Re: English Young (was: Indo-Iranian Vowel Collapse)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

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

> > In any case, there's no real doubt that the OE diphthongs
> > were just that. Come to think of it, part of the evidence
> > is breaking itself: it's most easily explained as the
> > introduction of an epenthetic vowel between a front vowel
> > and a velar or velarized consonant (/lC/, /rC/, or /x/),
> > much as [mIlk] becomes [mIok] when the /l/ is sufficiently
> > velarized.
>
> I can understand that. However, given that OE had more sounds than
> letters in the Roman alphabet, certain single sounds would have had
> to be represented by two (or more) letters.

And, to muddy the waters, compared to the 8 vowels of the Old English
Roman alphabet, there were 11 vowel runes, the extras being eoh, ear
and ior. It may be significant that the last three they were not
borrowed into the Roman alphabet, unlike thorn and wynn, and, in name
only, æsc.

The eighth vowel is the 'oe' ligature, to which I think ethel
corresponded.

Richard.