Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0602@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:15:30 +0100
"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:17qr6v8fst0c0.gg7a9c7vuv1$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:04:48 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:ABc_j.4457$IK1.1171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
sci.lang:
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw0602@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
While /wV"/ > /wA./ seems plausible, I note that words
like <worth> are *not* pronounced */wO:T/.
It's <worth> that's exceptional: ME /O/ before /r/ normally
remains in monosyllables (with lengthening in non-rhotic
varieties). In the U.S. it is sometimes unrounded in longer
words like <sorrow>.
I now see that OE had <weorþ>, <worþ>, and <wurþ>, and that
<ur> spellings are found throughout the ME period, so this
may just be a case of dialect mismatch between modern
pronunciation and spelling.
We seem to have had a change /wOr/ > /wur/ that has made the 'wor' spelling unambiguous - for those who know the subtle details of English spelling. It didn't stop me thinking that <wort> was pronounced /wO:t/ when I was a child.
So, what mismatch? The sequence 'wu' is the mark of a loanword.
No, only <war-> > /wO:/. Maybe the /r/ at the end of <water >
influenced it to join the other <war-> words?
It's a general 17th c. development: ME /A/ became [O] after
[w]. Other examples are <warm> and <wash>.
What's Middle English /A/? I would have said the other two started out as Middle English /a/. Are you saying the development of the first syllable of <water> was /wA/ > /wO/ > /wO:/? FWIW, the pronunciation in Norfolk dialect, which lacks this rounding, is /wA:t@/ ([wA:?@]). If it's relevant, the Norfolk dialect also has Standard English lengthening of /a/, as in Norfolk /wA:sp/ <wasp>. Interestingly, I can no find no evidence of there having been an RP */wO:sp/ <wasp> to parallel the old RP /kO:st/ <cost>.
Richard.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- References:
- The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: 2.7182818284590...
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Richard Wordingham
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- From: Brian M. Scott
- The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Prev by Date: Re: Why ibn Wahshiyah Will Get No Respect
- Next by Date: Re: Ambulance vs. Bolnica (Hospital)
- Previous by thread: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Next by thread: Re: The "u" and "v" in older written English is confvsing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|