Cordorelli ˤѸֻ˴ؤ뿷θɤǤ롥Ǥϸ츻Ūֻ (etymological_respelling) ܤƤΤ̣⤬Ƥ롥츻Ūֻ¿ϡdout Ф doubtreceit Ф receipt Τ褦1ʸĹʤ뤳Ȥ¿ϫƯ֤ǤϤʤʸʤΤˤʸ̡ˤ¶ʧ褦ˤʤä16οϡʸʤԤ䤹ˡĹʤ꤬ʸ츻ŪֻΤۤΤǤϤʤȤʸˡ¾ˤ⤤äȻפ뤬츻Ūֻ⤽Τ1ĤäΤǤϤʤȤCordorelli (184--85) Ѥ롥
With regard to remuneration, large-scale etymological developments were initially prompted, I suggest, by a change in the economic organisation of the printing labour. From the turn of the sixteenth century, the mode of remuneration changed in accordance with the pressures exerted by modernisation: printers no longer received time-based wages, but were generally paid according to their output . . . . For typesetters, wages were set taking into account the kind of printing form, the publication format, the typefaces and the languages that were used in the texts . . . . As a result of a first move towards a performance-based pay, compositors' output also began to be measured, rather roughly, by the page or by the sheet; later, a more accurate measurement by ens was adopted. One en corresponded to half an em of any size of type, and the number of ens in a setting of type was proportional to the number of pieces of type used in it . . . . With compositors' output being measured by page first, and by ens later, typesetters became increasingly more prone to using as many types as possible when composing a book, while also having to make sure that the overall meaning of the text would not be corrupted by this practice. As a rule, the more types were used on a given page, the more ens were likely to result, which in turn meant that compositors would be paid a higher rate for a given project. Making the most of each typesetting project was more important than one might think, especially during the first half of the sixteenth century, when the English printing industry was still growing on unstable economic ground . . . . The flow of jobs that characterised most staff roles in the EModE printing industry was variable and often irregular for everyone, especially for compositors. The irregularity of the market could keep compositors short of work for long periods of time, and forced them either into part-time employment with another printer or even into joining the vast reservoir of employed labour . . . .
ѤȯλȲθѤȤäѡкѾװѸθ츻ŪֻζδȴؤäƤȤʤСϤؤ⤷ȥԥåǤ롥β¾ڤˤϡμҲֻܺ٤Ĵɬפ
Cordorelli (185) ȤˤȤʤ1ʸѤƤ
From this point of view, etymological spelling would have worked as a convenient means to increase average pay, to such an extent that printers evidently compromised linguistic correctness with personal profit, accepting or perhaps even enforcing the diffusion of 'false' etymological spellings like phantasy and aunswar.
Cordorelli, Marco. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Cambridge: CUP, 2022.
ε#5076. ꥹȶڤȴܤܤ --- ԡˡνʪˤؤ٤ ([2023-03-21-1]) ǾҲ𤷤髙ԡˡνʪˤؤ٤ꡤ publish ʸˤϤ롥
publish ϥƥηƻ pūblicus (public) ư pūblicāre ͳ褷եˤѷФ14˱ѸäƤ̣ϸ츻˽äơָˤפǤꡤ줬ֽʪȤƸˤפФơŪʡֽǤפؤȯŸ
䤿ϡpublish ʹȤޤʪפ⤫٤ñϼºݤˤϰѤȯˤѤƤȤȤϡष˽ФʸϤɤ߾夲ϯʸȷӤĤƤ髙 (75--76) Ѥ롥
