Dental Instability in Northern Middle English: Evidence for Lenition and Fortition

FACULTAD DE FILOLOGÍA DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA (LENGUA INGLESA) DOCTORADO EN ESTUDIOS FILOLÓGICOS DENTAL INSTABILITY IN NORTHERN MIDDLE ENGLISH: EVIDENCE FOR LENITION AND FORTITION Tesis presentada para la obtención del título de Doctora en Filología por: MARTA LEÓN PROL Tutor/director: DRA. Dª JULIA FERNÁNDEZ CUESTA Sevilla, febrero de 2025 i Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vi List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ viii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Dental Fricatives .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Dental Fricatives in the World Languages ........................................................ 5 2.2. Dental Fricatives and the Theories of Markedness and Naturalness ................... 8 2.2.1. Naturalness ........................................................................................................ 15 2.3. Difficulty of Dental Fricatives in Language Acquisition ................................... 18 3. Lenition, Fortition, and other Sound Changes ....................................................... 21 3.1. Lenition ........................................................................................................ 21 3.1.1. Lenition in the History of English .................................................................... 32 3.2. Fortition ........................................................................................................ 33 3.2.1. Fortition in the history of English .................................................................... 36 3.3. Other sound changes ..................................................................................... 37 3.3.1. Assimilation........................................................................................................ 38 3.3.2. Dissimilation ...................................................................................................... 40 4. Orthographic Representation of Dental Fricatives in Middle English ................. 43 4.1. Litteral Substitution Sets and Potestatic Substitution Sets ............................... 45 4.2. The Representation of Dental Fricatives in Middle English Writing ................ 48 5. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 51 5.1. The Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English .................................................. 51 5.2. Data Collection and analysis .......................................................................... 53 5.3. Phonographic Profiles .................................................................................... 56 6. Northern Counties in LAEME ................................................................................. 59 6.1. Cumberland .................................................................................................. 61 6.1.1. Phonographic Profile ........................................................................................ 62 6.1.1.1. Text # 132 (gospatrict.tag) ........................................................................ 62 6.1.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................... 64 6.1.2.1. Lenition ...................................................................................................... 64 6.1.2.2. Fortition ....................................................................................... 72 6.1.3. Non-Native Lexemes ......................................................................................... 73 6.2. Lancashire .................................................................................................... 76 6.2.1. Phonographic Profiles ....................................................................................... 76 ii 6.2.1.1. Text #151 (bodley26t.tag).......................................................................... 76 6.2.1.2. Text #16 (Candet4t.tag) ............................................................................ 78 6.2.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................... 80 6.2.2.1. Lenition ...................................................................................................... 80 6.2.2.2. Fortition ...................................................................................................... 82 6.2.3. Non-Native Lexemes ......................................................................................... 88 6.3. Durham ........................................................................................................ 91 6.3.1. Phonographic Profile ........................................................................................ 91 6.3.1.1. Text #188 (scotwart.tag)............................................................................ 91 6.3.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................... 95 6.3.2.1. Lenition ...................................................................................................... 95 6.3.2.2. Fortition .................................................................................................... 100 6.3.3. Non-Native Lexemes ....................................................................................... 102 6.4. City of York ................................................................................................ 103 6.4.1. Phonographic Profile ...................................................................................... 103 6.4.1.1. Text #296 (Edincmct.tag) ........................................................................ 103 6.4.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................. 106 6.4.2.1. Lenition .................................................................................................... 106 6.4.2.2. Fortition .................................................................................................... 110 6.4.3. Non-Native Lexemes ....................................................................................... 117 6.5. East Riding of Yorkshire ............................................................................. 117 6.5.1. Phonographic Profiles ..................................................................................... 118 6.5.1.1. Text #230 (Beverleyt.tag) ........................................................................ 118 6.5.1.2. Text #297 (edincmat.tag) ........................................................................ 120 6.5.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................. 122 6.5.2.1. Lenition .................................................................................................... 122 6.5.2.2. Fortition .................................................................................................... 125 6.5.3. Non-native Lexemes ........................................................................................ 131 6.6. West Riding of Yorkshire ............................................................................ 131 6.6.1. Phonographic Profiles ..................................................................................... 133 6.6.1.1. Text #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) ................................................................... 133 6.6.1.2. Text #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) ..................................................................... 135 6.6.1.3. Text #256 (cotfaustat.tag) ....................................................................... 137 6.6.1.4. Text #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) ....................................................................... 139 6.6.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................. 140 6.6.2.1. Lenition .................................................................................................... 140 6.6.2.2. Fortition .................................................................................................... 144 iii 6.6.3. Non-Native Lexemes ....................................................................................... 149 6.7. North Riding of Yorkshire ........................................................................... 149 6.7.1. Phonographic Profile ...................................................................................... 149 6.7.1.1. Text #298 (edincmbt.tag) ........................................................................ 149 6.7.2. Possible Sound Changes .................................................................................. 151 6.7.2.1. Lenition .................................................................................................... 151 6.7.2.2. Fortition .................................................................................................... 152 6.7.3. Non-Native Lexemes ....................................................................................... 154 7. Conclusions and further research .......................................................................... 155 8. Summary .................................................................................................................. 167 References ................................................................................................................................ 170 Appendix I................................................................................................................................ 184 Appendix II .............................................................................................................................. 186 iv List of Tables Table 1. Fricative phonemes divided according to their place of articulation and voicing (Roach, 2009, p. 40) ......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Dental fricatives in the world languages (WALS) adapted from Maddieson (2013) ............................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. The twelve types of markedness, their domains and prominent representatives, and some replacements for them (modified from Haspelmath 2006, pp. 64-65) ........... 14 Table 4. Lavoie’s summary of lenition’s view (2001, p. 13) ......................................... 31 Table 5. Trask’s strength scale and instances of fortition (adapted from Trask and McColl Millar, 2023, p. 56) ......................................................................................................... 35 Table 6. Texts analysed from the northern counties in LAEME ................................... 60 Table 7. Litterae and potestates of the consonants analysed in text #132 (gospatrict.tag) ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Table 8. Cumberland spellings suggesting lenition (text #132) .................................... 64 Table 9. Table based on the LAEME tag dictionary for the lexel bi:dan ...................... 68 Table 10. Cumberland spellings suggesting fortition (text #132) ................................. 72 Table 11. Litterae and potestates of dental consonants in text #151 (bodley26t.tag) .... 77 Table 12. Litterae and potestates of dental consonants in text #16 (candet4t.tag) ........ 79 Table 13. Spellings attested in Lancashire possibly suggesting lenition ....................... 80 Table 14. Spellings attested in Lancashire possibly suggesting fortition ...................... 83 Table 15. Spelling attested for OE tīdung localized in LAEME ................................... 90 Table 16. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #188 (scotwart.tag) ........................................................................................................................................ 93 Table 17. Spellings attested in Durham possibly suggesting lenition ........................... 96 Table 18. Spellings attested in Durham possibly suggesting fortition ........................ 101 Table 19. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #296 (Edincmct.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 20. Spellings attested in the City of York suggesting lenition........................... 106 Table 21. Spellings attested in the City of York suggesting fortition .......................... 111 Table 22. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #230 (Beverleyt.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 119 Table 23. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #297 (edincmat.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 121 v Table 24. Spellings attested in the East Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition ...................................................................................................................................... 123 Table 25. Spellings attested in the East Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition ...................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 26. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) .......................................................................................................... 134 Table 27. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) ........................................................................................................... 136 Table 28. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #256 (cotfaustat.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 138 Table 29. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 139 Table 30. Spellings attested in the West Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition ...................................................................................................................................... 141 Table 31. Spellings attested in the West Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting fortition ...................................................................................................................................... 145 Table 32. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #298 (edincmbt.tag) ...................................................................................................................................... 150 Table 33. Spellings attested in the North Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition ...................................................................................................................................... 151 Table 34. Spellings attested in the North Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting fortition ......................................................................................................................... 153 Table 35. Orthographical representation of historical /t, d/ in the northern texts from LAEME ........................................................................................................................ 156 Table 36. Orthographical Representation of historical /θ/, [ð] in the northern counties analysed from LAEME ................................................................................................. 159 vi List of Figures Figure 1. Grimm’s Law (Stenbrenden, 2022, p. 16) ........................................................ 5 Figure 2. Strength Scale in Ashby and Maidment (2005, p. 141) ................................. 22 Figure 3. Escure’s hierarchy of major-class and manner features (1977, p. 60) ........... 24 Figure 4. Trajectory of lenition according to Lass (1984, p. 178) ................................. 24 Figure 5. Strength hierarchy (Trask, 2000, p. 191) ....................................................... 25 Figure 6. Strength hierarchy (McColl Millar and Trask, 2023, p. 52) .......................... 25 Figure 7. Lenition trajectories according to Szigetvári (2008a, p. 561) ........................ 26 Figure 8. A definition of lenition by ostension from Hock (1986), as cited and modified by Bauer (2008, p. 606) .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 9. Escure’s environmental hierarchy (1977, p. 58) ............................................ 28 Figure 10. Strong and weak positions (Sérégal and Scheer, 2008, p. 135) ................... 28 Figure 11. Bybee and Easterday’s (2019, p. 272) ......................................................... 29 Figure 12. Gurevich’s hierarchy of input/output sounds (2011, p. 1564) ..................... 30 Figure 13. Litterae/potestates for ME yogh (Laing, 1999, p. 255) ................................ 45 Figure 14. Extract from my EXCEL corpus based on LAEME .................................... 55 Figure 15. Phonographic profile of dental consonant mappings in dulwicht.tag (Lass and Laing, 2009, p. 114) ....................................................................................................... 57 Figure 16. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #132 (gospatrict.tag) ............ 62 Figure 17. Fol. 134v6 MtGl (Li) 5.15. (Unðer mitte ł under sestre [‘under a bushel’]) 70 Figure 18. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #151 (bodley26t.tag) ........... 77 Figure 19. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #16 (candet4t.tag) ................ 79 Figure 20. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #188 (scotwart.tag) .............. 92 Figure 21. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #296 (Edincmct.tag) .......... 104 Figure 22. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #230 (Beverleyt.tag) .......... 119 Figure 23. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #297 (edincmat.tag) ........... 120 Figure 24. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) ..... 133 Figure 25. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) ....... 135 Figure 26. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #256 (cotfaustat.tag) .......... 137 Figure 27. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) .......... 139 Figure 28. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #298 (edincmbt.tag)........... 149 vii Figure 29. Orthographic representation (%) for historical /d, t/ in the northern texts from LAEME ........................................................................................................................ 156 Figure 30. Unexpected spellings for historical for historical /t, d/ in the Northern counties analysed from LAEME ................................................................................................. 158 Figure 31. Orthographic representation (%) for historical /θ/ and [ð] in the northern texts from LAEME ................................................................................................................ 160 Figure 32. Unexpected spellings for historical for historical /θ/, [ð] in the Northern counties analysed from LAEME ................................................................................... 162 Figure 33. LALME map showing instances of HUNDRED suggesting fortition ....... 164 Figure 34. LALME map showing instances of DEATH suggesting fortition ............. 164 4 2. Dental Fricatives Fricatives are the largest group of consonants in the English language. They are produced when the airflow is forced to leave the oral cavity through a narrow passage, making a hissing or turbulent sound. In Present-Day English (PDE) there are nine different phonemes which are considered fricatives: /f/, /v/, /θ/, /ð/, /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, and /h/. Except for the glottal fricative /h/, each fricative has a voiceless and a voiced counterpart. Fricatives can be classified according to their place of articulation: labiodental, dental, alveolar, post-alveolar and glottal (see Table 1). Table 1. Fricative phonemes divided according to their place of articulation and voicing (Roach, 2009, p. 40) The present study focuses on dental fricatives, both voiced /ð/ and voiceless /θ/, which are characterized by being produced when a turbulence is made at an obstruction which, in American and British varieties of English, can be dental or interdental (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996, p. 144). From a historical point of view, dental fricatives in English are the result of a process of change that affected all Germanic languages, which was identified by Jacob Grimm and is known as ‘Grimm’s Law’. Through this process, Proto-Indo-European (PIE) voiceless stops became Proto-Germanic (PGmc) fricatives unless preceded by another obstruent (Ringe, 2006, p. 94). Stenbrenden (2022, p. 16) describes Grimm’s Law as follows: 5 Figure 1. Grimm’s Law (Stenbrenden, 2022, p. 16) As has already been mentioned (see 1. Introduction), dental fricatives are rare in world languages, although they are found in some of the most widely spoken languages, such as English and Spanish. Within the Germanic family, they have been preserved only in Icelandic and English 5 . In fact, they are considered one of the four classes of unusual consonants described by Maddieson (2013), along with clicks, labial-velar plosives and pharyngeals. They have traditionally been described as unnatural, marked, and difficult to acquire in L1 and L2 situations. The following sections provides a detailed examination of the main characteristics of dental fricatives. 2.1. Dental Fricatives in the World Languages In the World Atlas of Languages Structures (WALS), dental fricatives are attested in 43 of the 566 languages analysed (Maddieson, 2013), which amounts to 7.6% of the languages examined. They are the third least frequent type of consonant, only after pharyngeals and clicks, which occur in 4.1% and 1.8% respectively (Maddieson, 2013). 6 It is also noteworthy that dental fricatives are not clustered in one area, but are found in languages across continents (see Table 2): 5 Faroese still maintains the spelling <ð>, although it is not used to represent a dental fricative (Barnes and Weyhe, 1994, p. 197; Árnason, 2011, p. 114). 