Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Re: English Young (was: Indo-Iranian Vowel Collapse)

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Ryan
    ... From: Richard Wordingham To: Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: [tied] Re:
    Message 1 of 59 , Nov 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
      To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:26 PM
      Subject: [tied] Re: English Young (was: Indo-Iranian Vowel Collapse)


      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@y...> wrote:

      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@s...>
      > wrote:

      > > 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.

      ***
      Patrick:

      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
      diphthongs?

      ***
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      ... Not all; there were a few lexical exceptions, e.g. , etc. to ask (beside metathesised ). The is frequently
      Message 59 of 59 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob wrote:

        >> *skurta- > *skort > sceort 'short'
        >> *juka- > *jok > geoc 'yoke'
        >
        >
        > But if all /sk/ > /S/, why would the <e> be needed?

        Not all; there were a few lexical exceptions, e.g. <a:scian>, <a:scode>
        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, whereby
        > the pronunciation would have been /c^├Žlf/.

        Not in West Saxon. Pre-liquid breaking was earlier than palatal
        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.

        Piotr
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.