Re: USAGE: YAEPT: Re: Diversity and uniformity AND No rants! (USAGE: di"f"thong) -- responses to Andreas and Ray.

On 03/06/06, daniel prohaska <danielprohaska@...> wrote:
...
> [&] > [&:] => ME staff [st&f] > [st&:f] (further development in the 18th
> century > [sta:f]), similarly: glass, ask, path, laugh;
>
> [A] > [A:] => ME soft [sAft] > [sA:ft] (further development in the 18th
> century > [sO:ft]), likewise: off, cross, frost, cough, wrath,
[A]? Not [Q] (or even [O] in the first place)?

> While length in 'staff'-words is standardised in southern BE and RP, the
> short vowel has been taught in the 'soft'-words, though dialects and
> sociolects retain length, as in <officer> (dial.spel. <orf'cer> ['O:fs@])
I think this is the norm in cot/caught-distinguishing American
English, isn't it? Except further generalised from what it was in
British English?

...

> [A:] in <father> ['fA:D@] and <rather> ['rA:D@] can only be explained by
> mixed formes:
> ME father [a:] with long vowel > 1.st vowel shift (15th c.) > [E:]
> alternating with
> ME father [a] with short vowel > 2.nd vowel shift (16th/17th c.) > [&]
>
> Result:
> ['fE:D@r] (quantity) + ['f&D@r] (quality) = [f&:D@r] (3. vowel shift 2nd
> half of 18th c. > ['fa:D@(r)])
Really? Are their dialects which distinguish /&/ and /A:/, and *don't*
have /A:/ in "father"? (I'd always assumed that the long vowel in
"father" was just an exception to the Great Vowel Shift, much like the
vowel in "broad"---which is another assumption of mine---influenced by
respect for/the speech of one's father. I'd assumed that "rather" was
part of the normal &>A: change which just happened in an unexpected
context---not so suprising given the number of words which didn't
change when it would've been expected.)

--
Tristan.

Reply