤȤϡƳξ⤬˳̿ŪäȼԤŬΤˤ˻ԺΤ1ĤλɸȤߤʤȤǤΤǤϤʤʾ塤Crystal (261) ȤƼɮ
Ϣơ#574. punctuation 4Ĥεǽ ([2010-11-22-1])#575. Ū punctuation ˤ500ǯۤɡ ([2010-11-23-1])#582. apostrophe ([2010-11-30-1]) ⻲Ȥ줿
Crystal, David. The Stories of English. London: Penguin, 2005.
Ѹ˾ǽ˱Ѹǰ줿ܤϡWilliam Caxton ˤǡRecuyell of the Historyes of Troye (1475) Ǥ롥줿ϥɤǤϤʤCaxton νԤƤ Bruges äܤϡ̥衼åѤʸήԤ濴ä֥르˥εˤƤ褯ΤƤեܤǤꡤ衼ȤΥɲ Edward IV ǥ֥르˥ Charles ˲ǤǤ Margaret äƤܤǤ⤢äᡤCaxton ϤƽǤ뤳ȤȸƤ
̾ Historyes ϡϡˡʪˡפ˸ꤵ줺ʪˡפ̣Recuyell Ȥñϡִפ̣ʤäơԻʸءפۤɤؤ˥եñѤΤǤꡤޤˤܤ̾ˤѤǤ롥
ʲˡѸ˾廸ȵܤνʸCrystal (32) ǤˤƸ褦
hEre begynneth the volume intituled and named the recuyell of the historyes of Troye / composed and drawen out of dyuerce bookes of latyn in to frensshe by the ryght venerable persone and wor-shipfull man . Raoul le ffeure . preest and chapelayn vnto the ryght noble gloryous and myghty prince in his tyme Phelip duc of Bourgoyne of Braband etc In the yere of the Incarnacion of our lord god a thou-sand foure honderd sixty and foure / And translated and drawen out of frenshe in to englisshe by Willyam Caxton mercer of ye cyte of London / at the comaūdemēt of the right hye myghty and vertuouse Pryncesse hys redoubtyd lady. Margarete by the grace of god . Du-chesse of Bourgoyne of Lotryk of Braband etc / Whiche sayd translacion and werke was begonne in Brugis in the Countee of Flaundres the fyrst day of marche the yere of the Incarnacion of our said lord god a thousand foure honderd sixty and eyghte / And ended and fynysshid in the holy cyte of Colen the . xix . day of Septembre the yere of our sayd lord god a thousand foure honderd sixty and enleuen etc.
And on that other side of this leef foloweth the prologe.
ʤRylands Medieval Collection The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye μܲ Ǥ롥
Crystal, David. Evolving English: One Language, Many Voices. London: The British Library, 2010.
ȤȤ˰Ѥȯ줿ȤϡñʤˤζäѾγȤơطʤˤϼװʤɬˤϰ㤤ʤװξꡤλȯȤȤϤ褽ȹͤ줽 (142) ϡְѤʸ (pp. 129--47) Τʤǡյװ1ĤȤƴΤʸŪΤǤϤʤȽҤ٤Ƥ롥ˤĤƤϿŤ˸Ƥ;Ϥ뤬ε⤷Τǡʲ˺ƸƤߤ롥
ñɽ魯ڤΥ줿ʸ椫ʸȤͤȺǤӤĤפΤǤäޤ夫餢äϤܤȤ뤿ʤɤ顤ϼ˻פĤ줿ΤǤϤʤȤͤ롥άʣʲʸǤ뤫餳ʤưȤͤΤǤϤޤȤȤȡե٥åʸ̤ƫҾ˹िˤФФʸȤƻȤƤΤФơѥԥ륹顦ɤ˽褦ˤʤȡĤŤϢƤȤȤ̸ͤά͡
ϡγ¿μबɬפʤˡΤ⡤֤Τ֤롤äơˤŬʤΤǤϤʤȤռˤȤäȿǤ롥ѤäѤǤޤСष֤Ȥ뤳ȤΥåȤϷפΤʤȤ⤤롥ǰˤƤ⡤ϰۤʤʤ
Τ褦˹ͤȡȰϡ̤˸ƤɤΤ⤷ʤ (187) ϡ̤ʸϡʸء (pp. 165--87) ΤʤǡդĿμʤѤƤܤΰʸ˿ĤġΤ褦ӤǤΰŪʴվоݤȤƤν֤¿ʸƤ롥ʸˤĤƤϡ#2408. ץʸˤߤѰۤȻΤѲ ([2015-11-30-1])#2412. ʸϡϡ ([2015-12-04-1]) ⻲Ȥ줿
ʸסʸؤΤΤߡ١罤ۡ1977ǯ
˰³ƤꡥCaon (297) ˤСԤĹ첻ɽ魯 <e> ǽƤΤϡҤ٤褦ˡ16Ⱦʹߤ Mulcaster ƱֻԤǤȿƤSalmon Ȥ Caon (297) ˤС¤ϤȾ̤ۤ16Ⱦ John Rastell ʤʪˤäƤƤȤ
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries linguists and spelling reformers attempted to set down rules for the use of final -e. Richard Mulcaster is believed to have been the one who first formulated the modern rule for the use of the ending. In The First Part of the Elementarie (1582) he proposed to add final -e in certain environments, that is, after -ld; -nd; -st; -ss; -ff; voiced -c, and -g, and also in words where it signalled a long stem vowel (Scragg 1974:79--80, Brengelman 1980:348). His proposals were reanalysed later and in the eighteenth century only the latter function was standardised (see Modern English hop--hope; bit--bite). However. according to Salmon (1989:294). Mulcaster was not the first one to recommend such a use of final -e; in fact, the sixteenth-century printer John Rastell (c. 1475--1536) had already suggested it in The Boke of the New Cardys (1530). In this book of which only some fragments have survived, Rastell formulated several rules for the correct spelling of English words, recommending the use of final -e to 'prolong' the sound of the preceding vowel.
