Re: Chain shifts & transformed u's, was: Blandness
| From: | Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 8:08 |
|---|
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:09:43 -0400, Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@...>
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:43:36 -0400, Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> wrote:
<...>
>> while /o/ mainly
>>gets more open / more closed. (I'm making abstraction of diphthongization
>>and other things that tend to be conditioned by quantity).
<...>
>>OTOH 'spontaneous' fronting of /o/ seems rather counter-intuitive to me.
>>In a natlang I'd suppose some intermediary diphthong.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>Don't fully agree with that; how about French /'o/ > /2/, for instance?
>(cf. "pouvoir", "je peux") Was there an intermediary diphthong?
Yeps. /o/ > /ou/ > /öu/ (or /öü/, spelled {eu}) > ...
/O/ > /oO/ > /uO/ > /uö/ (or /üö/, spelled {ue}, then {oeu} or {eu}) > ...
- both only in open stressed syllables, probably due to previous
lengthening.
In Anglo-Norman, /ou/ > /u:/ > English {ou} or {ow}, as e. g. in
_vow_ (merging with OE /u:/, as e.g. in _now_);
/uö/ > /ö:/ > English {ee} or {eo}, as e. g. in _people_.
Basilius