-1

Is there any significance to the pattern we get when the Roman alphabet (upon which English is based) is arranged by giving vowels a "lead" column (which I hope you will be able to see as a grid)?

For instance, are gutturals grouped together, etc?Roman alphabet vowel arrangement

Dan Bron
  • 28,335
  • 17
  • 99
  • 138
Michael Moore
  • 11
  • 2
    Do you consider that originally Roman alphabet had only 21 letter? – Matt Jul 29 '15 at 19:42
  • 1
    I suggest you start your researches here - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/why-is-the-alphabet-arranged-the-way-it-is – chasly - supports Monica Jul 29 '15 at 19:51
  • 2
    Whoa, weird. Have you noticed that, when the vowels are given a lead column, all consonants seem to be in following columns (i.e., they appear to the right of the vowels)? What's more -- what are missing are not just letters, but words! – Jake Regier Jul 29 '15 at 19:58
  • Yes, chasly, I know of Marshall and McDonald's article. Sadly, it does not really explain why the sequence appears so visually neat. My question was prompted by a similar grid of the Devanagri alphabet which is clearly grouped round similar sounds - see http://www.shalinibosbyshell.com/pronunciation.pdf – Michael Moore Jul 29 '15 at 20:29
  • The picture was done in a rush, Jake, so you are right to point out its error - the question should read: "Are there any missing letters in this square?" – Michael Moore Jul 29 '15 at 20:32
  • Weren't the Greeks (or Etruscans?) the ones who got the bright idea to represent vowels explicitly? So the ordering of the consonants pre-dated the insertion of the vowels. Now, it's possible the Greeks, with their love of geometry, inserts the vowels in specific positions to create such a clean table as yours, but that still wouldn't explain how the consonants got their ordering. I'm with those speculators who hold the original alphabet was arranged to be facilitated by some kind of mnemonic device (like "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pickles" for the planets). – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 20:53
  • What about the alphabet used in the Spanish language -- also based on the Roman alphabet -- which has the additional letters ch, ll, and ñ? – Jake Regier Jul 29 '15 at 20:53
  • 2
    @Jake Modern additions to the alphabet (for many languages) are fairly well documented and understood. It's the rationale behind original Phonecian arrangement (which was imported by the Etruscans, then Greeks, then Romans, then English, Spanish, French...) that's lost to the mists of time. – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 20:55
  • Thanks, Dan. Yes, Jake, I realise other adoptions of the Roman alphabet may well present problems with the visual that I have posted. That said, it still seems odd that no one has asked why they are spaced out in sequence and not kept wholly separate like the original Devanagri, whose developments also (largely) show such distinction. – Michael Moore Jul 29 '15 at 20:57
  • @DanBron Sorry, Dan -- that was directed at Michael as yet another exception to this conspiracy. Let us also remember that y is sometimes considered a vowel, yet it does not lead its own row in the OP's graphic. Add to this the fact that oral language predates written language, and we see that the order of the alphabet is likely either arbitrary or (as you have said) for mnemonic purposes. – Jake Regier Jul 29 '15 at 21:05
  • Shhh! You're about to disclose the true secret of the Da Vinci Code!! – Hot Licks Jul 29 '15 at 21:06
  • @Jake No worries, I knew the comment wasn't directed at me. Also, bear in mind there are other theories floating out there; I just find the mnemonic one the most plausible. But it's certainly possible that as hieroglyphs evolved into syllabaries and ultimately into alphabets, the ordering was constructed based on some kind of meaningful visual or conceptual pattern (e.g. all hieroglyphs which were represented by birds were grouped together, as were those represented by plants, men, etc), for example. But regardless, as it's impossible to know, the ordering is certainly arbitrary now. – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 21:08
  • @HotLicks If Dan wants to spill his secret, that's up to him. ;) – tchrist Jul 30 '15 at 03:41
  • @sumelic. Many thanks. Your link is actually very helpful. I will read with interest and respond. tchrist - thank you for posting a similar question; I think you may find my approach is from a slightly different orientation. – Michael Moore Jul 30 '15 at 05:15

1 Answers1

1

No, this pattern is an accident. It developed from ancient alphabets which had a similar order but no similar pattern because their collection of letters was different.

For all the adaptations and mutations, the alphabet's order of letters has been relatively stable. In the 1920s, archaeologists found a dozen stone tablets used in a school in Ugarit, a city in what is now Syria, that are from the fourteenth century BC and preserve two orders of the Ugaritic alphabet. One, the "Northern Semitic order" is related to the Phoenician and Hebrew alphabets and features bits and pieces of an order familiar to Modern English speakers: a, b…g, h…l, m…q,r.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29011/why-are-letters-abc-order

Luke
  • 654
  • 2
    I would like to vote positively for this answer, but you have given me no choice but to sift through a long article that I would rather not read. – Jake Regier Jul 29 '15 at 21:09
  • 1
    All very interesting. However, if a non-Roman alphabet sequence like Devanagri (which has given birth to so many regional developments) has settled for a sound pattern sequence for learning its visual alphabet would not an equivalent motivation have been at the origin of the current Roman alphabet, even if it has now lost such a pattern? – Michael Moore Jul 29 '15 at 22:04
  • 2
    @MichaelMoore: The Roman order is mostly derived from the Greek order (maybe partly by way of Etruscan); the Greek order is derived I believe from Phoenician, which is derived from the same all-consonantal source as the Semitic alphabets. I don't believe the reason for the ancient Semitic order is known. – herisson Jul 29 '15 at 22:29
  • Edited to include the directly relevant section. – Luke Jul 30 '15 at 12:37
  • @MichaelMoore There certainly could be an equivalent motivation at the start of this. But such a motivation couldn't have led to the precise grid pattern you've drawn because of all the changes in the alphabet that have taken place. – Luke Jul 30 '15 at 12:48
  • Thank you, all. I am sifting through all links and shall respond over the weekend. Much appreciated. – Michael Moore Jul 30 '15 at 22:38