II. Grammatical Observations.
The phonology of this work teems with interesting problems for the specialist. Only a few typical and striking features can here be touched on. For an excellent discussion of the phonology Professor Hulme’s scholarly work should be consulted.[1]
Certain definite variations from the normal forms of spelling in Early West Saxon clearly conspire to prove that the manuscript was written in the twelfth century by an Anglo-French scribe from dictation. It was natural that the scribe should spell doubtful words according as his ear translated the sounds he heard, and hence result the numerous departures from the norm, and the frequent so-called scribal errors. This hypothesis would account for the confusion of ð (þ) with d on the one hand, and with t on the other; the nasals n and m would easily be interchanged; and initial h would be dropped or inserted wrongly. Such errors are scarcely the result of ignorance or carelessness, and are eloquent in what they proclaim about the circumstances attending the production of our manuscript.
1. Phonology.—Vowels: There is great confusion in the use of a, æ, and e; we note this most frequently in þat (11.17), þæt (11.14), ðet (23. 11), þār (1.10, 11), þǣr (1.13), þēr (13.18). Compare also the following forms used interchangeably: ælles (3. 18), elles (3. 19); þāre (2.7), þǣre (2.7), þēre (2.11); rihtæ (4.22), rihte (16.22); æart
- ↑ op. cit.