Υ衼åѼҲˤäƤϡͤȤˤ뿷ϯɤϡֽǡפȤǰȷӤĤƤǤˤѸư publish Ǥ뤬ϤȤȰոʪ (public) ˤȤ̣ǤꡤѤѤƱʤ¿ǰ٤˽Ǥ¸ߤԤƤϯɤˤѥȥž̤εĺפ뤳ȤνǷ֤äȤäƤ褤㤨СΥɲإ˻Ť˲Ȥλʺץɥ֥ʥ륺ΥɡˤϡҤ˿ԤθȤˡȬȬǯˡإϻ١ڼҡϻˤޤʤϡ٤β꤬лϤեɤǡ֤䤷ƥƥ츶Ƥɤ³¸ܤˤϡʸϯˡפȤʸȡ֥إŲؤΤפȤνʸդƤ롥
Ĥޤꡤpublish ϡֽǤפȤ֤Ϫܤפ˶ᤫäȤȤˤʤ롥ǤϼƥĤ͡Τ publish Ǥ褦ˤʤäƤ뤬ñΤȤȤθ츻طʤƤ̣襤
髙 ԡνʪˤؤ١ȽŹҴȿӡ2023ǯ
711 khelfʷѸ˥եˤˤرѸ˿ʹ2ȯԤ줿Ȥϡ#4824. رѸ˿ʹ2 ([2022-07-12-1]) ǤΤ餻ޤ24̤4αѸ˥ꤵƤޤôԤ碌Ȳ2022ǯ7泰Ȥư̸ޤɤ

伫Ȥ⺣ΥȴϢƤˤĤƵƤޤΤǡʲ˥ĥäƤޤŪˤȤ
ΡQ1 Ƥ뵬ʸˡΩǯˤĤơ
hellog #2583. Robert Lowth, Short Introduction to English Grammar ([2016-05-23-1])
hellog #2592. Lindley Murray, English Grammar ([2016-06-01-1])
hellog #4753. ֱʸˡפ250ǯۤ˵Ū˺夲줿 ([2022-05-02-1])
YouTube ֱʸˡʤߤʤˤȿͤ18εʸˡȤǤڰʼδѸظإͥ # 19 ۡ
heldio 18ȾФ˱ʸˡ夲 Robert Lowth ȤϤäԡ
ΡQ2 ƤǰλϤޤäǯˤĤơ
hellog #241. Caxton αѸ1475ǯ ([2009-12-24-1])
hellog #297. ѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤ ([2010-02-18-1])
hellog #871. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ ([2011-09-15-1])
hellog #1312. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ (2) ([2012-11-29-1])
hellog #1385. Caxton ֻɸಽ˹ʤäȹͤ뺬 ([2013-02-10-1])
hellog #3243. Caxton ֻɸಽˤɤΤ褦˹ ([2018-03-14-1])
hellog #3120. ²˱Ѹΰʪ뤳Ȥˤ Caxton ([2017-11-11-1])
hellog #3121. ְѤȯȱѸפΤޤȤ ([2017-11-12-1])
hellog #337. egges or eyren ([2010-03-30-1])
hellog #4600. egges or eyrenʤ egges եȴ㤤ΤǤ礦 ([2021-11-30-1])
heldio #183. egges/eyren륭㥯ȥͭ̾ʰá
ΡQ3 Ƥ뿩̾ˤĤơ
ֱѸ˥ƥ50פ#23. äư
hellog #85. It's time for the meal --- time meal δط ([2009-07-21-1])
hellog #221. dinner ([2009-12-04-1])
ΡQ4 Ƥưʪפ̣ñˤĤơ
ֱѸ˥ƥ50פ#4. deer ̣Ѳء̣ѲѸˤء
hellog #127. deer, beast, and animal ([2009-09-01-1])
hellog #128. deer Ρưʪפΰ̣ϤĤޤǻĤäƤ ([2009-09-02-1])
hellog #1462. animal νǯˤĤơ ([2013-04-28-1])
heldio #117. ưʪפ̣ deer, beast, animal
ι泰ޤرѸ˿ʹ2ˤĤơոۡޤ顤khelf ĥå @khelf_keio ꤪȤΥեꤤޤ
ޥե٥åȤѤǤϡѲս䶯Ĵʬʤɡʬ̤˺Ω뤿ˤФХå (italics) Ѥ롥̾ΥޥΤǽ줿ʸΤʤǺٿȤΥåΤϤ褯ΩĤǤ롥ΤθŪˡȤäƤ褤cf. #574. punctuation 4Ĥεǽ ([2010-11-22-1])ˡ
åΤϡ1501ǯμܽΤ˴ŤΤȤƥ٥ͥǸ줿椬äٿȤǷкŪʽΤȤ߽Ф줿ΤǤ롥åΤ餫ΩͿ뤿Ѥ줿櫓ǤϤʤΩΤ˻Ѥϡ16ȾΥեǤοȤ줬ɤˤꡤ1611ǯζ (Authorised Version) ˤʸνΤȤѤ˵ڤӡ˻äˤϥåΤλȤϳ餹Ԥ⸽줿褦ǡۤɤޤǤ˻Ѥ̲ƤȤȤˤʤ롥
嵭 Daniels (68--69) ɤǽΤäȤǤ롥Ѹˤ륤åλѤδΩ˰äƤ¤ˤϡä˶ä줿ƱαѸ˾ΰյ礭ƳǧǤ롥
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.
529ڡˤ15:30?18:45ˡī㡼ɶˤֱѸˤȸ츻10ҳȳǰѡ֤ޤ12ΥǤ褤轪פäƤޤԼͳ¿ΤʤäƤ˴פޤĤ̤ꡤ䥳Ȥ¿ޤ
Τäμݤϰʲ̤Ǥ
15Ⱦ?16ȾΥɤϡ衼åѤǻϤޤäƤҳȳǰѤȯȤ˾طʤˡȤȤơޤήȤȤơɬĤϺƤǤκޤǤˡѸϥɤιȤ뤲ƤΤΡгŪˤС줿ƥΰҸˡޤؤȤϤޤǤѸˤǤŪΩʤƱܤ褿٤λؤ館ޤ
ιֺ¤Ѥ饤ɤ˸ޤʲ˥饤ɤγƥڡؤΥĥäƤޤ
1. Ѹˤȸ츻10ҳȳǰѡ
2. 10ҳȳǰ
3. ܼ
4. 1. ҳ
5. ϩάǯɽ
6. ҳ夬⤿餷 --- Ѹˤδ
7. 1492ǯڥαɸ
8. 2. ǰ
9. Ѥάǯɽ
10. ƥ٥륯 (1400?--68)
11. ꥢࡦ㥯ȥ (1422?--91)
12. ѤȶȤƤαѸ
13. Ѥֻɸಽؤι
14. ְѤƳֻɸಽʤؤε
15. ֻɸಽϤޤǴ˿ʹԤ
16. 3. ΰ줿Ѹɤ
17. Table Alphabeticall (1604) by Robert Cawdrey
18. ޤȤ
19. ʸ
Υ11ϡ֥ͥȽספǤ2021ǯ731ڡˤ15:30?18:45˳ͽǤѸˤȤäơƥĤĤĤȤƼΩƤȤ⤬ƤƣλǤֺ¤ξܺ٤ɤ
̡ȡشڥǥɴʡ٤ڥڥäƤȤ̿Τȯã˴ؤ뵭ܤˤȤޤä (1772--73) #2931. ϸŤӽΤǤϤʤ䤹 ([2017-05-06-1]) Ǽ夲Ȥ櫓̿ΤפǤܼŪʤȤХäͤƤƴ쥳ߥ˥ΤȯŸǡƶǤ롥ʲĹ٤ưѤ롥
̿ȯãޥߤ
̿ȯã
̿ˤΤȤΰջãȤСȯãϡ礿Τˤäơޤ˸Ƭɮŵ̿ߺŪ̿λʬव롥ʸʤˤ̿μʤϡƬˤ뤫СİФ̤Ƥο桦ޡʤΤݤʤɡˤˤ뤷ʤʸĤ褦ˤʤȻȯȤȤ˼ɮ̿ΤμפʼʤȤʤä
Ѥȯޤǡפʽʪϥȥåƻν̼ǽ̤ƤʿŪʸĿͤǽʽʪοϸꤵƤꡤΨ㤫äۤμήۤȤμѤȤä
Ѥȯϡʪ̤˳衼åѤǤ1455ǯ J. ƥ٥륯 (1397--1468) ˤäƶ°ˤǰȯ줿οʵѤϽʪιϤή̣ۤ16Ⱦνױư17ꥹԥ塼̿ΥǥζɬפˤѥեåȡʹʤɤγƼʪνиߤΨϤʤ㤯ȯαƶϤ˴ʤΤǤꡤΤ褦˰ʪ罰ΤȤΤˤʤäΤϥƥ٥륯ȯ顤380ǯвᤷ1830ǯΥꥫʺǽ罰ʹϴˤˤƤǤä
