The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

> >BTW Danish has colloquial <far> /fA(R)/, but solemn

<fader> /fæ:D&R/.

> >19th cent. Low Copenhagen had the transitional <fa'er> /fæ&R/. I
> >think you mentioned Dutch had a similar 'register' alternation.
>
> Intervocalic -d- is normally deleted in Dutch, except in high

register

> forms. The forms <vaar> en <moer> are obsolete, because of the

homophone

> clashes and because other "low register" forms are available (pa,

ma,

> etc.). Broer is the normal form of "brother" (broeder is

restricted to

> religious, medical and metaphorical use).
>
> >Is there a 'forgotten alternation' in English?
>
> It's probably a case of alternation, but not forgotten or to do with
> register. 'Father' alternated between /fað&r/ and /fa:ð&r/ in

Middle

> English. One theory is that /fæ:ð&r/ > /fA:ð&r/ is the

contamination

> product of 17th. century /fæð&r/ < /fað&r/ and /fE:ð&r/ < /fa:ð&r/.
> Another theory is that the environment (rounding labial /f-/ and
> lengthening /ð/ followed by /r/) contributed to the special

development of

> this word, as in "rather" (r- -ther) [RP /rA:ð&/, but AE /ræð&r/],

but not

> in "gather" [/gæð&(r)/] with unrounded/non-labial initial g-. One
> orthopoeist (Jones, 1701) says that father was pronounced as

<fauther>

> (with /O:/), so perhaps there was contamination between

regular /fæð&r/ and

> rounded /fO:ð&r/. ME /fa:ð&r/ apparently survives in dialectal

British

> (presumably as /fE:ð&(r)/, /feIð&(r)/).
>

Probably the Lord's Prayer saved /fA:ð&r/. /aUr fE:ð&r/ just doesn't
sound right. So maybe it was a register thing after all, with /dEd/
being lower refister.

Torsten