Re: [tied] Old English diphthongs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> It seemes there's still no consensus on the phonetic value (and status)
> of Old English <ea>, <e:a>, <eo>, <e:o> (and earlier <ie>, <i:e>). Would
> it be safe to assume -- at least for autodidactic purposes -- the values
> [æA] (offglide A being a-coloured schwa, IPA's "inverted a"), [æ:A],
> [e&] (& -- schwa, e -- close-mid (rather than open-mid)), [e:&], [iy]
> and [i:y], appropriately?

This is close to the majority view (there are few dissenters, really),
except that <i(:)e> is more often interpreted as [i(:)&] (presumably
with a highish schwa like a retracted [I], assimilated to the height
of the starting point). It easily merged with /i(:)/ and /y(:)/ in
Late West Saxon, being the first diphthong to disappear from the system.

Piotr