® Salmon ʸꤷɤǤߤJohn Rastell (c. 1475--1536) ϡˡΧȡȡۼԡԻԡڰȡ̱ϤοʼԤʤɤͤ¿ͤʿʪä褦ǡɤ߽ˡˤؿƤȤξҤ The boke of the new cardys wh<ich> pleyeng at cards one may lerne to know hys lett<ers,> spel [etc.] Ȥ̾ǽƤꡤ褽1530ǯ Rastell ˤʤơ餯ˤ줿ȹͤƤ롥¸ΤҤΤߤͿս Salmon ʸ (pp. 300--01) ˺ƸƤ롥
Rastell ֻؤδؿϡΰüɬҲȤʤäƤطʤ̵ǤϤʤRastell ϡȤȤơɤߤ䤹ֻɬפƤꡤThe boke ˤֻߤΤRastell ϡMulcaster ʤɤơ16ȾȤᤤˡǤˡ (orthography) ȤȯۤäƤΤǤ롥
Rastell 첻ҲɽˤĤƤĤƤԤäƤ뤬ɸȴϢơSalmon (294) μλŦפǤ롥"[A]nother proposal which was taken up by his successors was the employment of final <e> (Chapter viii) to 'perform' or 'prolong' the sound of the preceding vowel, a device with which Mulcaster is usually credited (cf. Scragg 1974: 79)."
ᤤˡ˴ؿƤΤ Rastell ǤʤäƱ Thomas Poyntz ʤ륤ɾͤ첻ĹȤ diacritic <e> ƤƤ롥Poyntz ƤΤϡRastell Mulcaster ƤȤϰۤʤꡤ첻ľ <e> ³Ȥˡäʤ<saey>, <maey>, <daeys>, <moer>, <coers> ǡǤ (Salmon 294--95) Poyntz ˡϸˤʤäˤ16ȾˡؼԤǤϤʤ¶ȲȤƳDZѸˡΩưϤƤȤϡõƤƤ褤
Caon, Louisella. "Final -e and Spelling Habits in the Fifteenth-Century Versions of the Wife of Bath's Prologue." English Studies (2002): 296--310.
Salmon, Vivian. "John Rastell and the Normalization of Early Sixteenth-Century Orthography." Essays on English Language in Honour of Bertil Sundby. Ed. L. E. Breivik, A. Hille, and S. Johansson. Oslo: Novus, 1989. 289--301.
ѸܤʤɤǸ֢פǤ롥ѸǤϡ"plicrow", "paragraph mark", "paragraph sign" ʤɤȸƤФ롥P(aragraph) ˤΤȻפǤĴ٤뵡ꡤǤϤʤΤä餤СC α2ŽФΤȤȤ
Parkes (302) ˤȡΤμܤνλꡤȤäŪˤޤȤޤäñ̤ʸϤǤ뤳ȤΤˡ͡ʵ椬ȤƤƥȤΤʤʬ꤬̿ϤޤȤˡ̣ capitulum (kapitulum) Ƭʸäơ.K.פɽ㤬Фи줿ޤC Ȥˤ₵פ֢פȯãԤ˴ޤޤ2Žϡ̻˼٤սΤˡ//פΤ褦2ܼѤȤͳ褹롥Ρ//ΤγϤɽ魯Τ˽ʬʵǽƤᡤΤޤȤƤѤ褦ˤʤäǽȤơλϤˡ֦áס֦ס֡פʤɤդ paragraphus δȯãƤ (Parkes 305)
ȯãξܺ٤Ĵ٤Ƥʤɤ餳ν椬ǽȷξ̤ˤƹήparaph ȸƤФ뤳Ȥˤʤɵ椬ΩƤΤ餷ɽȤƸޤǼѤƤΤ֢פȤȤˤʤ롥
ѸνդǤϡˤϡʥǥȡˤѤΤŪŻʸʤɤǤ˰̲ĤĤΤȼʤ1ԶǤ롥δϡܸνդˤƤǤȯŪ˳ȤäƤȻפ롥
ŪãʡϤɤǤ졤Ȥʤ뤤ϤहŪñ̤Ȥߵϡź˽ΤˤäȤȤ
ܥ֥ǰä⤦1ĤζɵˤĤƤϡ#1274. hedera, or ivy-leaf ([2012-10-22-1]) ȡ
Parkes, M. B. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scholar P, 1992.
