Re: [G] and [g] and PIE voiced plosives

From: tgpedersen
Message: 63429
Date: 2009-02-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if the different outcomes of Engl. -ough was
> > caused by them being different from the beginning, thus
> > -ough /-oUx/ > /-of/ and
> > -ough /-oUG/ > /-oU/
> >
> >
> > Torsten
> >
>
> That's what I would think too, but the evidence doesn't present a
> clear-cut pattern:
>
> <enough> [inVf] from OE <genog> [jeno:x] or [j@...:x] with final
> /-x/, inflected <genoge> [jeno:Ge] or [j@...:G@] etc. > <enow>
> [inaU] archaic plural of <enough>, also = <enough>
> <tough> [tVf] from OE <toh> [to:x] with final /-x/
> <rough> [rVf] from OE <ruh> [ru:x] with final /-x/
> <cough> [kAf],[kOf] from OE *<cohhian> with /xx/
> <trough> [trAf], [trOf] from OE *trog [trOx] with final /-x/
> <laugh> [læf] from OE <hlæhhan> with /xx/
>
> BUT
> <though> [DoU] from Scand. *To:x, *Tox, with final /-x/
> <dough> [doU] from OE <dag> [dA:x] with final /-x/
> <bough> [baU] from OE <boh> [bo:x] with final /-x/
> <slough> [slaU] from OE <sloh> [slo:x] with final /-x/
> <plough> [plaU] from late OE <ploh> [plo:x] with final /-x/

That knowledge must be from something other than the orthography,
which seems to contradict it.

> It is worth noting that the lower group of words are all nouns and
> conjunctions with original long vowels, while the upper group of
> words are all adjectives, nouns with short vowels, or stem from OE
> geminated <hh>. In any case it looks unclear, but for phonological
> reasons I would say that OE final <-h> from *h or *g, and geminated
> <hh> after back vowels and retracted vowels, became [f] (and
> shortened preceding *[u:], from *u: and *o:, to [V]), while [G]
> from *g in medial position (as in inflected forms of nouns) as well
> as possibly analogically reintroduced *h in medial position
> probably produced diphthongs, [aU] from *[u:x] from both *[o:x] and
> *[u:x], [oU] from *[O:x] from [A:x].
> The development of <though> contradicts this, although some
> dialects developed it to forms such as <thof>. Perhaps it is
> explained by frequently having low stress.

That word is strange.
Da. dog /doU/, Sw. dock, Du. toch (sic), Germ. doch.


I can't offer anything complete.
There is a rule in Dutch whereby a few short vowel nouns get a long
vowel in the pl., which is hidden by the orthography,eg.
glas /Glas/ "glass", glazen /Gla:z&/
could there have been something similar in ME, eg.
/tox/, /to:G-/
/rux/, /ru:G-/ ?
If so, the rule could be restated in terms of vowel length only
(adjectives would generalize to their attributive form, which would
always be short-vowel, and geminated stems are short-vowel already).
The only words in Dutch that match the top group is ruw/ruig. Note the
double form: -u- /ü/ is from /u/, -ui- /öÜ/ is from /u:/, so that one
suspects there was once a similar length-changing rule for Dutch.

BTW on the subject of wiþ/wið: Dutch has the preposition 'met' and the
preverb 'me(d)e'. The English preverb is always /wið-/, AFAIK.

On another subject:
Chasing links I fell over this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Dutch
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/ginn001hand01_01/ginn001hand01_01_0012.htm
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/daan001ikwa01_01/daan001ikwa01_01_0003.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/185/a12.html


Torsten