Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?

Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> In principle, It appears not to be impossible to me that reversals of lossy
> sound changes could happen if the old pronounciation is preserved by
> writing. I'm thinking of a reversal of a sound merger, or re-appearance of
> a lost sound.
>
> Are there any reported examples of such sound change reversals having
> happened, where it can be demonstrated (or at least is strongly believed by
> many) that the orthography was the only preserver of the old situation (so
> it was not also preserved by maybe regional or social variants of spoken
> language)?
>
> Or are there strong arguments that this is impossible?
>
> Joachim

What's called "spelling pronunciation" in English is just that. "Often"
and "Wednesday" have been mentioned, but with those words there is still
variation. "Corpse" is a case where the restored /p/ is now universal.
In one of the introductory historical linguistics texts there is quite a
long and eye-opening list of such cases. I'll see if I can find it.

All of these, I think, involve single words and the re-insertion of lost
segments (some lost even before the word arrived in English). There are
other cases where restoration seems most unlikely since it would violate
the phonotactics of present-day English (know, aisle, debt), or because
the consonant in question no longer exists (through). And I doubt very
much whether spelling could restore a merged contrast which nobody makes
any more, as in Peter's "peek/peak" example.

However, with a merger that is not universal, it could be different. I
grew up not distinguishing the "cot" and "caught" vowels, but have lived
for many years among people who do. I now find myself sometimes making
this distinction, though not very consistently. I can do it deliberately
when I think confusion might result from my native pronunciation. And I
think I can do this quite easily because the distinction correlates well
with spelling.

Ross Clark
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... > Joachim Pense wrote: ... It appears not to be impossible to me that reversals of lossy ... >> sound changes could happen if the old pronounciation is preserved by ... >> many) that the orthography was the only preserver of the old situation (so ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... > lossy sound changes could happen if the old pronounciation is preserved ... fell back to one that better reflected its orthography. ... > Are there any reported examples of such sound change reversals having ... > many) that the orthography was the only preserver of the old situation (so ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... >> Joachim Pense wrote: ... It appears not to be impossible to me that reversals of lossy ... >>> sound changes could happen if the old pronounciation is preserved by ... >>> many) that the orthography was the only preserver of the old situation (so ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... It appears not to be impossible to me that reversals of lossy ... > sound changes could happen if the old pronounciation is preserved by ... a language that has been written for enough time that sound changes ... yield spelling changes shortly after ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
    ... It appears not to be impossible to me that reversals of lossy ... > 1) a language that has been written for enough time that sound changes ... > yield spelling changes shortly after ...
    (sci.lang)