Re: USAGE: maneuver was THEORY: lexical shift [was Re: Time machine]

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 06:53, Tony Hogard wrote:
> Tristan McLeay:
>
> > What's a Picard manoeuvre[1]?
>
> > [1]: Just a question about the American spelling of that word. Had
> > /nj/ > /n/ already happened by the time American spellings were
> > redone?
> > 'maneuver' really suggests /m{nj@v@(r)/ as it's pronunciation. (cf.
> > e.g. 'euphemism'.)
>
> Hmmm... I've got (here in the States) /m@nuv@r/.  Initial "eu" is
> usually /ju/.
>
> neutrino /nutrino/
> neutral /nutr@l/
> deuce /dus/
> leukocyte /lukosait/
> vs.
> feud /fjud/
> heuristic /hjurIstIk/
>
> but I also have new /nju/ ...
Yes, I know, that was the point of my post.  I was wondering if the loss
of the <o> from <manoeuvre> suggested that the /j/ had already been lost
from /nju/; I say /m@n}:v@/ too, but /nj}:tri:n8u/, /nj}:tr@l/, /dZ}:s/.
The triagraph <oeu> doesn't suggest any sound at all, it's used in oh so
many words (can anyone think of another?) that it's okay.  If we got rid
of the <o>, we get <eu> which, as you've suggested, is /ju/, although it
does change depending on the sound before it.

Tristan

Reply