Re: Latin is a q-Dialect having p- from kW , PIE is similar

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-05-14 10:43, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > But the fact that this is just one development of Middle English x
> > points to the change being of dia- or sociolect origin, or it
> > would have been a general rule.
>
> Even if dialectal (cf. traditional West Country "boft, broft, thoft"
> for <bought, brought, thought>), it took place in the 15th century

Evidence? Hopefully not e silentio? Remember Kuhn's point that with
time literacy spreads downwards in society resulting in material
appearing in the records from low sociolects in which it might have
existed indeterminably long before.

> and so proves my point.

A -> B. A?

> It is still reflected in many standard
> pronunciations -- note, in particular, that some words now spelt
> with <f>, such as <dwarf> and <draft> used to have /x/, and we have
> the pronunciation /f/ for <gh> not only in <cough, trough, enough,
> rough, tough, chough, slough, clough, laugh, laughter, draught>, but
> also in many placenemes and several surnames (<Brough, Hough,
> Loughborough, Hougham>, etc.)

Forgive me for thinking it proves my point instead. Any particular
geographical distribution of x -> f ?

> > Cf preservation of /u/ (Midlands?) in the
> > non-Germanic p-words put, push, pull.
>
> In the accents of northern England and most of the Midlands there's
> no butter/butcher split. In the south, the words that preserve /U/
> have something in common phonologically (in most cases /p, b, f, w/
> before the vowel, /l/ or a palatoalveolar [sometimes an alveolar]
> after it), but the /U/ preserving lexical class contains Germanic
> words as well, cf. <wolf, wood, full, bull, wool>.

And that would be consistent with the existence of a gradually
germanicized originally NWBlock speaking underclass. Dutch has o: ->
u: (spelt oe) too, eg doen /du:n/ "do".


Torsten