6 It is worth noting here that some languages, such as Icelandic, which have dental fricatives in their phonological inventory, are not listed as such in WALS. This suggests that a revision of the distribution of these consonants in the atlas should be considered. IE voiceless stops /ph th kh khw/ > Gmc voiceless fricatives /f θ x xw/ IE voiced stops /b d ɡ ɡw/ > Gmc voiceless stops /p t k kw/ IE voiced aspirated stops /bh dh ɡh ɡhw/ > Gmc voiced stops /b d ɡ ɡ w/ 6 Language Language Family 1. Dahalo Afro-Asiatic 2. Bashkir Altaic 3. Mapudungun Araucanian 4. Drehu Austronesian 5. Fijian 6. Iaai 7. Rukai (Tanan) 8. Yapese 9. Berta Berta 10. Toro So Dogon 11. Ingessana Eastern Sudanic 12. Murle 13. Aleut (Eastern) Eskimo-Aleut 14. Maricopa Hokan 15. Huave (San Mateo del Mar) Huavean 16. Albanian Indo-European 17. English 18. Greek (Modern) 19. Spanish 20. Acoma Keresan 21. Moro Kordofanian 22. Huastec Mayan 23. Chipewyan Na-Dene 24. Swahili Niger-Congo 25. Rotokas North Bougainville 26. Kabardian Northwest Caucasian 27. Chinantec (Quiotepec) Oto-Manguean 28. Mixtec (Chalcatongo) 29. Mixtec (Molinos) 7 30. Otomí (Mezquital) 31. Ngiyambaa Pama-Nyungan 32. Amahuaca Pano-Tacanan 33. Tacana 34. Quechua (Cochabamba) Quechuan 35. Burmese Sino-Tibetan 36. Karen (Sgaw) 37. Lakkia Tai-Kadai 38. Yay 39. Cubeo Tucanoan 40. Mari (Meadow) Uralic 41. Nganasan 42. Nenets 43. Huitoto (Murui) Witotoan Table 2. Dental fricatives in the world languages (WALS) adapted from Maddieson (2013) Closely related to the question of the infrequency of dental fricatives, it is interesting to mention the results of Everett’s analysis (2018) as regards the occurrence of consonants in various world’s languages. This work draws attention to the oftenoverlooked phenomenon of the frequency of sound types across languages (Everett, 2018, p. 126) and shows that of the 34 consonant types in the data analysed, the IPA sound /θ/ (representing both voiceless and voiced variants [[θ] and [ð]]) ranks 30th in terms of occurrence (Everett, 2018, p. 127). However, it is important to note that function words, which are highly frequent (Schmitt, 2010, p. 55), were not considered in his study (Everett, 2018, p. 127). Nonetheless, Everett’s study (2018, p. 131), along with previous research on phoneme inventories, provides relevant information about the frequency of consonants in the world languages analysed, and their results clearly indicate that these consonants are (dis)favoured in most languages. One of the reasons that has been given 8 for their rarity is their alleged markedness, unnaturalness, or difficulty in pronunciation and retention. These issues will be addressed in sections 2.2. and 2.3. 2.2. Dental Fricatives and the Theories of Markedness and Naturalness According to Natural Theory, dental fricatives are considered unnatural and marked due to their ‘complex nature’ (Schreier, 2005, p. 27), which would supposedly explain the fact that they are not frequent in the world languages. ‘Markedness’ and ‘naturalness’ have been widely discussed in the literature and contemporary authors have been critical of the terms and the ideas that they represent. This section and section 2.2.1. offer a review of the theories of markedness and naturalness respectively and discuss their usefulness. The concept of markedness is commonly understood through the terms ‘marked’ and ‘unmarked’. As Andersen (2001, p. 21) states, the term ‘unmarked’ is commonly used in the sense of “simple, common, basic, default, elsewhere”, whereas ‘marked’ is understood as a measure of either “relative complexity or frequency” or as “a sort of asymmetrical relation” on a broader, more abstract level. Among those who have been most critical of the notion of markedness is Lass (1980, 1984, 1997) and, more recently Haspelmath (2006). To understand the current view of markedness, it is crucial to examine its historical development and the evolution of this concept since its introduction in the field. Andersen (1989, p. 15) states that the notion of markedness can be traced back to Roth’s idea of oppositions in his Grundriss der allgemeinen Sprachlehre (1815) 7 . 7 Roth’s idea focused on the category of case and not on phonology and therefore falls outside the scope of this study. For a better understanding of his concept of oppositions, see Anderson’s historical review of markedness (1989). 9 However, it was not until Trubetzkoy and Jakobson adopted the term ‘markedness’ that it started to play an important role in linguistics, specifically in the field of phonology. Trubetzkoy, one of the main figures of the Prague Linguistic Circle 8 , introduced the concepts of ‘marked’ and ‘unmarked’ segments in phonological oppositions, which have been considered to play a major role in phonology (Andrews, 1990, p. 13). Trubetzkoy (1969 [1939], p. 68) distinguishes two types of oppositions: ‘bilateral’ and ‘multilateral’. Bilateral oppositions are limited to the two opposing members, whereas multilateral oppositions are not (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 68). An example of these oppositions are the letters “E” and “F” and the letters “P” and “R: while the former are considered bilateral because the combination of their features (a vertical line and two horizontal lines -one in the middle and the other in the end of the line) is not found in any other Latin letter, the latter is considered multilateral because the combination of their features also appears in other Latin letters (such as the letter “B”) (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 68). Trubetzkoy (1969 [1939], p. 75) also distinguishes three different types of phonological oppositions depending on the relationship between the members of an opposition: ‘privative’, ‘gradual’, and ‘equipollent’. Privative oppositions occur when one of the two elements is marked while the other is unmarked, as in the example of “voice/voiceless” or “nasalised/non-nasalised” elements (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 75). On the other hand, gradual oppositions are characterised by having two elements marked by different degrees of the same trait, as in the case of the degrees of aperture in German vowels’s u-o and i-e (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 75). Finally, equipollent oppositions are characterised by having two members which are equivalent, i.e. that they 8 The Prague Linguistic Circle or Prague School of Linguistics was one of the two decisive groups that shaped academic study as what is known today, the other being the Vienna Circle. Whereas the former was interested in the study of cultural phenomena (thus emphasising the aspects of language that dealt with pragmatics and semantics), the latter’s main interest was syntax and the logical aspects of language (Steiner, 1982, p. ix). 10 are neither considered as two degrees of the same trait (gradual) nor as the presence or absence of a trait (privative), such as the case of German f-k and p-t (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 75). Of these three types, Trubetzkoy considered privative oppositions to be extremely important for phonology, although no justification was given for this statement; conversely, he considered equipollent oppositions to be the most frequent ones. Gradual oppositions, on the other hand, were believed to be rare and not as important as the previous ones (Trubetzkoy, 1969 [1939], p. 75). Jakobson, another well-known linguist from the Prague School of Linguistics, used the concept of ‘privative opposition’ in his work (Jakobson, 1971), applying it to various oppositions, especially lexical and grammatical ones (Haspelmath, 2006, p. 28). In his Proposition au Premier Congrès International de Linguistes (1928), Jakobson, together with Karcevskij and Trubetzkoy, discussed the notion of “correlation” as a binary opposition: “A phonological correlation is constituted by a series of binary oppositions defined by a common principle which can be conceived independently of each pair of opposite terms” (Jakobson, Karcevskij, and Trubetzkoy, as cited in Andrews, 1990, p. 13). Jakobson’s idea of binary opposition collides with that of Trubetzkoy’s, since for Jakobson, phonemes were not the smallest part of phonology but distinctive features, therefore distancing himself from the previous Saussurean tradition and disagreeing with Trubetzkoy’s ideas (van der Hulst, 2013, p. 176). For Jakobson, “features were clearly building blocks and thus the true primitives of phonology” (van der Hulst, 2013, p. 176). In the second half of the 20th century markedness was also used in Generative phonology, where the term was first introduced in Chomsky and Halle’s The Sound Pattern of English (1968). This study followed the established syntactic programme of 11 Chomsky’s previous work 9 , which stated that “all speakers have access to the universal aspects of grammar, formulate marking conventions for a universal phonology” (Bybee, 2003, p. 192). Chomsky and Halle (1968, p. 402, f. 3) introduced the notions of ‘marked’ and ‘unmarked’, which had not been discussed in the literature of the 1940s and 50s. In 1976, Greenberg adopted ‘markedness’ as a language universal (Battistella, 1990, p. 6). As Haspelmath stated in the preface to the reprinted edition of Greenberg’s Language Universals (2005): [W]here the structuralists Trubetzkoy and Jakobson saw markedness contrasts as embedded in the structures of individual synchronic languages, Greenberg emphasized the universal aspects of the substantive factors of phonetics, semantics, and language use, and language change was an integrated part of his explanatory framework. (p. viii) Furthermore, according to Eckman (2008), when Greenberg was trying to set universal generalizations about the world languages, he noted that “the most enlightening universals [were] formulated in terms of typological markedness” (p. 97). Lass (1980, 1984, 1997) was one of the first authors to criticise the concepts of markedness and naturalness in the field of historical linguistics. In his work On Explaining Language Change (1980), he argues that the terms ‘markedness’ and ‘naturalness’ hold little significance despite their prominence in linguistic theory (Lass, 1980, p. 15). Moreover, Lass (1997) later argued that “all ‘universals’ are inductive generalizations over subsets of the set of all possible languages, and no theoretical support that has so been provided is strong enough to make any of them necessary” (p. 30). 10 9 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. M.I.T. Press. 10 See also Lass (1997, p. 347). 12 Along these lines, Blevins (2004, p. 20) rejects the traditional concept of markedness and claims that most universals have a diachronic explanation. Blevins (2004) states that markedness cannot be considered to have a clear role within synchronic phonology, since the principles proposed in phonology do not encode anything more than statistical probability, and there are always counter examples to nearly every supposed universal. She also explains that, in Evolutionary Phonology, ‘markedness’ and ‘naturalness’ phonological theories are substituted by theories of factors that “constrain the choice space in which language change and language acquisition take place and allow for probabilistic modelling of sound change and associated sound patterns” (2004, p. 129). In contrast with the aforementioned approaches, Hume (2004) also contributes to the debate by adding a variety of diagnostic features to determine markedness, such as: phonetic instability, articulatory simplicity, perceptual salience, neutralization, epenthesis, assimilation, segment deletion, distribution, structural complexity, language acquisition, sound change, creole genesis, cross-language frequency, and implicational relations. (p. 183) The fact that there are many diagnostic features reinforces the idea of markedness being too vague and supports Menn’s argument (1983) that markedness is a phenomenon that requires an explanation rather than providing one (Hume, 2004, p. 184). Furthermore, Hume (2004, p. 193) explains that the actual basis of markedness is predictability, which provides explanations and is quantifiable, whereas markedness remains at a descriptive level and cannot be quantified. Recent studies have also suggested discarding the notion of markedness because of its ambiguity and lack of explanatory power since, as Rice (2003) notes, “capturing 13 exactly what markedness means is by no means a straightforward task” (p. 390). Haspelmath (2006, p. 26) considers some of the major proposals for markedness, including complexity, difficulty, abnormality and multidimensional correlation, and suggests replacing them by other less ambiguous concepts. Some of these replacements include a detailed phonetic or semantic description, rarity or frequency in texts and its consequences, or rarity in the world languages (Haspelmath, 2006, p. 64-65). A summary of his findings and the various terms that are proposed to replace markedness are given in Table 3: Type of markedness Domain Salient representative What to replace it with 1. Markedness as a specification for a phonological distinction Phonemes Trubetzkoy, 1939 Detailed phonetic and distributional description 2. Markedness as specification for a semantic distinction Lexical items, grammatical categories Jakobson, 1932 Detailed semantic description and pragmatic analysis 3. Markedness as overt coding Morphosyntactic categories (Passim) ‘overt coding/ zero coding’ 4. Markedness as phonetic difficulty Phonological/ phonetic categories Hayes & Steriade, 2004 Detailed study of phonetic factors 5. Markedness as morphological difficulty/ unnaturalness Morphological pattern Dressler et al., 1987; Wurzel, 1998 General principles of mental organization of words (especially frequency differences) 6. Markedness as conceptual difficulty (Grammatical) conceptual categories Givón, 1991, 1995 Conceptual difficulty (sometimes due to rarity of occurrence) 7. Markedness as rarity in texts Any linguistic element or pattern Greenberg, 1966 ‘Rarity in texts’ 20 5), which means that we must take these generalisations about the difficulty of acquiring certain sounds cum grano salis. In terms of second language acquisition, variation in the degree of difficulty of L2 speakers in learning dental fricatives in English largely depends on the speaker’s native language. It is well known that adults struggle with sounds that are not part of their phonological inventory and tend to retain features of their native language’s pronunciation and transfer them to the L2 (Hickey, 2008, p. 71). On the other hand, the goals of language learners may also influence the degree of accuracy with which they acquire the pronunciation of the target language. Some studies suggest that there are learners who aim to sound like native English speakers (Stern, 1983), while others prioritize communicating effectively in multilingual settings (Kirkpatrick, 2012, p. 39). This difference in goals may affect the phonological output of these speakers, preventing or favouring the acquisition of certain sounds. If dental fricatives are considered marked, unnatural and hard to acquire, that might explain their loss in Germanic and Romance languages (except in cases like ceceo in Spanish), but other variables like identity and language standardisation may also be responsible for the retention of dental fricatives in English and Castilian Spanish. 21 3. Lenition, Fortition, and other Sound Changes Before proceeding to the analysis of dental fricatives in northern Middle English (section 6), it is necessary to describe the phonological changes that have affected the development of dental fricatives in the history of English and other Germanic languages. The history of English phonology is a complex one, particularly given the lack of recorded data prior to the 20th century, i.e., manuscripts and texts are our only available sources, and the spellings are not always straightforward and can be very difficult to interpret, especially in the Old and Middle English periods. This section offers an overview of the sound changes that dental fricatives have undergone in the course of the history of English or, rather, “Englishes”, as the evolution of dental fricatives (which are the result of Grimm’s Law [see section 2.1.]) has varied across different varieties of English and language periods (Laing and Lass, 2009). One of the fundamental concepts in historical phonology is the distinction between two types of sound changes: conditioned (or context-dependent) sound changes and unconditioned (or context-free) ones (Cser, 2003, pp. 10-11). In the following section, I discuss some of the most significant phonological processes: lenition and fortition (unconditioned changes), and assimilation and dissimilation (conditioned changes). Given the extensive debate about these terms, this chapter explores various hypotheses that have been put forward about their characteristics and development. 3.1. Lenition The term “lenition” originally comes from the Latin “lenis” (“weak”), but the same concept has been presented in the literature with other terms, such as “weakening” and “reduction”, which are considered synonymous (Bauer, 2008). This phenomenon is 22 considered one of the most common types of sound change and has also traditionally appeared alongside its “opposite”, fortition 12 . The history of the term is complex 13 and difficult to trace, as it varies from scholar to scholar. However, there are some similarities between the different processes generally regarded as ‘lenition’ (Honeybone, 2008, p. 10). Honeybone (2008) makes use of two different definitions of lenition, taken from Odden (2005) and Ashby and Maidment (2005). According to Odden (2005), apart from ‘assimilation’, lenition is “the most common segmental interaction between consonants and vowels” (p. 239). Odden (2005, p. 239) offers some instances of lenition, such as voicing and spirantisation processes. In contrast, Ashby and Maidment (2005, p. 141) describe lenition as a process relating to strength scales, resulting in the weakening of a consonant until it increasingly mirrors a vowel 14 . According to Ashby and Maidment’s (2005) strength scale (see Figure 2), lenition involves movement to the right of the strength scale, while fortition involves movement to the left: Figure 2. Strength Scale in Ashby and Maidment (2005, p. 141) Crystal and Yu’s (2023) definition of lenition in their reference book is based on the concept of strength, similar to that of Ashby and Maidment’s (Honeybone, 2008) but 12 For a discussion of fortition and its place as the opposite of lenition, see section 3.2. 13 For a comprehensive and detailed account of lenition, see Honeybone (2008). This section aims to summarize some of the key concepts and ideas relevant to lenition, as anything beyond this is outside the scope of this research 14 In fact, the terms ‘lenition’ and ‘weakening’ are used interchangeably in the literature (cf. Honeybone 2008, p. 12). 23 does not provide much detail about its features. For Crystal and Yu’s (2023) lenition is a reduction in a sound strength, which may occur diachronically or synchronically (p. 274). Although lenition has received considerable attention over the years (Lass, 1984; Lavoie, 2001; Honeybone, 2008; Cser, 2015; etc.), dictionaries and reference works continue to repeat the same definitions of the term (Honeybone, 2008, cites Crystal and Yu, 2023). For a better understanding of lenition, it is necessary to look at the history of the term. Thurneysen first introduced the concept of lenition in 1898 (Honeybone, 2008, p. 84), defining it as “the term used to describe a mutation of consonants which normally originated in a reduction of the energy employed in their articulation” (Thurneysen, 1898, p. 74). However, it should be noted that the initial definition is not the most widely cited. Venneman’s definition of lenition is credited with this distinction: “a segment X is said to be weaker than a segment Y if Y goes through an X stage on its way to zero” (as cited in Hyman, 1975, p. 165). Venneman’s definition of lenition suggests that a segment can only be considered lenited if it eventually reduces to zero. The idea of a strength hierarchy has been frequently used to discuss lenition and fortition, with multiple hierarchies being proposed in this context. Lass and Anderson (1975) state that such hierarchies are “language-specific”, as they are not universals but rather statistically more probable (p. 184). To elaborate further on hierarchies in sound change, we will review some of the most relevant ones in the literature. In his 1977 work, Escure presents a hierarchy of consonant strength, describing the perceived relative strength of consonants according to their main class characteristics and their manner of articulation (p. 60). 24 Figure 3. Escure’s hierarchy of major-class and manner features (1977, p. 60) Escure’s hierarchy (1977) (Figure 3) is primarily based on Germanic and Romance languages, outlining the direction of change for a specific consonant at each stage of the weakening process (from left to right), which ultimately leads to the deletion of the consonant (p. 60). In this hierarchy, dental fricatives are said to undergo lenition when they become voiced stops. Lass (1984) uses two strength scales to analyse lenition and fortition – one for assessing openness and the other for sonority (p. 178). He states that lenition entails moving in the direction of the arrow (i.e. to a ‘weaker’ sound) while fortition involves the opposite movement (i.e. to a ‘stronger’ sound) (1984, p. 178). As in Escure’s hierarchy (1977) (Figure 3), dental fricatives undergo lenition when they become voiced stops (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Trajectory of lenition according to Lass (1984, p. 178) 25 Trask (2000) defined lenition as any change in which a segment becomes weaker, less consonantal than before, which reinforces the idea of a strength hierarchy to help define this sound change process (p. 190). Trask and McColl Millar (2023) propose a modified version of the strength hierarchy proposed by Trask (2000) (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). In the modified hierarchy (Figure 6), a possible outcome as deletion (zero) is not included, although it is mentioned as possible, as in the cases of OE hēafod (PDE head) or Lat. regāle (Spa. real) (McColl Millar and Trask, 2023, p. 53-54). Figure 5. Strength hierarchy (Trask, 2000, p. 191)4 Figure 6. Strength hierarchy (McColl Millar and Trask, 2023, p. 52)4 Similar trajectories have been proposed by Szigetvári (2008a). For him, two clearly distinguishable trajectories can be drawn from consonantal lenition: “leniting consonants may (a) become more sonorous or they may (b) lose their (i) place of articulation or (ii) laryngeal properties” (p. 561), as can be observed in Figure 7: (1) geminate > simplex (2) stop > fricative > approximant > zero (3) stop > liquid > zero (4) oral stop > glottal stop > zero (5) non-nasal > nasal (6) voiceless > voiced geminate > simplex stop > fricative > approximant stop > liquid oral stop > glottal stop non-nasal> nasal voiceless > voiced 26 Figure 7. Lenition trajectories according to Szigetvári (2008a, p. 561) Bauer (2008) proposes another pathway modifying Hock’s hierarchy (1986). He (2008) presents lenition as any movement in the direction of the arrows, with the head of these arrows representing a weaker sound than the tail (p. 605). Bauer’s hierarchy (2008) establishes fortition as the opposite pathway to lenition, moving from the tail to the head of the arrow. This author takes Hock’s weakening hierarchy (1986, p. 83), maintaining the dotted lines to illustrate potential, albeit unobservable, changes, while including arrows and a standard IPA transcription, as shown below: 27 Figure 8. A definition of lenition by ostension from Hock (1986), as cited and modified by Bauer (2008, p. 606) On the other hand, it is also worth mentioning that positional factors are frequently used in the study of phonological change, and that the debate has traditionally been centred on what positions promote or inhibit a particular change. Historically, it has been argued that weak positions favour lenition, whereas strong positions inhibit it, thus favouring fortition (assuming that fortition is, in fact, the opposite of lenition, see below Section 3.2.). To elaborate further on positions and their effects on sound change, we will start by referring to Escure’s (1977) hierarchy of positions in terms of the strength of consonants. 28 Figure 9. Escure’s environmental hierarchy (1977, p. 58) As illustrated in Figure 9, Escure's (1977, p. 58) environmental hierarchy shows how different environments are relatively important in influencing weakening processes: it suggests that consonant deletion is most likely to occur in clusters and single consonants positioned at the end of utterances (Figure 9, example (a)), and most unlikely to occur in initial positions (Figure 9, example ?). It thus suggests that final positions would favour lenition whereas initial positions would disfavour them. Similarly, Sérégal and Scheer (2008, p. 135) also claim that strong positions include word-initial and post-Coda positions, whereas weak positions include internal and final Coda and intervocalic positions: Figure 10. Strong and weak positions (Sérégal and Scheer, 2008, p. 135) It is important, to note, however, that positional strength is not absolute in the sense that “it cannot be predicted whether a given position - strong or weak - will 29 experience lenition (or not), fortition (or not), what kind of lenition or fortition, and how much of it” (Sérégal and Scheer 2008, p. 140). Consequently, they summarise positional strength with the following generalisation: “For a given input in a given language and regarding a given phenomenon, strong positions are relatively stronger than weak positions” (Sérégal and Scheer 2008, p. 140). This is not a new approach, since Lass and Anderson (1975) showed that intervocalic position, although a traditional lenition position, does not have to be subject to any change or may even be subject to strengthening processes, as in the case of Italian maggiore or Spanish mayor (< Latin maior) or Old Norse tveggja (< Gmc. *twajjan num.gen. ‘of two’: < IE *duoi-om (p. 160). To the variety of consonant strength scales, we may add Bybee and Easterday’s (2019, p. 272): Consonant strength scale: central approximant > fricative > affricate > stop Figure 11. Bybee and Easterday’s (2019, p. 272) Bybee and Easterday (2019, p. 272) consider that lenition entails a change in which its input is on the right side of its output. As will be discussed in Section 3.2., Bybee and Easterday’s (2019) proposal is a way to systematically compare lenition and fortition, two sound change processes whose opposition has been recently discussed (Honeybone, 2001, 2002, 2008). Lenition has also been described in terms of the different sound changes it has traditionally involved. Gurevich (2011) states that certain processes are typical in intervocalic lenition (degemination [tt → t], deaspiration [th → t], voicing [t → d], spirantisation [t d → (θ) ð], flapping [t d → ɾ], debuccalization [t → ʔ h], gliding [t → j] and loss [ʔ h j → ∅]) and can form a chain where the result of a process is another 36 of the change and attribute it to other causes, both internal and external. While Honeybone states that fortition cannot be regarded as the opposite of lenition, I would argue that fortition functions as the counterpart of lenition regarding the degree of strength, at least in the context of dental fricatives, which constitute the focal point of this study. 3.2.1. Fortition in the history of English In the history of English, as in other Germanic languages, numerous instances of fortition processes have been documented (cf. CoNE). This section will focus on the processes affecting dental fricatives. Theta Hardening (Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013) is a phonological process which is attested in Old and Middle English, although it could have taken place in earlier stages of the language. In OE the sound [θ] became [t] in certain environments, for instance in the 3sg. present indicative inflexion <-eþ>, which is sometimes attested as <-et> 20 (cf. Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013). In English it is characterised by being a variable process, in contrast with other West Germanic languages, in which it is invariant and complete (e.g. PDE ‘through’ 21 vs G durch and Du door [same meaning], PDE ‘three’ vs G drei, Du drie, etc.). In Middle English, fortition is attested in the final consonant of the verbal inflexions of the imperative plural, the 3rd person singular present indicative, and plural present indicative (e.g. <-et>, <-it>). Other possible instances of Theta Hardening attested in ME are det (PDE ‘death’) and wit (PDE ‘with’) (Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013). Additionally, similar forms have been found modern 20 In early Old Northumbrian <b>, <d> can represent both the voiced and voiceless bilabial and dental fricatives [ß, ð]. Although the digraph <th> for /θ/ may reflect Irish practice, <t> is rarely found to represent a dental fricative. It occurs in 3sg. pres. ind. uuiurthit ‘[s/he] becomes’ (Bede Death’s Song l. 1) with final <t> instead of the expected <th, ð, þ> (Hogg, 2011, p. 33; Fernández Cuesta (forthcoming)). 21 In the Dictionary of Old English Corpus (DOEC) the only 4x attestations are in the Epinal-Erfurt glossary (7th/8th c. Mercian dialect). 37 varieties of English, such as those found in New York and Ireland (Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013). 22 Early Dental Hardening is another process whereby [θ] became [d] after <l>, as in the case of OE cild ‘child’, from Gmc. *kilþ-ō ‘pregnant woman’ (cf. CoNE). Another change affecting fricatives is Voiced Fricative Hardening (/*β/, /*ð/, /*ɣ/ > /*b/, /*d/, /*g/), which is said to have occurred in West Germanic (Campell, 1965 and Hogg, 1992). 23 These processes have been attested in several varieties of contemporary English such as Scouse English (Honeybone, 2007), Irish English (Hickey, 2008), Caribbean English (Williams, 2010), or New York English (Newlin-Lukowicz, 2013). Although TH/DH-stopping is commonly attributed to language contact (Hickey, 2004; Honeybone, 2007), similar processes have occurred not only in English but also in other Germanic languages, as demonstrated by the CoNE examples in this section (see above). In sum, fortition is not as uncommon as some authors state, at least with regard to dental fricatives, and this type of processes are attested in earlier periods of the English language. 3.3. Other sound changes This chapter will focus on environmentally conditioned phonological changes. Although more phonological processes of change can be listed, such as metathesis, epenthesis (deletion) or deletion (Minkova, 2014; Cser, 2015, etc.), in this study I will only focus on two, assimilation and dissimilation, due to their relevance in the analysis conducted. 22 Some authors argue that variants suggesting fortition in New York and Irish English may be due to language contact or a subtract effect (see Honeybone, 2007; Newlin-Łukowicz, 2013). 23 Given that in early Old English the graphs <b> and <d> were used to represent both stop (/b, d, g/) and fricative consonants (β/, ð/, ɣ/), Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson (2013) adopt a more conservative approach and place this change at a later date, “with continuing complex allophony in Proto-OE”. 38 3.3.1. Assimilation Assimilation is often considered a form of lenition. Hock (2021, p. 127) argued that medial voicing can be interpreted as both lenition and assimilation, raising important questions about the classification of other lenition processes (including assimilation itself). According to Szigetvári (2008b), the difference between lenition and assimilation is that “lenition is the delinking of a privative feature” whereas “assimilation is the spreading of a privative feature” (p. 107). The difference between lenition and assimilation is exemplified with the processes of devoicing, which can be regarded as assimilation “inasmuch as the devoicing segment becomes more similar to the following “segment” in not possessing the [voiced] feature” (Szigetvári, 2008b, p. 106). On the other hand, cases like word-final devoicing cannot be treated as assimilation “since there is no spreading taking place” and are better analysed as “lenition, i.e., the loss of a feature, happening in a weakly cued or unlicensed position” (Szigetvári, 2008b, p. 106). Similarly, Bauer (2008) raises the question of whether there are instances of lenition that do not involve assimilation and vice versa (p. 613). For instance, [l]- vocalisation, as in the pronunciation of the word bottle as [bɒto], would be an example of lenition that would not involve assimilation (Bauer, 2008, p. 614). He (2008, pp. 614615) concludes that most cases of assimilations are lenitions, but that although assimilation and lenition are closely related, it is possible to find cases of lenition that are not assimilations and cases of assimilation that are not lenitions suggests that the two are not to be equated. Assimilation is widely acknowledged as one of the most common processes of sound change (Bybee, 2015; Miller and Trask, 2015; Hock, 2021; Campbell, 2021; etc.), and is commonly described as a process in which a sound becomes like a nearby one. It 39 can either be complete/total or partial. The different types of assimilation are illustrated in examples ((A) and (B) below: (A) Latin noctefactuseptem scriptuItalian notte fatto sette scritto Gloss ‘night’ ‘fact’ ‘seven’ ‘writing’ (Bybee, 2015, p. 23) (B) Latin in- + primere : imprimere ‘impress’ + tendere : intendere ‘intend’ + congruere :[iŋkoŋgruere] ‘be incongruous’ (Adapted from Hock, 2021, p. 71) The examples in ((A) would count as complete or total assimilation, since the first element of the clusters /kt/ and /pt/ assimilate completely to the neighbouring sound /t/, thus having the cluster -ttin Italian. On the contrary, examples in (B) illustrate partial assimilation, since it affects only one section of a specific segment. The distinction between regressive and progressive assimilations, as well as between contact and remote assimilations, are additional categories. Regressive entails the assimilation of the segment preceding the conditioning environment, whereas progressive assimilation entails the assimilation of the segment following the conditioning environment (Campbell, 2021, p. 26). In this sense, the examples discussed in (A) and (B) would count as regressive assimilation, since the segment affected appears 40 before: nocte > notte, in- + primere > imprimere, etc. An example of progressive assimilation would be Proto-Indo-European *kolnis, which became Latin collis ‘hill’ since the segment /n/ is conditioned by the preceded one /l/ Campbell, 2021, p. 26). It is also worth noting that some scholars (Hock, 2021; Trask and Miller, 2023; etc.) prefer the use of the terms ‘anticipatory’ and ‘perseverative’ assimilation rather than ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ assimilation, respectively. An additional category can be added here: mutual assimilation, in which “segments affect each other” thus changing both the preceded and the following sound (Campbell and Mixco, 2007, p. 17). An example of mutual assimilation can be found in present-day Spanish, where the phonemes /n/ and /β/ in words such as un and vino assimilate when appearing together in a sentence: ‘un vino’ [um. ˈbi.no], ‘a (glass of) wine’ (González, 2020, p. 85). On the other hand, if the sounds involved in a particular assimilatory segment are contiguous, we speak about of contact assimilation (Trask and McColl Miller, 2023, p. 50), as in examples (A) and (B). In contrast, distant assimilation the two sounds involved in the process are not adjacent, as in Latin quīnque (‘five’), in which the initial [p] of the original form *[peŋkwe] assimilated to the velar in the following syllable boundary, giving *[kweŋkwe] (Trask and McColl Miller, 2023, p. 51). Another instance of distant assimilation is i-umlaut. 3.3.2. Dissimilation The opposite process to assimilation is dissimilation. Dissimilation is often considered to be irregular (Hock, 2021, p. 128) and involves sounds becoming less alike. In the process, sounds are not usually adjacent (though contact dissimilation is not unusual according to Campbell [2021, p. 28]). Bybee (2015, p. 69) also argues that dissimilation should not be 41 considered the opposite of assimilation, as it does not necessarily operate under the same circumstances or even in the same manner. She (2015, p. 69) provides examples from Spanish and Italian which illustrate how the results of dissimilation are different in both languages in words which have the same Latin source. In the examples in (C), the second /r/ changes to /l/, although the opposite (in a word containing two /l/ sounds, the last /l/ becomes /r/) is also possible. The examples in (C) below show how the results of dissimilation in Spanish and Italian are different, although the context is the same (Bybee, 2015, p. 69): (C) Latin arbor robre marmore carcere locale Spanish árbol roble mármol cárcel lugar Italian albero rovere marmo carcere luogo Gloss ‘tree’ ‘oak’ ‘marble’ ‘prison’ ‘place’ (adapted from Bybee, 2015, p. 69) There are also two processes (external and internal shandi) that would fall into a similar category to those discussed here: external and internal sandhi (Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013). External Sandhi is described as any segmental alteration, deletion or insertion, that occurs across a word boundary, e.g. ME þat te (PDE ‘that’ + complementiser particle, changing into <t>). This phonological process is characterised by being variable, affecting both consonants and vowels. It is attested in both Old English and Middle English and may also involve dissimilation (Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson, 2013). In contrast, internal Sandhi is a variable phonological process, also attested in OE and ME, that entails a modification, loss or insertion across a morpheme boundary, e.g. OE cȳðde > cȳdde in the 3rd person singular preterite indicative of cȳðan 42 ‘to make known’). According to Lass, Laing, Alcorn, and Williamson (2013), internal sandhi refers to changes not covered by a more specific rule and may also involve dissimilation. 43 4. Orthographic Representation of Dental Fricatives in Middle English Writing can be defined as a representation of spoken language, facilitating the communication between speakers across time and space. In any study of earlier/past stages of the language, such as the present work, writing systems, orthography and spelling play a significant role. It is important to highlight that spelling changes in the course of time, albeit at a different rate than spoken language, since it is well known that written language tends to be more conservative than spoken language. For cultural reasons and because we learn to write later than we learn to speak, speakers are generally more reluctant to change, especially when they have been trained to write in a particular tradition (Lass, 1997, p. 58). Moreover, in the case of standardised languages, such as English or Spanish, orthographies may not suffer any modification in centuries, making the distance between the phonic and the written form even greater (Lass, 1997, p. 59). As it is also known, the implementation of spelling reforms is a difficult task, even when there is institutional support (Van Gelderen, 2006, p. 15). In the 10th and the 11th centuries, there was a literary dialect that has been labelled ‘Late West Saxon’, which had a significant influence outside its region, and which scholars refer to as “Standard Old English” or ‘West-Saxon literary language’ (Smith, 1996, p. 51). After the Norman Conquest, however, French became the language of prestige (along with Latin), while English or, rather, ‘Englishes’, were reduced to local patois. This new situation led to a wealth of dialect variation, including spelling variation, depending on the scribes’ dialect and the scriptoria where they were trained (Smith, 1996, pp. 51-52). Thus, Middle English texts present a considerable spelling variation depending on the dialect area and text-type. Moreover, variations in Middle English 44 spelling are found not only in different manuscripts of the same dialect, but also within texts written by the same scribe, due to the lack of a standard orthography. As an example of the enormous variation found in ME, the Linguistic Atlas of Late Middle English (LALME) corpus records some 500 ways of spelling the word “through”, including forms such as thurgh, thorough, þorowe, or yhurght (Smith, 1996, p. 52) Nevertheless, and despite all this variation, Middle English spelling was not as irregular and chaotic as previously thought. Clark (1992) criticises the views held in studies ranging from the earlier 1940s until the late 1980s about the ‘ignorance’ of the Anglo-Norman scribe, i.e. that Anglo-Norman scribes were “confused” as regards the English spelling, since they were not native speakers of English (pp. 118-119). For instance, Jordan (1974) states that “[a]s a result of their inability to pronounce þ, ð, the French scribes often therefore wrote t, medial d; such soundings remained in pl. n. like Tarlton, Tingrith (< ON þaraldr, OE þing)” (p. 186). The idea of the ignorant Anglo-Norman scribe has now been rejected; instead, the prevailing view is that Middle English scribes were probably native English speakers who had been trained to write Latin and French and had, therefore, problems writing in their own language. This has been presented as a plausible explanation for the irregularity of ME spelling (Benskin, in prep., as cited in Laing and Lass, 2003, p. 257). Thus, the alleged irregularity of Middle English writing would only reflect our lack of understanding of the ME writing practice (Laing and Lass, 2003, p. 258). According to Lass (2006), the complexity of writing systems, especially in early Middle English, can only be explained if we understand “what the profligate writers are doing, and whether the mass of orthographic distinctions we find match anything phonetic” (p. 63). Therefore, for Historical Linguistics, the issue concerning Middle English spelling is not the amount of variation or its complexity, but rather to discern 45 whether these spellings represented a single sound or, rather, a group of related sounds. In this context, Lass and Laing (2003, 2009) introduce the concept of Litteral Substitution Sets, which will be discussed in Section 4.1. 4.1. Litteral Substitution Sets and Potestatic Substitution Sets In order to understand Middle English orthography, it is essential to introduce the concepts of Litteral Substitution Sets and Potestatic Substitution Sets, introduced by Laing (1999, 2000) and Laing and Lass (2003, 2009). Laing (1999) adopts the convention of using the medieval term littera to describe the way in which scribes may have categorised their writing systems (p. 255). Besides the principle of littera, are nomen, figura, and potestas. The term littera refers to the abstract concept of the letter, whereas potestas refers to its phonetic representation (Laing, 1999, p. 255). 24 On the other hand, nomen represents the various shapes that the littera can present, while figura refers to the “letter-symbol, its realisation or shape” (Laing, 1999, p. 255). Laing (1999, p. 255) adopts Benskin’s conventions (1997), using the symbols ‘< >’ to represent the figurae, inverted commas (‘ ’) for litterae and square brackets ([ ]) for potestates. Figure 13 shows an example of this representation: Figure 13. Litterae/potestates for ME yogh (Laing, 1999, p. 255) 24 For a reconsideration of the term littera, see Anderson (2022). 52 a nearby one (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos, Williamson, 2013, Volume One). Once the anchor texts had been identified, they could be used to place other pieces of writing (i.e. literary texts) in the mapping matrix created from the anchor texts (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos, Williamson, 2013, Volume One). It was therefore evident that anchor texts were of great importance in enabling the localisation of literary manuscripts through a process called the ‘fit’-technique (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos, Williamson, 2013, Volume One). This method was developed in 1963 by Angus MacIntosh while working in the scribal dialects of the late Middle English literary corpus (Benskin, 1985, p. 9). In this process, the spellings of an unlocalised text are compared to those already localised, with the aim of identifying those that are particular to the unlocalised text (Laing, 2003, Part 1: Introduction). Although LAEME follows the same principles and technique employed in LALME, it differs in many respects. The most important one (and the reason why I decided to use LAEME as the basis for my study) is that it provides complete texts (or large samples of lengthy ones), transcribed from the original manuscripts (rather than editions), whereas LALME only offers the Linguistic Profiles (LPs) of the texts, obtained by means of a questionnaire which was devised to analyse only a limited number of linguistic features (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos, Williamson, 2013, Volume 3: Linguistic Profile). 31 After some consideration, Laing (2003, Part 1: Introduction) abandoned the use of the questionnaire for LAEME and decided instead to provide lexico-grammatically tagged texts, thus allowing the user to extract information about the orthography, 31 The LPs include all the variants of the variables selected by the authors, which are orthographic, morphological, and lexical. The relative frequency of each variant is indicated in the LALME questionnaire by means of a ‘system of parenthesis’, from no parenthesis [dominant form] to two parentheses [least frequent form] (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos, Williamson, 2013, Volume 3: Linguistic Profiles). 53 morphology, syntax, and lexis. Furthermore, access to the texts also allows statistical analysis of the data obtained, which is not possible with LALME. 