I've just recalled something in connection
with <wh>. As Richard pointed out recently, the standard
pronunciation /w^n/ for <one> is historically irregular, the mainstream
development of OE a: > ME O: being retained in the derivatives "only",
"alone" and "atone". /w^n/ was borrowed into London English during the
seventeenth century from one of the regional accents that developed a strongly
pre-rounded reflex of ME O: (something like /wa/, /wo/ or /wu/ > /w^/,
depending on the location). Some rural accents still have "wuts" and "wuk" for
"oats" and "oak". The same vowel was used after /h/, so that "whole" (OE ha:l)
was _really_ pronounced with /hw/. Also "hot" (OE ha:t -- the shortening in
Standard English is irregular) became "hwut", and "home" had a regional
pronunciation like "hwum". That may have helped inherited /hw/ to survive and
spread, since the sequence was not exotic to anyone familiar with the accents in
question.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Unvoiced [j]?
In American English, /hw/ is gradually disappearing. I
pronounce it, but my
husband does not. it seems to have disappeared
from the East Coast; the
disappearance may be moving west. I am from
Chicago and my husband is from
New Jersey. A friend from New
York had never heard of /wh/ales!
Anne