1844ǯ S. F. B. ⡼ (1791--1872) ѲſϿʹμã®٤ֻΤΤȤϤᡤ̿ˤοʲſ֤ϡ®dzμ¾˻ƤԤ侦ͤˤäơ19դޤ̥ޥޡͤĥᤰ餵졤̾
ޥߤ̿
ʹҤƤüѤȤơȯ100ĶǽȤȤȤʤä1890ǯ夫ȤΤȤ饸о줹1920ǯޤǤޥߥ˥ηǤ롥ŪˤķŪڤƥӤäꡤŵ̿ϥޥǥ̿μή롥
δ֡եࡤʤɤΤ٤λŪǥŤطʤȤơŪˤϹ̱ʸŪ硤гŪˤλʸŪήۤȤΤ˿ΤǤʤŤΤư줿λŪǥãϤ٤ơҤȤ꤫¿ؤξãդޤȤŪʰ̣⤫Ӿ夬餻롥
Ȥ뺣ˤ륽ϢϤҤȤ꤫¿ؤξΤ褦θ³Ѳż롥1980ǯܳʲ̿η֤ħϡ̿Ѥáեåѥ̿ˤߤҤȤ꤫ҤȤؤ̿ߺǤ롥Ĵ֤̿ˤƤ⡤ƥӲĤäȤꡤʸ֥ƥӡͭˤƤ¾롤¿ͥξġͤμפ˱ǡΰãǤϤʤ̿ϡĹ餯ʬǤƤʤ۶ν椹Ⱦ٤줿ȤޤͤꡦƤϤưɤƤ롥
̿Τ
̿ˤϡƬɮŵ̿ߺŪ̿λ˰ʬव뤬ƬˤãϡʸȰѤȯθ⡤ߤȤƻѤ줿ɤŪŪʷưˤФȤƽפ餸饸ƥӤоȤ̤ựäƤʤʸλˤʤäƤह뤳Ȥʤʻ¸μʸβɤϺ˲Ȥºɤ뤿νפʻŻǤ롥ץʸμήȤʤäƤɮμ椬äºŤ뤳ȤФ𤵤褦ˡƬ饳ԥ塼ޤǤˤϿä˿ʤ褦ˤߤƤºݤϿϾǤ뤳ȤϤʤ
̿ΤŪΤνиϤ١ԤΤεǽѤ뤬ΤδʪȤϤʤ餺ɮŵ̿Ȥ⤤⸽ޤ³ԤƤ롥ϡ̿ˤΤѲȤȤˡ̤¿ɵᤷƤˤǤ뤳Ȥ
ϡ쥳ߥ˥ˤƾ̤ɵᤷ³βǼΤȯƤȤȤˤʤ롥μˤĤƤϤɤʤΤȹͤǤޤäϡΤȾа¸뤬ȾΩΤǤ⤢
ȴϢƽ̺ˤĤơ#2465. ̺ȤƤλˤ ([2016-01-26-1])#2456. ̺Ƚƻ (1) ([2016-01-17-1])#2457. ̺Ƚƻ (2) ([2016-01-18-1])#2933. ǯɽ ([2017-05-08-1])#3116. ʪҤءѥԥ륹ء ([2017-11-07-1]) ⻲ȡ
شڥǥɴʡ١1995ǯ
Ѹζˡ (punctuation) δѤˤȡޡcomma; <,>ˡcolon; <:>ˡߥ (semicolon; <;>ˤʤɤˤϥڡ줺ˤϥڡ뤳ȤˤʤäƤ롥Τ褦ʴѤȤȤѲƤζλѤ̲ƤΤϡ#575. Ū punctuation ˤ500ǯۤɡ ([2010-11-23-1]) ǤߤȤѸˤƤλѤκˤĤƤɬŪǤϤʤäcf. #2666. Ѹʶˡ ([2016-08-14-1])ˡ
Cook (170) ˤȡѸǤϥޤ䥳ΥڡˤĤɤ줬ߤ줿ޤ˴ؤƤȤ˥ڡʤȤ㤬̤ä˴ؤƤϤषȤ˥ڡ뤳ȤԤʤƤϥեδѤαƶȤ
A word space following punctuation marks was not necessary 'in a Fixion,in a dreame', though there is a space both before and after the colon, following a French convention.
A comparison of the Folio and Quarto editions shows considerable variation:
Folio: Ham. I ʃo,God buy,ye : Now I am alone.
Quarto: Ham. I ʃo,God buy to you,now I am alone,
ʹߡˡδѤϡ쥤Ȥ˴ؤ뵻ѤȯŸʿŪѲƤޤ衼åѤ¾ζˡܤǸ臘Ȥ⤢СȼδѤȯãƤȤ⤢äǤ϶ˡ⡤ֻ䤽¾θȰۤʤ餺̻ŪѲȶŪѰۤˤ餵ƤȤȤ
Cook, Vivian. The English Writing System. London: Hodder Education, 2004.
long <s> ȸƤФ <<ʃ>> λˤĤƤϡǤˡ#584. long <s> graphemics ([2010-12-02-1])#2997. 1800ǯ˰ä long <s> ([2017-07-11-1])#1152. sneeze θ츻 ([2012-06-22-1])#1732. Shakespeare ֤ (2) ([2014-01-23-1])#2998. 18ޤǰȼֻϰۤʤˤä ([2017-07-12-1])#3869. 衼åѽ줬Ѹνդ˵ڤܤƶ ([2019-11-30-1]) ʤɤεǼ夲Ƥ
long <s> ŵŪ (1) Ƭˤơ(2) <f> ǡ뤤 (3) <ss> 1ʸܤˤơǤ1800ǯޤǹѤƤǤϡ⤦٤19ȾФޤǻȤƤȤ롥ȤScholfield (153) ǤϡơˤĤƤ⤦٤ǯ夬Ƥ롥
. . . the letters used from the seventeenth century onwards remain easily recognizable with the exception of the 'long s', written in various ways such as <ʃ> plain or <ʃ> italic, also found with part of the crossbar such as <f> has . . . . The long form derived from an earlier cursive handwritten variant of <s> and, when used, this variant occurred widely in lower case writing (not capitals) except in word final position, where the familiar 'short s' or 'round s' letter shape was used . . . . In some usage it was also not used before/after <f> or as a second <s> in a double <s> the middle of a word, or in other specific circumstances. The long 's' was widely used in print until around 1815, and while it disappeared from published material at a stroke when a printing house or typeface-designer abandoned it . . ., it faded out slowly in the usage of individuals. The author Wilkie Collins is recorded using it in the wordin a diary entry as late as 1886 . . ., and it seems that this use in final double 's' position was the one which generally survived the longest.
