Has English orthography been changed by English revolution?

[Devorator linguarum]

I do not know the exact date of this change, but it is observable that in the beginning of XVII century the orthography of many words was different from one of the end of it (booke, warre, orthographie, etc. instead of book, war, orthography), whence on up to the present the orthography is relatively stable. As the English Revolution and Civil War occured just somewhere near the time when the change in orthography took place, I wonder if there were the same reasons as for the change of orthography in Russian after the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is noteworthy that the abolishment of mute e in English words like booke is very similar to abolishment of word final ъ in revolutionary Russia... 

[Aleksey]

-e was a schwa sound up to the start of 17th century when the Great Vowel Shift ended. (i.e. booke - ['bu:kə])

[Devorator linguarum]

-e was a schwa sound up to the start of 17th century when the Great Vowel Shift ended. (i.e. booke - ['bu:kə])

It is interesting, but there were some other changes that by no means could be explained phonetically. E.g., writing -ie in the end of foreign words (of French origin?) was in many places replaced by -y (as in orthographie). Maybe it is an illusion, but it seems to me that the orthographical change coincided chronologicaly with the time of political revolution. Am I wrong?

[Aleksey]

Well.. it's a complicated topic. To be clear, we need to know why the orthography was not unified back then. As you know, I suppose, there was no academy for/of English language, which meant there was no standart language. It can be difficult to imagine, but from the times of Anglo-Norman language of law and trade Englishmen didn't know what to do with the changed pronunciation of English words. Were they to leave the old tradition of Old English or to adopt a new system of orthographic rules it would still be wrong to assume that there could be a unified style of writing words. With the 'help' (to be more precice — influence, than help...) of Anglo-Norman language Englishmen adopted a mediocre of Old English and Norman orthograpies. Some writers used more OEish style, others used Norman style. The question of -ie and -y is hidden, I believe, in the Classic epoch of 'Relatinisation', words were written in a manner that they would resemble the old writings. And it was made, as one could say nowadays, just for the lulz and pretty looks.

[Aleksey]

Btw, I've just remembered one of more influental reasons. The Graeco-Roman traditional view on grammar was prevailing in Europe up to 19th century. It meant that literary texts were the best sources of grammar and good style for those who learned the language.

[Aleksey]

Maybe my goobledygook is very blurry :/ Simply put it this way: in 17th century Civil war and Revolution had no or little effect on the orthography of English.

[Alone Coder]

Either way, "e" in have, give and every is redundant and forces misreading.

[Aleksey]

What the-bloody hell is this?

[Devorator linguarum]

To be clear, we need to know why the orthography was not unified back then.

Though I do not know the whole picture, my experience with some number of English texts written near 1600 lets to suppose that by that time the orthography was already quite uniform in practice, even if not codified by any academy.

[Aleksey]

Though I do not know the whole picture, my experience with some number of English texts written near 1600 lets to suppose that by that time the orthography was already quite uniform in practice, even if not codified by any academy.

I'm not sure, but those texts were unified later, say, in 18th century, because in the times of Early ModEng orthography was more a matter of style than unity of a language. Although it can be said, that by 1600 English had a writing tradition which was still in need of further development of uniformity. Note that it doesn't mean everyone could write as they wished, some general trends can be traced back to OE and some — to Norman language orthography.

[Квас]

booke - ['bu:kə]

When did this word acquire the schwa? I thought that final E had been added in a purely conventional fashion to certain words ending in a consonant in OE.

[Aleksey]

I thought that final E had been added in a purely conventional fashion to certain words ending in a consonant in OE.

Orthography of OE was highly phonetic, because almost every letter corresponded to a certain sound.

[Квас]

I mean that bōc had no schwa in OE, nor does book nowadays. How could it happen that booke acquired a schwa and then lost it?

[Aleksey]

Means I've written another fallacy on this thing with the schwa.

[Devorator linguarum]

Old English and Middle English orthographies - yes, they by no means were uniform. But by 1600 we already have the language that virtually does not differ from English of nowadays in any aspect except orthography and stylistics. In other words, we may take any text of that period and to write it down in modern orthography - just as we do in Russian when make new editions of Pushkin and Gogol in modern orthography without "yats" and "yers". No morphological change is needed in this operation. However, it is not the case when we make modern editions, say, of the texts of Chaucer that are in Middle English.

[Aleksey]

Your statement is rather bold.
Comparing the literary tradition of English language with Russian is simply belles-lettres.

[Devorator linguarum]

What do you mean? I said nothing about litterary traditions in the two languages; I said only that since 1600 English has had mostly only orthographical and stylistical changes.

By the way, in saying that "the literary tradition of English language with Russian is simply belles-lettres", did you mean that Russian literary tradition had been richer, or vice versa?

[Aleksey]

did you mean that Russian literary tradition had been richer, or vice versa?

These two languages share some common stories of their development, but in general the histories of both languages are too different to compare on a such large scale. It means that English was still to be legislated, because all legal and trade documents were not written in English. Only the the early 18th century a new law was passed which forbade the usage of French in documents in England. Authors' literary orthography still had some differences because of the dialects.

I said only that since 1600 English has had mostly only orthographical and stylistical changes.

They were not as grandeur as the changes in 18-19th centuries You will definately have difficulties reading Shakespeare or Marlowe

[Devorator linguarum]

It seems to me that you confuse something. Of course, I am not a great specialist in history of English, but usually I have no difficulties in reading English texts since 1600 onwards, even if early in this period their spelling may differ from modern one. Some exceptions do exist, especially in poetry, but poetry is a completely different thing, where archaic, dialectal an other uncommon features are widely present. In fact, I have difficulties even in reading many modern English poets.

[Aleksey]

It seems to me that you confuse something.

And by 'something' you mean...?

but usually I have no difficulties in reading English texts since 1600 onwards, even if early in this period their spelling may differ from modern one.

Lexis, style and syntax are the same?

Some exceptions do exist, especially in poetry, but poetry is a completely different thing, where archaic, dialectal an other uncommon features are widely present. In fact, I have difficulties even in reading many modern English poets.

Poetry is poetry. Either you understand it or you don't.

[Devorator linguarum]

You are wrong with the dates. I've looked at an English language history manual, there is information there that English replaced French in the 14th century in official documents, and became a language of science in the second half of the 16th century.

Vocabulary has changed only slightly since 1600 (of course, we are not talking here about appearance of new terms for new subjects), and differences in style and syntax cannot be crusial for understanding.

[autolyk]

I've looked at an English language history manual, there is information there that English replaced French in the 14th century in official documents

It took place even untill 14th century. The earliest sign of the official recognition of English by the Norman kings was the Proclamation issued by Henry III in 1258.

[Xico]

crusial

Another spelling change?

[Devorator linguarum]

It took place even untill 14th century. The earliest sign of the official recognition of English by the Norman kings was the Proclamation issued by Henry III in 1258.

Yes. But it seems that only in the 14th century French in official usage has been replaced by English completely. I do not know where has Aleksey taken the date of 18th centure from, but even if the law he mentions really exists, it has nothing to do with the real replacement of French by English that had place several centures earlier.

crusial

Another spelling change?

Oh, no! It is just a misspelling.

[autolyk]

I do not know where has Aleksey taken the date of 18th centure from

I do not know too.

As early as 1349 it was ruled that English should be used at schools... and after 1385 even the universities began to conduct their curricula in English