Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

OE diphthongs/breaking

From:Daniel Prohaska <daniel@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 7:43
“Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

> On 2008-07-21 Tristan McLeay wrote:
> > Yes indeed. I observed in an earlier email that
> > in Australian English the phone corresponding to
> > RP /au/ is very similar to the OE vowel
> > i.e.a backing diphthong of which both segments
> > are low.
>
> Also some dialects have a /ai/ > /aM/ shift!
>
> I don't want to spoil the fun or anything, but
> this might be 'evidence' that the OE vowel
> resulting from Germanic *au and written _ea_ was
> actually a diphthong and not a back monophthong.
> In the diphthongist--back-monophthongist debate I
> am a compromissist in that I believe the so-
> called 'long diphthongs' were actual diphtongs
> _ea, eo, io/ie_ /&@/, /EV/ or /e7/ -- actually of”
My supposition is that the OE diphthongs were actual diphthongs, not monophthongs, though widespread monophthongisation occurred in the later OE period. “(I thought "io" was a variant of "eo", not of "ie", which is the i-mutation of "ea" and "eo", no?)” <io> can be: - West Saxon, later <eo>, = (1) Germanic *I by breaking, as <liornian> “learn”, <miox> “manure”; = (2) Germanic *I by u- and a/o-umlaut, as <cliopung> “calling”, <mioluc> “milk”, <liofast> “thou livest”; - Anglian and Kentish by u-umlaut = West Saxon <i> (before single consonants except labials and liquids), as <liomu> “limbs”, <nioþor> “lower”, <siodu> “custom”, <sionu> “sinew”, cf. West Saxon <limu, niþor, sidu, sinu>; - Anglian and Kentish by o/a-umlaut = West Saxon <i>: <nioman> “take”, <niomaþ> “they take”, cf. West Saxon <niman, nimaþ>; - Northumbrian and Kentish = West Saxon <ie>, i-umlaut of <io>, Germanic *I, as <hiorde> “shepherd”, <iorre> “angry”, cf. West Saxon <hierde, ierre>; - Kentish = West Saxon <eo> by breaking before r +consonant, as <hiorte> “heart”, <iorþe> “earth”, <stiorre> “star”, cf. West Saxon <heorte, eorþe, steorre>; - Kentish by o/a-umlaut = Anglian and West Saxon <i> before velar consoants, as <stiocian> “prick”, cf. Anglian and West Saxon <stician>; - Mercian beside <eo> = West Saxon <ie>, i-umlaut of <io>, as <iorre, eorre> “angry”, <heorde, heorde> “shepherd”, cf. West Saxon <iorre, hierde>; <îo> can be: - West Saxon, later <êo>, = (1) Germanic *iu, as <geþîode, geþêode> “language”, <lîode, lêode> “people”, <þîostre, þêostre> “dark”; = (2) Germanic *I or *ij + back vowel, as <fîond, fêond> “fiend, enemy”, <frîond, frêond> “friend”, <þrîo, þrêo> (neuter plural) < *þriju “three”; = (3) Germanic *î by breaking before *h and *ht, as <þîon, þêon> (Old High German <dîhan>) “thrive”, <lîoh, lêoh> (Old High German <lîh>) “lend (2nd person imperative singular)”; - Kentish, beside <îa>, = (1) Mercian and West Saxon <êo>, Germanic *eu, as <dîop, dîap> “deep”, <dîor> “deer”, <lîof> “dear”, cf. Mercian and West Saxon <dêop, dêor, lêof>; = (2) West Saxon <îe>, i-imlaut of <îo>, Germanic *iu, as <dîore, dîare> “dear”, <lîohtan> “give light”, cf. West Saxon <dîere, lîehtan>; - Mercian, beside <êo>, = West Saxon <îe>, i-umlaut of <îo>, as <dîore, dêore> “deer”, <lîohtan, lêohtan> “give light”, West Saxon <dîere, lîehtan>;
> mean mid height of course! --, /iM/ while the so-
> called 'short diphthongs' were short back or
> central unrounded monophthongs /3/--/6/, /V/--
> /7/, /i\/--/M/.
