Like the "B" in climbing, and "K" in knife, and "H" in diarrhea (not to mention the extra "R")?
Did someone just thought "let's chuck in a few extra letters to make the word look a bit more interesting"?
2007-01-12 00:29:46 · 13 answers · asked by k² 6 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Did someone just think "let's chuck in a few extra letters to make the word look a bit more interesting"?
Well, actually this is close to being true in some cases. During the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, erudite English scribes who regarded classical Greek and Latin as the purest and most perfect vehicles for the human intellect, thought they could do that coarse, peasant tongue English a splendid favour by cosmetically enhancing some English words to make them look more similar to the original Latin and Greek words from which they were derived. So, for example, they shoved an extra 'B' into the word 'DOU(B)T' in order to make it look more like the Latin 'Dubitum', and an extra 'P' into 'RECEI(P)T' to increase the resemblance with the Latin 'Receptus'. (They neglected to perform the same invasive surgery on 'Deceit' or 'Conceit' however!)
Similarly, the first 'H' in "R(H)YTHM" is only there as a homage to the Greek letter Rho (aspirated 'R') whch initials the Greek original (the French and Italians couldn't be bothered with such showing-off and were content to leave it out - "rythme", "ritmo" etc...). The 'H' in 'DIARR(H)EA' is there for the same reason (note that the British English spelling of this word is even more faithful to the Greek original: Diarrhoea!)
Sometimes the learned writers were too clever by half: the silent 'H' in 'R(H)YME' has no etymological justification whatsoever, since the original word 'Rime' came from Germanic via Old French, and never had an H in it in the first place! (The scribes mistook it for a Greek word starting with Rho, like RHythm.)
I hope that this is a helpful answer.
2007-01-12 03:30:12 · answer #1 · answered by Edward Pregunta 1 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I remembered this from one of my linguistics classes, and I thought I'd share:
Spelling Reform
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Mark Twain
2007-01-12 13:44:13 · answer #2 · answered by Alisha H 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In some cases, yes. However, words with silent letters are spelled that way because that's how they were originally pronounced. Or, they are derived from different langauges where that letter did mean something. It could also be the case that the spelling has become corrupted through history, from a different word in another language.
Language is an organic, ever changing thing. We spell words in certain ways because they are laden with an historic development.
2007-01-12 08:37:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Modern English has its roots in the Norman conquest of Saxon England. Basically its the result of Norman knights trying to pick up Saxon barmaids.... LOL, or so my linguistics professor said.
Anyway - the modern spellings derive from the first guy to set up a printing press and print the first dictionary. Don't remember who did it, but was some guy in London. Since there were no 'official' spellings, he just used what he knew.
The result is probably the most difficult language in the world to learn. There is little consistency in spelling, and the grammar is a tad odd as well.
I'm surprised you didn't ask why we even bother with the letter 'c'. All it does is supplant 'k' or 's' in some words... so its a pointless letter...
Cool question.
-dh
2007-01-12 08:37:23 · answer #4 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
u hv a point...actually technically the english letters originated frm greek and latin in which one used to pronounce the silent letters but when the words migrated into engish the spellings didn't change but the pronounciation did due to differing accents....anyway good question!!
2007-01-12 08:35:27 · answer #5 · answered by tulip 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Thats exactly what they did!
I wonder how much time, ink, space and trees it would have saved over the years if these letters were not there!
2007-01-12 08:33:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
what everyone else above said.
But there's an additional, benefit...
You get more words squeezed into your language without having to remember to many pronounciations and syllabals (something all languages suffer I think, despite its disadvantages)
eg. Knot...not
There...their...they're...
2007-01-12 08:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they did it to make spelling tests more difficult, if words were spelt phonetically it would be too easy - haha!
2007-01-12 08:33:55 · answer #8 · answered by doodlenatty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most likely yes!!
2007-01-12 08:32:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they were not always silent.
why do some people say 'teeth' instead of 'thief'
2007-01-12 08:33:48 · answer #10 · answered by speedball182 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