ѸֻɸಽĬήϡü郎Ѹ줫顤ѸФơ1755ǯ Johnson Dictionary Ǥ˻ޤǡĹ³ѸˤեѤοȤݤƱͤΤ褦˿ˤ錄äƴ³ŪȤΤϡɤˤ15ǤϤɤʳʤΤ17ǤϤɤդ꤫ʤɡľŪˤȤ館뤳Ȥ
ϼ̤14ȾChaucer λդ˽ɸβߤ줿15ɸಽή줬ˤ䤫˿ʤȾΰѤƳϡɬ̤˿ƤۤɷŪֻɸಽʤ櫓ǤϤʤ³16ˤƤ⡤ɸಽؤĬήϴˤ䤫ˤߤ줿֤ۤ⤬פϴʤ17ȡȼԤȤϤषؼԤ䶵դƯˤꡤɸŪֻϰϤŸ뤳Ȥˤʤä1650ǯˤϻ¾ɸಽãƤռŪʡפʳ˿ʤΤλ夿18ΤȤǤ롥ơJohnson Dictionary (1755) ˤᲡä줾ܤϡܵդ cat:spelling standardisation Ȥ줿
δȤֻɸಽĬή٤°桦 (73) Ըܤۤä16ʹߤΤĤŤסڡĤŤνǤˤʤɤѤʤ顤?ȾСפȤåݥȤߤĤġʲΤ褦ʬ䤹Ƥ롥
ĤŤؤפϤǤ16ȾФ鸫Ϥᡤ17ȾФˤϡΤɸϤʤȤ⡤濴ŪʡĤŤؤγˤȤ⤤٤ΤϤƤꡤ줬17ޤǤˤϤ˽㲽ꤵñ첽ηɤꡤǤ Johnson's Dictionary ˤΤȤޤʤĤŤԤƤȤ
ȸˤϡåݥȤȤʤƻʸɤߴ졤ŪФȤɸಽ٤İǤ褦ǤʤФʤʤΤ
#193. 15 Chancery Standard through ΰ֤14̤ ([2009-11-06-1])
#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])
° ̭ ͡ΤäƤѸˡ١ҡ2014ǯ
դˤϡformality Υ٥뤬¸ߤ롥ܸȤˤ⡤줬ǽŪ˸ŪʰʪդͽǤС㤨д˴ְ㤤Τʤ褦ĤʤɡʤդʧΤ̤Ǥ롥ŻҥʸϤʤɤǤϡʪϳʼ٤뤳Ȥ¿ӥͥʤŪŪʤζʸϤǤäƤæʤɤϷ褷ƾʤʤŪʥʸϤǤСʤæʤɤΩĤȤϡïиƤȤǤ롥ˡʬɤळȤΤʤ˺ϿʤɤǤϡʸˡƤꡤŬ˻Ȥäꤹ롥⤷ͤ˸졤äƤȻŦ줿ȤƤ⡤䤿ϤϸǤϤʤάʽˤʤȿʤդˤϡˡδȤ̤μȤơformality δγʼάȤ롥ϸѸǤƱǤ롥
Ѹˤֻɸಽȸ경塹ȿʹԤƤ17--18ˤ⡤ƱäֻˤϡȤ̤μȤ formality μ¸ߤƤAddison, Dryden, Swift, Johnson ʤʸͤϡ1ĤθꤷֻDZѸȤĥˡεϤΩ褦ȤϤޤǸŪʸϤ˸ꤵƤȤΤϡ修ʤɤǤϡɤ줿ֻˤѤƤǤ롥Swift ¾ͤμˤֻˤϸäˤ⤫餺 jail/gaol, hear/here/heer, college/colledge ʤɤɤƤJohnson ϼǤֻθ경ˤäŪʽʪǤ complete/compleet, pamphlet/pamflet, dos/do's/does ѰۤJohnson Ǥ顤修ˤƤä˸ˡɬפƤʤäΤǤ롥Horobin (157) ϡ17--18ˤ뤳ξˤĤơʲΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
Rather being a marker of literacy or education, non-standard spellings in private letters seem to have been considered a marker of relative formality. These private spellings do not appear in printed works, which follow the accepted standard spelling conventions.
