Re: [tied] Re: Laryngeals revisited

At 5:07:46 PM on Thursday, June 30, 2005, Rob wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>>> The /l/ created a diphthong?

>> Yes: /AU/, as in EME /tAU(l)k/; this occurred when ME /Al/
>> was followed by another consonant, with an exception noted
>> below. Much the same thing happened much earlier in French:
>> Late Latin /al/ followed by a consonant became /aw/ in later
>> Old French and /o/ in Middle French.

> Is that what those who study the history of English agree
> with?

My libary's a bit old, but yes, so far as I know, I've given
the standard account here.

>>> I would say that it preserved the earlier quality of the
>>> a-vowel: /a/. Or it backed it to /A/, as seems to be the
>>> case with most English dialects today. One can see the
>>> same effect in 'tall', 'wall', all', 'palm', 'malt',
>>> 'bald', etc. I wonder why it didn't happen to 'half',
>>> though.

>> In fact <palm> also belongs with <half>: before /lf/, /lv/,
>> and /lm/ the diphthongization did not occur, and /A/ took
>> roughly its normal course. Thus, RP <palm> /pA:m/, but
>> <malt> /mO:lt/, <bald> /bO:ld/. The <all> words are another
>> category, since the /l/ isn't followed by another consonant.

> The vowel in 'palm' and the vowel in 'malt' sound the same
> to me. Then again, I'm an American.

They are the same in many (most?) U.S. varieties, though not
in all.

Brian