Re: [tied] Re: English Young (was: Indo-Iranian Vowel Collapse)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: English Young (was: Indo-Iranian Vowel Collapse)
--- In email@example.com, "Rob" <magwich78@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@s...>
> > In any case, there's no real doubt that the OE diphthongs
> > were just that. Come to think of it, part of the evidence
> > is breaking itself: it's most easily explained as the
> > introduction of an epenthetic vowel between a front vowel
> > and a velar or velarized consonant (/lC/, /rC/, or /x/),
> > much as [mIlk] becomes [mIok] when the /l/ is sufficiently
> > velarized.
Brian, for whatever it may be worth, I have always though that _some_
diphthongs, at least, were probably the result of _premature_ onset of
voicing: the tongue is raised through the approximate position for [o]
before it reaches the position for [u]. Might that not explain some OE
- Rob wrote:
>> *skurta- > *skort > sceort 'short'Not all; there were a few lexical exceptions, e.g. <a:scian>, <a:scode>
>> *juka- > *jok > geoc 'yoke'
> But if all /sk/ > /S/, why would the <e> be needed?
etc. 'to ask' (beside metathesised <a:hs-, a:x- ~ a:cs->). The <e> is
frequently written even in unstressed syllables, e.g. <fisceas>,
<bisceop>, where a diphthong had no business to be; the spelling is
certainly diacritic at least in such cases.
> On the other hand, perhaps <cealf> also implies a diacritic, wherebyNot in West Saxon. Pre-liquid breaking was earlier than palatal
> the pronunciation would have been /c^ælf/.
diphthongisation (which is why we have WS ceorl, georn, etc. rather than
*cierl/*cyrl), and so it must be pre-liquid breaking that is responsible
for the short diphthong in <cealf>. In this lexical set palatal the
effect of palatal diphthongisation is phonologically invisible.