ξϡ¿쾯ʤ19ʹߡߤޤ³ƤȤäƤǤϤʤդˤĤƤϡˡ formality ꡤ뤤ϸȤƱƤϤʤʤȤȤ
ȤȤǤСԥ塼ǤΤȤ¿ʤäƤŪʥƤȤǤ顤ȾмưŪ˥ڥåѴʸʤɤΥåǽư褦ˤʤäƤĤƤϿǡȼԤäƤŪʥåǽߡԥ塼ˤäƻŪʽʪΰˤƤƤȤˡл뤹뵬ϼŪΩοͤˤȤäƤϡΤ褦ʼưåǽ¸ߤ˾ޤפΤ⤷ʤˡθȤ⤤뤫 Swift Johnson Ǥ顤ΤεϤβĤˤפΤǤϤʤפȤɬפˤʤΤϸŪʸ̮ˤƤǤꡤŪʸ̮ǤפⶵΤ©줷롥ȾưǺư륹ڥåѴظ˹Ƥ뼭βʤΤϤΤȾХ֥åܥåȤʤäƤǡˡפפƤȤȤϡͤƤߤ©줷Ф꤫鴶롥Swift Johnson θζ̤ϡƳQŪäƤΤ⤷ʤ
դؤοβȤˤĤƤϡ#1844. ɥĸ켰̾ƬʸѤϱѸˤ⤢ä (2) ([2014-05-15-1]) Ȥ줿
Horobin, Simon. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: OUP, 2013.
#583. ɥĸ켰̾ƬʸѤϱѸˤ⤢ä ([2010-12-01-1]) ˤ褦ˡAddison, Dryden, Swift ʤɤγ17--18ˤϡ̾θƬʸϤäνμݤϥɤȤʤ̾ʸ뤳Ȥä̾ǤвǤʸȤHorobin (157) ˤСδظˤϿβäȤ
The convention seems to have been for a writer to leave the business of spelling to the compositors who were responsible for setting the type for printed texts. This practice led to the introduction of a distinctive feature of punctuation found in this period: the capitalization of nouns. This practice has its origins in an author's wish to stress certain important nouns within a piece of writing. Because ultimate authority for spelling and punctuation lay with compositors, who were often unable to distinguish capital letters from regular ones in current handwriting, they adopted a policy of capitalization of nouns by default.
#1829. եƥȤ3Ĥεǽ ([2014-04-30-1]) εǻȤ (45--46) ϡȼԤˤƤƥȤνǽ˱ƶڤܤƤ뤳ȤŦƤ롥
줿ƥȤǤϡǽΥǤʬŪˡǽΥǤϤۤȤɤäѤ黺ȵФƽɬϤ⤿ʤ¤Ϥ椨ˡʬܤ줿ΤɤȤϡʬǽΤȤ̤ܤˤƤ봶ΤǤ롥줿ΤФƤ븢Ҥγˤ롥
θ塤̾θƬϤ٤ʸȤˡδĹ³Ĥɸಽ뤳ȤϤʤäդɸಽˤ뿢ȤŪˤդƤɬפʤǶθǤϰȼԤνɸಽؤδͿ⾮˸Ѥ뷹ǧ뤬δͿΤΤǧƤ櫓ǤϤʤβϴְ㤤ʤäϢơcat:printing standardisation ΤĤεȤ줿
ѸǤǤڤˤʤä̾ʸδϥɥĸǤɸಽƤ롥ϥɥĸˤˤϰŤǯ8 Oslo ؤdz줿 ICHL 21 (International Conference on Historical Linguistics) ˻äޤˡɥĸˤ뤳ζˡȯŸˤĤƤθȯɽꡤ̣İ긵˻ĤäƤˤȡɥĸǤ16--17ˤδȯŸǽ餫餹٤Ƥ̾줬ʸ줿櫓ǤϤʤ[+animal] ΰ̣̾줫Ϥޤꡤ[+agentive], [+material] ʤɤνǿʹԤȤŪˤ⡤ȤƤΤۤŪȤƤ̾ʸᤫäȤֻѲóȻ (lexical_diffusion) ˽ΤȴؿΤФƤ롥
ˤʸȾʸζ̤ȯˤĤƤϡ#1309. ʸȾʸ ([2012-11-26-1]) ȡ
Horobin, Simon. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: OUP, 2013.
