Re: Origin of <ou> spelling?


<ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133414915.202260.319350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paul J Kriha wrote:
> <ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > The /ou/
> > sounds rather like [o:] to me; eg., Czech louka vs. Hindi loka.
>
> But this is wrong.
> In the standard Czech, /ou/ is realized as a clear diphthong.

Perhaps the degree of diphthongization varies with context? In BrE
pronunciations (people born in the 1st half of the 20th century), I
hear <holy> with a clear [@U] diphthong and <ode>/<lode> with a "clear
diphthong" somewhere between [@U] and [oU] whereas I hear
<owed>/<lowed> with a "questionable diphthong" (a much shorter glide,
its shortness making it close to a pure vowel).

> You have to be careful here who you listen to,

It might also be a matter of interpretation; Indians generally
interpret English [@U] as [o:]. I, however, interpret it as [o:] only
in certain contexts such as <owed> and <woe>.

> there are large
> dialectal areas (tot. pop. possibly into millions of people)
> where /ou/ is pronounced like an "ó", i.e. [o:].

If you're equipped to make sound clips, it would be interesting to hear
your pronunciation of these: Ploucnici, Sazavou, Vltavou, Kourim,
Olomouc, Louny, Prelouc.

> pjk

<<<<<
Sorry, I don't have it set up on this machine right now.
In any case, I can't do the regional pronunciations. I can
do a poor parody of Bohemian Deep South (they butcher
the /ou/ too), but it's altogether a different kettle of fish.

You need a Moravian from Olomouc to do an "Olomóc" for you. :-)
pjk
>>>>>

.