“I probably don't know as much as you on this area, but having three low short unrounded vowels (i.e. /&/=ae /6/=ea /A/=a) seems very difficult and unlikely. I'm not aware of any language that distinguishes more than two short low vowels of the same rounding. (Forgive me, I don't know how to type ash on this Windows keyboard.)” I agree. I’m quite traditionalist in that I believe that a back /U/-like glide was inserted between the original short vowel and the breaking environment. These new “short” (syllabically light) diphthongs */{U/ and */eU/, as well as the old (syllabically heavy) diphthongs */{:U/ (+ the reflex of “broken” */{:/ > */{:U/), and */i:U/ (+ the reflex of “broken” */i:/ > */i:U/) underwent a development that Roger Lass calls “Diphthong Height Harmony”, i.e. the second element of the diphthong is brought to the same hight as the dominant first element. (Examples from Lass 1994, 1997): West Germanic examples: *ald, *elx, *baum, *na:x, *biudan, *li:xt; After OE breaking: *{Uld, *eUlx, *b{:Um, *n{:Ux, *bi:UdAn, *li:Uxt; Diphthong Hight Harmony: *{Ald, *eolx, *b{:Am, *n{:Ax, *be:odAn, *le:oxt; “And aside from when "ea", "eo" represent palatalisation before /A, o, u/, ISTR that short "ea"/"eo" only actually come from breaking ... if that's right, it seems to me that the diphthong reading is the simplest and best. Eventually the vowels which result from breaking (almost always) merge back in with the original unbroken vowel, which I think makes it even more likely they're merely short diphthongs. Can short "ea", "eo" ever contrast with short "ae, e"?” Not to my knowledge. They seem to have started out as allophones, but subsequent developments have lead to partial phonemic re-distribution. “As for "ie" it is a sound which doesn't make much sense. It merges with y eventually --- at least in the West Saxon standard --- yet comes from unrounded vowels + i-mutation. I have seen three --- now four different readings for it (/i(:)e, i(:)y, I(:), (i:)M/). None had seemed to account for all the data --- how does the decidedly front unrounded /ie/ merge with /y/ (but not /i/)? how does i-mutation introduce rounding? (If I squint *just*so* I can see how /I(:)/ might merge with /y(:)/ but not /i(:)/, but I find it difficult to believe any language would distinguish all four of /i: i I: I/. Once again the only language I'm aware of that comes close is my dialect, although there's only three phonemes there ~[I:(@) Ii I]. Icelandic is ruled out on the grounds that the four vowels [i: i I: I] only make a two-way contrast /i I/ which permits a greater range of tactics to distinguish the two phonemes.)” Well, following Lass I would say that since i-umlaut occurred after breaking the – i-umlauted reflex of */iu/ was */iy/, spelt <ie>. The assimilation of */iy/ > /y/ in later West Saxon is not difficult to explain. “In short I have no idea what to consider "ie". Your notion is somewhat tempting --- as long as breaking is an ongoing change caused by the phonetic characteristics of the consonants, then [&A e7] -> [iM] -> [M] is likely enough, and then [M] and [y] sound pretty similar even if they're pretty different in how they're articulated. I just find that a bit harder to swallow for the long diphthongs.” As do I.
> That the OE writing system could use the same
> symbols for both should not be surprising: they
> were similar if not identical and could be
> construed as long--short pairs, and most
> importantly breaking of long vowels **had**
> probably resulted in just these diphthongal
> qualities whiöle breaking of short vowels had
> resulted in these short monophthongs. The *au >
> /&@/ shift just increased the incidence of that
> diphthong.
