Search

This paper investigates two manuscripts of AElfric’s Glossary (AEGl) which were annotated or copied in the Middle English (ME) period. The first version, Cotton Faustina A. x contains many Anglo-Norman (AN) as well as some ME glosses, which were added by at least two scribes in the twelfth century; the second version, Worcester F. 174, was copied by the so-called “Tremulous Hand” of Worcester scribe in the thirteenth century, who shortened the glossary and updated the English parts of entries. The two adaptations represent very different treatments of AElfric’s Glossary. This paper argues that neither of the two copies was specifically intended to teach English. On the other hand, both recensions reflect the changing linguistic realities of post-Conquest England.

This chapter uses a new resource, the Middle English Grammar Corpus (MEG-C), a corpus of 14th and 15th Century English texts, to answer an old question: it is possible to find traces of a systematic distinction between the reflexes of Old English e/ē and eo/ēo in Middle English? An investigation into the spelling variation found in 27 lexical items that contain a vowel representing Old English eo/ēo as well as the equivalent Old Norse element jó throws up a wide range of spellings, the vast majority of which show /. Spellings that might suggest a rounded pronunciation are also fairly robustly present, however, particularly , with the Southwest Midlands as its core area. The second part of the investigation retrieves all words that were spelled with the digraph . The vast majority of these turn out to be reflexes of Old English eo/ēo, and almost all of them are localized to the Southwest Midlands. They occur either as reflexes of OE y/ȳ, or in unstressed syllables, or in words where follows – three groups for which a rounded pronunciation would be plausible.

This chapter discusses the problem of relating individual scribal usages to community-level linguistic variation in languages for which the surviving records consist of handwritten texts (‘manuscript languages’). In the absence of detailed contextual information, both individual texts and corpora pose problems of representativeness. A solution is to study the surviving texts strictly on their own terms, rather than attempting to reconstruct the overall variation within the language area. The study of smaller text communities, defined on the basis of groups of texts sharing specific parameters, may provide a useful approach. The discussion is based on work on late Middle English materials, but deals with problems common to many manuscript languages.