5.2. Data Collection and analysis In order to assess the possibility of sound change processes in dental fricatives and dental plosives [θ, ð, t, d] in early northern Middle English, I made use of a self-compiled corpus based on LAEME. LAEME offers the possibility of searching for specific tags enabling the user to retrieve information about orthography, morphology, syntax, and lexis, but not orthography (see above). As regards phonology, the orthographic variation found in the text has been used as evidence of phonological change (Lass and Laing, 2009; Laker, 2017). For my study I have primarily focused on the LAEME texts from the northern counties (Cumberland, Durham, Lancashire, City of York, East Riding of Yorkshire, West Riding of Yorkshire, and North Riding of Yorkshire). I compiled a corpus of 27,661 tokens by reading all the relevant texts and identifying words containing historical dental fricatives (/θ/, /ð/) and dental stops (/t/ and /d/). This process was carried out by manually extracting each token and analysing the relevant spellings in their phonological environment. The independent variables that have been considered for my study are location of the manuscript where the token is found, word class, syllable position and its phonological environment, and frequency. I have also taken text type into account in order to ascertain whether spellings that suggest phonological change (either lenition or fortition) are more likely to occur in specific types of texts or genres. The relevance of the variable ‘syllable position and its phonological environment’ lies in the fact that phonotactic environment has been shown to condition phonological change, i.e. the presence of adjacent 54 consonants can trigger processes such as assimilation and dissimilation (see Section 3.3.). Finally, I have also considered frequency, which has been shown to play a role in linguistic change, both phonological and morphological (Phillips, 1984; Bybee, 2003). In order to determine whether the spellings found for dental fricatives are instances of sound change in progress, it was necessary to take into account the etymology of all the lexical items analysed. For this purpose, I consulted a number of standard Old and Middle English dictionaries: Bosworth-Toller Dictionary (BT), which is also available online, the Dictionary of Old English (DOE), the Middle English Dictionary (MED), and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). In addition, alternative materials such as the Dictionary of Old English Corpus (DOEC), Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary (EDD), or the Survey of English Dialects (SED) were consulted and found to be very useful. Figure 14 illustrates the process of compilation of my corpus 32 . The example provided has been taken from edincmat.tag, located in the East Riding of Yorkshire. 32 Text-type is not included in the Excel corpus, although it is annotated in the text. 55 Figure 14. Extract from my EXCEL corpus based on LAEME As has been already mentioned, in some cases, a particular spelling appears to be the result of lenition or fortition. However, it is important to consider the possibility that other conditioning factors may be responsible for this ‘unexpected’ spelling. Therefore, in my study I have considered the potential influence of sound change due to prosodic processes and adjacent sounds (e.g. assimilation), since it could account for unexpected spelling patterns that could suggest lenition and fortition. As an illustration, consider the following example from a text located in Lancashire (bodley26.tag): 33 For both location and date, I follow the conventions indicated in the guide to the Index of Sources in LAEME (Available at: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/guideToIndex.html ME Token Spelling Sound change Position Grammatical Element Previous Token Following Token Lexical Item Line Tag County File Location Year þus <þ> No evidence of sound change Wordinitial Adverb te forlete thus f1ra $thus/a v_yUS ERY edincmat.tag 486 447 N3333 below C14a33 56 • at te werld end: the definite article is spelled as te (lOE þe, PDE the) in this phrase. This particular spelling may be considered an instance of assimilation, given that the final consonant of the preposition at affects the following sound. Finally, it is important to highlight that the present study considers only words of native origin whose etymology can be traced back to Old English. Nevertheless, some non-native lexical items are discussed in separate subsections within their respective counties. 5.3. Phonographic Profiles As noted above (see Section 4), the variable spelling of Middle English has sometimes been perceived as a hindrance to the study of the language. Scholars such as Milroy (1992) and Laing and Lass (2001) have noted that it is not uncommon to encounter remarks about the ‘chaotic’ or ‘lawless’ nature of spelling, e.g. Sisam (1915, p. xxxvii, as cited in Milroy, 1992, p. 193). Such views have been challenged by Clark (1992) and Laing and Lass (2001, 2003, 2009) (Section 4). According to Laing and Lass (2003), the complexity of the ME orthography is due to the “availability to a text community of multilingual writers, of large numbers of orthographic variants to realize certain sounds” (p. 268). The availability of different graphemes to represent the same sound led to prodigal systems, which were, nevertheless, systematic (Laing and Lass, 2003, p. 268). This complex underlying order may be discerned through the meticulous examination and interpretation of the relevant data (Laing and Lass, 2003, p. 257). In order to measure the complex underlying order of ME orthography, Lass and Laing (2009) make use of what they refer to as ‘phonographic profiles’. A phonographic profile 57 is defined as a representation of the “mappings between orthographic and phonological segments in a text language”, presented in a graphic or a table format (Lass and Laing, 2009, p. 114). This is achieved by mapping the each ‘letter’ represented in the manuscript to their corresponding the potestates (the sound values given to that specific figurae), being a mixture of Litteral and Potestatic Substitution Sets (see Section 4.1. for a discussion of these terms). Lass and Laing (2009, p. 113) argue that it is only by examining how the various figurae are mapped onto the etymology that it is possible to determine whether a given spelling reflects an ongoing phonological change or is a mere orthographical variant. To illustrate this point, Lass and Laing (2009) present the phonographic profile of dental consonants in the text dulwicht.tag from LAEME: Figure 15. Phonographic profile of dental consonant mappings in dulwicht.tag (Lass and Laing, 2009, p. 114) Figure 15 above illustrates the spellings for historic /t/, /d/, /θ/, [ð] which appear in the text dulwicht.tag (Lass and Laing, 2009, p. 114). The upper row represents the sound values or potestates, while the lower row displays the various letters found in the text to represent them. For example, in this particular text, the dental fricatives /θ/, [ð] are represented by the litterae <d, h, ht, t, th, y, z, 0>. Building on Lass and Laing’s (2009) analysis of a single text, I have examined the mapping of dental fricatives and stops with their potestates in my corpus of all 58 northern texts included in LAEME (12 in total) in order to determine which spellings are more likely to represent real phonological change rather than mere orthographic variation. To that aim, I have created phonographic profiles for each of the texts analysed. As Lass and Laing’s intricate model (2009) is not always clear to read, especially in complex phonographic profiles with a high number of potestates and litterae (cf. Figure 15), I have also accompanied each phonographic profile with a table (e.g. Table 7) showing the relationship between the litterae and the potestates in what I hope is a clearer way. 34 34 I am grateful to Dr. Keith Williamson for this suggestion. 59 6. Northern Counties in LAEME This section analyses the distribution of spellings for historical /θ/, [ð], /t/ and /d/ in the texts from in the northern section of the LAEME corpus35, which comprises the following counties: Cumberland, Durham, Lancashire, City of York, East Riding of Yorkshire, West Riding of Yorkshire, and North Riding of Yorkshire. With regard to dental fricatives (/θ/ and [ð]), I have considered all tagged36 words containing an etymological dental fricative, which in ME is generally represented by the graphs <th>, <y>, <þ> and <ð>. I have also coded all instances of words containing etymological fricatives that are represented by other litterae, mainly <t>, <d>, and <ht>, as they may be indicative of phonological change in progress (i.e. fortition). Similarly, words with etymological /d, t/ have also been considered both when they are represented by their expected spellings (e.g. <t>, <d>, <tt>, <dd>, etc.) and by other (di)graphs (e.g. <th>, <dh>, etc.), which can be indicative of a process of lenition (see Section 3.1). In my analysis, I have considered primarily only lexemes of Anglo-Saxon origin. Loanwords from Old Norse, Latin, and Old French origin that exhibit unexpected spellings are analysed in different sections. The reason is that borrowings manifest different orthographic traditions, which means that their representation in ME is likely to have been influenced by the spelling conventions of their language of origin. Table 6 below illustrates the distribution of the texts located in each northern county, their text type, and their total number of words. 35 See Appendix I for the list of analysed texts. 36 Only non-finite verb forms (infinitives, present and past participles) have been considered in this study. The analysis of possible cases of lenition and fortition in the inflection of finite verb forms is beyond the scope of this work and will be addressed in future research. 60 County Text (Text Number) Text Type Total Number of Words Total Number of Tagged Forms Cumberland gospatrict.tag (#132) Legal text 187 230 Lancashire bodley26t.tag (#151) Religious text 372 486 candet4t.tag (#16) Religious text 37 47 Durham scotwart.tag (#188) Poem 1,599 2,003 City of York edincmct.tag (#296) Poem 13,757 17,456 East Riding of Yorkshire beverleyt.tag (#230) Literary Charter 462 570 edincmat.tag (#297) Poem 15,020 18,775 West Riding of Yorkshire cotcleoBvit.tag (#231) Poem 364 462 cotfaustat.tag (#256) Literary anchor text 145 179 cotfaustbt.tag (#257) Literary anchor text 118 140 cotvespcmat.tag (#295) Poem 10,138 12,740 North Riding of Yorkshire edincmbt.tag (#298) Poem 21,818 27,581 TOTAL 64,017 80,669 Table 6. Texts analysed from the northern counties in LAEME As can be seen in Table 8, the number of texts localised in LAEME for the early Middle English period is limited to 12. The counting and analysis of the selected litterae was carried out individually for each text, due to the impossibility of determining the phonographic environment solely through the tags available. Consequently, in order to ensure the correct analysis, a detailed reading of the 64,000+ words that make up my 61 corpus was necessary. After the initial reading, the total number of words with reflexes of OE /θ/, /ð/ was 10,066, while that of the reflexes of OE /t/, and /d/ was 17,595. In terms of organising the results of my data analysis, I have first presented the phonographic profiles of all the texts corresponding to one northern county (i.e. Durham, Lancashire, etc.), followed by a section analysing all possible instances of lenition and fortition. Then, I consider the non-native lexis separately for each county. Finally, the results obtained are discussed and summarised. 6.1. Cumberland There is only one text localised in the county of Cumberland, number #132 (gospatrict.tag): Carlisle, Cumbria RO, D/Lons/L Medieval Deeds C1. The document included in LAEME is a copy of a version of the original writ, which has been dated to the 13th century. It is written in a single hand. The original manuscript dates from the 11th century “probably between 1041 and 1055” (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). This writ, located in Carlisle, Cumberland, is linguistically interesting due to the mixture of vocabulary of English, Celtic, and Scandinavian origin, not only in common words but also in personal and place names (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Harmer (1952, pp. 419-420) indicates that the personal names attested in this writ, which are of Celtic (IrishGaelic, Welsh), Scandinavian (mostly Norwegian, Danish), and English origin, show the history of this area, which was originally a British region, colonized by English settlers, but also occupied in many places by Irish, Scandinavian and settlers from Ireland, the Hebrides, and the Isle of Man. 68 Table 9. Table based on the LAEME tag dictionary for the lexel bi:dan The token bidðed, localised in Worcestershire (text #2000) is of particular interest, since the historical /d/ is represented by both graphs <dð>. In order to determine whether this digraph could be taken as an example of lenition, it is necessary to analyse the profile of this text, which is beyond the scope of this study, which is restricted to northern ME. However, the fact that there is not a single occurrence of <ð> in OE bidan in the LAEME corpus (apart for this one) suggests that this is a scribal error. As regards the form attested in #132, byðann, the spelling <ð> might be indicative of lenition (or part of a Litteral Substitution Set), given that it appears in a weak position (intervocalic). However, it should also be noted that the ON cognate is bīða and, since this is a text that contains several Scandinavian loans (OE dreng, OE griþ, etc), the presence of <ð> spelling in this case is probably due to Norse influence. (3) ÐEORENÐER, ÐEORONÐER (< OE ÞÆRUNDER, ‘THEREUNDER’): In this case, initial <ð> (ðeoronðer/ðeorenðer) is the expected spelling, while the medial <ð> (ðeoronðer/ðeorenðer) might be indicative of lenition of historical /d/. There are no Vi bid, bide, biden vi-m bide, biden vi-m {rh} bede, bide vi {rh} i-bide, bid, bide, ibiden vps11 bide, ibide, ibiden vps11+P bidi vps12 bidest vps13 bides, bideþ, bidðed, bydes vps13-ct bit Vpsp byðann vsjps13 bide, bide vsjpt11 bode 69 other instances in the DOE, BT, MED, or OED, and the DOEC only records these two examples from The Writ of Gospatric. Nevertheless, several examples of the second part of the compound (under) with the variants <þ>, <ð>, and <th> (onþer, vnther, unðer) are attested in the dictionaries consulted. In its etymological section, the MED gives OE unðer, specifically in the Northumbrian dialect, which, according to the DOEC, appears once in The Lindisfarne Gospels gloss (Mt) 61 , and once in Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care 62 : (E) LiGl. Mt (5.15)] hia unðer mitte | under sestre ah ofer lehtisern & lihteð allum ða ðe in hus biðon | sint. (LG). Trans.: “they put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house”. (F) [0925 (28.189.19)] & ða unðerðieddan ðæt hi him eaðmodlice underlicgen (GPC). Trans.: “And they subjugated them so that they were easily subjected to him”. In example (E), the spelling <ð> in unðer may indicate some ‘fricativeness’ in this lexical item in the Old Northumbrian dialect of OE. It is worth noting that the form unðer appears in a double gloss, with the expected historical under as the second element of the gloss. According to Hines (1991, pp. 410–411, in Pons-Sanz, 2000, p. 117), “glosses placed in second place are unlikely to be words that should be less familiar to the reader (…) if anything, they should be more familiar, ensuring that the meaning is not missed or 61 The Lindisfarne Gospels (Mt): Skeat, 1871-87 25-245; Skeat, W. W. The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions (Cambridge) [repr. Darmstadt 1970]. 62 Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care: Sweet, 1871 24-467; Sweet, H. King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, 2 vols., EETS 45, 50 (London) [repr. 1958]. 70 mistaken”. Therefore, we would expect the first element of the gloss to possibly indicate the vernacular form. Furthermore, the letter <c> in sestre was corrected (by dotting under the graph, see Figure 17), whereas unðer 63 . was left unaltered, indicating that the form was not considered to be erroneous (see Figure 17) 64 . Figure 17. Fol. 134v6 MtGl (Li) 5.15. (Unðer mitte ł under sestre [‘under a bushel’]) There are other instances of <ð> for <t> in the 10th-century Northumbrian section of the gloss to the Macregol Gospels, such as inðing vs intiga ‘cause’, hwað vs what ‘what’ and laðade vs hlattade (pret. ind. of laðiga, ‘to be late’). Similarly, there are also instances of <ð> for <d> such as hiðer vs hider, hæfðe vs hæfde, and also weorðað vs weordað in Lindisfarne (cf. Lindelöf, 1901, p. 89). 65 In accordance with the theory of lenition, post-coda positions are considered strong positions, typically inhibiting lenition (see Section 3.1). In this context, the spelling <ð> in unðer occurs in a post-Coda position, which would not promote lenition. 63 Under has /d/ in all Germanic languages. 64 This shows the relevance of going back to the original manuscripts (rather than relying exclusively on editions). See Fernández-Cuesta (2016) and Langmuir (2024). 65 Lindelöf, U. (1901). Die Südnorthumbrische Mundart des 10. Jahrhunderts. Die sprache der sog. Glosse Rushworth2, Bonn: Hanstein. 71 A potential explanation for the presence of <ð> might be the influence of external factors on the spelling, particularly language contact with Norse, since words from Scandinavian origin are frequent in this text. However, this could not explain the instance found in Lindisfarne, as illustrated in Figure 17, although some Norse influence has been said to be present in the Lindisfarne Glosses (Pons-Sanz, 2000). (4) MIÐ, MYÐ (< OE MID, ‘†MID 66 ’): As in the case of bydann, there is variation in the spelling of the preposition mid (OE mid). We find forms with the expected <d> spelling (mid, myd), and forms with with a spelling <ð>, usually employed to represent a dental fricative (mið and myð). The contexts in which they occur are the following: myð hem (‘along with him’), mið Thorfynn (‘with Thorfynn’), mið ꝥ (‘with what’), myd 67 bode (‘with messengers’). The variant mið is recorded in The Epinal Glossary and in the three Old Northumbrian glosses: the Lindisfarne Gospels gloss, the gloss to the Durham Ritual/Collectar and the Northumbrian section of the gloss to the Macregol Gospel gloss (Ru2). In other Germanic languages, mid appears with spellings suggesting dental fricatives: Old Frisian mith, Old Icelandic með, meðr, Old Swedish mäþ, and Gothic miþ. According to the OED, “[t]he Middle English forms miþ, mið are perhaps reflexes of identical Old English (non-West Saxon) forms, or perhaps (more likely) blends of mid and with”, which provides a plausible explanation for this unexpected spelling. The examples with a <ð> spelling in this text (myð hem, mið Thorfynn, mið ꝥ) may represent instances of assimilation, since they are followed by a fricative. In the case of the fourth token, however, the preposition is written with a <d> in a context where the 66 Archaic and poetic in PDE. 67 The version of the text included in Harmer’s (1952) “The Anglo-Saxon Writs” (MS. At Lowther Castle), contains this spelling with an <ð>: “myð bode” (p. 424). The text in LAEME is a 13th century copy of The Writ of Gospatric. 72 following word begins with a <b> and there is no context for assimilation, as in other cases. On the other hand, as in the case of unðer (see Section 6.1.2.1., example (3)), the influence of Scandinavian language contact may be a factor which accounts for the use of the <ð> spelling in mid (ON með, OI með). I consider this to be a plausible explanation, given the significant presence of Scandinavian lexemes in this text. (5) KYNLINȜ, KYNLING (OE GECYND42, ‘KINDRED’): The ME verbal noun kindelen is attested twice in text #132 as kynlinȝ, kynling. In these instances, there is an absence of the reflex of OE /d/ and, as has mentioned above (Section 3.1.), one of the possible outcomes of lenition is zero, the complete loss of the consonant. In this case, however, kynlinȝ and kynling may be the result of OE cynn and OE - ling (DOE), and not the result of the verb ‘kindle’ and the suffix ‘-ing’, as indicated in the OED. Therefore, I consider the spellings kynlinȝ and kynling attested in text #132 to be expected spellings, with no indication of lenition. 6.1.2.2. Fortition There is one example in text #132 which may indicate fortition: ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Text Number (Nos.) Grammatical Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME iteiþed Ȝetyðet #132 (1) Verb word final legal OE getigþian Table 10. Cumberland spellings suggesting fortition (text #132) 73 (1) ȜETYÐET (< OE GETIGÞIAN, ‘TITHED’) The word Ȝetyðet (attested in text #132 in the context Ȝetyðet hem, ‘granted him’), corresponds to the past participle of the ME verb tithen (< OE getigþian). Considering the evolution of this verb paradigm, the expected spelling would be <-(e)d>. However, the recorded spelling appears with <-(e)t> which may be an instance of fortition, specifically final devoicing. This phonological process was common in Germanic languages, and it involves obstruents in word-final syllables to turn unvoiced (Hock, 2021, p. 90). 6.1.3. Non-Native Lexemes The presence of Norse loanwords in Text Number 132 may have had an influence on the spelling and account for the occurrence of <ð> in words such as ðrenȝe and ðeorif, where the plosive is in initial position (cf. ME dreng, dreri < OE dreng 68 , dreorig). (1) ÐRENȜE (< OE DRENG, ‘DRENG’) This noun is a borrowing from ON drengr, ‘youth, warrior’ (OED). In Middle English it is attested with spellings suggesting dental fricatives (<þ>, <ð>, or <th>), which, in principle, could be taken as representative of lenition: threngos 69 , thringe 70 , ðringes 71 , þringe4, ðringes 72 (MED), as the Norse form does not explain the initial consonant of ME ðrenȝe. However, according to the MED, this form was probably influenced by OE geþring and ge-þrang: meaning “(a) A crowd, throng; a company; (b) a mass of soldiers 68 The adjective dreng is first attesten in the OE poem ‘The Battle of Maldon 149’ (cf. OED): orlet ða drenga sum daroð of handa, fleogan of folmum. 69 (a1189) Doc. in Somner Gavelkind (1660) W. Somner, A Treatise of Gavelkind, both Name and Thing … (1726). 70 c1444 (c1270): Cart. Lewes in Sus.RS 38 (Vsp F.15) The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes, part 1, ed. L. F. Salzman, Sussex Record Society Publications 38 (1932). 71 C1275 (?a1200): Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) Laʒamon's Brut, eds. G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, Early English Text Society, Original Series 250, 277 (1963, 1978). even pp. passim. 72 #278: London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A ix, part I, entry 2 74 engaged in battle; ?also, the thick of battle, a melee; (c) distress, anxiety, trouble; also, a pain or pressure caused by some kind of disease [last quot.]; (d) in place names” (MED). This could explain the spelling suggesting a dental fricative. