Brian M. Scott wrote:
> Ah, thanks: I was wondering about that, but hadn't got round
> to sorting it out. (<sigh> There's too much of this that I
> don't have on tap; at least on a good day I usually know
> what to look for.)
Oops, sorry! I was writing in haste myself and it slipped my mind
(sorry, Richard) that /æ(:)/ and /e(:)/ are prone to (at least
orthographic) post-palatal breaking in WS (/æ(:)/ also in Northumbrian)
in contexts where normal breaking doesn't apply: <sceap>, <ceaf>,
<giest>, etc. My own inclination here is to accept the diacritic
interpretation. Note the difference between <giest> and EWS giefu > LWS
gyfu, gifu (with "real" <ie> due to back umlaut).
Piotr