Effects of Labials on English Vowels (was: Laryngeals revisited)

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

> At 2:23:11 PM on Thursday, June 30, 2005, Rob wrote:
>
> > English back vowels retain their quality both before and
> > after labial glides, e.g.:
>
> > 'water' (otherwise would be pronounced as 'waiter'),
>
> Or to rhyme with <hatter>: spellings like <wat(t)re> suggest
> ME /wAt&r/, not /wA:t&r/, in at least some dialects.
> (Doesn't Scots mostly have [a], from a short vowel?)

In the Lake District in England, a local pronunciation of _Ulswater_
has /a/ for 'a' (or something very similar, identified by RP speakers
with [æ]). The same pronunciation has also been heard in the
pronunciation of 'water' by a boy from the area who had moved to the
Midlands.

The development would be /A:/ as in /fA:ð&/ 'father' - compare the
North Norfolk dialect, where this rounding does not happen, so 'water'
is /wA:?&/ and 'wasp' is /wA:sp/ (rhyming with 'grasp').

> > 'wolf' (otherwise as with the /O/ ~ /A/ in 'pot')
> > 'draw' (otherwise as with the /au/ in 'drought'),
>
> Not really an example of retention: /drAGAn/ > /drAU&(n)/ >
> /drAU/ > /drO:/.

'wolf' derives from Old English _wulf_. The 'o' is orthographic - I
presume *uuulf would have been unreadably ambiguous in some hands.
However, without retention, we would have RP */wVlf/. The [U] has
been retained as in 'bull' and 'pull'.

Richard.