١롦 衡ʸȥߥ˥١ҡʸ˥ӡ1988ǯ
ε#1384. ֻɸಽ˹Τ17ؼԤȶա ([2013-02-09-1]) ޤ ##297,871,1312,1384 γƵǡȼԤֻɸಽ˹Ȥ뽾ؤȿƱͤˡɤˤǽΰȼ William Caxton (c1422--91) ֻɸಽ˹ʤäȹͤ٤Brengelman (337--39) ˵Ĥġ
(1) Caxton ϡȤư˱ơľε²ΤߤоݤȤư˲ʤ100ĶȯԤȤϤʤ
(2) Caxton ϼ餬¿Խ꤬ȤͤƤ⡤ȤΤΤô뵡Ϥۤ¿ʤäϤǤ롥
(3) Caxton ʤֻϰӤƤ餺եֻζƶƤ롥Malory Morte d'Arthur ǤСCaxton ϤषֻֻǰƤ롥
(4) Caxton ˤƽФñǤ顤ɸֻȤϰۤʤֻǰƤ롥ŪˤϡCaxton ˽ФΥޥϼѸ1384Τ170줬ߤˤޤǻĤäƤ뤬Caxton ֻȸߤɸֻȤפΤϡ170줦57ΤߤǤ롥פʤȾֻˤĤƤ⡤17˵ʲ줿ֻ§ӤơϢ³ʤ
(5) Caxton Ʊ塤ƱμܤֻӤƤߤȡξԤΤ variation ʬۤ礭ʰ㤤ʤ
κʤ顤Brengelman (339) ϡ"[I]t can hardly be true that Caxton had a major direct role in standardizing (not to mention regularizing) English spelling" ȷƤ롥
ʲդäBrengelman (336, fn 9) ǤϡϥɥĸˤƤȼԤդȯŸä˹櫓ǤϤʤȤ븦椬Ҳ𤵤Ƥ롥ȼԤϡ̤αƶˤäȯãս§äʽή̤ȤǽʳˤƹˤŪϤޤǴŪʤΤǤȤƤ롥
Brengelman, F. H. "Orthoepists, Printers, and the Rationalization of English Spelling." JEGP 79 (1980): 332--54.
Ѹ16--17ֻɸಽưȯ衤Ĭήطʤˤ15ȾΰѤƳäȤƤȤǯθˤȡѤƳľŪˤֻɸಽ˴ͿʤäΤǤϤʤȤǽ夬äƤε˴ؤƤϡ#297. ѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤ ([2010-02-18-1]) #871. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ ([2011-09-15-1]) #1312. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ (2) ([2012-11-29-1]) Ǽ夲
Brengelman (333, 336) ˤȡȼԤֻɸಽ˹Ȥϡ餯20Ƭ George Philip Krapp ̤ꡤʹߤ¿θԤ˻ٻƤBrengelman ϡƱѶŪ˻ٻ뺬˳ष17ؼԤȶդϤˤȤ礭ȤơϤΤŸƤ롥ĹѤ褦 (Brengelman 354)
It thus seems clear that the extensive rationalization of English spelling which took place during the seventeenth century was the result of efforts by theoretical linguists and schoolmasters. There is no evidence at all that during the years when English spelling was being standardized the printing industry made any significant contribution to the process. The actual contribution of the printers to the evolution of English spelling seems to have been the following:
1. The elimination of most ligatures, abbreviatory symbols, and complementarily distributed letters. These spelling variants were eliminated in order to reduce the number of different sorts [type characters] constituting a particular alphabet.
2. Making possible the very wide distribution of texts exemplifying a particular selection of spellings. The English Bibles and Book of Common Prayer as well as certain school books issued by a very few publishing houses (a privilege granted by the King or Queen) may possibly have had an impact on the ultimate preference for certain spellings.
3. The reinforcement of modernizing, standardizing tendencies through the practice of bringing reprints and new editions into line with current spelling practice.
Thus English printers are seen to have played only an indirect role in the process of spelling rationalization that took place during the seventeenth century. In contrast, practically all of the spelling reforms urged by orthoepists and schoolmasters early in the century were adopted by authors during the middle years of the century. It is their effort which resulted in the vastly more rational spelling system that had become standard by the end of the century.
ֻɸಽΤϡȼԤΤ褦ʼ¶ȲȤäΤؼԤΤ褦ȤäΤ뤤ϡȼ路դǤϤ˸ȤȤʤΤ⤷ʤ
Brengelman, F. H. "Orthoepists, Printers, and the Rationalization of English Spelling." JEGP 79 (1980): 332--54.
ε#1311. ֻɸಽϤʤɬפ ([2012-11-28-1]) ȴϢơֻɸಽȰѤδطˤĤƺƹͤ#297. ѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤ ([2010-02-18-1]) ȡ#871. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ ([2011-09-15-1]) εǡξԤؤ餫ˤˤĤơSchmitt and Marsden (160--61) ϰѤιٻոФƿҤ٤Ƥ롥
[A]lthough the new technology offered the opportunity for rapid standardization of orthography, in practice there is little evidence during the first hundred years of its use that printers were much concerned with such matters. As his own translations and the prefaces to his works show, Caxton himself was wildly inconsistent in his spellings. Within a few sentences in his prologue to Caton (c. 1484), for instance, we find boke, booke, and book, and lytel, lytell, and lytyl (and from another contemporary work of his we may add lityl and lityll). . . . The formative period of English spelling in fact lasted some 200 years; not until 1700 was the standard that we recognize today, with all its familiar conventions, just about in place.
