Does Orthographic Variation Preclude Standardisation?

Abstract

Abstract In this response to Adams' article I begin by talking a bit, in a fairly atheoretical way, about definitions of standardisation. This is because Adams' argument that Latin was not, in the first century BC, a standard language, rests to a large degree on his own view of standardisation: one which approaches it very much from the perspective of the modern nation‐state with a highly centralised school system. I then focus on his main argument against the idea that the Latin of the first century BC was a standardised Latin: the range of spelling found in high register/official inscriptions. He is very much right to point this out, and in‐depth investigation provides many insights in understanding these texts and the social context in which they were produced—but I do not think it is as strong an argument against standardisation as Adams does. Lastly, I discuss the concept of ‘modern' vs ‘old‐fashioned' spelling, which, although briefly addressed by Adams, remains largely implicit: I think this can be usefully made more explicit, and turns out to be more complicated than Adams acknowledges.