Re: [G] and [g] and PIE voiced plosives

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the different outcomes of Engl. -ough was
> > > caused by them being different from the beginning, thus
> > > -ough /-oUx/ > /-of/ and
> > > -ough /-oUG/ > /-oU/
> > >
> > >
> > > Torsten
> > >
> >
> > That's what I would think too, but the evidence doesn't present a
> > clear-cut pattern:
> >
> > <enough> [inVf] from OE <genog> [jeno:x] or [j@...:x] with final
> > /-x/, inflected <genoge> [jeno:Ge] or [j@...:G@] etc. > <enow>
> > [inaU] archaic plural of <enough>, also = <enough>
> > <tough> [tVf] from OE <toh> [to:x] with final /-x/
> > <rough> [rVf] from OE <ruh> [ru:x] with final /-x/
> > <cough> [kAf],[kOf] from OE *<cohhian> with /xx/
> > <trough> [trAf], [trOf] from OE *trog [trOx] with final /-x/
> > <laugh> [læf] from OE <hlæhhan> with /xx/
> >
> > BUT
> > <though> [DoU] from Scand. *To:x, *Tox, with final /-x/
> > <dough> [doU] from OE <dag> [dA:x] with final /-x/
> > <bough> [baU] from OE <boh> [bo:x] with final /-x/
> > <slough> [slaU] from OE <sloh> [slo:x] with final /-x/
> > <plough> [plaU] from late OE <ploh> [plo:x] with final /-x/
>
> That knowledge must be from something other than the orthography,
> which seems to contradict it.
>
> > It is worth noting that the lower group of words are all nouns and
> > conjunctions with original long vowels, while the upper group of
> > words are all adjectives, nouns with short vowels, or stem from OE
> > geminated <hh>. In any case it looks unclear, but for phonological
> > reasons I would say that OE final <-h> from *h or *g, and geminated
> > <hh> after back vowels and retracted vowels, became [f] (and
> > shortened preceding *[u:], from *u: and *o:, to [V]), while [G]
> > from *g in medial position (as in inflected forms of nouns) as well
> > as possibly analogically reintroduced *h in medial position
> > probably produced diphthongs, [aU] from *[u:x] from both *[o:x] and
> > *[u:x], [oU] from *[O:x] from [A:x].
> > The development of <though> contradicts this, although some
> > dialects developed it to forms such as <thof>. Perhaps it is
> > explained by frequently having low stress.
>
> That word is strange.
> Da. dog /doU/, Sw. dock, Du. toch (sic), Germ. doch.
>
>
> I can't offer anything complete.
> There is a rule in Dutch whereby a few short vowel nouns get a long
> vowel in the pl., which is hidden by the orthography,eg.
> glas /Glas/ "glass", glazen /Gla:z&/
> could there have been something similar in ME, eg.
> /tox/, /to:G-/
> /rux/, /ru:G-/ ?
> If so, the rule could be restated in terms of vowel length only
> (adjectives would generalize to their attributive form, which would
> always be short-vowel

Wouldn't this be the long-vowel form (the inflected form, with open
syllables), while predicate forms, if they were uninflected in OE (of
which I know not), would be the short-vowel forms (with closed syllables)?

, and geminated stems are short-vowel already).

> The only words in Dutch that match the top group is ruw/ruig. Note the
> double form: -u- /ü/ is from /u/, -ui- /öÜ/ is from /u:/, so that one
> suspects there was once a similar length-changing rule for Dutch.

I suspect that Dutch <ruw> is from forms similar to OE <ru:wes>,
<ru:wa> etc., the inflected forms of <ru:h> (beside <ru:gan> etc., and
usually <ru:hne> <ru:hra> before consonants). Thus the forms that
gave OE <ru:h> became Dutch <ruig> while the forms that gave OE
<ru:w-> became Dutch <ruw>, i.e. from forms with a long vowel, not short.

>
> BTW on the subject of wiþ/wið: Dutch has the preposition 'met' and the
> preverb 'me(d)e'. The English preverb is always /wið-/, AFAIK.

I can't read the characters on my browser, but the preverb <with-> I
pronounce [wIT] before <-stand> and <-hold> but [wID] before <-draw>,
which AFAIK are the only verbs with this preverb. However, I actually
think that before <-stand> and <-hold> it may be a slightly "softer"
[T] (less friction, or else shorter), i.e. just a devoiced [D] rather
than a true [T], so really <with> and <with-> are both universally
/wID/. I think the great majority of people (including me) pronounce
<with> the preposition as [wID] rather than [wIT]. I remember being
taught in elementary school that the correct pronunciation is [wID],
but that [wIT] is an alternative pronunciation that some people in
some regions use. Similar to how I was taught that <often> is
correctly [Afn] but that the alternative [Aftn] is used by some people
in some regions. It's amazing how much of an influence teaching can
have on what we regard as "native" pronunciation and usage. If they
taught us Middle English, I would be speaking Middle English
"natively" now rather than current English.

>
> On another subject:
> Chasing links I fell over this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Dutch
> http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/ginn001hand01_01/ginn001hand01_01_0012.htm
> http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/daan001ikwa01_01/daan001ikwa01_01_0003.htm
> http://www.bartleby.com/185/a12.html
>
>
> Torsten
>

These links are all very interesting, presenting much information
about North American Dutch dialects I never knew (but always
suspected) existed.

Andrew