I was watching a program on C-SPAN about coded/encrypted messages used during the US Revolution. The speaker referred to a work called Entic's New Spelling Dictionary, or something similar. I find nothing on it. Can anyone shed some light on it?

Another question: The speaker averred that in the late 1700s "i" and "j" were pronounced the same, as were "u" and 'v." Is this so? I thought they differentiated earlier.

The speaker referred to a work called Entic's New Spelling Dictionary, or something similar.

John Entick (link) was an 18th century hack writer, and not much of a lexicographer. What is he supposed to have done?

(link).

The speaker averred that in the late 1700s "i" and "j" were pronounced the same, as were "u" and 'v." Is this so? I thought they differentiated earlier.

Well, if the speaker was talking about letters, i and j were interchangeable in spelling, but the statement does not make much sense to me. These letter represented the sounds /ʤ/ (as in judge), /j/ (as in yet), /ɪ/ (as in bit), and /i/ (as in mean amongst others).

I wouldn't really have much faith in the mass media when it comes to matters linguistic. If you want to learn more about encryption, etc., you're better off reading David Kahn's The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing.

Very good, z! I note that he gives both the earlier and current form of "s," and that he spells "color" as I just did.

The speaker who cited this work did so in the context of its being used as a base work for codes in which a page, line, and word number were given in the encoded message, so that the same edition of the work was essential to deciphering it. He did NOT comment on the quality of Entick's scholarship!

quote:

you're better off reading David Kahn's The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing.

Yeah, if you have a few months free and you're a body-builder.

He did NOT comment on the quality of Entick's scholarship!

Ah, very good then. But seriously, Kahn's book is the bomb!

Truth to tell I'm not really fascinated by codes; I am fascinated with early US history, thanks to all the current rewriting of much of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Another question: The speaker averred that in the late 1700s "i" and "j" were pronounced the same, as were "u" and 'v." Is this so? I thought they differentiated earlier.

It's not really about pronunciation. It was just a spelling convention. The letter j was originally a variant of i. It was introduced from French, for instance iust or just.

Similarly v was a variant of u used word-initially, for instance vs (us) and vinegar. In other positions u was used, for instance muddie and ouer (over).

interesting, goofy! I've often wondered about those variations. I come across them [& I think a couple of others] when singing madrigals, which mostly date to the 16c., is that when these forms were used? and I gather there was some reason to selecting, say v rather than u, i rather than j, etc? Do you like any particular references on the subject?

I looked this up in A Biography of the English Language, C.M. Millward, 1988.

J was introduced with Norman French. As far as I can tell, J was rarely used but when it was used, it was used interchangeably with I until late in the 17th century.

V was used word-initially, and U was used everywhere else (as in the examples I gave) from around 1500 to 1800.