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the occurrence of <ð> for <d> is a characteristic of terms of a Norse origin, although there are limitations (Pons-Sanz, 2013, p. 59). On the one hand, Pons-Sanz (2013) notes that there may also be variation in Old English [d] and [ð] “as native variants of the effects of Verner’s Law” (as cited in Björkman, 1900-02, p. 161, Pons-Sanz, 2013, p. 59), in which the variation between [ð] and [d] can be an indication of Norse derivation. On the other hand, although fricativisation is widely associated with the Middle English period, Pons-Sanz states that this characteristic is also attested in some Old English manuscripts (Pons-Sanz, 2013, p. 59). Therefore, speakers might have alternated between the consonants <d> and <ð>, especially in cognate words such as OE greðe (cp. OIc greiða) or OE haeðen (OIc heðinn) (Pons-Sanz, 2013, pp. 405-6). 73 It may be highlighted, however, that the alternation between <d> and <ð> in the terms above appear in intervocalic position, whereas ðrenȝe in text #132 appears word-initially. (2) ÐEORIF (< OE DEORF, ‘DERF, BOLD’) The adjective ðeorif is “apparently a borrowing from early Scandinavian”, specifically from ON djarfr “bold, daring, audacious, impudent” (OED). The spelling <d> is attested in all Germanic languages: “Old Swedish diarver, diærver, Swedish djerf, Danish diærv; cognate with Old Saxon derƀi, Old Frisian derfe. […] [It is] not recorded in Old English where the forms would be deorf, dierfe” (OED). 73 I am grateful to Dr. Sara Pons-Sanz for this information. 75 According to Dance, Pons-Sanz, and Schorn (2019) “[i]ndigenous formations on the PGmc root *derƀappear in OE only as verbs, viz. the str. III deorfan (pret. dearf) ‘to work, labour; be in danger or trouble’ (…) and as the n. gedeorf ‘work, labour; effort, difficulty; trouble, hardship, toil, distress’”. Furthermore, they (2019) posit that it is not until lOE when the adjective dearf bearing the meaning of ON djarfr emerges and that its distribution was primarily in Nhb, which generally leads to its classification as an ON loan. The Norse origin does not explain the spelling <ð> in ME ðeorif. This form is not attested in any of the dictionaries consulted (BT, MED, OED), except for the DOE, which also includes a form with the letter thorn, þearf in Calendar of the manuscripts of the Dean and Chapter of Wells, also from the 13th century: (G) and æc ic beode þat namman ne sy svo þearf ꝥ (cf. Lat. version in same MS: prohibeo etiam ut nullus sit ita temerarius) Trans.: “I also forbid that no one ne so bold that….’ As previously stated, Pons-Sanz (2013, p. 59) indicates that the occurrence of <ð> for <d> is a defining characteristic of terms of Norse origin, although a <ð> spelling is not etymological in ON in DRENG. An alternative explanation may be provided by the concept of backspelling 74 , given the number of Scandinavian loans in this text. 74 Backspelling or Rückschreibung is a “type of hypercorrect or inverse spelling [in which] a segment that has been lost or altered is spelled in the ‘wrong’ environment, suggesting that the writer knows some words have it by convention, but not precisely which” (Lass, 1997, p. 63) 76 6.2. Lancashire There are two texts localized in Lancashire in the LAEME corpus: number #151, which corresponds to Oxford Bodleian Library, Bodley 26 (bodley26t.tag), and number #16, containing part of the Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C 317 (candet4t.tag). According to LAEME’s Index of Sources (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources), text number #151 (bodley26t.tag) is dated to the last quarter of the 13th century and is “a compilation of sermons, mainly in Latin, in 18 different hands” (Fletcher, 1994, as cited in Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The text is written in English by a single scribe (Hand D) who “produces a variety of written Middle English locatable in the north Lancashire or west Yorkshire region” (Fletcher, 1994, as cited in Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The other text located in this county, number #16 (candet4t.tag), contains the religious poem Candet Nudatum Pectus in both Latin and English, although it is written in Latin for the most part (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). It does not provide much linguistic evidence since the English section is very brief (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). 6.2.1. Phonographic Profiles This section offers the phonographic profiles of Lancashire’s texts (#151: bodley26t.tag and #16: candet4t.tag). 6.2.1.1. Text #151 (bodley26t.tag) Figure 18 and Table 11 below show the litterae in text #151 (bodley26t.tag) and their corresponding potestates: 77 Figure 18. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #151 (bodley26t.tag)37 Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] [j] <t> 36 (100%) 11 (22%) 1 (25%) <ht> 13 (92.86%) 7 (14%) <hȝt> 1 (7.14%) <d> 53 (91.37%) <dd>75 5 (8.62%) <th> 3 (6%) <y> 29 (58%) 3 (75%) ✓76 TOTAL N. 36 14 58 50 4 Table 11. Litterae and potestates of dental consonants in text #151 (bodley26t.tag) 75 The <dd> spelling appears in the same lexical item, god, both in intervocalic (goddess, goddis, god>d>es, g{-}oddes) and in final position (godd). 76 The semi-consonant [j] has been included in the phonographic profile, as it is represented by the same spellings as dental fricatives. For instance, the lettera <y> in this text is used to represent a variety of (semi)vocalic sounds (historical /iː/, /ɪ/, /j/, /eυ/, etc.). 84 finally: wyt me(n)sk\kful scher(e) (‘with honourable cheer’), wyt alkyn scil (‘with every kind of skill’),, wit lofly cher(e) (‘with lovely cheer’), wit a selli might (‘with a marvellous power), wit a selli right (‘with a marvellous right’), wit a semli right (‘with an appropriate right’), wit a seli lyht (‘with a marvellous light’), wyt a selli might (‘with a marvellous power), wiht a semly Ryht (‘with an appropriate right’), wyht a sely {\} liht (‘with a marvellous light), wiht a seli liht (‘with a marvellous light’), wiht a semly right (‘with an appropriate right’), wiht a semly scyl (‘with an appropriate skill’). In these cases, they are in a weak position which promotes lenition (Honeybone, 2008, p. 775). It also appears once intervocalically as part of a compound in the word yer-wit-al (‘therewithal’). In this text, there are two contexts for assimilation: wit lofly cher(e) and wyt me(n)sk\kful scher(e). However, the rest of the 11 examples of WITH attested in this text appear in intervocalic and/or final position, which are contexts that favour lenition and cannot be explained as processes of assimilation and dissimilation. Thus, these instances can be explained as examples of fortition, or as part of a Litteral Substitution Set in which the scribe used the littera <t> to represent both potestates /θ/ and /t/ indistinctively. However, there might be another explanation for some of the examples, especially those of with spelled with the digraph <ht>, which can be interpreted as a shift from <th> to <ht>: wiht a semly Ryht; wyht a sely {\} lyht; wiht a seli liht; wiht a semly right; wiht a semly scyl. This spelling contains an <h>, which suggests some degree of ‘fricativeness’ 77 (<ht>). Yet, except for one (wiht a semly scyl), the rest (wiht a semly Ryht; wyht a sely {\} lyht; wiht a seli liht; wiht a semly right) can be regarded as cases of 77 Lass and Laing (2010) discuss the concept of ‘fricativeness’ in their paper “In Celebration of Early Middle English ‘H’”, in which they state that “[the] uses of ‘h’ to indicate either a continuant or a partially continuant segment result in its associated with fricativeness generally, the necessary specification of article position being provided by the first element of the digraph” (p. 349). 85 contextual attraction, since some of them are next to a noun with a historical /xt/ (rhyt, lyht, liht, right). (3) FORT (< OE FORÞ, ‘FORTH’): The instance found in the LAEME texts for Lancashire is fort on-on (‘forth at noon). OE spellings for FORT usually contain <ð> and <þ>, although the OED also records fordh and forth, which may indicate some “fricativesness” since they both contain the spelling <h>. On the other hand, the DOE also records some interesting spellings: ford 78 , fordh 79 , forh, forht 80 , for 81 , furht 82 , forder (14th century). The MED also contains examples of ‘forth’ with both <t> and <d> in ME texts (ford 83 , fort 84 ). In the example attested here, fort, <t> occurs in the final position (weak position in lenition theory), which usually disfavours fortition. However, in OE we find instances of this lexical item written with a <t> (forht), which supports the idea that fortition in this context may have taken place already in early English through a process of thetahardening, which was common throughout the early history of English (see Section 3.2.1.). (4) TAN (< OE ÞANNE, ‘THEN’): This token is only attested in #151 (bodley26t.tag) from Lancashire: coms tan (‘he comes then’). The spelling tan is first attested in the Ormulum (12th century): 78 Bounds: Sawyer, 1968 400; Sawyer, P.H., Anglo-Saxon Charters, An Annotated List and Bibliography (London): Birch, 1885-99 no. 663; Birch, W. de G., Cartularium Saxonicum, 3 vols. (London) [repr. New York and London 1964]. 79 (EpGl, Ch IWm [Dugdale]) 80 (CorpGl) 81 (Ch 353, xiii, Lch 1 ms O, xiii) 82 (Ch 1116, xiii) 83 (1155) Chart.Hen.II in Hall EME (Hrl Charter 3.B.49) Selections from Early Middle English, 1130-1250, ed. J. Hall, vol. 1 (1920).11-12. 84 c1300 SLeg. (LdMisc 108) The Early South-English Legendary from Bodleian MS. Laud Misc. 108, ed. C. Horstmann, Early English Text Society, Original Series 87 (1887; reprint 1987). passim. 86 (J)“O Domess daȝȝ, Swa shall itt tanne wharrfenn. 85 (OED) Trans.: “O Doomsday, so shall it then change” (K)“Tanne comm he siþþenn ut All dumb & butenn spæche.”85 (OED) Trans.: “And then he came out All silent and without speech The MED records forms with <d> ([EAngl.] dan), <z> (zanne), and <t> 86 (tan(ne, tenne, (SW) teonne) and gives donne in the etymology section of this word, which may indicate fortition or theta-hardening. The OED provides the forms þanne, þǫnne, þænne, þenne, also in BT (except for þenne). This word, inherited from Germanic, has a fricative in OFris (thenne, thanne, than), OS (thanna, than), and Goth (þan), but not in Middle Dutch (danne, dan) or OHG (danne, denne) (OED), where the consonant has undergone fortition. Although <t> occurs in a strong position (word-initial) in this word, it is not likely to be the result of fortition, as it is preceded by the word comes, and is a context in which dissimilation may occur. However, it is important to highlight that fortition in this word is also attested in other texts from the same period (cf. MED), so it is possible that the spelling reflects a phonological change, as in other Germanic languages/dialects of Germanic above mentioned. 85 c1175 Orm. (Jun 1) The Ormulum, ed. R. Holt (1878). 86 The MED indicates that this spelling appeared “chiefly following t”, which suggests assimilation. 87 (5) TE (LOE ÞE, ‘THE’): The definite article appears once in the texts from Lancashire with the spelling <t> (at te werld ‘at the world’). As in the previous case, this instance might be explained as a case of assimilation, since they are preceded by words ending in <t> or <s>, respectively. On the other hand, the process known as Definite Article Reduction (DAR) is a characteristic feature of northern ME and northern PDE (Jones, 2007; Beal, 2008; Lodge, 2010). DAR is characterised as the realisation of the definite article in a range of vowelless forms, usually written as <t> (Jones, 2002, p. 325). Although ME assimilation has been suggested as the origin of DAR, Jones (2002) argues against this idea, stating that there are fricative forms of the definite article which occur in environments where assimilation is expected (p. 341). (6) TROUHT (OE TREOWÞ, ‘TRUTH’): This word is found in #151 (bodley26t.tag): trouht of ye tinite (‘truth of the trinity’). OE treowþ comes from Germanic true adj. + the Germanic base of -th suffix (OED). Forms containing <ht> instead of the usual <þ> and <ð>, first appear attested in Middle English, as can be seen in the OED and MED in forms such as trewht 87 , trouht 88 , or trewht 89 . As explained in 6.2.2.2. example (2), the replacement of <-th> into <-ht> could in principle indicate some fricativeness. Since the consonant is in a weak position (final coda), fortition is typically considered to be disfavoured. An alternative hypothesis is that this example is just an alteration of the digraph <th> to <ht>, or an example of Litteral 87 c1400 Wycl.Blasph. (Bod 647) Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. T. Arnold, vol. 3 (1871).40229. 88 a1425 Ben.Rule(1) (Lnsd 378) Three Middle-English Versions of the Rule of St. Benet, ed. E. A. Kock, Early English Text Society, Original Series 120 (1902; reprint 1987).1-47. 89 Carte Monialium De Northberwic; Prioratus Cisterciensis B. Marie De Northberwic Munimenta Vetusta Que Supersunt. (1847). Text originally from 1556. 88 Substitution Sets, i.e. the use of two litterae (in this case, two graphemes) for the same sound. This possibility is supported by the presence of other instances in the same text where this variation is found (with ‘with’). However, it is worth highlighting that this type of fortition has occurred in other languages, as in German. (7) WREHTFOL (OE WRǼÞU, ‘WRATH’): This term comes from ME wrēðful (OE wraþ plus the OE suffix -ful). The OED includes examples of the noun wrath ending with the following spellings in ME: wragh 90 or wraththe 91 , and the MED includes the spelling wraghtfull 92 . As has already been discussed, I do not consider wrehtfol to be an example of fortition, since it contains a segment indicating fricativeness (<h>) and the segment is placed in a weak position (internal coda). Therefore, I believe this example is better explained as a transposition of the digraph (<ht> to <th>), as other examples in text #151 (orthographic variation). 6.2.3. Non-Native Lexemes There are several loanwords in #151 (bodley26t.tag) (thralda(m), ‘thraldom’, i-called, ‘called’), but one that could be otherwise identified as an example of lenition: tyyng, tiyng, tiyng(e): A) TYYNG, TIYNG, TIYNG(E) (LOE TIDUNG, ‘TIDING’): Instances of spellings suggesting a dental fricative in ME reflexes of OE tidung are frequently attested in the LAEME corpus in Lancashire (#151 (bodley26t.tag)), Durham 90 This example would be considered as lenition rather than fortition. 91 The Wycliffite Bible (early version) a1382. 92 a1425 HBk.GDei (Hnt HM 148) Richard Rolle and the Holy Boke Gratia Dei, ed. M. L. Arntz (1981).45(line 17)-50(line 4), 64(line 2)-107(line 116); fns. 89 (#188), City of York (#296), the East Riding of Yorkshire (#297), the West Riding of Yorkshire (#295), and the North Riding of Yorkshire (#298). TIDING is also attested in lOE, tidung. According to the OED, although the OE form tidung “might well be a derivative of tíd-an, tide v.1)”, its etymology can be traced back to ON: “it appears to be a Scandinavian borrowing coming from the ON neutral plural tīðendi, -indi (meaning “events, occurrences, the reports of these, news, tidings”), which, in turn, comes from the ON adjective tīðr (“happening, occurring”) together with the nominal suffix -endi, -indi” (OED). Pons-Sanz (2013), following Peters (1981, as cited in Pons-Sanz, 2013), argues that a native term may have been created “on the basis of OE tīdan ‘to betide, happen’” which, later, was influenced by ON tiðindi (p. 407) (see also Dance, Pons-Sanz and Schorn, 2019, s.v. tyþing). Thus, it is possible that the OE form was influenced by the ON term, and speakers would have used both cognates indistinctively. Hybrid forms of this word also exist in eME: “tīðing(e), with Norse stem and English suffix, and tīdende /-inde, with English stem and Norse suffix” (OED). This, together with the fact that the word with an English stem (tīdende) is not attested before the late 11th century, suggests that this group of words were taken from Norse and their forms maintained the Norse spelling (cf. OED). It is also worth noting that, although, according to the OED, the ON form was probably adopted in the north and an anglicised spelling (<d>) in the south, several examples (42) found in LAEME suggest that the spellings <þ, ð> for OE tīdung also occurred in other non-northern counties in eME: 90 Spellings attested Counties <th> Durham <þ> City of York, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, North Riding of Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, West Riding of York, Wiltshire, Worcestershire <ð> Cheshire, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Worcestershire <y> Lancashire, Lincolnshire, West Riding of Yorkshire <d> Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Lancashire, Norfolk, Shropshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire <dy> Kent Table 15. Spelling attested for OE tīdung localized in LAEME As can be seen in Table 15, manuscripts of more southern (Oxfordshire) and eastern counties (Essex, Norfolk, or Suffolk) contain spellings <þ> and <ð> instead of the expected <d> for the reflex of OE tīdung. Furthermore, manuscripts from the western county of Worcestershire also present the spelling <þ> and <ð>, vs expected <d> in this word. The case of Kent is also worth noting, as the spelling attested in one of the manuscripts localised there is the digraph <dy> (tidyinges), which may either suggest some fricativeness or the representation of a vowel. From the examples analysed here, it seems that spellings suggesting the dental fricative were not restricted to the north-east area. We can, therefore, conclude that the spellings suggesting a dental fricative in OE tīdung may be the result of influence from ON. As stated before, scribes might have been familiar with an alternation between both <d> and <ð>, which is plausible since there are a high number of terms of Norse origin in this manuscript. Nevertheless, the occurrence of these terms in other counties suggests that Norse influence may not be the sole explanation. 91 6.3. Durham Text number #188 (scotwart.tag) is the only one localized in the county of Durham. It dates from the first half of the 14th century and contains part of the poem A Ballad on the Scottish Wars on fols. 180r-181v. The original manuscript (London, British Library, Cotton Julius A v) also contains Langtoft’s Chronicle on fols. 143r, 145v, 147r-150v, 168v in a different hand from that attested in #188 (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Laing suggests that the poet was from the Durham or Newcastle area because “he mentions Lanchestre ye parke syde and walking between wyltinden and walle”, and that the language of the text is probably also from the same area (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). 6.3.1. Phonographic Profile 6.3.1.1. Text #188 (scotwart.tag) The following section will present an analysis of the phonographic profile of scotwart.tag: 92 Figure 20. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #188 (scotwart.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [x] [tʃ] [k] [g] [d] [θ] [s] [ð] [j] <t> 184 (94.36%) 4x (1.82%) 18x (9.63%) 3x (9.375%) <tt> 9x (4.62%) <gt> 2x (7.692%) <xit> 1x (3.846%) <ch(V)> 1x (3.846%) ✓ ✓ 1x (0.53%) 93 <k> ✓ ✓ <gh> 1x (3.846%) ✓ <g> ✓ <h> ✓ 1x (0.53%) ✓93 <d> 213x (96.82%) <th> 2x (1.02%) 21x (80.769%) ✓94 ✓ 17x (9.09%) 21x (65.625%) <y> ✓ 150x (80.21%) 7x (21.875%) <i> ✓ <s> ✓ 1x (3.125%) 0 ✓95 3x (1.36%) TOTAL 195 26 220 187 32 Table 16. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #188 (scotwart.tag) 93 These would be considered examples of unetymological <h> (backspelling). In the text from Durham, it is seen in words such as habide (‘abide’) and hour (‘our’). 94 In scotwart.tag text, <th> is also used to represent /x/ in the word sathe, attested twice (for the 1st person sg. of the past indicative of the verb ‘see’ and for the noun ‘saw’). A comment within the text suggests that this may be considered a corruption of either the expression “saw with eye” or "the least that ever I saw to report" (Laing, 2013). The note further suggests that the scribe uses the littera <th> to represent historical /t/, /xt/, /x/, and /θ/ (Laing, 2013). 95 These would be considered instances of h-dropping. In text 188, we can see it in words such as yondalf (‘geondhalf’) and affe (‘have’). 100 orthographic change, due to the variability observed in this text, it is important to acknowledge the existence of attestations of IT with a fricative-like spelling in different periods of the language, which may suggest lenition. (12) WITH (WITEN < OE WITAN, ‘WIT, KNOW’) The form with is the ME verb infinitive witen ‘to know’ (< OE witan) in the following context: yat you salt noth with my nam (‘that you shall not know my name’). An instance of this verb suggesting a dental fricative is attested in the MED (wethe), but not in the OED or BT. In this case, as in the preceding instances, it is reasonable to conclude that with most likely represents an orthographic representation, part of a Litteral Substitution Set in which the littera <th> is also represented by the potestas /t/. (13) GLALLY, GALLI, BY-YON (OE GLÆDLICE, BEȜEONDAN, ‘GLADLY’, ‘BEYOND’) There are three instances in which there is an omission of a letter: glally, galli (‘gladly’), and by-yon (‘beyond’). As outlined in Section 6.1.2.1., example (5), the movement of a segment towards zero is characteristic of many strength scales in lenition theory (see Section 3.1.) and it may therefore indicate lenition. However, it is important to note that ME texts also contain abbreviations, which may explain an example (by-yon), or they may be instances of orthographical variation, given the prodigality of this scribe. 6.3.2.2. Fortition The spellings that might indicate fortition in #188 are tother, ye tane and wit and compounds: wyt vyt-outen, wyt-outen. 101 ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Text Number (Nos.) Grammatical Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME With wit #188 (5) Preposition Final Coda Poem OE Wiþ wyt #188 (12) vyt outen #188 (1) Intervocalic wytouten #188 (2) (2) ME the tother #188 (1) Definite article Word initial lOE þe ye tane #188 (1) Intervocalic (3) ME -ed snet(e) #188 (1) Past participle Final coda OE -ed leest #188 (1) liest #188 (1) Table 18. Spellings attested in Durham possibly suggesting fortition (1) WIT, WYT, VYT-OUTEN, WYT-OUTEN (OE WIÞ, ‘WITH’): In the text #188, there are 20 forms suggesting fortition in the word WITH. However, 4 could be explained as instances of assimilation (wit me ‘with me’, wyt reken ‘with reken’, wyt mirthes ‘with mirths’, wyt might ‘with might’), while 9 could be instances of dissimilation (wyt yat ‘with that’, wyt yat ‘with that’, wit foles ‘with fools’, wyt, yeem ‘with them’, wit yi ‘with you’, wyt febel ‘with feeble’, wyt schrogen, Wyt foles ‘With fools’, wyt yair, ‘with their’). The rest 7 forms are the following: wyt-outen, vyt-outen, wyt-outen, wit his (‘with his’), wit werke (‘with work’), wyt hope (‘with hope’), wyt hond (‘with hound’). While the prodigality of the scribe of text #188 appears to be remarkable, it is evident that there are instances of WITH attested with <t> or <d> throughout the history of English (see section 6.2.2.2., example (2) for an explanation of these instances). 