Rob Nierse wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > I was in a second-hand book shop yesterday afternoon and came across a copy > of the old "Teach Yourself Dutch" for $2, so I bought it. Not a bad deal, I > thought! Anyway, the first chapter, which deals with pronunciation and > spelling, makes reference to a spelling reform in 1947 which cleaned up the > "cumbersome and old-fashioned" spelling which had been used up until that > time. That piqued my curiosity, > > Well, since no one has replied yet, I hope I can shine some light on this > subject, eventhough I don't know much about it. > > To start with, words that ended in */sk/ (in Proto-Germanic) ended up > in [sX] and eventually (nowadays) in [s]. Nevertheless, the [sX] was > still written as 'sch', e.g. 'visch' "fish", which is now just 'vis' [vIs]. > > Also, there were many double vowels written in situations where one > vowel could do: 'zoo' [zo] "so" has become 'zo'. > Wasn't there also an old practice-- if a 1-syl form had a long (double) vowel, that was also written in derived forms. e.g. laat - laater??? I could be wrong, but I cut my Dutch teeth, so to speak, on an 1850s book, using a 1930s dictionary, and it was quite confuzzing. One bit of strangeness I still remember: 1853 ligchaam, modern lichaam 'body'