Re: OE diphthongs/breaking (was: Re: Germanic vowel correspondences (was: Scots.))

We have -al/-owl near-homophony in these parts, too.  Which leads to
eggcornish apocrypha like stories about Winnie the Pooh's wise friend
Al.



On 7/21/08, Tristan McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
> 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.
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply