<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
I have some difficulty in making the content/form distinction. However,
I am inclined to think<br>
(certainly I cannot prove) that ae/oe are different in kind from such
ligatures as st, ct, etc., and<br>
that this may explain their survival in
some languages or contexts. In (later?) medieval Latin orthography,<br>
ae and oe were typically spelled "e". The Renaissance humanists
restored the original orthography<br>
(ae/oe) in their general campaign to return to what they viewed as the
classical style of Golden Age<br>
Latinity. On the other hand, perhaps because it was felt to be too
sharp a break from the one-letter<br>
spelling, or possibly confusing to readers at the time who might think
a different sound was intended, or <br>
for some other such reason, rather than writing the letters separately
they were coalesced into<br>
a digraph. Possibly this explains why these diphthongs were singled out
for special treatment while <br>
others went their merry way. Or perhaps it was a Renaissance theory as
to how these diphthongs<br>
are pronounced.<br>
<br>
It would also explain another difference. The "st, ct. etc." digraphs
can easily be seen as deriving <br>
from simple connecting strokes in handwriting, passing from one letter
to the next. The letters aren't<br>
really fused together, just connected. The ae/oe digraphs can't, I
think, be explained this way, nor<br>
do they look like something arising from handwriting styles (though of
course they were used in the <br>
humanistic scripts). The "st" when the s is long is just a kern with
the little gap closed (as with an "ft"--<br>
would anyone really even bother thinking about these as digraphs? Even
though they are, of course,<br>
one piece of type). Maybe the idea of doing the same when a short s
precedes a t derived from that<br>
by analogy, then extended to ct. Why? Who knows? Just decoration at
this point, one would think.<br>
<br>
Does anyone with manuscript expertise know if the ae/oe digraphs were
used in earlier manuscripts?<br>
<br>
Printers using the "littera moderna" (black letter) seem not to have
adopted this "new" orthography, so<br>
had no need of the ae/oe digraphs. Did the usage change at all toward
the end of the black letter era?<br>
At any rate, they became a permanent feature of the new style or
"littera antiqua" though perhaps not<br>
adopted everywhere and at all times. What shows, I think, the
fundamental difference between these and<br>
the "st, ct, etc." ligatures is that when they are used at all in a
given text or maybe even by a given printer,<br>
they are used consistently. The "st, ct, etc." are used at random (when
used at all). That seems to indicate<br>
cosmetics rather than orthography; something like swash letters, for
example. Also there seems no need<br>
for them in upper case, while AE/OE digraphs are used in upper case as
in lower--or a sort of "virtual"<br>
ligature formed by moving the two letters noticeably closer together.
If these facts tend to show that<br>
that the ae/oe usage was a matter of orthography, as I think they do,
then presumably that will put it under<br>
"content" rather than "form" for our purposes.<br>
<br>
The ae/oe digraphs, in my experience, are extremely common in earlier
(pre-19th cent.) printing, perhaps <br>
well-nigh universal (in Latin, at any rate), if not right up to the
20th century. Modern languages mostly don't<br>
have these particular diphthongs. It seems natural for those that do
(the examples noted) to use the ligatures,<br>
even though it may be partly a matter of historical accident. Printers
aren't philologists. (National practices<br>
might well have been dictated at a higher level, of course.)<br>
<br>
In view of this, I'm inclined to consider the ae/oe ligatures as
content or orthography, so they should be transcribed<br>
as such. (Likewise, I believe, with "virtual" ligatures in upper case,
or does that get us into a different discussion?)<br>
Another criterion in the rule revisions, not, I think, yet touched on
in the present discussion, is that no change<br>
in the existing rules should be made without clear necessity or at
least a solid reason. In this case, the advantages<br>
of the change seem to outweigh whatever disadvantages may exist. The
only one appears to be the limitations<br>
of indexing in the electronic context. I don't know how this affects
others. RLIN has always indexed these digraphs<br>
as if separated, so the difference was invisible from the searching
point of view. And Juliet has noted that we <br>
agree, or ought to, that the rules should ignore such considerations
(limitations ought to be addressed where they<br>
exist).<br>
<br>
We do admit the limitations of dealing with the shrunken character set
of modern (post-"handpress era"), however.<br>
Perhaps necessarily, in case of the long s, for instance. But, as Brian
mentioned, we do have ae/oe ligatures available<br>
and by the same token they are familiar to modern readers, so why not
use them? And as Bob also pointed out, we also<br>
have upper case letters available, so why not follow the source?
Definitely another discussion ...<br>
<br>
Having gone on about the desirability of changing the rule, I have to
say that after reading the messages, and going over the<br>
rules again, I am still in the dark as to why the existing rule was
written as it was. If limitations of machine indexing were<br>
a factor, why the exceptions? If French, Anglo-Saxon, etc., are allowed
their digraphs, why not Latin, etc.? As a former<br>
member of Brian's group at the DCRB revision conference, I recall that
the rather brief discussion of this point led to no<br>
further enlightenment. I notice that Appendix B, in addressing
ligatures, mentions only "ct st etc." along with scharfes-s (really<br>
just a long-s/short-s ligature, at least originally). Was there a
subliminal message that ae/oe somehow fall into the same<br>
category, though never stated? Were the compilers led astray by their
own typography? The ct and st examples in App. B<br>
are somehow shoved together in the same manner as ae/oe ligatures. (How
did they do that?) Real ones don't look like that at all<br>
(presumably they weren't available to the printers of DCRB). A form of
cheating by typography? (At this point I need one of those<br>
little smily faces.) Or perhaps the rule was a reflection of the shift
in printing (or rather orthographical?) style of Latin texts, at least<br>
in English-speaking countries (presumably in pursuit of further
"authenticity") dating perhaps to the later 19th century? And of <br>
course the digraphs went right on being used in English (by some
printers at least), for Latin-derived words, right<br>
through the same period. If anyone remembers the actual reasons in the
minds of the original rule compilers, it would be nice<br>
to hear from them.<br>
<br>
James Larrabee<br>
Robbins Collection Cataloger<br>
Law Library (Boalt Hall)<br>
University of California, Berkeley<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>