Ǥ1815ǯդ <<ʃ>> äǤϺǤ٤19ޤĤäȤΤäǤϤʤ<<ʃ>> οˤĤƤϡ#3869. 衼åѽ줬Ѹνդ˵ڤܤƶ ([2019-11-30-1]) ǡΦαƶäǽȴñ˿줿Hill (437) ˴Ϣ뵭ҤĤΦγ˱ƶȤԺѤη̤Ȥơ쵤˿षΤΤ褦εҤˤ1787--88ǯ餤פǯäȤˤʤ롥
The decline of the long 's' coincides closely with the emergence of the Modern or Didone letter in the eighteenth century. Though used in Bodoni's earlier work, it is absent from Manuale Typografico of 1788, and was not used by François-Ambroise Didot in the types he cut in the 1780s . . . .
In England, the printer John Bell argued against its continued use. It was not included in the types cut for him by Richard Austin in 1788, or used in his newspaper The World from 1787. Absent from British 'Modern' faces of the late eighteenth century, its use after this date was generally limited to deliberate historical effect or pastiche.
Scholfield, Phil. "Modernization and Standardization since the Seventeenth Century." Chapter 9 of The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. Ed. Vivian Cook and Des Ryan. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. 143--61.
Hill, Will. "Typography and the Printed English Text." Chapter 25 of The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. Ed. Vivian Cook and Des Ryan. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. 431--51.
䤿ʳؤӡѤƤɸѸ (Standard English) ˾夤ȯŸƤȤϡѸˤκǽץơޤ1ĤǤꡤܥ֥Ǥ standardisation ε濴͡˼夲ƤʤȤ櫓#3231. ɸ˼ Blake αѸ˻ʬ ([2018-03-02-1])#3234. ָȿʹ֡ (HLC) νմߥʡɸѸȯãˤĤäޤ ([2018-03-05-1]) ȡˡ
ѸɸಽˤϡɤαѸˤγǤɬ夲ؤγ路 Foley νƤ "The Development of Standard English" Ȥ1֤褤ʸϤǤ롥ʤ顤ʽŪɸѸȯŸ˾ˤޤȤƤ롥3ڡˤ錄ΤǡѤΤˤ褷ûϤʤȤιɤȤƤȤʤΤǡPDFѰդƤ
εҤƤ1ĤϡɸѸΥ١ȤʤɥѸ줬κʪǤ뤳ȤˤĤơŪаޤʬ䤹ƤƤ뤳ȤȤŪǤ¿ʬ˴ޤǤɥαѸ줬14--15ΤˡкŪ˱ɤƤοήŪǤˤϡ14Ⱦι¤˵ήưιޤؤäƤˡ15ˤϡʤǷкŪ˽äüԤ⡤¿ɥξήؤήߡ̤ȤơκȤƤΥɥѸ줬Ωơ줬ɸѸΤȤʤäƤäΤǤ롥
⤦1ܤ٤ϡѸˤ˸ꤵʤŪΩ줫顤ɸಽ3ĤξƵäƤǤ롥1ĤϡкŪŪͭϤϰθ졦ɸȤʤȤȡ⤦1Ĥϡθ졦ȽĤΤΤǤ뤳ȡǸˡʸä졦ɸȤʤ䤹ȤβǤ⡤ʲľܰѤƤ
To summarize, the rise of Standard English . . . exhibits a number of important general points about the how and whys of language standardization: first, if economic and political power is centralized in a particular area, the language of that area has a strong likelihood of being the basis of the standard, as the center imposes its hold upon the periphery (Standard French based on the Parisian dialect is another example of this); second, the standard is likely to be based on the speech of economically and politically powerful social groups, the elite, as their speech becomes imposed upon or diffused to lower status groups; ability to speak this dialect now becomes emblematic of higher social standing and thus a desirable skill, a kind of symbolic resource further empowering the elite, who may control access to the dialect through the education system, as is clearly the case in most modern nation-states; and third, a language or dialect which is the basis of literate forms and other cultural activities is a strong candidate for an imposed standard (Standard Italian based on the Tuscany dialect of Dante exemplifies this). (Foley 403)
Foley, William A. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997.
ѸλϤޤ16ˤϡθαѸˤ˱ƶͿμҲѲ#1407. Ѹ3Ĥ ([2013-03-04-1]) ǾҲ𤷤ȤꡤBaugh and Cable ʡ156ˤϰʲ5Ƥ롥
1. the printing press
2. the rapid spread of popular education
3. the increased communication and means of communication
4. the growth of specialized knowledge
5. the emergence of various forms of self-consciousness about language
װϡФŤʤäơѸʸˡȸä˴ŪʤʱƶڤܤȤˤʤäBaugh and Cable ʡ157, pp. 200--01) ˤСαƶϤϵŪǤ⤢ꡤƱݼŪǤ⤢äȤɤȤȤСäˤĤƤϵŪǤꡤʸˡˤĤƤݼŪǤäȤȤ
A radical force is defined as anything that promotes change in language; conservative forces tend to preserve the existing status. Now it is obvious that the printing press, the reading habit, the advances of learning and science, and all forms of communication are favorable to the spread of ideas and stimulating to the growth of the vocabulary, while these same agencies, together with social consciousness . . . work actively toward the promotion and maintenance of a standard, especially in grammar and usage. . . . We shall accordingly be prepared to find that in modern times, changes in grammar have been relatively slight and changes in vocabulary extensive. This is just the reverse of what was true in the Middle English period. Then the changes in grammar were revolutionary, but, apart from the special effects of the Norman Conquest, those in vocabulary were not so great.
