Re: [tied] Re: Non-rhoticity in US English

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 7707
Date: 2001-06-21

Yes. Middle English iu, eu > iu > ju:
> u: (in some postconsonantal contexts). We can see very clearly the stages
of the process -- a temporal sequence: first after /(C)r/, then after /Cl/, then variably after /l/, /s/ and /z/ (this is as far as RP has got by now), then after /t/, /d/, /n/ (American English, older Cockney), then after all consonants (East Anglia). Some accents, e.g. Welsh English, have not shifted [iu] (a falling diphthong with the first element more prominent) to [ju:]; they have consequently no "dropping" of anything, and <rude, blew> are still pronounced [riud], [bliu].
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen@...
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Non-rhoticity in US English

> The early accents of North American English absorbed many features
of South and West Country English, but also of East Anglia and the
London area. For example, "yod-dropping" in words like <duke, tune,
new> is characteristic not only of most American accents but also of
conservative London Cockney. In East Anglia the process has gone even
further -- /j/ is dropped there after all consonants, e.g. in <mute,
huge, pure, few, view>.

"dropping" seems to imply it was once there?