Salmon (24) ƱͤˡCaxton ˻ϤޤꡤWynkyn de Worde, Robert Pynson, Robert Copland ʤɤΰؤȰѤ줿ѤνλˤϡӤֻؤδؿäȤƤ롥
In general . . . printers of the early sixteenth century demonstrate little obvious interest in working towards a standardised orthography. Their lack of concern has been well illustrated in a comparison . . . of five editions of Reynard the fox (1481, 1489, 1500, 1515 and 1550) in which it is difficult to discern any consistent progress towards a standard orthography . . . .
16ϡؤβϴǤ롥λͭ1ĤȤֻɸಽؤΤ⤬꤬ǧƤ⤬ǡƤȤäΤ⤷ʤǽŪβ1755ǯԤʤФʤʤä1ˤƤ⤽⤦100ǯۤɡ17ȾФޤԤʤФʤʤäΤǤ롥
Schmitt, Norbert, and Richard Marsden. Why Is English Like That? Ann Arbor, Mich.: U of Michigan P, 2006.
Salmon, Vivian. "Orthography and Punctuation." The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. 3 1476--1776. Ed. Roger Lass. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. 13--55.
[2012-07-12-1]ε#1172. ѸΥƥñפǡ-ly ȯãƤˤñ (flat_adverb) ȯãˤȹ碌άҤäơ#1176. -ly Ω ([2012-07-16-1]) ȡ#1181. -ly Ω (2) ([2012-07-21-1]) ǡ-ly 줬Ω礷طʤˤĤƽҤ٤ȯãΩȤΤϤҴ˷礱ɽǤϤ뤬̩ϡ (productivity) Ʊ餤ϡѸˤ -ly ε§ˤ뤬§ (regularisation) ΤΤǤϵ§ȤѸؤοϤˡ-ly ɸѸǺǤ̤ܼȤǧ졤ʸˡؤƤ椯Ȥơˤ䤫ˤȤ館Ƥ
-ly ε§ˤĤƤϡNevalainen (244) ˤ褯ޤȤޤäҤ롥
The generalisation of the adverbial suffix -ly is usually attributed to the effects of standardisation. Fisher et al. (1984: 49) point out that adverbs were already regularly marked by the -ly suffix in the Chancery documents in the fifteenth century. The acceptance of the Chancery Standard was not, however, explicit outside the Chancery itself. At the beginning of the Early Modern English period, it was the printers and educators who began to assume dominant roles in the transmission of the written standard (see Nevalainen--Raumolin-Brunberg 1989: 83--88). The growing feeling for grammatical "correctness" that Knorrek (1938: 104) and Strang (1970: 139), for instance, refer to is well documented in Robert Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar. Bishop Lowth writes in 1762:
Adjectives are sometimes employed as adverbs: improperly, and not agreeably to the genius of the English language. As, 'indifferent honest, excellent well:' Shakespeare, Hamlet, 'extreme elaborate:' Dryden, Essay on Dram. Poet. 'marvellous graceful:' Clarendon, Life, p. 18. (Lowth 1762/1775: 93)
ĤޤꡤѸνޤǤ˰̲ήθƤ -ly 줬Ѹλ˰ȼԤ䶵ԤˤѸɸಽư˸岡Ƶ§18εʸˡˤäܤ줿ȤаޤǤ롥Nevalainen ϡʸǡѸˤƤñ夫;ȤdzƤꡤĤޤ줿Τ⤢𤷤Ƥ뤬 (250) ˰ѤҤŪĬή褯ɽ路ƤȤ
Nevalainen, Terttu. "Aspects of Adverbial Change in Early Modern English." Studies in Early Modern English. Ed. Dieter Kastovsky. Mouton de Gruyter, 1994. 243--59.
Ѹΰϡquotation marks, inverted commas, quotes, speech marks ʤɤ͡˸ƤФ뤬ŵŪʵǽ1ĤľˡˤȯʬɸǤ롥‘abc’ Τ褦 single quotation marks ȡ“abc” Τ褦 double quotation marks 2ब롥ʥǥץ쥤ˡĤΰη֤ϰۤʤ뤬䥿ԥǤϤ줾 'abc' "abc" ʤɤƱ֤ˤʤ롥
̤ˡꥫǤ double quotations ̤ǤꡤꥹǤ single quotations ̤ǤȤ졤˴ޤǤϤʬۤդˤʤȤ褦ˡƺǧȤ롥ͤηǧ뤬ºݤˤϰˤФĤϤ褦
Ȥ quotation marks λѤαƺˤĤƿ줿ȤʤαƺȤ䤬äƤϤФиߤ˵դΤȤΤǤ1ȷڤפäƤ餤ǡŪ䤦Ȥ˺Ƥꡤͤ줿äǡĴ٤ƤߤŪʻˡεҤϡQuirk et al. (Section III. 21) Fowler's The Chicago Manual of Style ʤɡ¿λͿdzǧǤ뤬ŪȯŸηаޤˤĤƤϿƤΤʤǡMcArthur (838) ꤬ͿƤ줿
QUOTATION MARKS [1880s]. . . . Double marks are traditionally associated with American printing practice (as in the Chicago style) and single marks with British practice (as in the Oxford and Cambridge styles), but there is much variation in practice; double marks are more often found in British texts before the 1950s, and are usual in handwriting. Quotation marks are a relatively recent invention and were not common before the 19c. . . . Single quotation marks are tidier, less obtrusive, and less space-consuming than double marks, and for this reason are increasingly preferred in Britain and elsewhere in printing styles, especially in newspapers.