ʤۤɡŪʼҲϡ줿ǤäФƤϡषä¥ΤĤǤʸˡФƤϵŪʰϤä˺ѤʡֶŪʡפָŪʡפɤؤƤ⤽ΤޤƤϤޤꤽʤΤǡ䤿ˤʬ䤹ˡ
ΰѤǤ⤷ΤϡǸ˶ѸѸ椷ƤȤѸǤϡ嵭Τ褦ʽ郎ʤäˡषä˴ؤݼŪǤꡤʸˡ˴ؤƵŪäȽҤ٤Ƥ롥֥Υޥˤե̤ʱƶƤϡפȤȤԤѸθûȤƤϡ˥ե줫̤μѸ줬פ⤫ӡ褷ơݼŪפȤϤʤϤϤޤüʻǤȤƤ֤ƤСΤ˾嵭δѻϤ褽äƤ褦˻פ롥Baugh and Cable ϡŪŪ˵ҡʬϤɾ뤬Ȥɤ˺Τ褦ΰ̲ߤ륱⤢ꡤɤǤȯ롥
Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 6th ed. London: Routledge, 2013.
ɸȴϢϡ#1385. Caxton ֻɸಽ˹ʤäȹͤ뺬 ([2013-02-10-1]) ǼꤢϡFisher "Caxton and Chancery English" ꤹ뾮η (129) Ѥơ
Caxton's place in the history of the development of standard written English must be regarded as that of a transmitter rather than an innovator. He should be thanked for supporting the foundation of a written standard by employing 86 percent of the time the favorite forms of Chancery Standard, but he is also responsible for perpetuating the variations and archaisms of Chancery Standard to which much of the irregularity and irrationality of Modern English spelling must be attributed. Some of these variations have been ironed out by printers, lexicographers, and grammarians in succeeding centuries, but modern written Standard English continues to bear the imprint of Caxton's heterogeneous practice.
Chancery Standard Caxton ֻʤ١86%⡪˻ƤŦƤ롥ξǡֻɸಽФ Caxton ŪϡޤdzԤǤϤʤڼԤΤǤȷŤƤ롥դΤϡCaxton Chancery Standard ֻޤƤʤɤݻȤǤ롥ơɤ줬ޤǤٰѤƤΤǤ롥Caxton Chancery Standard ŪʽɸؤȤĤʤͤȤơѸ˾̤Ȥ
Caxton뤤ϰѤֻɸಽؤιˤĤƤϡʲε⻲Ȥ줿
#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])
Fisher, John H. "Caxton and Chancery English." Chapter 8 of The Emergence of Standard English. John H. Fisher. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1996. 121--44.
#3120. ²˱Ѹΰʪ뤳Ȥˤ Caxton ([2017-11-11-1]) εǡCaxton ƥǤϤʤѸǽ줿ΤˤǤаޤҲ𤷤ºݡCaxton ¯Ż뤹뷹ϡ³16ˤѤ졤ǥɤϥ衼åѤΤʤǤðۤʰƤεǤҤ٤褦ˡ16ˤƥɤǽǤ줿ʪΤѸʳθΤΤϤ鷺1ۤɤäפΤǤ롥
ڥƥ (559) ˡ1450--1600ǯ˥衼å줿ʪγספꤹɽ롥ɤ¯нŤΩäƤ뤳Ȥʬ
¯Τ ƥγؽѽ ե 40,500 35,000 ꥢ 48,400 39,600 ɥ 37,600 56,400 2,530 8,470 Ͻ 17,896 14,021 146,926 153,491 Τ 81.99% 92.48% 13,463 1,664 ڥ 12,960 5,040 ʥ 873 793 衼å 4,980 4,980 32,276 12,477 Τ 18.01% 7.52% 179,202 165,968
Υ衼åѤϥեꥢɥĤˤꡤ鳰Ǥϳ¯ΰ¿äȤϤ뤬Ǥ⥤ɤ¯Ψȴƹ⤤ξϡüŪˤȤޤȤ뤫⤷ʤˤϰǶȳܤλǤפƤȤҲŪװ⤢ä褦ڥƥ (411--12) Ѥ롥
ɤ¿ˤơ衼åѤǤäȤðۤʽһԾƤä黰ȤϡϤαѸɼؤ߽ФȤȤƤϤƤꡤࡼ˵ǽȿƤɥϥ衼åѤǤͭԻԤǤäեɤȥ֥åϺǤŤؤ˿줿Ǥ⤳ιΰȤϾϤʤޤޤǤäϻ˥ɤǽǤ줿ʪϤ褽ޡοϽȾʬǤ롥ޤɤˤǶȤϤۤܥɥ˸ꤵƤꡤʪϤۤȤɤѸΤΤǤäɥνǶȼԤԤƥνʪϡݡɤܥإߥ⾯ʤäΤǤ롥
Τ褦ʥɤνǻȤδ̯ħϡ̩ܤ˴ϢƤܤɥˤäѤꤵƤᡤŤʴˤƤʪȥ뤹뤳Ȥ⡤ϤʤäҤȤĤˤϡȳܤβ˶ŪǤäǤ⤢롥ɤνǻȤϡɥҽǶȹˤäƻۤƤʰƱȹ礬μιŪǽ̤ͣλǤˡɥDZĶȤŪǤäᡤݾ㤵ƤäƥɥǤĤξǤ졤ǧĤDZĶȤȤष褦Ȥܤμ뤳ȤϡɥҽǶȹפˤʤäƤ⤤Τȹ¤ݼŪǤꡤμ¤Ȥ狼äƤʪפ夲뤳ȤƤԤ¦⤽ʾ˰ۤϤʤäȤΤۤܤʤƤ⡤ȥڥեɥĤ顤ñǤƤޤäŪʽҼ̤ơɤɼԤʵϤγؽѽҤƲ¢ۤ夲뤳ȤǤɤ⥤ɤνǶȼԤϤ٤ˤƤϡۤȤɽפ̤ƤʤäΤǤ롥
礤ǹĤȯ줿ȤǤΤȤϡ¯줿Ѹ줬äդȤƤդȤƤĹ˰ҿΤ˹Ȥ⤤롥
ڥƥɥ롼ˡ ʡˡذȤ̿ͥܤ١ҡ2015ǯ
ѸˤˤѤȯΰյˤĤơ饤 (HTML) ˤޤȤƤߤޤɤϰʲ̤Ǥ
1. ƥ٥륯ˤѤΡֲɡסʡȯפǤϤʤ
2. ѤϡפͻӤǶȤƤαѸƬ岡
3. ѤϡֻɸಽˤαƶͿ
ܺ٤ϳơΥڡܥ֥εƼؤΥ˭٤ĥäƤޤ
1. ѤȯȱѸ
2.
