Blog post written by Andrea Grütter (22 June 2020)
For this week’s blog post, we will look at some more transcription challenges, with the example of one particularly challenging letter and how the distinction between certain characters can be difficult.
As we’ve previously mentioned, literacy levels varied in England before 1870, which is the year when compulsory elementary schooling was introduced. Pauper petitions, written by the labouring poor, are some of the earliest instances of written material produced by the lower strata of society in the history of the English language. They are therefore valuable for historical (socio)linguistics, and when transcribing them, it is important that the transcriptions are philologically accurate. For more contextual information related to today’s post, check out our last blog post about transcription challenges here.
The letter we are looking at today, which is three pages long, was written by Ann Legg to inform Misses Walden of her child’s death. It was written on a Monday night in Stafford, with its exact year and date unclear and unknown. Since we are still discussing how each of the characters can be transcribed, the transcriptions provided alongside the images are temporary transcriptions, based on Tony Fairman’s transcriptions and the discussions our team has already had.
As the following image shows, one of the challenges of this article was the transcription of <v>, <r>, and <n> in words, since they at times resemble each other. In both lines, the word ‘very’ illustrates how similar Ann Legg’s <v> and <r> are. Moreover, a close look at “un=u=ely” and “nou” shows that <n> also resembles<v> and <r>.
Our current transcription:
vrrey un=u=ely
verrey Wel nou
Another challenge was <w> and <u>, where in lowercase and at the end of words, <w> was less distinctive. The <w> in “how” and “grow” could be read as <u>, in particular when compared to “un=u=ely” in the previous image. In particular, we are still discussing whether it should be a <u> or a <w> in the previous “nou” and the “grow”.
Our current transcription:
how he grow
Another challenge related to this letter are <q>, <y>, and <g> which are often difficult to differentiate between. The following image exemplifies their similarity in Ann Legg’s writing, where the <y> in “famely”, the <q> in “quiet”, and the <g> in “geane” are all similar.
Our current transcription:
famely is quiet Wil i hop that poor geane
The challenge of <m> and <n> are illustrated in the following image. While the <m> in “me” is quite clear in comparison to the <n> in “nou”, the rest of the excerpt would be “my dear misses”, but they appear to be <n> instead (i.e. “ny dear nisses”). The speed of writing or the following character could have an influence on how Legg wrote the letter “m”, since “me” shows that it is not a systematic writing of the character <m> as <n>.
Our current transcription:
to me nou ny dear nisses
A common challenge in the transcriptions of the petitions in this corpus is the distinction between the characters <e> and <i>, where it is often unclear whether they are an <e> or an <i> without the dot. The following images show how different the instances of <e> are written in this letter, with “he” and “life” having clear loops, while the <e> in “Went” and “lettle” are more like lines, resembling the <i> in “life”, only without the dot. It would therefore be possible that these are in fact instances of <i>.
Our current transcription:
he Went of life A lettle
The last challenge this letter poses with regard to its transcription that we will share in this blog post is <b> and <l> that are similar, especially when next to each other in a word. The <bl> in “eable” is almost identical to the <ll> in “Will”, while the <b> in “bee” has an extra loop.
Our current transcription:
Will bee eable
In the examples given, the writing of certain characters is so similar that it would be possible to transcribe them as being the same. However, other instances of the same characters in the letter show that Ann Legg differentiated between the characters, and that it could therefore either be a graph variation or a spelling mistake, potentially due to writing speed. An option would be to transcribe the characters as the ones we see, or to transcribe them as the ones that they could be and would be in standardized spelling. But, as previously mentioned, it is important that the transcriptions remain philologically accurate. In particular, for future questions on spelling variation, making the decision on how to transcribe these similar characters is essential, since it could skew the results. For now, we have been indicating in which petitions there are unclear cases such as these, and in particular which specific characters are affected. Due to this letter’s high level of ambiguity, we may even exclude this letter from the corpus. More discussions to follow …