Re: USAGE: Language revival

At 5:33 pm -0500 29/11/99, nicole perrin wrote:
[...
>
>That's a hypercorrection?  What is it "supposed" to be?  (I've always
>said /OftIn/, or something like that)
It became /Ofn=/ somewhere round about the time of Elizabeth Ist - and
spellings like 'offen' were not uncommon.  It was part of the same
phenomenon that saw /t/ disappear in words like 'castle', 'apostle' etc.

The /t/ has now been widely restored in 'often' (co-incidentally during the
reign of Elizabeth II :)   I would regard as a spelling pronunciation
rather than a hypercorrection (tho this is possibly splitting hairs, as
they say) - but certainly not say that one pronunciation is right and
another's wrong.

Indeed, I sometimes think it'd be nice to restore /t/ in words like
'castle', 'apostle' etc.  (I have heard 'epistle' pronounced /I'pIstl=/  )

-----------------------------------------------------------------
At 8:15 pm -0500 29/11/99, Nik Taylor wrote:
>nicole perrin wrote:
>> That's a hypercorrection?  What is it "supposed" to be?  (I've always
>> said /OftIn/, or something like that)
>
>I say it /AfIn/ or /AftIn/, both forms, but usually the t-less form.
>
>Incidentally, I read that "forehead" was once pronounced something like
>/forId/, with the h being re-introduced.
'Twas always /'fOrId/ when I was a youngster, just as tortoises were always
/'tO:t@zIs/ (or /'tOrt@zIs/ among the old-timers :)

Strangely, while I've got(ten) used to /Oftn=/ and find nothing very odd
about it - except I say /Ofn=/ - /'fO:hEd/ and /'tO:tojz/ sound very
effected to me - and as for /'vajnj@d/ - ach!!

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================