The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1.57@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
In older written English, there seems to be one written letter which
served the purpose of 2 functions: to transliterate both the "u" and
the "v". The symbolic representation was the "v". So, in the older
days, a word like "Massachusetts" would be "Massachvsetts".
I've got qvestions on this arrangement:
1. How would the word "vulgar" be spelt? As "vvlgar"?
2. When did the letter "u" come about?
3. I noticed that the "W" is pronounced "Double-u", when in fact,
it's a "double-v". Any comments?
4. How did people know how to pronounce words which ambiguated the
"u" and "v"?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Prev by Date: Re: Surrey vowels
- Next by Date: Re: extremely pernicious homonymy
- Previous by thread: Basque: rich - French poor: http://...
- Next by thread: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Index(es):