102 Although some examples in text #188 appear to be instances of assimilation and dissimilation, 7 can either be explained as Litteral Substitution Sets or as real cases of fortition. It is noteworthy that the cases suggesting fortition correspond to the word WITH and its compounds, a common lexical item in English, whose form with a stop /t, d/ is attested in PDE. (2) TOTHER, YE-TANE (LOE ÞE, ‘THE’): The 2 examples of the definite article in #188 correspond to tother (deyed tother day ‘died the other day’) and ye-tane (‘the one’). Even though the former (tother) may indicate dissimilation, the latter appears intervocalically (a position that may favour lenition, but fortition processes have also been attested in this position [see Section 3.2.]). As discussed in section 6.2.2.2. (5), these cases could be considered instances of Definite Article Reduction (DAR), a common process attested in Northern English. (3) SNET(E), LEEST, LIEST (OE -ED, ‘SNEADED’, ‘LOST’, ‘LIGHTED’) There are three instances of verbs in the past participle form, in which the reflex of OE /d/ is attested as <t>: snet(e)(sent(e) fra), leest (leest . a), liest (liest bot). The example in liest could be an instance of assimilation, since it is followed by /b/. The other two examples (sent(e) and leest) may either be instances of final devoicing (see Section 6.1.2.2., example (1)), or part of a Litteral Substitution Set, since this variation present in past participle verbs may be an indication of the scribe’s writing system. 6.3.3. Non-Native Lexemes The noun TIDING is attested in text #188, with <th, þ> tythi(n)g, tiþand (ME tīding(e) (see Section 6.2.3. above for a discussion and possible explanations of these forms). 103 6.4. City of York Edinburgh, Royal College of Physicians, MS of Cursor Mundi, entry 3 (#296: Edincmct.tag) is the only text located in the City of York. It dates from the first half of the 14th century and includes the work of Hand C (fols. 37r-50v) on Cursor Mundi lines 18989-22417 (with gaps), and the extracts from this text are “imperfect and wrongly ordered” (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The contribution of Hand A (Edinburgh, Royal College of Physicians, MS of Cursor Mundi, entry 1) and Hand B (Edinburgh, Royal College of Physicians, MS of Cursor Mundi, entry 2), include lines 23945-24359, 34530-730, 24733-968 for the former, and some of the Northern Homily Collection for the latter (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The language used by the three hands is “strongly northern”, (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). While the spellings of Hand C are possibly localised in York, those of Hand A and B seem to belong to the southern and eastern parts of York, and to the northern part of York, respectively. 6.4.1. Phonographic Profile 6.4.1.1. Text #296 (Edincmct.tag) 104 Figure 21. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #296 (Edincmct.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [tʃ] [s] [d] [ð] [θ] <t> 1902 (98.50%) 1 (0.53%) 5 (0.35%) 25 (6.54%) 50 (2.95%)104 <tt> 28 (1.45%) ✓ <cht(V)> 15 (7.89%) <ȝt(V)> 171 (90%) <d> 1 (0.05%) 1409 (98.88%) 8 (2.09%) 1 (0.06%) <dd> 11 (0.77%) <th> 4 (1.05%) 9 (0.53%) <þ> 3 (1.58%) ✓ 341 (89.27%) 1629 (96.05%) < þþ> 1 (0.26%) 104 Of these instances, 19 correspond to the words SIGHT and FORESIGHT. In these cases, the suffix -th (þ in Germanic) became -t, although an alternative OE form is also found (OE sihþ vs OE siht). Therefore, this spelling is considered as expected and not a possible instance of fortition. 105 <s> ✓ 0 3 (0.79%) 7 (0.41%) TOTAL N. 1931 190 1425 382 1696 Table 19. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #296 (Edincmct.tag) In manuscript #297, there are 3546 tokens containing a historical /t/ (/xt/) and/or /d/, and 1984 containing a historical /θ/ and/or [ð] As observed in the phonographic profile above, historical /t/ is represented by the expected litterae <t>, <tt> (gaste ‘ghost’, grett(er) ‘great’) and the unexpected <d> (for do ‘forto’), the potestas /xt/ by expected litterae <cht, ȝt> (ochte, ‘aught’, miȝte, ‘might’) and the unexpected <þ> (nawiþ ‘naught’), and historical /d/ is represented by the expected litterae <dd, d> (ledde ‘lead’, gode ‘good’) and the unexpected <t> (forbot ‘forbod’). In these examples, the <þ> for historical /xt/ and <t> for historical /d/ may be instances of lenition, whereas <d> for historical /t/ may be an example of fortition. On the other hand, historical /xt/ is represented by the expected <ȝt, cht> (riȝte,’right’, nochte, ‘naught’) and the unexpected spellings <t, þ> in knite (‘knight’) and nawiþ (‘naught’), which may be indicative of lenition. Finally, the potestas /θ/ is represented by the expected litterae <þ, th, t> (þar-wiþ, ‘therewith’, thusandis, ‘thousand’, siȝte, ‘sight’) and the unexpected <t, d, þþ, 0> (tarwiþ ‘therwith’, ded ‘death’, teþþe ‘tooth’, quar ‘whether’). Historical [ð] is represented by the expected litterae <þ> (smeþe ‘smooth’) and the unexpected <t, d, 0> (Þe tane, ‘one’, dede ‘death’, sin ‘since’). In these cases, <t, d> for historical /θ/, [ð] may be indicative of fortition, while <0> for historical /θ/, [ð] may indicate lenition. It is also worth noting that historical /s/ is twice represented by the spelling <þ> in þeþi(n) (‘thence’). In this case, the spelling <þ> does not correspond to a dental 106 consonant but to a historical /s/. Considering this variation in the phonographic profile, the representation of <þ> may be part of a Litteral Substitution Set. 6.4.2. Possible Sound Changes 6.4.2.1. Lenition ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Text Number (Nos.) Grammatical Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME Naught nawiþ #296 (3) Preverbal Negative “Ne” Final Coda Poem OE Nowuht (2) ME forto for-do #296 (1) Infinitive marker Post Coda OE for to (3) ME erthe ere #296 (1) Noun Final coda OE eorþe (4) ME bothe bo #296 (1) Adjective Final coda OE ba þa (5) ME whether quar #296 (1) Adverb Final coda OE hwæðer (6) ME synnes sin #296 (7) Adverb Final coda OE siþþan (7) ME knight knite #296 (1) Noun Final coda OE cniht Table 20. Spellings attested in the City of York suggesting lenition 107 (1) NAWIÞ (OE NAWIHT, ‘NOTHING, NAUGHT’): The word nawiþ is attested three times with a spelling suggesting lenition: nawiþ keep (‘not keep’), nawiþ als (‘not as’), nawiþ blin (‘not cease’). Such instances occur in wordfinal position, which is considered a weak position within the framework of lenition theory. The ME word nought is attested with a wide variety of spellings in the MED, some of which could indicate lenition: nouȝth, nouhth, nouth, nauth, nawiðt, navith, naȝuth. However, it is noteworthy that none of these appear with <þ>, as the instance attested in text #296. It is notable that there are no other examples in the LAEME corpus or in this text of the potestas /ht/ represented by the littera <þ>, although there are examples containing an unexpected <þ> in this text, as in the case of the word þeþi(n) (‘thence’), in which <þ> would represent a historical /s/. Nevertheless, this word may be traced back to the Norsederived adverb ME thethen 105 . Considering this variation in the phonographic profile, this may be part of a Litteral Substitution Set. (2) FOR-DO (OE FOR-TO, ‘FOR TO’) The infinitive market FOR-TO is the combination of the adverb for and the infinite particle to. The form attested in text #296 is for-do, which may suggest lenition. However, the dictionaries consulted (MED, BT, OED) do not give instances of TO with a <d> spelling. 105 I am grateful to Dr. Sara Pons-Sanz for this information. 108 It is worth highlighting that LAEME does contain instances of this infinitive marker with a spelling suggesting lenition (<d>) in the counties of Shropshire 106 , West Riding of Yorkshire 107 , and Norfolk 108109 . The position in which /t/ is located would be considered strong, thus disfavouring lenition. In this case, since it is preceded by /r/, it could be an instance of assimilation. (3) – (6) ERE (OE EORÞE, ‘EARTH’), BO (OE BA ÞA, ‘BOTH’), QUAR (OE HWÆÐER, ‘WHETHER’), SIN (OE SIÞÞAN, ‘SINCE’) There are 10 instances in text #296 which may indicate lenition by the loss of a segment (lenition to zero): 1x ere (‘earth’) (ere was), 1x bo (‘both’) (bo þai(m)), 1x quar (‘whether’) (quar i), 7x sin (‘since’) (Sin I, Sin we, Sin ure lau(er)d, Sin-þate. Sin þe, Sin man, Sine þe). In the dictionaries consulted, there are instances which resemble the forms found in this text. For instance, there are several examples of WHETHER attested in the MED that may indicate lenition: wher(e, wheer, wherre, whor, whar(e, wer(e, war(e, qwer, qwher, quer(e, quar(e, hwere, hwor, whær. In the case of EARTH, the MED does not give any instance suggesting lenition. Nevertheless, the DOE includes the fragmented form eor (for eorðan) 110 , and instances suggesting the loss of segments appear in the county of Lincolnshire 111 (here) in LAEME. 106 royalkgbt.tag 107 cotvespcmat.tag 108 trincleoDt.tag 109 Text laud471dwct.tag from LAEME also contains <d> spelling for the infinitive marker TO, but it is unlocalised. 110 Canticles of the Psalter, London, British Library, MS. Cotton Vitellius E.XVIII: Rosier, 1962 365-96; Rosier, J.L., The Vitellius Psalter, Cornell Studies in English 42 (Ithaca). 111 merton248t.tag 109 The OED gives the form yar attested in Yorkshire in the 1800s. This suggests that lenition may have already been attested in EARTH in the northern counties. In the case of BOTH attested as bo, I consider it to be a remaining relic of the OE form ba, since similar forms are still attested in ME: bō, ba; beien, beie, beine, etc. (MED). Finally, SINCE will be considered. This comes from the ME form synnes (< OE sitthenes). The MED indicates that SINCE is either a reduced form of sitthenes or the combination of the adverb sin and the suffix -es. This analysis suggests that the seven spellings which have undergone the loss of <th> can be regarded as examples of shortening or abbreviation, except for the instance of BOTH as bo. In conclusion, of the 10 instances that may indicate lenition through the loss of a segment, only 2 may be indicative of this phenomenon. The remaining examples are orthographical changes. (7) KNITE (OE CNIHT, ‘KNIGHT’) There is one instance of the noun KNIGHT attested with a spelling suggesting lenition: knite. Other forms suggesting lenition to /t/ in the same word are attested in the MED: knit, kneit, keneit, kintte, knittes, cnittes, kneittes, knittene. Moreover, the form cnytes 112 is attested in OE (DOE). A search for KNIGHT in the Item List from LAEME reveals several examples that may be indicative of lenition. These examples are attested in different counties: 112 Bury St. Edmunds, Agreement with Ordric the Cellarer: Robertson, 1956 no. 119; Robertson, A.J., Anglo-Saxon Charters, 2nd ed. (Cambridge). 116 (O)Min fete min he(n)de of blode ar rede (‘red’){\} Wiþ-outin riȝte I þole þis dede (‘death’) {\} (P) Q(u)are-fore it was þai toke þair {\} rede (‘red’){=Not enough room in column REDE taken to end of line below=} {\} Derueli do him to þe dede A single instance following a word beginning with a vowel (dede al, ‘death all’) is observed. While this example is in a weak position (final Coda), it may be an instance of fortition, given the existence of analogous forms in OE and the documented strengthening of the fricative in other Germanic languages (cf. OED). (9) WIT (OE WIÞ, PDE WITH): There are two instances of wit in this text: þaim wit it and led wit itte. In neither of them is /t/ followed by segments that could trigger assimilation or dissimilation. Moreover, the /t/ is in final position (weak position in lenition theory), which would disfavour fortition. However, they are in contexts in which rhyme is possible: (Q){[He said and touch[} þaim wit it (‘with it’) {\} {[And they shall both have[} hele a~ wit (‘and wit’) {\} (R) es giuin us witte (‘wit’) {\} Bot-if ure liue be led wit itte (‘with it’) {\} It has previously been established (Section 6) that text #296 is a (religious) poem. This particular text type is typically influenced by rhyme, as demonstrated in the two examples provided. Therefore, what we may encounter here are likely orthographical rather than phonological changes. (10) FORBOT (OE FORBOT, ‘FORBODE’) The ME word forbode is attested once in text #296 with an unexpected spelling: forbot þai(m). The ME forms forbot(t (MED), forbot, forbote (OED) are attested in the 117 dictionaries consulted, but there are no similar examples suggesting fortition in OE (DOE, BT). The OED also records a <t> spelling attested in MHG and modern German (verbot), further reinforcing the established presence of final devoicing in the Germanic languages. The word FORBODE appears with a spelling suggesting fortition (<t>) in two other counties in LAEME: Shropshire 122 and West Riding of Yorkshire 123 . The instance attested in text #296 may be an instance of assimilation. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that FORBODE is attested in other counties in LAEME with a final <t> spelling, which could suggest fortition (final devoicing). 6.4.3. Non-Native Lexemes The 3rd person plural THEY, THEIR, THEM (of Norse origin pronoun < OI þeir…) occur in Text #296 with <t> instead of <th>: tai, taim, tam, tai(m), and tair. 124 The ordinal numeral tende (OE Tēoða, ‘Tenth’) is also attested in the text. Building on Lass and Laing (2009), I have also omitted ordinal numbers “because of uncertainties of etymological developments” (p. 103) 125 . 6.5. East Riding of Yorkshire LAEME includes two texts localised in the East Riding area of Yorkshire: London, British Library, Cotton Charter iv 18 (Beverleyt.tag) and Edinburgh, Royal College of Physicians, MS of Cursor Mundi, entry 1 (Edincmat.tag). 122 cleoarbt.tag 123 cotvespcmat.tag 124 Despite the traditional argument that these pronouns are borrowings from ON, Cole (2014) proposes a native origin. Nevertheless, a more traditional approach will be followed here, and these instances still be considered as non-native lexical items, since, to my mind there is not sufficient evidence that suggests otherwise. The most likely explanation is that the native forms of the distal demonstratives, which functioned as personal pronouns, were reinforced by Norse influence. 125 For a discussion of the origin of the ordinal numbers first and second, see Molenki (2016, 2017). 118 The Beverleyt text is dated to the first half of the 14th century and “contains the earliest surviving text of the Middle English rhyming version of King Athelstan’s grant of privileges to St John’s, Beverley” (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The language is northern, and the English text is written by a single hand (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). This text is characterized by having rhythm written as prose and by the similarity between *Y and *y (i.e., capital Þ). Although the scribe also uses the thorn spelling, minuscule <y> can be found representing both ‘y’ and ‘þ’ (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). On the other hand, the Edincmat text, like Beverleyt.tag, is dated to the first half of the 14th century. It is written by the Hand A (see section 4 City of York [Edincmct.tag]). As explained in the Index of Sources, “the scribe’s thorn is open-topped but quite different in shape from his ‘y’, which is also used quite extensively for both [i] and [j], unlike Scribe C’s habit” (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). 6.5.1. Phonographic Profiles 6.5.1.1. Text #230 (Beverleyt.tag) 119 Figure 22. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #230 (Beverleyt.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] <t> 69x (97.18%) 9x (14.29%)126 3x (30 %) <ght> 4x (100%) <d> 52x (100%) <th> 2x (2.82%) 2x (3.17%) <þ> 3x (4.76%) 1x (10%) <y> 49x (77.78%) 6x (60%) TOTAL 71 4 52 63 10 Table 22. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #230 (Beverleyt.tag) 126 One of the instances attested corresponds to SIGHT (ME sighte < OE sihþ or siht). 120 In text #230, there are 127 words analysed with a historical /t, xt, d/, and 73 with a historical /θ/, [ð]. Figure above illustrates that the potestas /t/ is represented by the expected litterae <t> (staf, writ, …) and the unexpected <th> in words such as theam (‘team’), which could indicate lenition. Historical /xt/ and /d/ are represented by the expected <ght> and <d>, respectively. Finally, the potestates /θ, ð/ are represented by the expected litterae <th, þ, y> (þis yat, think, etc) and by the unexpected <t> in wit or witouten (‘with’), which could be indicative of fortition. 6.5.1.2. Text #297 (edincmat.tag) Figure 23. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #297 (edincmat.tag) 121 Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] <t> 2400 (99.05%) 2 (0.12%)127 248 (12.39%) 53 (12.02%) <tt> 21 (0.87%) <tp> 1 (0.06%)128 <ht> 228 (98.70%) <htt> 1 (0.43%) <hit> 1 (0.43%) <d> 1657 (99.64%) 17 (0.85%) 5 (1.13%) <dd> 2 (0.12%) <trh> 1 (0.05%)129 <th> 1 (0.43%) 8 (0.40%) 5 (1.13%) <þ> 1 (0.06%) 1727 (86.31%) 378 (85.71%) 0 2 (0.08%)130 TOTAL N. 2423 231 1663 2001 441 Table 23. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #297 (edincmat.tag) 127 One instance corresponds to the past participle of the ME verb senden (‘sent’), which is attested with both <t> and <d> in ME. This instance will not be further addressed, since any phonological change has already occurred and the attested form matches that of PDE. 128 This corresponds to the instance dempt, past participle of the ME verb demen (‘deemed’). It is attested as demed and dempt in ME. Although the current past participle form is ‘deemed’, the form dempt is attested until the 18th century in the OED. 129 This single instance corresponds to the noun THROE, attested as trhauis in text #297. It is followed by the label “sic”, indicating that this spelling is considered erroneous or odd. Therefore, I treat this as a scribal error and not as a potential instance of sound change. 130 One instance corresponds to LEFT, recorded as lef in text #297. According to the DOE, this word (‘weak’) is attested in OE as lef. Therefore, the instance documented here may be a remnant of the OE spelling. 122 Text #297 presents there are 4314 tokens analysed with a historical /t, xt, d/, and 2442 with a historical /θ/, [ð]. As illustrated in Figure 23 above, Historical /t/ is represented in this text by its expected spellings, i.e. <t> and <tt> (wate, witte, etc), but also by <0> in the words lef (‘left’) and me (‘meet’), which may indicate lenition. In addition, historical /xt/ is represented by both its expected spelling <ht> (noht, soht) and its unexpected spelling <th> in the word noth (‘not’), which could indicate lenition. Historical /d/ is represented by its expected spellings <tp, d, dd> and the unexpected <t> and <þ>, which may be indicative of fortition and lenition, respectively. Finally, historical /θ/ and [ð] are represented not only by the expected litterae <th, þ> (baþe, þa-þat, mirthes, etc.), but also by the unexpected <t, d> in words such as ded (‘death’) or wit (‘with’), which could suggest fortition. 6.5.2. Possible Sound Changes 6.5.2.1. Lenition ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Text Number (Nos.) Grammatical Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME Team theam #230 (1) Noun Word Initial Literary Charter OE Team (2) ME Tun thowen #230 (1) Noun Word Initial OE Tun (3) ME Naught noth #297 (1) Preverbal Negative “Ne” Final Coda Poem OE Nowuht (4) ME Erd erþe #297 (1) Noun Post Coda OE Eard 123 (5) ME Meten me #297 (1) Verb Final Coda OE Metan Table 24. Spellings attested in the East Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition Each token will be now analysed individually: (1) THEAM (OE TEAM, ‘TEAM’) Theam is attested in the expression ‘team and toll’ in text #230. As already explained in Section 6.1.2.1. (1), theam may be an instance of Graeco-Roman influence. (2) THOWEN (OE TUN, ‘TOWN’) Both the OED and the MED provide examples of the spelling <th> in this word in ME, but not in the OE period. Some attested ME spellings include thoun, thowne (OED), or thon (MED). All Germanic language contain the spelling <t> in ‘town’ (Old Frisian tūn, Old Icelandic tún, …), with the exception of Old High German, which has zūn (second consonant shift) It should be noted that this spelling is in initial position and, thus, disfavours lenition. However, it appears between vowels (to ye Thowen), which could favour lenition. Furthermore, an item list in LAEME reveals that <t> in ‘town’ only appears in this text, which could indicate that this spelling is a scribal error or part of a Litteral Substitution Set, considering that no other instances of lenition are to be found in this manuscript. (3) NOTH (OE NOWUHT, ‘NOT’) The instance attested in text #297 appears in the following context: noth al (‘not all’). As already discussed in section 6.3.2.1. (1 - 6), the <th> spelling for historical /xt/ may indicate lenition, although the <h> spelling may indicate some fricativeness. In this case, I consider it to be a transposition of the digraph (<ht> to <th>), a phenomenon thich has already been attested in other texts from the northern counties analysed. 124 (4) ERÞE (OE EARD, ‘†ERD, NATIVE LAND’) The word EARD, from ME erd (< OE eard), is attested once in text #297 with a spelling suggesting a fricative: erþe. The MED states that some senses of this word come from the ME word erthe, such as “the physical earth, (…) this earth as the dwelling-place of man and other creatures; (…)” or “the dry part of the earth's surface, land”. The MED adds that the ME word erd was confused in the north of England and some parts of the East Midlands, which may account for the spelling attested in #297. Therefore, erthe would not be an instance of lenition but rather an orthographic variation resulting from this confusion of terms. (5) ME (OE METAN, ‘MEET’) Text #297 includes a token which may indicate lenition due to the loss of a segment (lenition to zero): me (ME meten < OE metan, ‘meet’). The context in which it appears is the following: he sal me (‘he shall meet’). In this case, lenition would be possible since the segments are in weak positions. A note in text #297 highlights that this spelling is unusual (sic). It also mentions that other versions of this same text include the <t> spelling, whereas in this case, the omission of the final <t> in MEET spoil “both sense and rhyme” (2013). Of the dictionaries consulted, no instances are attested that suggest the deletion of the consonant <t>, neither in ME nor in OE. Furthermore, no other instance similar to me (‘meet’) is attested in LAEME, thus suggesting that this example may be a scribal error. 