Re: Strangeness of U (was Re: CHAT behove etc (was: Natlag: Middle English imper

>>>>Final vocalic <ue> as in argue, true, blue etc. is presumably a  later
>>>>innovation?
>
>Groan - of course not.
>
>>>I don't know.  Those are all following consonant clusters, where 've'
>>>would be an impossible interpretation.
>
>Precisely. I suppose one has to spell it out very carefully. OK - in the
>days when U and V were both written with the same letter: if _u_ was
>initial & followed by a vowel _or_ came between two vowels, it was read as
>/v/.
OK^2. So in the minimal pair valve / value noted by Mark, it's the "v" form
that's the newer one then. Also rationalizable, since the /v/ came
originally from an /f/. But I thought that the medial voicing took place
earlier than the <v>/<u> split...
No, wait, don't answer that - even if it did, there's still the solution to
use <ff> for /f/ and <f> for /v/, as in modern Welsh. Yeah. Seems to work
out all right either way.


> > Why is that not sensible? It's definitely better than the > horrible
>"through", and the rule that final single vowels are
> > pronounced "long" in monosyllables already exists -
> > extending it to <u> too doesn't seem very radical.
>
>But it doesn't. "Through" does not rhyme with 'pew', it rhymes with 'pooh'.
>Yes, I know that throughout much of the anglophone world /ju/ becomes just
>plain /u/ after /r/, but it ain't universally so. Sally will no doubt
>recall that in south Wales 'threw' is pronounced ['TrIw]. The spelling
>'thru' suggests where 'threw' is pronounced with some actual realization of
>the /ju/ diphthong, then 'through' is also. That is simply wrong.
You are correct. However, I'm not aware of any American dialects which
retain the /r/ there. But what really makes your point moot is that
"through" is no more regular. If "thru" is an improvement for the vast
majority of English speakers and doesn't do anything -  good or bad - for a
small minority, it definitely seems like a sensible change to me. However,
if you mean you want to champion for "throo" instead, go ahead!


>Also, there is no other precedent for this use of final -u in English. If
>you are going to change 'through', it needs IMHO to be considered in common
>with -ough generally.
"Through" is the _only_ word where <ough> = /u/ AFAIK. _This_ is IMO what
makes it a horrible spelling. Yes, the final <u> would be an only native
instance, but like I said, words like "go" and "she" already represent a
similar pattern, plus it's already recognized.


>And this is now becoming yet another "English spelling reform" thread, so
>I'm opting out at this point. It is the _Conlang_ list after all.
>
>--
>Ray
Well, nobody said they have to be constructed a priori... :)

John Vertical