ޤCrystal (283) ϡquotation marks ˤĤơȯŸηϩάҤƤ롥
Derive from the use of a special sign (the diple) in the margin of manuscripts to draw attention to part of the text (such as a biblical quotation); printers represented the marks by raised and inverted commas, and eventually placed them within the line; came to indicate quotations and passages of direct speech (hence the alternative names); choice of single vs double quotes is variable; latter are more common in handwritten and typed material, and in US printing . . . .
ޤĴ٤Ƥ狼äȤϡquotation marks ϡμܤʤɤμӤѤ줿 "diple" ȸƤФü쵭椫ȯãΤǤꡤɤḽˤ double quotation marks ȤƸǤޤĤĤä褦ϡ䥿ԥǼѤ졤ȤƥꥫȤ夷1950ǯꥤꥹǤϰԹǴάǤȤ⤤ single quotation ޤ褦ˤʤꡤ夷
diple quotation marks ؤȯŸηϩܤΤꤿȤˤμܤɬפ
Ѹ punctuation ʶˡˤˤˤĤƤϡ[2010-11-23-1]ε#575. Ū punctuation ˤ500ǯۤɡפȡ
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Burchfield, Robert, ed. Fowler's Modern English Usage. Rev. 3rd ed. Oxford: OUP, 1998.
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
[2010-02-18-1]εְѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤפǵΰüCaxton 1475ǯ˱Ѹˤ⤿餷ǰΥƥΥϡɬ⤹ˤϱѸֻθ경ˤĤʤʤäषǽˤϡѤ줿ֻ¿ѤˤäƳȻȤ¦̤ʤǤϤʤäѸֻΤ褽ɸಽ17ȾФΤȤȤƤ뤬ʤۤɤĹ֡Caxton 150ǯʾǯפΤ
ĤˤϡѤϳΤʸ˾γ̿äμʸִ줿櫓ǤϤʤäȤȤ롥Ѹμʸֻ¿ȤƤꡤޤʸΰ֤ŤѲȤƤ⡤16ʹߤ³Ƥꡤʸʻ¸ƤȤƨƤϤʤʤ
The two processes of production [prints and manuscripts] were in fact to co-exist for some centuries. Manuscript circulation became more generally confined to certain categories of text, and to particular milieux, while printing established itself as the swiftest and most economically viable method of disseminating texts in large numbers: school books, law books, books associated with the processes of sixteenth-century religious reform, for example. (Boffey 114--15)
ޤƳǤѤ̤ȯãλˤϡü· (justification) ãΤˡǤȤƤĴȤˡǤϤʤΤʤʸξάɲäȤޤޤˡʤƤthe that ѤȤƤ ye yt ϸ鷺⤬ʤǡ[2009-05-11-2]εֱѹΥѥ֤ ye äƤ椷פȡˡonly ѤȤƤο̼ߤ onely, onlie, onlye, onelie, onelye, onelich, onelych, oneliche, onelyche, ondeliche, ondelyche ϡؤγȤη³Ǥ (Potter 40) 16ϡRichard Mulcaster (1530?--1611) Τ褦ֻԤФΤ ([2010-07-12-1]εRichard MulcasterפȡˡμºŪʱƶϺǾ¤ˤȤɤޤäƤ
17뺢顤ܤ˸ѤäƤ롥ֻɸಽ褤ܳʲΤǤ롥ޤˤеϤƤȤȤطʤˤ϶ŪɸಽοϤѤƤ1ܤϡCawdrey μ (1604) ڤ˱Ѹ켭³ȽǤ줿ȤǤ[2010-12-21-1], [2010-12-27-1]εϤȤ cawdrey γƵȡˡ2ܤˡThe King James Bible (1611) ʤɼԤΤڤȤ⡤ֻθ경ˤä礭3ܤˡ17ȾФ (the Civil War) 礭ͿƤ롥ˤѥեåȤ줿Ϥޤ˻֤ɤƤˡü·ŪǤäȤƤ⡤ʣȤ֤ȤʤäΤǤ (Potter 40)
ơλפ18ˤϡֻͣ졤Johnson μ (1755) äƱѸֻθ경Ȥ˾Ĥ˲̤줿Τä
Boffey, Julia. "From Manuscript to Modern Text." A Companion to Medieval English Literature and Culture: c.1350--c.1500. Ed. Peter Brown. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 107--22.