125 6.5.2.2. Fortition ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Manuscrip t Number (Nos.) Grammatica l Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME With wit #297 (138) Preposition Final Coda Poem OE Wiþ #230 (8) Literary Charter wid #297 (1) Poem wit-outin #297 (138) Intervocalic wit-outen #230 (3) Literary Charter wit-oute(n) #297 (19) Poem wit-outi(n) #297 (15) wit-out #297 (1) forwit #297 (5) Adverb Final Coda fowit #297 (4) þar-wit #297 (2) þair-wit #297 (1) witin #297 (1) Intervocalic wit-in #297 (5) wit-ine #297 (2) wit-al #297 (1) wit-alle #297 (1) quar-wit #297 (1) Final Coda wit-standand #297 (1) Prefix Final Coda witstod #297 (1) wit-stod #297 (1) wit-hald #297 (1) 132 contains fols. 2ra-10vb of Cursor Mundi, although the original manuscript includes six different texts: Cursor Mundi (fols. 2r-139v line 36), The Creed and its exposition beg (fols. 139va line 37-140rb line 26), The Lord’s Prayer and its exposition beg (fols. 140rb line 27–141vb line 18), A Prayer for the Hours of the Passion beg (fols. 141vb line 19– 142va line 11), A Prayer to the Trinity beg (fols. 142va–143ra line 3), and The Boke of Penance beg (fols. 143ra–163ra line 20) (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Although 3 different hands (A, B, and C) are present in the manuscript, here only Hand A will beanalysed, as it is the one that appears in cotvespcmat. Hand A is difficult to date and is “a rather stiff Textura”, which Hupe (1893) thinks belongs to an older man (as cited in Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Second, cotcleoBvit.tag contains “[r]hetorical and grammatical treatises in Latin except: fol. 204v (olim 201v) four short poems in English, written as prose and the Creed in prose. (1) Twelve lines beg. [B]Idde huue with milde steuene. (2) Pater Noster beg. [V]Re fadir þat hart in heuene. (3) Ave Maria beg. [H]eil marie. ful of grace. (4) Prayer to the BV and Jesus beg. [M]aidin and moder þat bar þe heuene kinge. (5) Creed in prose beg. [H]I true in god fader hal-michttende.” (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Thirdly, Cotfaustat.tag has been dated to the 14th century, although it is inside a Latin of the 12th, which contains the text Historia Dunelmensis (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). The text included here was written by a single scribe, Hand A, most of whose work in English appears on fol. 10r-v. (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). Finally, Cotfaustbt.tag is the second entry of the London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.v. (Laing, 2013c, Index of Sources). In the text under consideration, Hand B is responsible for the nine couplets written in English on fols. 105v-106r. 133 6.6.1. Phonographic Profiles 6.6.1.1. Text #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) Figure 24. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] [j] <t> 1176 (95.84%) 1 (0.65%) 16 (1.26%) 227136 (12.14%) 29 (14.08%) <tt> 51 (4.16%) <ght> 146 (95.42%) <gh> 1 (0.65%) <ht> 1 (0.65%) 1 (0.05%) <tght> 1 (0.65%) <ghtht> 1 (0.65%) 136 14 of these instances correspond to SIGHT (see footnote 102). 134 <d> 1206 (94.81%) 15 (0.80%) 3 (1.45%)137 <dd> 49 (3.85%) 1 (0.05%) <th> 2 (1.31%) 1 (0.08%) 310 (16.58%) 37 (17.96%) <y> 1315 (70.35%) 137 (66.50%) ✓ 0 TOTAL N. 1227 153 1272 1869 203 Table 26. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #295 (cotvespcmat.tag) Of the tokens analysed in text #295, 2659 contain a historical /t, xt, d/ and 2075 tokens contain a historical /θ/, [ð]. Figure 24 and Table 26 present the different litterae attested and the potestates they represent. In this case, the potestas /t/ is represented by the litterae <t, tt, 0>, /xt/ is represented by the litterae <ght, gh, ht, tght, th>, and the potestas /d/ is represented by <t, d, dd, th, 0>. Finally, the potestates /θ, ð/ are represented by <t, ht, d, dd, th, y> and <t, d, th, y>, respectively. As illustrated in Figure 24 above, historical /θ/ and [ð] are represented by the unexpected <t, d, dd> in words such as wit-outen (‘without’), dedd and ded (‘death’), which could suggest fortition. Historical /t/ is represented by <0> in figer (‘fig tree’), and historical /d/ is represented by the unexpected spellings <t> and <th> in several words (hundrit, ‘hundred’), which could indicate lenition. 137 The 3 instances with a <d> littera for historical [ð] correspond to the words WHITHER and WHETHER, both of which have historical /d/ in OE. In this case, the spelling is considered to be expected. It is also worth noting that there is variation between the litterae <d> and <y> throughout the text in these terms. 135 6.6.1.2. Text #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) Figure 25. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [x] [g] [d] [θ] [ð] <t> 40 (100%) <cht> 1 (50%) <chtt> 1 (50%) <g> ✓ <gh> ✓ ✓ <tþ> 1 (1.70%) <d> 84 (100%) 1 (20%) <th> ✓ 8 (13.56%) <þ> 50 (84.74%) 4 (80%) 136 TOTAL N. 40 2 84 59 5 Table 27. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #231 (cotcleoBvit.tag) Of the tokens analysed in text #231, 126 contain a historical /t, xt, d/ and 64 tokens contain a historical /θ/, [ð]. As can be seen in Figure 25 above, the potestas /t/ is represented by the litterae <t, th>, /xt/ is represented by <cht, chtt>, /x/ by <h>, and the potestas /d/ is represented by the litterae <d>. Finally, the potestates /θ, ð/ in manuscript #231 are represented by the litterae <t, h, tþ, d, th, þ> and <þ>, respectively. Concerning unconventional spellings, it is noteworthy that historical /t/ is represented by the unexpected spelling <th>, which may be an indication of lenition. Similarly, historical /θ/ is represented by the unexpected spellings <t, tþ, d>, which may indicate fortition. 137 6.6.1.3. Text #256 (cotfaustat.tag) Figure 26. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #256 (cotfaustat.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] [j] <t> 13 (81.25%) <ght> 2 (28.57%) <gth> 4 (57.14%) <gh> 1 (14.29%) <d> 30 (100%) <th> 1 (6.25%) 1 (7.69%) 1 (100%) <y> 12 (92.31%) ✓ 138 <0> 2 (12.5%) TOTAL 16 7 30 13 1 Table 28. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #256 (cotfaustat.tag) Of the tokens analysed in text #256, 53 tokens contain a historical /t, xt, d/ and 14 contain a historical /θ/, [ð]. The phonographic profile for text #256 shows that the potestas /t/ is represented by the litterae <t, th, 0>, the potestas /xt/ by <ght, gth, gh>, /d/ by the litterae <d> and the potestates /θ, ð/ are represented by <th, y> and <th>, respectively. Table 28 above shows that the reflex of OE /t/ is represented not only by the expected litterae <t>, but also by the unexpected <th> and <0>, which could suggest lenition. Moreover, the reflex of OE /xt/ is represented in this manuscript with the expected spelling <ght>, and the unexpected <gth, gh>, which could suggest lenition. The rest of the historical potestates are represented by their expected litterae. 139 6.6.1.4. Text #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) Figure 27. Phonographic profile of dental consonants in #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) Potestates Litterae [t] [xt] [d] [θ] [ð] <t> 12x (80%) 1x (3.33%) <td> 2x (9.52%) <d> 19 (90.48%) <th> 1x (6.67%) 1x (100%) 11x (36.67%) 1x (100%) <y> 18x (60%) 0 2x (13.33%) TOTAL N. 15 1 21 30 1 Table 29. Litterae and potestates regarding dental consonants in text #257 (cotfaustbt.tag) In text #257, I analysed 37 tokens containing a historical /t, xt, d/ and 31 contain a historical /θ/, [ð]. 140 The phonographic profile for text #257 (Figure 27 and Table 29) shows that the reflex of OE /t/ is represented not only by the expected litterae <t>, but also by the unexpected <th> and <0>, which could suggest lenition. There is only one instance of a token containing a historical /xt/, represented in this manuscript with the unexpected <th>, which could suggest lenition. Besides, historical /d/ is represented by the expected <d> and the unexpected <td> spelling. Finally, historical /θ/ and [ð] are represented by the expected litterae <th, y>, and the unexpected <t>, which could be an indication of fortition. 6.6.2. Possible Sound Changes 6.6.2.1. Lenition Possible examples of lenition can be found in all texts localised in the West Riding of Yorkshire can be seen in table 30 below. ME Lexemes Attested Spelling Text Number (Nos.) Grammatical Category Position Text Type Etymology (1) ME Hundred a-hundrethfald #295 (1) Quantifier Final Coda Poem OE Hundred a-hundrith #295 (1) (2) ME Tōm(e thome #256 (1) Adjective Word Initial Literary anchor text OE Tóm (3) ME -Ght -th #295 (1) Adverbs And Noun Interdental, Final Coda, And PostCoda Poem OE -Ht #256 (3) Literary anchor text #257 (1) Literary anchor text 141 (4) ME Tīme thime #257 (1) Noun Word Initial Literary anchor text OE Tīma (5) ME Gostli gasli #257 (2) Adverb Post coda Literary anchor text OE gastlice (6) ME Swiftlī swifli, swyfly #256 (2) OE swiftlīce Table 30. Spellings attested in the West Riding of Yorkshire possibly suggesting lenition (1) A-HUNDRETH-FALD, A-HUNDRITH (OE HUNDRED, ‘HUNDRED’): According to the OED and MED, instances of ‘hundred’ ending in the spelling <th> are first attested in the ME period. Nevertheless, the OED does include the ON form for this word, hundrað-falda, which could indicate that this numeral may have been influenced by the Scandinavian word: “The hundrath, -reth forms are from Old Norse, as are probably hundre, hunder, etc.: compare Swedish hundra” (OED). This is further supported by Pons-Sanz (2013, p. 406), who observes that the OE form ‘hundrað’ is already documented in the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual. She posits that the presence of <ð> may either suggest a Norse origin or be a consequence of the observed tendency to use <ð> instead of <d> in unstressed syllables in the glosses (2013, p. 406). This latter explanation is preferred by the same author to the hypothesis of Norse derivation (2013, p. 406). Since the tokens attested are in a weak position, they may be considered as instances of lenition. (2) THOME (OE TÓM, ‘TOOM’): This adjective is only attested in OE dictionaries with a spelling suggesting a plosive (<t>). Only one instance of this word with the initial spelling <th> can be found in the MED from the ME period. This spelling in Cotfaustat.tag is in the following context: Thomas ye Thome. This token may be an instance of lenition, or it could be a mistake on the part of the scribe, 244 RTIOd;þat , DatOd;þat , T<pr;þat , RTIOd;þat , RTI;þat , RTI;þat , RTI;þat , RTI;þat , DatN;þat , RTIOd;þat , RTA;þat , TOd;þat , Dat<pr;þat , DatOd;þat , Dat<pr;þat , RTIOd;þat , that;þat , RTA;þat , T<pr;þat , RTApl;þat , RTIplOd;þat , RTA;þat , that;þat , that;þat , RTIOd;þat , Dat<pr;þat , RTIOd;þat , RTIpl;þat , RTI;þat , RTIOd-N;þat , RTIOd-N;þat , RTApl;þat , RTIOd;þat , DatpnOd;þat , that;þat , Dat<pr;þat , RTIOd;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , that;þat , RTIOd;þat , DatN;þat , DatOd;þat , that;þat , DatOd;þat , Dat<pr;þat , RTApl;þat , that;þat , RTI;þat , that;þat , Datpn;þat , RTA;þat , DatN;þat , that;Þat , RTIOd;þate, that;þat-ilc, ilk;þat-ilc, ilk;þat-ilke, ilk;þat-ilke, ilk;þat-ilke, ilk;þat-ilke, ilk;thede, Ye:od;þid(er), thither;þid(er), thither;þid(er), thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider, thither;þider-ward, thitherward;þiderward, thitherward;thirsth, thirst;þoht, thought;þoht, thought;thoht, thought;þoht , thought;þoht , thought;thought, thought;thought, thought;þouht , thought;þrot, throat;throt, throat;throt, throat;thusgat, thusgate;ti(m), time;til, to {til};til, to {til};til, til {u};til, to {til};til, to {til};Til, to;til, to;til, to {til};til, to {til};til, til;Til, to;Til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to;til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to;til, to;Til, to{til};til, to;til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to;til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til;til, to;til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til{u};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til{u};Til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til{u};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til{u};Til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, til{u};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};Til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};til, to{til};till, to {til};till, to{til};till, to{til};till, to{til};Till, to{til};Till, to{til};till, to{til};till, to{til};till, to{til};tille, to;tille, to;tille, to;Tille, to{til};Tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to;Tille, to;tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};Tille, til{u};Tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};Tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};Tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};tille, to{til};till-ward, toward;till-ward, toward;Tilward, toward;tilward, toward;tilward, toward;tilward, toward;til-ward, toward;til-ward, toward;til-ward, toward;Til-ward, toward;Til-ward, toward;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;tim, time;time, time;time, time;time, time;time, time;time, time;time, time;tint, ty:na;tinte, ty:na;tinte, ty:na;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, 245 to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, too;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;to, to;To, to;To, to;to, to;to, to;to, to;To+, to;tocom, tocome;to-com, tocome;to-com, tocome;to-com, tocome;tocom, tocome;to-coming, tocome;to-cu(m)inges , tocome;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-dai, today;to-daie, today;to-daie, today;today, today;today, today;today, today;today, today;today, today;today, today;to-day, today;to-day, today;to-day, today;to-day, today;to-day, today;to-day, today;to-daye, today;todaye, today;to-daye, today;To-gider, together;to-gider, together;To-gider, together;to-gider, together;tong, tongue;tong, tongue;tong, tongue;toun, town;toun, town;toun, town;tounes, town;tounes, town;trai, trega;tre, tree;tre, tree;tre, tree;tres, tree;tres, tree;tres, tree;treu, TRUE;trou, tre:owian;trou, tre:owian;troueþ, truth;trow, tre:owian;trow, tre;tua, 2;tua, 2;Tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;Tua, 2;tua, 2;Tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tua, 2;tuidald, 2fold;tuifald, 2fold;tuifald, 2fold;tuifald, 2fold;tuin, 2;tuinne, 2;tung, tongue;tung, tongue;tung, tongue;tung, tongue;tung, tongue;tung, tongue;turned, turn;turned, turn;twifald, 2fold;twifald, 2fold;tyme, time;und(er)lout, underlout;und(er)lout, underlout;und(er)stand, understand;und(er)stand, understand;und(er)stand, understand;und(er)stand, understand;und(er)stand, understand;understand, understand;understand, understand;understand, understand;unriht, unright;Until, unto{til};upb(r)ayd, upbraid;uplift, uplift;upward, upward;upward, upward;vant(r)auth, wantruth;vnd(er), under;vnd(er), under;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;vnd(er)stand, understand;vnd(er)stand, understand;vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;Vnd(er)stand, understand;vnd(er)stande, understand;vnd(er)stande, understand;vnd(er)stande, understand;vndo, undo;vndo, undo;vnhende, unhende;vnkind, unkind;vnthewed, unYe:awed;vnthriuand, unthrive;Vntil, unto{til};Vntil, unto{til};Vnto, unto;Vnto, unto;vn-to, unto;wait, wait;wakand, wake;walked, wealcan;wandreht, vandrae:Di;wandreth, vandrae:Di;wandrethe, vandrae:Di;wantrauth, wantruth;warld, world;warned, warn;wasced, 246 wash;waste, waste;wasti, wasty;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;Wat(er), water;Wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;wat(er), water;water, water;water, water;Water, water;water, water;water, water;wattri, watery;wed, we:dan;wed, wae:de;wed, wae:de;wed, wae:de;wed, wae:de;wed(er), weather;wed(er), weather;wede, we:dan;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, wae:de;wede, weed;wede, wae:de;wede, weed;wede, weed;wede, weed;wedes, weed;wekkednes, wickedness;weld, weald;welding, wealdan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wend, wendan;wendane, wendan;wendane, wendan;wendane, wendan;wende, wendan;wende, wendan;werd, world;werd, world;werd, world;werd, world;werd, world;werd, world;werd, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;Werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werdes, world;werid, waergan;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werld, world;werlde, world;werldes, world;werldes, world;werldes, world;werldes, world;werldes, world;werldes, world;wete, wet;weued, wae:fan{s};weuid, wae:fan;wi(n)de, wind;wide, wide;wide, wide;wide, wide;widou, widow;widow, widow;wiht, wiht;wiht, wight;Wiht-outen, without;wikednes, wickedness;wild, wild;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nes, wilderness;wild(er)nesse, wilderness;wild(er)nesse, wilderness;wildernes, wilderness;wind, wind;wind, wendan;wind, wind;wind, wind;winde, wind;winde, wind;windwaiuande, windveifa;windwaiuande, windveifa;winter, winter;winter, winter;wisdo(m), wisdom;Wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wisdom, wisdom;wist, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, wi:tan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit, witan;wit(er)ly, vitrli:ce;wit(er)ly, vitrli;wit(er)lye, vitrli:ce;wit(er)lye, vitrli:ce;wit-d(r)aw, withdraw;wit-d(r)aw, withdraw;wite, wi:tan;witerlye, vitrli:ce;With-outen, without;witmes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;witnes, witness;wit-out, without{os};Witout(en), without;wit-oute(n), without;witoute(n), without;wit-oute(n), without;wit-oute(n), without;wit-oute(n), without;wit-outen, without;wit-outen, without;wit-outen, without;Wit-outen, without;Wit-outen, without;wit-outen, without;wit-outen, without;Wit-outen, without;Wit-outen, without;witte, wit;witte, wit;witte, wit;wittenes, witness;wittes, wit;wittnes, witness;wittnes, witness;wittnes, witness;wod{+}me(n), wo:d;wode, wo:d;wode-schaweþ, woodshaw;Wod-hony, woodhoney;wod-schawe, woodshaw;wona(n)d, wunian;wonand, wunian;wonand, wunian;wond(er), wonder;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word;word, word+;worde, word;worde, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wordes, word;wreched-hed, wretchedhood;wreched-hed, wretchedhood;wreldes, world;writen, write;writen, write;wroht, work;yate, gate;yates, gate;yeld, gieldan;yeld, gieldan;yeld, gieldan;yeld, gieldan;yeld, geld;yeld, 247 gieldan;yeld, gieldan;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yet, yet;yete, yet;yoht, thought; ii. Historical /θ/ and [ð] >a>n-oþer, other; >b>aþe, both; >þ>e, TN; >þ>e, TN; >þ>e, TN; >þ>e, T-av; >þ>e, TplN; >þ>e, TN; >þ>e+, TN; >þ>ir, DesN; >þ>is, Dispn_; >þ>is, DisOd; >þ>is, DisN; >þ>is, DisOd; >þ>is, DisN; >þ>is, DisN; >þ>is, DisN; >þ>us, thus; >y>is, DisN; after-þat, afterthat; aiþer, either; an-noþer, other; an-oþ(er), other; Anoþer, other; an-oþer, other; An-oþer, other; anoþer, other; athe, oath; athe, oath; baþ, both; bath, av>=; bath, av>=; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; Baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe, both; baþe , both; birth, birth; birth, birth; birth, birth; birthe, birth; birthe, birth; bliþe, blithe; boþer, brother; breþe, brother; breþer, brother; brith, birth; broþe, brother; broþer, brother; broþer, brother; broþer, brother; broþer, brother; brth, birth; brth, birth; claþe, cloth; cleþing, clae:Yan; cleþing, clae:Yan; cleþing, clae:Yan; cleþing, clae:Yan; couþe, cu:Y; ded, death; ded, death; ded, death; dede, death; dede, death; dede, death; dede, death; deed, death; Derworþelye, dearworthly; derworþi, dearworthy; derworþi, dearworthy; Derworþi, dearworthy; derworþines, dearworthiness; derworþines, dearworthiness; erþe, earth; erþe, earth; erthe, earth; erthe, earth; erþe, earth; erþe, earth; Filth, filth; filth, filth; filth, filth; filth, filth; filth, filth; filth, filth; filth, filth; forsoþe, forsooth; forsoþe, forsooth; For-soþe, forsooth; for-soþe, forsooth; forth, av; forth, av; forth, av; forth, av; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; forþe, forth; Forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; Forthi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; for-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; For-þi, forthy; Forþi, forthy; forþie, forthy; forþie, forthy; forþie, forthy; for-þie, forthy; for-þie, forthy; For-þi-þat, forthythat; For-þi-þat, forthythat; for-þi-þat, forthythat; for-þi-þat, forthythat; for-þi-þat, forthythat; for-þi-þat, forthythat; forþy, forthy; foþe, forth; foþi, forthy; foþi-þat, forthythat; foþiþat, forthythat; fulthe, fulth; gloþ(er)ing, glo:ther; gloþerers, glo:therer; gloþeri(n)g, glo:ther; hayþe, heathen; haythen, heathen; he, TplOd; heþen, heathen; heyt, height; his, DisOd; i(n)siht, insight; in-syt, insight; kith, cy:Y; kith, cy:Y; kiþe, cy:Yan; kithe, cy:Y; kiþe, cy:Yan; kiþe, 248 cy:Yan; lath, loth; laþe, loth; lathe, loth; laþe, loth; laþe, loth; laþe, loth; laþe, loth; laþe, loth; layth, loth; Leth, lae:YYu; leþe, leoYian; lethe, lae:YYu; liþe, hly:Da; methe, mae:Y; mirht, mirth; mirht, mirth; mirthful, mirthful; Mithe, mirth; moneþe, month; mouþe, mouth; mouþe, mouth; mouþe, mouth; mouþe, mouth; mouþe, mouth; mouthe, mouth; mouþe, mouth; namcouþe, namecu:Y; nathing, nothing; na-þing, nothing; na-þing, nothing; na-thing, nothing; nauþe, neither; nauþer, neither; neþir-mar, nethermore; nith, ni:Y; niþe, ni:Y; nithe, ni:Y; nithe, n; noþing, nothing; nouþ(er)-quare, neitherwhere; nouþer, neither; nythe, ni:Y; nythe, ni:Y; oþ(er), other; oþe, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; Oþer, either; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþer, other; oþere, other; q(u)are-thoru, wherethrough; q(ue)þer, whether; q(ue)þer, whether; Quar-thoru, wherethrough; Quar-thoru, wherethrough; Quar-wit, wherewith{w}; quar-wit, wherewith{w}; Queþer, whether; queþer, whether; Queþer, whether; queþer, whether; queþer, whether; queþer, whether; queþer, whether; Queþir, whether; queþir-sa, whetherso; raþe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; rathe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; raþe, hraDe; schaþe, scathe; selcouþe, selcu:Y; selcouþe, selcu:Y; selcouþe, selcu:Y; selcouþe, selcu:Y; selcouþe, selcu:Y; Seuinschor-Thousand, 