Re: USAGE: writ [was Re: Here, *Here*, and There, *Ther

On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 11:12 , agricola wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
>>> I don't mean a vl. [w]. At least, I'm quite sure I don 't.
>
>> But that is what [w_0] is.
>
> So, [hw] = [w_0]? If I can ever find my IPA cd, I'll have to pay
> attention to how they say this. The term "voiceless w" doesn't sit well.
> Mostly because it's not really vl.
There is a IPA symbol for "voiceless w": an inverted lower case w.   My
IPA chart describes it as a voiceless labio-velar fricative.   On checking
X-SAMPA, I find
the X-SAMPA symbol is actually upper case W.   Indeed, [w_0] is more
properly IPA lower case {w} with the small 'devoicing' circle beneath it,
i.e. the
sound in _twit_ [t_hw_0It].

>>> How do you pronounce it?
>
>> [w_0]   :)
>
> Cheeky monkey!
Sorry - and I was strictly incorrect; I should've said [W].

>> In the registers where I would make a distinction between _which_ >and
>> _witch_ the former is voiceless [w].
>
>>> My [hw] is like my [kw] except that there is an [h] in stead of a >>[k]
>>> . I hope that makes some sense.
>
>> It certainly does.  That's how I'm sure my Saxon ancestors >pronounced
>> it and why they wrote it as {hw} - and
>
> Certanly makes more sense than <wh>. But at least it's still
> differentiated from <w>!
Yes, in the same way Old English {hr} was different from {r}, {hn} was
different from {n}; but I'm sure {hw}, {hr} and
{hn} were each combos of _two_ sounds in the same way that Old English {cw}
, {cr} and {cn} were.
>
>> not the silly Norman {wh};  and the sound combo still survives this side
>> of the pond (or did till recently) in parts of Scotland.  (Are you sure
>> you're not a crypto-Shetlander?    ;)
>>
The sound I was referring to above is the distinct [hw] (two consonants),
not the single [W] which is still heard in Scotland and some northern
English dialects
and, I understand, is still widely used in America.

Ray.