Re: /y/?

T. A. McLeay wrote:
> John Vertical wrote:
>>> Oh, also I forgot Korean, where I think /y/ and /2/ have generally
>>> become in recent times /wi/ and /we/. That's almost boring, but invites
>>> the possibility of a suffix apparently causing an epenthetic segment at
>>> a distance (e.g. ti+pas > twipas).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tristan.
>>
>> And the opposite difthongization to /ju/ is 'fcors also attested, in
>> French
>> loans to ME...
>
> Actually, the nativisation of French /y/ into Middle English was /iw/.
> iw > ju: is a later (Modern) change that didn't happen in in all
> dialects.
Yep - the early /iw/ or /Iw/ is retained to the present day in welsh
varieties of English    :)


> This is a nativisation, though, and not a sound-change, so
> it's not necessarily a good example of what sound changes are possible.
True - but I would be very surprised if no examples of /y/ --> /iw/
occurred among natlangs as a result of internal sound change.

The change of /y/ --> /ju/ must have occurred at an earlier stage in the
Tzakonian dialect of modern Greek where we find /skylos/ --> */skjulos/
--> /StSulos/, /kymume/ --> */kjumume/ --> /tSumune/.

IMHO /y/ could reasonably diphthongize to /iw/, /uj/, /wi/ or /ju/.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.

Reply