Potter, Simon. Changing English. London: Deutsch, 1969.
ε[2010-11-22-1]˰³punctuation ֶˡפˤĤơpunctuation ˤϽդˤƱĹȹͤ뤬ܵǤϸѸ punctuation ľܤεȹͤѸޤ̤٤뤳Ȥˤ
߱ѸѤƤפ punctuation ˽иŪʴѤȯãƤǽȹͤΤ1516ΤȤǤ롥Ǥܤɤ߽ԤʤƤꡤpunctuation Τ͡ʷdzѤƤषǤʤ٤ƼǤ뤿˸Ȥϰۤʤü punctuation ¸ߤƤ¤˸ˤޤǤ˼줿ɵ30Ķȸ ( Crystal, p. 282 )
Ū punctuation ȯãˤϰѤȯԤʤФʤʤä1475ǯCaxton ˤѸϤޤ ( see [2009-12-24-1] ) ֻ punctuation ˸경ư褦ˤʤʵդεˤĤƤ[2010-02-18-1]εȡˡλ period, colon, semicolon ʤɤδѤޤäƤä 경ưȤäƤ¿٤ФȤ٤Ǥꡤ褷ηŪǤϤʤäޤ punctuation δŪȯۤϤޤ prosodic 뤤 oratory ä17 punctuation ϡޤ˼ȤƱΧͺۡưŤƤꡤŪʲɤǽˤ뤿ˡȤ̤äΤǤʺε[2010-11-22-1]ǽҤ٤ǽ (2) ˡ
Ȥ17 punctuation prosodic ȯۤ鸽 grammatical ȯۤؤƤʺεεǽ (1) ˡˤϡȡʸˡ Ben Jonson (1572--1637) θӤ礭17ʹߡexclamation mark, quotation marks, dash, apostrophe ʤɤοɵ³Ф18ޤǤˤϱѸ punctuation ϸߤȿã1819ˤ punctuation ¿Ѥ heavy style ŪäߤǤϤޤ punctuation Ѥʤ light style ήǤ롥Żҥʸʤɤطʤˡߤ⿷ punctuation ηϤޤĤĤ롥ŪʱѸ punctuation ˤϤ500ǯ⿷ʶˡäƤ椯Ȥˤʤ
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
[2009-12-24-1]εǡ15Ⱦ Caxton England ˰Ѥ⤿餷аޤˤĤƽҤ٤̤ˡΰѤƳϡ15Ⱦ˿ʹԤƤѸֻɸಽʤȤƲᤵƤ롥ѸˤθŵΰĤȤ٤ Baugh and Cable ϡѤαƶΤ褦ɾƤ롥
A powerful force thus existed for promoting a standard, uniform language, and the means were now available for spreading that language throughout the territory in which it was understood. (Baugh and Cable 201)
Caxton ˤѤƳֻɸಽ˹ɤϵ路ȤФƤƤ롥
The introduction of the press did not at first assist the adoption of the standard, but over time compositors became more familiar with it and helped to ensure its triumph. (Blake 205 as cited in Horobin 79)
. . . while the advent of the printing press was an important factor for the standardisation of written English, this was a gradual process which even by the close of the fifteenth century still remained unfinished. (Horobin 87)
ˡѤϤषޤĤäƤֻ variation ˹̤ɸಽ˵չԤή߽ФȤո餢롥
. . . it is an irony in the history of the development of the standard that the orthography of early printing represented a backward step when compared with the established conventions of chancery English. (Görlach 24 as cited in Horobin 79)
λܤεŪʰոȴϢơϥɥĸνɸಽξפФʲΰѡ
The inflectional system remained unstable during the following Early New High German period. One of the major factors for the instability was ironically the growing standardisation of written language. To quote R. Keller, "the growth of a written standard language spread regional features to other areas and by making them supra-regional increased variation and thus morphological confusion" (German 410) (Hotta 27)
Ѹξ硤嵭ΰոϡCaxton ΰȼԤ spelling λȤܺ٤ʬϤƤߤȤϤʤ餫ˤʤʤεϡĤʸ˾νФ͡ɾǽǤ뤳ȤȤƶ̣
Horobin, Simon. The Language of the Chaucer Tradition. Cambridge: Brewer, 2003.
Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
Blake, N. F. A History of the English Language. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996.
Görlach, M. Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1990.
Hotta, Ryuichi. The Development of the Nominal Plural Forms in Early Middle English. Hituzi Linguistics in English 10. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, 2009.
Keller, R. E. The German Language. London: Faber, 1978.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow