From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 58536
Date: 2008-05-16
> Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:Because the issue at hand was *loss* of length;
> "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 10:36:25 PM on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, Andrew
>> Jarrette wrote:
>>> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>>>> It may not make sense, but it can happen: OE
>>>> <ha:ligdo:m> became ME <halido:m> as part of a regular
>>>> set of changes in trisyllabic words. In fact,
>>>> non-northern varieties of ME eliminated /a:/
>>>> altogether, partly by shortening and partly by a
>>>> change /a:/ > /O:/, but it still had length contrasts.
>>> Not true.
>> You're mistaken. Every statement there is true.
>>> Former short /a/ in open syllables became lengthened in
>>> open syllables while former long /a:/ was raised to
>>> /O:/.
>> Open syllable lengthening is obviously irrelevant. Look
>> up trisyllabic shortening. There was also an early ME
>> shortening of long vowels before groups of two or more
>> consonants (including geminates); an example involving OE
>> /a:/ is ME <aske(n)> from OE <a:scian>.
> Why is open syllable lengthening irrelevant?
> You said that ME still had length contrasts, but impliedAs indeed was the case in early non-northern ME, because it
> that it had lost the /a/:/a:/ contrast.
> Well, the /a/:/a:/ contrast was no different from theThere's a rather large difference: the latter existed, and
> /O/:/O:/ contrast.
> The open and half-open vowels had a long variety and aNot until after open-syllable lengthening, which was later
> short variety that contrasted, regardless of origin (i.e
> whether from original long vowels or original short
> vowels).