Gegaderung

Gegaderung => Old English Language => Topic started by: David on May 08, 2014, 05:13:50 PM

Title: Ðӕt
Post by: David on May 08, 2014, 05:13:50 PM

I am told that the Anglo-Saxons called ð ðӕt, not eð. Therefore I would expect ð to stand for the word ðӕt. In my limited experience I have seen the crossed þorn for þӕt but not ð.

Today in Roger Lass’s “Old English” I read that the Peterborough chronicle had “ð oþer dei”. My copy says “ðat oþer dei” and I have also seen “ðӕt oþer dei” so I suspected that Lass was probably correct about the original manuscript.

In a quick look on the internet I failed to find the Peterborough chronicle in manuscript form. Can anyone help me with that?
Can anyone tell me about any other use of  ð for ðӕt?

Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: Linden on May 08, 2014, 10:45:51 PM

I am told that the Anglo-Saxons called ð ðӕt, not eð. Therefore I would expect ð to stand for the word ðӕt. In my limited experience I have seen the crossed þorn for þӕt but not ð.

Today in Roger Lass’s “Old English” I read that the Peterborough chronicle had “ð oþer dei”. My copy says “ðat oþer dei” and I have also seen “ðӕt oþer dei” so I suspected that Lass was probably correct about the original manuscript.

In a quick look on the internet I failed to find the Peterborough chronicle in manuscript form. Can anyone help me with that?
Can anyone tell me about any other use of  ð for ðӕt?

Is this any help?
http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/view/all/what/MS.+Laud+Misc.+636?os=0&pgs=250&sort=Shelfmark%252Csort_order
Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: David on May 09, 2014, 09:27:26 AM


Thank you, Linden!

So now I know that, in the entry for 1135 of the Peterborough Chronicle, ð was used as a short hand for ðӕt. Of course, that scribe was in the transition to middle English. It would be nice to have an earlier example. Any offers?
Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: Linden on May 09, 2014, 10:51:23 AM
You are welcome David.

It's very odd that ð was used in this one instance.  Looking through other pages of the manuscript it appears to use the crossed þ elsewhere?
Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: David on May 10, 2014, 09:18:02 PM

Linden, did you remember that that scribe only wrote the entries from 1132 to 1154?

I noticed that from “Sume hi diden” in 1137 line 26 to “ oc bӕron al ð iren” in line 34 there are seven occasions of ð standing for ðӕt.

Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: Linden on May 10, 2014, 10:16:32 PM
Hi David

I have not studied the various manuscripts of the Chronicle so it's more true to say that I did not know than that I did not remember......

Very interesting though - was it just a particular scribe's preference do you think?
Title: Re: Ðӕt
Post by: David on May 11, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
I rarely go back to the manuscripts, preferring the easier to read printed version. In fact, I think that the only manuscript I have actually seen is the Godwine charter.

It seems as though my copy of the Peterborough chronicles expands crossed thorns to “þet” and ð to "ðat". I had not realized that as it is littered with Tironian nota ands. Did the Anglo-Saxons really say and that often or is it just a punctuation mark in writing?

It seems as though the last scribe in the Peterborough chronicles liked to use ð for þӕt whereas the earlier scribes liked to use the crossed thorn. Are there other examples or ð used for ðӕt?