BETWEEN FOUR JUNCTIONS

/ch/, /ough/; and the sound /r/ (distinguished by the specific tongue curling movement that is only found in English), is now said in the same way as many other languages, with the tongue touching the roof of the mouth.

Of these sounds which have been lost, they have largely been replaced with similar letters, such as /f/ for /th/, which whilst still understandable for a 21st century speaker, has lost the nuanced difference between the two sounds. However, the sound /ch/ (and in certain cases /sh/ as well) has become replaced with /x/ similar to German and Catalan. These changes are best exemplified by the Modern English word ‘through’, which transliterated into New Modern English would be written fro.

During my research into late Modern English, I encountered many texts, including a Cambridge University linguistics competition that I have translated into New Modern English to better highlight these changes.

Fr xlnj, yo ned mjn xnjs nglsa nxt 500 yersa. Yo cn dsed fkos ssel grop (peplse smla mone, rsdns, past) & kntxt nglso. Xmpl, yo cn fks Nglsa r ngls rov rsdnsov. Yo cn fk xnjs wya wrds sy xnjs wya wrds ritn

I chose to translate this extract as it exemplifies a level of formality used frequently both now and 500 years ago. The original text avoids colloquialism and is completely technically accurate, allowing the opportunity to communicate subtle details in language. These subtleties include details such as the capitalisation of the word ngls in one case but not in another. The capitalised version refers to technically-correct written standard English, a concept which did not really exist in Modern English.

Vowels

I shall now return to the third of the changes to English – the introduction of diacritics as a replacement for short vowels. To understand this, we must first acknowledge the unlikely nature of the absence of diacritics in Modern English. The vast majority of other languages, including neighbouring languages, involve the use of diacritics. For example, accents in French and Spanish are used to distinguish between words with otherwise identical spelling but different meanings and pronounciations (such as ‘de’ meaning ‘of’, and ‘dé’, the present tense subjunctive 1st person for ‘to give’). Additionally, Welsh uses a number of diacritics, including the circumflex to mark long vowels. Japanese also use diacritics, for example は(ha, or wa)、ば(ba)、ぱ(pa). And there is even a case to be made for the uses of diacritics in Russian, in letters such as ё/е (yo/ye) and й/и (iy/ee), the former of which did not appear as a separate character on digital keyboards. As such, along with Nguni languages like isiXhosa, English not having diacritics is very unique and as such the change is highly logical.

Throughout Modern English native speakers and language learners alike had to contend with the highly problematic nature of having two words spelt the same but pronounced differently, (eg. read, close and lead). Furthermore, the increase in regional accents and globalisation of English exacerbated difficulties trying to pronounce vowels and as such, after the beginning of the Middle Eastern proxy war an opportunity presented itself.

The fall of the Dubrovnik dynasty, proxy wars and Arabic

The importance of the fall of the Dubrovnik Empire in changes to vowels cannot be overstated. After the death of Ilya Dubrovnik, a power vacuum opened up that marked the beginning of a bloody transition to democracy. The ensuing proxy war in the Middle East involved no less than 72 countries, divided politics and almost sunk the economy, but most dramatically altered the balance of global superpowers away from the rich European countries who had dominated for so long. It was at this point that English adopted Arabic diacritics. A fatha () dictated an /a/ sound, a damna () dictated an /o/ sound, and a kasra () dictated an /ee/ or /i/ sound, for example the sound /k/ is pronounced /ka/ (like the Japanese か, Linear B ⊕, Arabic خ , and Zhuyin 丂丫, all of which evince the widespread nature of sounds consisting of consonants combined with vowels).

As dramatic as this change sounds, it is important to acknowledge that this was already happening. Not only were vowels being lost in text speech, but accents were increasingly used by dictionaries to indicate stress. The first of the three major changes to English involved the use of cases, marked mainly by vowels, and as such the introduction of diacritics can also be interpreted as a natural consequence of this (having fewer vowels made these endings become more apparent and easier to read.) Finally, returning to the examples of words that are spelt the same and pronounced differently, you may have noticed that the variation in all of these is based on the pronunciation of the vowels, and so this also served to differentiate long and short vowels (long vowels are written in the same way as Arabic, featuring both the diacritic and the original letter), a natural progression in making English easier to read.

Final thoughts

If I have learnt anything from my years studying History, it is that conclusions should present a balanced, but decisive argument. Although acknowledging concessions is important, your view must be clearly stated, outlined and defended. I will not do that today. Certainly, I have my own opinions as to the most relevant factors in the evolution of language, and whether New Modern English really is more logical or universal than Modern English, but I would not for a second presume that it is the only correct answer, or indeed necessarily correct. Language is fluid. It means something different for each and every person, thanks to their experiences, the books they have read, and conversations they have had. Therefore, if I can leave you with a single thought, it is this: my version of English and yours are not the same, and no analysis of grammar and change can give it meaning if it is not also your meaning. Without that, no historical analysis is worthwhile.

Katya Ivanovna The University of Malavicina