Re: English [dZ]

On 12/11/05, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> >In "long u" (cute). In reflex of /ew/ (new).
>
> My non-native dialect still keeps those two distinct (the former is /ju:/ or
> /u:/ while the latter is /jy/ or /y:/), but are there any native dialects
> left that would still separate those two?
I don't know of any dialects which have different vowels there, but
there are many which make a distinction.  The dominant one in my
region, for instance, drops the [j] in words like |new| and pronounces
it as simply [nu] instead of [nju], while preserving the [j] in
|cute|.  At least in the northeastern US in the mid-20th century, and
probably elsewhere and elsewhen, the disappearance of [j] from such
words has been a shibboleth used to distinguish the uneducated
([nu]-sayers) from the edjucated ([nju]-sayers), which would imply
that the [j] version is the conservative one.

> But what
> about the /ju:/ in words like "lute"? They can't surely ALL be later
> borrowings, re-spelt pGVS /o:/ or /eu/, or exceptions to the GVS.
I don't know the answer, but I should point out that there was
substantial overlap between the GVS and the standardization of English
spelling.  It's not that words were re-examined and re-spelled after
the shift; it's just that they were standardized at different points
during the shift.



> explanation that makes some sense to me is that they used to be just /u/,
> but lenghtened to /u:/ for whatever reason; but this doesn't explain where
> the /j/ came from?? *confuzzled*

>
> John Vertical
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>