--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The reason I heard is that 'e:G', 'bø:G' are 19th century
> hypercorrect literal forms. The pronunciaton usedto
> be /ai?/, /boI?/. The motive might also have been political
> Scandinavianism of the 1840's.
>
>
>
> -- Very interesting, and very believable. Similar hypercorrect
forms occur in English when many people pronounce the "l" in "calm",
and I believe probably also when they pronounce the "t" in "often".
>
> But did political Scandinavianism prescribe literal pronunciation,
or more etymological pronunciation, or avoidance of dialectal
pronunciation, or what?
I don't think it made downright prescriptions. Most likely those
hypercorrect literal pronunciations existed also before among the
largely German-speaking civil servant class. The reason they would be
used in a Scandinavist environment is that /-e?G-/, /-ø?G-/ would be
closer and better comprehensible to Swedish and city Norwegian
/-e:k-/, /-ø:k-/ than /-aI?-/, /-oI?-/ would.
I don't know if there have been similar movements to "correct" (if I
understand the practice of "political Scandinavianism" correctly) the
English language, especially ones that have succeeded.
You don't have similar-enough sounding neighbor languages, so you
don't have a motive for doing so (unless you want to contemplate a
union with the Netherlands)
>
> Also, is (or should be) /aI?/ the regular outcome of *eik?
And /oI?/ of *oe:k (of whatever origin)?
>
Yes.
Torsten