I have my problems with the schwa-glide. Early OE is such an “unschwa”-language, there are so many developments that can only be easily explained by vowel harmony between the stressed and the unstressed syllables. Even the weaker second elements of the diphthongs harmonise with the vowels and consonants in the following unstressed syllables. This, to me, makes schwa-diphthongs unlikely in early Old English. I don’t mean to rule out, though, that schwa-diphthongs in later Old English may have been a transitional development towards the late Old English and early Middle English monophthongs. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Tristan McLeay Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:59 AM To: CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu Subject: OE diphthongs/breaking Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> On 2008-07-21 Tristan McLeay wrote:
> > Yes indeed. I observed in an earlier email that
> > in Australian English the phone corresponding to
> > RP /au/ is very similar to the OE vowel
> > i.e.a backing diphthong of which both segments
> > are low.
>
> Also some dialects have a /ai/ > /aM/ shift!
>
> I don't want to spoil the fun or anything, but
> this might be 'evidence' that the OE vowel
> resulting from Germanic *au and written _ea_ was
> actually a diphthong and not a back monophthong.
> In the diphthongist--back-monophthongist debate I
> am a compromissist in that I believe the so-
> called 'long diphthongs' were actual diphtongs
> _ea, eo, io/ie_ /&@/, /EV/ or /e7/ -- actually of
(I thought "io" was a variant of "eo", not of "ie", which is the i-mutation of "ea" and "eo", no?)
> mean mid height of course! --, /iM/ while the so-
> called 'short diphthongs' were short back or
> central unrounded monophthongs /3/--/6/, /V/--
> /7/, /i\/--/M/.
I probably don't know as much as you on this area, but having three low short unrounded vowels (i.e. /&/=ae /6/=ea /A/=a) seems very difficult and unlikely. I'm not aware of any language that distinguishes more than two short low vowels of the same rounding. (Forgive me, I don't know how to type ash on this Windows keyboard.) And aside from when "ea", "eo" represent palatalisation before /A, o, u/, ISTR that short "ea"/"eo" only actually actually come from breaking ... if that's right, it seems to me that the diphthong reading is the simplest and best. Eventually the vowels which result from breaking (almost always) merge back in with the original unbroken vowel, which I think makes it even more likely they're merely short diphthongs. Can short "ea", "eo" ever contrast with short "ae, e"? As for "ie" it is a sound which doesn't make much sense. It merges with y eventually --- at least in the West Saxon standard --- yet comes from unrounded vowels + i-mutation. I have seen three --- now four different readings for it (/i(:)e, i(:)y, I(:), (i:)M/). None had seemed to account for all the data --- how does the decidedly front unrounded /ie/ merge with /y/ (but not /i/)? how does i-mutation introduce rounding? (If I squint *just*so* I can see how /I(:)/ might merge with /y(:)/ but not /i(:)/, but I find it difficult to believe any language would distinguish all four of /i: i I: I/. Once again the only language I'm aware of that comes close is my dialect, although there's only three phonemes there ~[I:(@) Ii I]. Icelandic is ruled out on the grounds that the four vowels [i: i I: I] only make a two-way contrast /i I/ which permits a greater range of tactics to distinguish the two phonemes.) In short I have no idea what to consider "ie". Your notion is somewhat tempting --- as long as breaking is an ongoing change caused by the phonetic characteristics of the consonants, then [&A e7] -> [iM] -> [M] is likely enough, and then [M] and [y] sound pretty similar even if they're pretty different in how they're articulated. I just find that a bit harder to swallow for the long diphthongs.
> That the OE writing system could use the same
> symbols for both should not be surprising: they
> were similar if not identical and could be
> construed as long--short pairs, and most
> importantly breaking of long vowels **had**
> probably resulted in just these diphthongal
> qualities whiöle breaking of short vowels had
> resulted in these short monophthongs. The *au >
> /&@/ shift just increased the incidence of that
> diphthong.
FWIW although I don't think any dictionary will agree with me, pairs like "vowel" and "Val" or "Powell" and "pal" are homophones or nearly so in these parts.
>Contrary to belief the OE writing
> system was by no means 'perfect' or 'one to one':
Hence one reason I like it so much =) -- Tristan.