3. (1) ѤΡȯ
4. ѡʤˡˤ
5. Ϣǯɽ
6. Johannes Gutenberg (1400?--68)
7. William Caxton (1422?--91)
8. (2) ȤƤαѸ
9. פȰѤͻ
10. ռβ
11. (3) ֻɸಽؤι
12. ְѤƳֻɸಽʤؤε
13. ֻɸಽϤޤǴ˿ʹԤ
14. ޤȤ
15. ʸ
16. : Prologue to Eneydos (#337)
¾Ρ֤ޤȤ饤ɡפȤơ#3058. ֱѸˤˤ¤ΰյפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-09-10-1])#3068. ֽפȱѸˡפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-09-20-1])#3089. ֥ꥫΩȱѸפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-10-11-1])#3102. ֥ꥹȶȱѸפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-10-24-1])#3107. ֥ΥޥȱѸפΤޤȤ饤ɡ ([2017-10-29-1]) ɤ
Ѹ˾塤William Caxton (1422?--91) ϱѸưդʪȤƹΤƤ롥Caxton ϡ1476ǯ˥ȥߥ˰ܳŪ˰ȤϤεȲȤȤƺǤʤȤϡïФơǽ줿ɤΤ褦ʽʪ뤫Τˤ뤳ȤǤ롥Caxton ϲ²͵ʾͤŪʤꡤ餬ɤߤäƤޥʪѸǡ˰뤳Ȥ˷
Ūιʤξ˾Ȥ餻Х֥Τ褦ʤΤäKnowles (60--61) Τ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
William Caxton was a businessman who operated for a long time from Bruges, in modern Belgium. At that time the Low countries were ruled by Burgundy, and Caxton's Burgundian contacts put him in a good position to exploit the aristocratic book market. When he transferred his printing press to England, he set it up in Westminster, which was not only close to the Chancery, but also the ideal place for him to contact his aristocratic customers. With the benefit of hindsight we know he was successful. But in the 1470s it must have been far from obvious that publishing in the vernacular was going to succeed at all. Publishing in Latin for an international readership might have looked more promising, but Caxton's competitors in this area failed . . . . Nor was the aristocratic market promising, for England was at the time embroiled in the internal dynastic struggles known as the Wars of the Roses. The fall of an aristocratic patron could have serious consequences for a businessman who was dependent on him to determine what was fashionable, and thus for the credibility of his literary publications.
Aristocratic taste determined what Caxton decided to publish. He published the works of Chaucer, Gower and Lydgate rather than Langland and the northern poets . . . . In 1485 he published Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. Some 28 of his 106 publications were translations from other languages . . . . However, taste determined not only what to publish, but the kind of English used. Caxton praises English influenced by French and denigrates native English. In his preface to the second edition (1484) of The Canterbury tales . . . he praises Chaucer, the 'laureate poete' who had 'enbelysshyd, ornated and made faire our Englisshe' which before was 'rude speche and incongrue'.
ºݡCaxton ܤĤɤǤαѸȤȤϡѸɼؤεϤäȤ顤θ⥤ꥢɥĤեۤȯŸ뤳ȤϤʤäΰѤˤ⤢Ȥꡤ衼åѻԾƤˤƥΰΤۤͭ˾ä⤷ʤCaxton ϤФʤäΤǤ롥̤Ȥơ16ˤƥɤǽǤ줿ʪΤѸʳθΤΤϤ鷺1ۤɤäȤʥڥƥp. 206--08ˡ¯ΰŰǡɤ¾٤ðۤäȤõƤ
Caxton θΥɤΰȤιѸɸಽΤʤˤʪäȤϴְ㤤ʤΰ̣DZѸ˾פʿʪǤϤ뤬طʤˤ Caxton εȲȤȤƤҤȺͳФؤäƤΤǤ롥
Caxton αѸ˾ɾˤĤƤϡ#241. Caxton αѸ1475ǯ ([2009-12-24-1])#297. ѤƳϱѸɸಽʤݤ ([2010-02-18-1])#871. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ ([2011-09-15-1])#1312. Ѥȯˤֻθ경˷ӤĤʤäͳ (2) ([2012-11-29-1])#1385. Caxton ֻɸಽ˹ʤäȹͤ뺬 ([2013-02-10-1]) ȡ
Knowles, Gerry. A Cultural History of the English Language. London: Arnold, 1997.