140000; siht, sight; siht, sight; siht, sight; siht, sight; siht, sight; siþe, si:Y; soþe, sooth; soþe, sooth; soþe, sooth; soþefast, soothfast; Soþefast, soothfast; soþe-fast, soothfast; soþefastnes, soothfastness; soþe-fastnes, soothfastness; soþesaw, soothsaw; soþesawe, soothsaw; stiþe, sti:Ye; stiþe, sti:Ye; stiþe, sti:Ye; stiþe, sti:Y; stiþe, sti:Y; stiþe, sti:Ye; stiþe, sti:Ye; stiþe, sti:Y; Stiþelic, sti:Yli:ce; Stiþer, sti:Ye; Stiþer, sti:Ye; stiþer, sti:Y; stiþest, sti:Y; Strenkeþ, strength; strenþe, strength; strenþe, strength; strenthe, strength; strenþe, strength; strenþe, strength; strenþe, strength; streþe, strength; Sua-þat, sothat; suithe, swi:De; Sumþing, something; sumthing, something; sum-thing, something; sum-þing, something; sum-þing, something; swiþe, swi:De; swiþe, swi:De; swiþe, swi:De; swiþe, swi:De; swiþe, swi:De; swiþe, swi:De; t(r)outh, truth; t(r)outh, truth; t(r)outhe, truth; T(r)owthe, truth; teth, tooth; þ>e>, TN; þa, DosOd; þa, RTIOd; þa, TplN; þa, Dospn<pr>={rh}; þa, Dospn<pr>={rh}; þa, RTA; tha, DosOd; þa, then; þa, Dat<pr; þa, DatOd; þa, RTIpl; þa, Dos<pr; þa, Dat<pr; þa, Tpl<pr; þa, TplN; þa, Tpl<pr; þa, TplOd; þa, TplN; Þa, TplOd; þa, DosOd; þa, Dos<pr; þa, DospnOd>={rh}; þa(n), than; þa>t>, RTIOd; thain, thane; thain, thane; þair, DesOd; þair, DesOd; þan, than; þan, then; Þan, than; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, than; þan, than; Þan, then; Þan, than; Þan, then; þan, than; þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, than; Þan, than; þan, than; Þan, than; Þan, than; Þan, then; þan, then; Þan, than; þan, than; þan, than; þan, than; Þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, than; Þan, than; Þan, then; þan, than; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, than; Þan, than; þan, than; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, than; þan, than; þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, then; þan, then; þan, then; Þan, than; Þan, than; þan, then; þan, then; þan, than; Þan, then; þanne, then; Þanne, than; þanne, then; þanne, than; þanne, then; þanne, then; þanne, then; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, RTI; Þar, there; þar, there; þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there{w}; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there{w}; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there{w}; þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there{w}; Þar, there; þar, there; þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there{w}; þar, 249 there; þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar, DosN; Þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; þar, there; Þar, there{w}; Þar, there{w}; þar, there; þar-bifor, therebefore{t}; þar-biside, therebeside; þar-bisyd, therebeside; þar-bye, thereby{p}; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þare, there; þar-eft(er), thereafter; þarfor, therefore; þar-for, therefore; þar-i(n), therein{p}; þari(n), therein{i}; þar-i(n), therein{p}; þar-i(n), therein{m}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein{p}; þar-in, therein; þarinne, therein{p}; þar-inne, therein{p}; þar-inne, therein{i}; þar-inne, therein{p}; þar-inne, therein{p}; þar-inne, therein{p}; þar-of, thereof; Þar-of, thereof{f}; þar-of, thereof; þar-of, thereof; þar-of, thereof; þar-of, thereof; þaron, thereon{p}; þarto, thereto; þar-to, thereto; þar-to, thereto; þar-to, thereto; þar-to, thereto; þar-to, thereto; þar-wit, therewith{w}; þar-wit, therewith{w}; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, that; þat, RTIpl; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTAplL; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTI; þat, RTIplOd; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTIplOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTApl<=; þat, RTI; Þat, RTApl<=; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTApl<=; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTApl; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; þat, DatOd; Þat, RTA; þat, RTI; Þat, that; þat, RTApl<=; þat, RTApl; Þat, that; Þat, RTApl<=; þat, RTApl<=; Þat, RTApl<=; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTI; þat, RTIOd; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTApl; þat, DatN; þat, RTAOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, DatOd; þat, RTI; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTI; þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; Þat, Datpn; þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, RTAOd; þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, RTI; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, DatN; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTAOd; þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTApl; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTI; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTI; Þat, RTIpl; þat, TN; þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, Dat-av; þat, that{w}; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, DatOd; þat, that; þat, Datpn; Þat, that; þat, Datpn; þat, TN; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, TOd; þat, RTAOd; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that{w}; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTA; þat, Dat<pr; þat, DatOd; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, DatOd; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, TOd; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, Datpn; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTApl; þat, RTA; þat, Dat-av; Þat, RTI; þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; þat, TN; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTApl; Þat, sothat; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd-N; þat, RTIplOd; þat, RTAOd; þat, RTA; þat, DatN; þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, T<pr; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, TOi; Þat, RTI; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, TOd; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTApl; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTIOd-N; Þat, that; þat, T<pr; þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, RTA; þat, RTApl; þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTI; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, DatOd; Þat, that; Þat, 250 RTApl; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTIplOd; þat, that; þat, TN; þat, DatOd; þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTApl; Þat, Dat-av; þat, that{w}; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTI; þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTApl<=; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; þat, RTAOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTA; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTI; þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, Datpn; þat, RTI; þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, Datpn; þat, RTI; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTI; þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTIOdN; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTI; þat, RTIplOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTApl<=; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTA; þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, DatG; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, DatOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, TN; þat, RTAOd; þat, that; þat, Datpn; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that; þat, RTI; Þat, that; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTApl; þat, that{w}; þat, that{w}; Þat, RTI; þat, T<pr; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, Datpn; þat, RTApl<=; þat, RTA; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that{w}; Þat, that{w}; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTIplOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTApl; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, DatN; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTAOd; þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTIpl; þat, RTI; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTI; þat, that; Þat, Datpn; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, RTI; þat, that; þat, RTI; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTApl<=; Þat, that; þat, RTApl; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTApl; þat, RTApl; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTI>pr; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, RTI; þat, RTA; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTI>pr; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTApl; Þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTApl<=; þat, Datpn; Þat, RTI; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTIOd-N; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTIpl; þat, that; Þat, RTIpl; þat, that; þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTIplOd; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, RTI; þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTIplOd; þat, TOd; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, DatOd; þat, T<pr; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTA; þat, RTI; Þat, DatpnOd; þat, RTI; þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTApl; þat, RTI; Þat, RTIpl; Þat, RTIpl; þat, DatN; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, DatN; þat, RTA; Þat, RTI; þat, TOd; þat, Dat<pr; þat, DatOd; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, T<pr; Þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, RTIplOd; þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTIpl; þat, RTIpl; þat, RTI; Þat, RTI; Þat, that{h}; þat, RTIOd-N; Þat, that; Þat, afterthat; þat, RTIOd-N; þat, RTApl; Þat, that; þat, RTIOd; þat, DatpnOd; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that{w}; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTIpl; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTApl; þat, DatN; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; þat, DatOd; Þat, RTA; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, DatOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, RTApl<=; Þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTA; þat, Dat<pr; Þat, that; Þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, that; þat, RTI; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, Datpn; þat, RTA; þat, DatN; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, DatN; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, that; Þat, RTA; þat, DatN; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTI; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTApl; Þat, RTApl; Þat, RTI; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTIplOd; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTIOd; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTI; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTApl; þat, RTI; þat, RTApl; Þat, that; Þat, that; Þat, Datpn; Þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, RTI; Þat, RTIOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, RTAOd; þat, RTApl; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; Þat, Datpn; þat, RTIOd; Þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, DatpnOd; Þat, RTA; Þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, Datpn; Þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, Dat-av; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTA; Þat, that; Þat, 251 that; Þat, RTIplOd; Þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTIplOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, DatOd; þat, Dat-av; þat, that; þat, RTI; þat, RTI; þat, Dat<pr; þat, that; þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, RTA; þat, RTIOd; þat, Dat<pr; þat, that{w}; þat, that; þat, that; þat, that; þat, RTI; þat, that; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTApl; þat, that; þat, RTApl; þat, Dat<pr; þat, RTApl; þat, RTIOd; þat, RTIOd; þat, that; þat, RTA; þat, that; þat, RTA; þate, that; þat-ilc, ilk; þat-ilc, ilk; þat-ilk, ilk; þat-ilke, ilk; þat-ilke, ilk; þat-ilke, ilk; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe, TplN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TG; þe, TG; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, P12<pr; þe, D-cpv; þe, TN; þe, TplOd; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; Þe, TOd; Þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, TOd; Þe, D-cpv; Þe, D-cpv; Þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, TplN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, TplN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; Þe, T-av; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, TplOd; þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; þe, TN; þe, TN-av; Þe, T-av; þe, TplN; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; Þe, T-av; þe, TplOd; þe, TplN; þe, TplOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, RTApl; þe, T<pr; þe, TplOd; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TG; þe, TplOi; þe, TplOd; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, TplG; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, TN; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, T<pr; þe, TG; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TOi; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOi; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TN; Þe, TOd; þe, both; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, TplN; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TplOd; Þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TG; þe, D-cpv; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TN; Þe, TOd; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, TplOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, P12OdX{rh}; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Oi; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TplOd; þe, TplOd; þe, TplOd; Þe, both; þe, TG; Þe, TN; þe, P12Oi; þe, worth; þe, P12Od{rh}; þe, TplOd; Þe, TG; þe, P12Od; þe, worth; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TOi; þe, TG; þe, TN; þe, TOi; Þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TG; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12Od; þe, P12Od; Þe, TN; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, both; þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TplOd; þe, TOd; þe, TOi; the, qcOd; þe, 3; Þe, TOd; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TplN; þe, TplN; Þe, TplOd; Þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TplOd; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TplN; Þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, D-cpv; Þe, D-cpv; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TplG; þe, P12Od; þe, P12Od; þe, TN; þe, mouth; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, P12Od{rh}; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12<pr; Þe, TplOd; þe, TN; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Oi; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12Oi; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12<pr; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, P12<pr; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, P12>pr; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Od; þe, P12OdX; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, P12Oi; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TN; Þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, P12<pr{rh}; Þe, TOd; þe, TplOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TG; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TplOd; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TplOd; þe, P12Od{rh}; þe, P12Oi; þe, P12Oi; þe, T<pr; Þe, D-cpv; þe, T<pr; Þe, D-cpv; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, D-cpv; Þe, Dcpv; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; Þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, P12Oi{rh}; þe, P12Od{rh}; Þe, TN; þe, P12Oi{rh}; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T-av; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, P12X; þe, TOi; þe, P12Oi{rh}; Þe, TN; þe, D-cpv; Þe, D-cpv; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, 252 TOd; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TplOd; þe, T<pr; Þe, TplN; þe, TOd; þe, TOd; Þe, TOd; þe, DisN; þe, Tpl<pr; þe, TG; þe, TN; þe, TG; þe, TplOd; þe, TplN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; Þe, Tpl-av; þe, T<pr; Þe, TOd; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, P12Od; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; Þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, T<pr; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12<pr{rh}; þe, P12<pr; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; þe, TOd; þe, P12<pr; Þe, TOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TplOd; þe, T<pr; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TN; Þe, TN; þe, TN; þe, TOi; þe, TG; þe, TOd; þe, TN; Þe, TplOd; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe, TG; þe, T<pr; þe, T<pr; Þe{+}fife-tende, T-av; thede, Ye:od; þef, thief; thef, n; thef, n; thef, thief; thef, thief; thef, n; Thef, thief; þe-self, P12<prX; þe-self, P12OdX; þe-seluen, P12OdX; þe-tan, 1; þe-tan, 1; þeþen, thence; þe-toþer, other; þe-toþer, other; þe-toþer, other; þetoþer, other; þe-toþer, other; þe-toþer, other; theues, thief; thewes, Ye:aw; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GNpl+C; Þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOd+C; Þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, therein{i}; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; Þi, P12GOdpl+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; Þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; Þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GNpl+C; þi, P12G<prpl+C; Þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GG+C; Þi, P12GOdpl+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, DisN; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12GOdpl+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; Þi, P12GNpl+C; þi, P12GN+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12G<pr+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; þi, P12GOd+C; thi(n)g, thing; thi(n)ges, thing; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þid(er), thither; þider, thither; þider, thither; þider, thither; Þider, thither; þider, thither; þider, thitherward; thift, theft; thift, theft; þift, theft; þift, theft; þift, theft; þift, thing; thin, thin; thin, thing; þin, P12G<pr+H; þin, P12GOd+V; thin(n)ges, thing; þinc, think; þinc, think; þinc, think; thinc, Yyncan; thinc, think; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; þing, thing; thing, thing; þing, thing; thing, thing; þing, thing; Thing, thing; Thing, thing; thing, thing; þing, thing; Thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; Thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing, thing; thing~, thing; Thinge, thing; þinge, thing; thinges, thing; thinges, thing; thinges, thing; thinges, thing; thinges, thing; þinges, thing; think, think; think, think; Þir, DesOd; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesOd; þir, DesOd; þir, DesOd; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesOd; þir, DesOd; þir, DesOd; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesN; Þir, DesN; Þir, DesN; þir, DesN; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesOd; þir, Des<pr; Þir, DesN; þir, DesOd; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesN; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; Þir, DesN; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesOd; Þir, DesN; þir, DesOd; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; Þir, DesN; þir, DesOd; þir, DesN; Þir, DesN; þir, DesOd; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, Des<pr; þir, DesN; þir, Des<pr; Þir, DesOd; þir-lic, ilk; þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; þis, DispnOd{rh}; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dispn; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisG; Þis, DisN; þis, DisG; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, Dispn; Þis, DisOd; þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, DispnOd; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; Þis, DisG; Þis, DispnOd; Þis, Dispn; þis, DisG; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, Dispn; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; 253 þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DispnOd{rh}; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DispnOd; Þis, Dispn; þis, DesN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisOd; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; Þis, DisOd; þis, Dis-av; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, Dispn; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisG; Þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, TplOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DispnOd{rh}; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisG; Þis, DisG; Þis, DisOd; þis, DisG; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; Þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, DispnOd; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisG; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisOi; Þis, DisN; þis, DisG; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; þis, DisG; þis, DisN; þis, DisG; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, DisOd; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOd; þis, DisN; þis, Des<pr; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisN; þis, Dispn; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, Dis-av; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; þis, DisN; Þis, DisN; Þis, DisOd; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisG; þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, DisOi; þis, DisG; Þis, DisN; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; Þis, DisOd; Þis, DisN; Þis, Dispn; þis, Dis<pr; þis, Dis<pr; þis-ilc, ilk; Þis-ilk, ilk; Þis-ilke, ilk; þis-ilke, ilk; þit, DisN; þoh, though; þoh, though; þoh, though; þohqueþer, thoughwhether; þohqueþer, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þohqueþir, thoughwhether; þoh-queþir, thoughwhether; þoh-queþir, thoughwhether; þoht, thought; þoht, thought; þoht, thought; þoht, thought; thoht, thought; þoht, thought; thohtes, thought; thol, Yolian; thol, Yolian; thol, Yolian; thol, Yolian; thol, Yolian; thol, Yolian; thornye, thorny; thoru, pr; Thoru, pr; thoru, through; Thoru, through; þoru, through; Thoru, pr; Þoru, through; thoru, pr; þoru, through; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; þoru, through; þoru, through; Thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, through; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; Thoru, pr; thoru, through; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, pr; thoru, through; thoru, through; thoru, pr; þoru, through; þoru, through; þoru, through; thot, thought; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N{rh}; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, though; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N{rh}; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N{rh}; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, though; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, though; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; Þou, P12N; þou, P12N; þouht, thought; þou-self, P12NX_yOUSELF $-self/xs-N; thra, Yra:r; thralle, thrall; thrawe, Yra:g; þre, 3; thre, 3; thre, 3; thre, 3; thre,