æ for a: hæle 1013, bæres 202.
æ for e: fuþer-fæte 44 418.
œ for æ: dœl 48, wambe-wyœce 142, etc. (As pointed out p. XI all the œs due to that confusion have been silently normalized into æs.)
u for a: æscolupio 27, pannum 1220.
u (u’) for o: teu’rse 1824.
ū for en: lungū 125.
y for r: wambe-wyœce 142.
l for ð: linra 413.
r for w: areȝ 416.
r for n: toðreomera 2222.
n for m: laecedon 613, nin 143.
f for s: læcecræftef 29, gyft (for gytst) 2220.
f for w: nife 1825, fif-þingūd 2213.
þ for h: teoþ 165, þurþ 165, þeoþ-wrace 182.
sw for þ: swa 1813.
h for þ: hara 419, he 129, awirph 1625.
b) It seems natural to explain by association a certain number of other confusions. I understand them to be
α) letter associations.–Either a letter is anticipated: lelome for ȝelonie 141, fulfes for wulfes 2017 2020 2021, fulfune for wulfune (i. e. wylfene) 2025, merurh for mearh–the a being moreover written u–223 deolfolseocnesse for deofolseocnesse 2017, nærdran for nædran 82–notice the curious neardran 227 where the erroneous insertion of r causes breaking (also due perhaps to eardien which immediately follows?). Add to these some cases of metathesis: swȳrðanan for swyðran 220, and nosþrul 1612;
β) grammatical associations.–receles for recelses 128 may imply a tendency to understand recels as a gs.; in