ڥƥɥ롼ˡ ʡˡذȤ̿ͥܤ١ҡ2015ǯ
16Ƭ˰Ѥ̤ʸŪϷפꤷʤإ˥åˡ (431) ϡɸˤ褦ˡסвηҳ٤ѤȤƤΰѤܤƤ롥
ѤڤˤȤʤѥեåˤȤɤޤ餺Ԥˤ⡤ƥǤϤʤ줬Ȥ褦ˤʤä륿ξ硤1518?21ǯ4ǯ֤˥ɥĸ56%ä22?26ǯ5ǯ֤ˤ87%ؤȵƤ롥
ǿӤȡɥĸγϤ줾74%93%ˤʤꡤɥĸǤμפޤޤޤäƤȤ狼롥٤ͤȼԤ⡤狼䤹ɥĸˤǤʤȤ餫Ǥ롥Ȥ˥륿ɥĸϡɥĸߤȤˤʤäȤ롥
ϡλ礦ۤȤƤзˤԹäĤˡŵꤷ줬ɤϤǤ졤Ʊκ۷褬뤳Ȥϡۤͭˤ뤿礫ȤǤʤäǤ롥
ưѤҳưˤΤäϤ˹ꡤۤμʤʸãΤѤ褦ˤʤäܤˤ1590ǯŷȼäƵ仡ե˥㡼Τˤäư졤۶ưϤȯˤ饭ꥷǤȤΰʪϡܸɤߤ̣ϤƤ롥
Ȥι˴ŤˤĤơѤ3ˤ褦ˡֻۤͭˤ뤿˷礫ȤǤʤäפȤϽפ#2858. 1492ǯڥαɸ ([2017-02-22-1]) Ǥ줿褦ˡȡˤˤȤäơָפäΤǤ롥Ѥ佡ʤɤʸ̤ϤвȤä̤ˤȵڸ̤⤿餷ȤǤʤ
Ϣơ#2927. סѡѸϰ̤θ ([2017-05-02-1])#2937. סѡѸϰ̤θ (2) ([2017-05-12-1])#3066. פȼΨ ([2017-09-18-1])#3100. ɽפˤѸϰ̤θ¦̡ ([2017-10-22-1]) ȡ
ɰ졤¼ź ʸ ԡˡإ˥åˡ١̼ҡ1994ǯ
Ѹˤˤ (black_death) ΰյϡ¢ѸüԤμҲŪƬѸȤä̴طϢŵŪˤߤ뤳ȤǤ롥äȹˤΰ̴طͻȡ¢¶徺ѳȤϢǧ졤εѳŪ˱ѸݡȤȤ¦̤⤢ꤽ
ع¡ڥȤˡ٤ΤʤΡɬפѤפȤǡΤ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ (376--77)
ϵѳˤ礭ʱƶڤܤϫƯϤ˸Ȥ顤ͼʤ֤γȯʬǿʤߡҺˤ⤽ư줿Ƚˤϡͤض翦俦ͤʤɤγ餬ĹȤ顤Ҥؤμפ¤˿Ӥ¤ܤϤϫƯŪʺȤäޤͤμ̻ʬưܤޤꤺĽ̤ϫƯ¶⤬¤ä°λˤϡˡǤ٤Ф°ʸι¶λˤʤȡϤʤäǥɥĤΥޥĤޤ줿Ȥμԥϥͥƥ٥륯оǤ롥̻λ夫褽ɴǯΰǯƥ٥륯ΰФ
ʾꡤ1ۤɤλȤϤ¢¶徺ѳѤȯȤϢ줿Ѥȯθ³ϢˤĤƤϡ#2927. סѡѸϰ̤θ ([2017-05-02-1]) ȡ#2937. סѡѸϰ̤θ (2) ([2017-05-12-1]) Ȥ줿¤ǽŪˤϱѸμҲŪϰ̤θˤĤʤ롥
(377--79) ϡ¤˵뵻ѳѲ¤ܤΤۤ۶ȡȡ֡šʤ¿ʬȤƤꡤǤ˶ŪʲʳؤˡϤǤĤĤäȤҤ٤Ƥ롥㤨СѲˤĤơ֥ڥήԸγοԷԤפ˸ڤƤʥp. 379ˡؤ֤ƤˤĤƤϡ#1206. ɤˤѸˤ붵λϤޤ ([2012-08-15-1]) ӡ#3055. ¤ˤԤ̻ ([2017-09-07-1]) ȡ
ˡ ˮҡˡع¡ڥȤˡ١ҡ2008ǯ
ܸǤλϤ1ƽϤΤϤȤƤ롥ǯεϤȼɤϤƤˤĤƤϡ#2848. ּԤ1ʤס ([2017-02-12-1]) εǿ줿ǤϡѸˤĤƤϤɤ
ѸܤɤǤȤ狼Ȥꡤ̾ϹԤϿʸ٤λԤʤƤ롥ˤ̤κˡ⤢롥㤨СϹԤʤʤˡϤƬʸ¾ʸ礭ơʤȤʣԤι⤵ǡΩʤ "drop capital" λѤ롥ϡμܤˤơƱŪѤ줿礭ʸ˵ġ뤤ϡѼȹͤ뤬俷ʹεǤ褯ܤˤ褦ˡǽ1줫٤ʸǽȤˡ⤢롥
⤦1դ٤ϡԤʤ鷺̤Ω⤷ʤϤ뤳ȤȤȤϡϤ1ˤƤǤ롥Ϥ̾ԤľǤϡλϤǤ뤳ȤϼǤꡤ̤ʹޤȤ褤ȤȤܸǤ1ȤɤΧ1ΤǡѸΤήϤˤŤƤ뤫Τ褦˴롥
Ĺ餯αѸι˴äƤŪˤϤۤɸŤήǤϤʤ褦Crystal (131) ˤȡ100ǯۤˤϡ1Ȥɤ¾Ʊ褦˿ʸλԤʤΤ̾ä褦ɤΤȤˡ (punctuation) δϡˤϰˤ뤷house style ˤȤ礭٤ιλظǧˤ衤ˡޤŪʤΤǤϤʤȤȤ
Crystal, David. Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation. London: Profile Books, 2015.
