Talk:Early Modern English
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Early Modern English article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
BCP 47 language tag
editThere is now a BCP 47 language tag for Early Modern English: en-emodeng. Doug Ewell 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougEwell (talk • contribs)
'Orthography' confusing.
editThe current text reads : 'The orthography of Early Modern English was fairly similar to that of today, but spelling was unstable'.
This is slightly confusing because the word 'orthography' has two meanings (i) writing i.e. the shape of letters and the alphabet used, and (ii) the way words are spelled.
Might I suggest a change to something like :'As for orthography, the form of written letters and the alphabet were broadly similar to those of today, but as yet spelling had no agreed standard form.' Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.248.144 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Early English language" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Early English language. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This line about the subjunctive makes no sense
editUnder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English#Verbs
Line: The second-person singular indicative was marked in both the present and past tenses with -st or -est (for example, in the past tense, walkedst or gav'st).[25] Since the indicative past was not and still is not otherwise marked for person or number,[26] the loss of thou made the past subjunctive indistinguishable from the indicative past for all verbs except to be.
What is "past subjunctive" referring to? English does not have a subjunctive conjugation, never mind a past subjunctive. In fact, the subjunctive conjugation was already totally lost by Middle English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.197.234 (talk • contribs)
- That is not correct. Even modern English has both a present and a past subjunctive, though there are only a few cases where it's morphologically different from the indicative.
- An example of the present subjunctive is it is important that you be prompt (rather than indicative are).
- The past subjunctive is distinct from the past indicative only for the verb "to be", and only for the first and third person singular. If I were a rich man.
- Hope that clarifies. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The first shortening of (Early Modern English) seems to be (EModE) when was it coined?
editAlso, who coined “EModE” and why was “EModE” as an abbreviation firstly chosen and not “EME” and suchlike?
The older(?) ”EModE” abbreviation does seem to somewhat look more becoming also standout moreso than the likes of “EME”. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:A025:DCEE:FB20:7C87 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)