ε#2997. 1800ǯ˰ä long <s> ([2017-07-11-1]) κǸ˿줿褦ˡʬ˸Ѹ˶ᤤȴ18ǤʤʬŪ19ǤˡȼϡʸֻεϤ˴ؤơ2ĤΰۤʤƤȤäƤ褤С2Ĥˡ¸ߤƤʤ⡤ơϸŪʰ̣Ǥοϳ餵̶ǤʵϤȤ櫓ǤϤʤäˡϤ褽ָפǤꡤϡֻפǤ뤫顤ˡϸǻȤʬ٤ŴȤʤäƤΤǤ롥
κۤǤŪ˸ΤϡJohnson μǤֻȡJohnson λŪʤǤֻǤ롥㤨СJohnson ϼǤֻȤϰۤʤꡤʤǤ companiable, enervaiting, Fryday, obviateing, occurences, peny, pouns, stiched, chappel, diner, dos (= does) ֻƤ (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 42) Τ褦ʾ¾κȤˤĤƤƱͤ˸뤳Ȥ顤Johnson ֤겼äȤ̷ƤʤɤȤˤϤʤʤषŪʰȻŪʼȤǰۤʤֻδबꡤ줬뤵ƤȤȤǤ롥
Τ褦ʾϡβ桹ˤȤäƤˤ⤷ʤֻθͤƤߤмΤȤǤ롥Ѹˤֻζʽ¿Ǥ줿ϻҶ˰줿ƥȤɤ褦ˤ뤿ζʽǤꡤҶֻȤ붵ʽǤϤʤäƥȤֻϡȼԤˤäƴŪ줿ˡȿǤƤꡤҶϤηŪֻɤֽä˼ƤʤäΤ褦ʻҶǽʤǧʤˤϡʤƥȤɽ蘆Ƥˡ§ä֤뤳ȤϤǤʤȤäñޤä֤ʤȤȤˤϤʤʤʤμ˸뤳ȤۤȤɤʤ
ơξϡֻؤǤҶΤߤʤ餺ʸɤ߽ͤˤ̤ƤϤޤäȼΩϡΩΤߤʤ餺ֻɤǽϤȽǽϤΩǤ⤢äΤ
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2009.
18ΰܤΥƥȤɤǤȡ³ <s> ΰۻ (allograph) Ǥ <<ʃ>> ޤˤ˸뤳Ȥ˵ŤλΤ "long <s>" ȸƤФƤꡤޤǤѤƤޤäΤΡѸˤĹˤ錄äƳƤۻΤäTieken-Boon van Ostade (40) ˰Ƥ롡ECCO ʸˤꡤ<<ʃ>> λȤƤߤ褦
. . . WHEREIN / THE CHAPTERS are ʃumm'd up in Contents; the Sacred Text inʃerted at large, in Paragraphs, or Verʃes; and each Paragraph, or Verʃe, reduc'd to its proper Heads; the Senʃe given, and largely illuʃtrated, / WITH / Practical Remarks and Obʃervations
Ƥ狼̤ꡤ٤Ƥ <s> <<ʃ>> ǰƤ櫓ǤϤʤŪˤϸƬ <s> <<ʃ>> ǰ졤Ǥ̾ <<s>> ʤޤƬǤʸξˤ <<S>> Ѥ롥ۤˡIdleneʃs Busineʃs Τ褦ˡ<ss> δĶǤ1ʸܤ long <s> Ȥʤ롥
long <s> 䤬Ѥ˵뤳ȤȤʤäˤƤ18˾äƤäȤŦƤ롥
Long <s> disappeared as a printing device towards the end of the eighteenth century, and its presence or absence is today used by antiquarians to date books that lack a publication date as dating from either before or after 1800. (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 40)
դ٤ϡ1800ǯ long <s> äΤϰȤΤˤƤǤꡤ (handwriting) ˤƤϡ⤦Ф餯 long <s> Ѥ³ȤȤǤ롥#584. long <s> graphemics ([2010-12-02-1]) ǿ줿褦ˡǤ1850ǯޤǻȤ³ȼȤǻʬۤۤʤäƤȤ long <s> ˸¤餺¾ΰۻΤֻˤƤϤޤ롥δФǤϡˤˤ衤1Ĥζ̤ˡȹͤΤʤȤ1800ǯޤǤϡΤ褦ʴФϵäȤߤʤ٤Ǥ롥
long <s> ˤĤơ#1152. sneeze θ츻 ([2012-06-22-1])#1732. Shakespeare ֤ (2) ([2014-01-23-1]) ⻲Ȥ줿
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2009.
#1097. quotation marks ([2012-04-28-1]) ǡѸΰ single double κˤĤϡγĤνˤĤˤҤȤƤߤ褦
ߤδǤϡȡdz顡ɡĤȤΤϼΤ褦˻פ롥εǤߤ褦ˡŪˤεϡ֤ѤϤޤޤפȤޤȤơ֤ޡȤƽȯΤä֤ϤޤפȸäƤơ֤ɤǽפȸʤΤϡѼԤȤ̵ǤΤ褦˻פ뤫⤷ʤϸŪʻˡʤΤ⤷ʤŤϡĤΰ֤ʤäΤǤ롪ˤȤäơɤǰѤ뤫餫ɤ⤽DzȤʤȡȤ碌ƤΤ褦
üԤˤ˸ؤäκƸʻǤСºݡȤʤäΤ褦ʥ뤬ˤʤȡĤʤϿȤʤ롥ơ⤬͵18ˡĤĤΰ䤬ŪѤ褦ˤʤäꤷ18ˤϸͤˤȤäƤϸ줷ۤɶˡ¿Ѥ뤳ȤȤ줿ΤǡMurray εʸˡǤ⡤Τ褦2ŰλѤ侩줿ΤǤ롥ʸإȯãȤȼľˡѡνŤζˡδѤ¥ʤȤˤʤ (Crystal 308--09)
γĤˤĤơȤľ̤⤦1Ĥ꤬äϡѤʣˤޤȤκǸĤΰޤ뤫뤤ϸκǽ˳ΰ֤ȤäǤ롥ȤˤäƤϡλϤȽ줾쳫ĤΰɸȤˡѤǤϳΩưѤƳƤ뤫Τ褦˸ɤ붲줬롥ߺѤƤΤϡλϤϲƳΰդưѤη³ĤΰϰΤνˤդʤȤˡ (Crystal 310) 츫ŪǤϤʤΤ褦СμȹΥХμƤ뤳ȤǼǤ
ŪˤϡɬĤΤǤϤʤäȤ¤դ٤Ǥ롥ĤƤδˤˡϡĤγ̤бΤǤʤȤ˥顼Ȥʤ븽ΥץߥΤ褦ʥȤжˤˤ롤¤ˤ餫δäΤǤ롥
Crystal, David. Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation. London: Profile Books, 2015.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow