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

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: [G] and [g] and PIE voiced plosives
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 7:15 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette"
> <anjarrette@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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/
> >
> >
> > Oh the shame! I wrote <boh> instead of
> <bog> and <ploh> instead of
> > <plog>, basing them on alternative but
> etymologically wrong
> > spellings.
>
> Now, now, I do that all the time.
>
> > With this in mind perhaps there's a tendency for
> words ending in
> > *-g to develop diphthongs while those ending in *-h
> develop [-f];
> > *trog and *þoh/þo:h (Toh/To:h) are exceptions.
> Cybalist members
> > will have noticed these mistakes and corrected them
> before this
> > message gets posted.
>
> DEO says Da. dog, Sw. dock are loans from MLG doch, which
> around 1400
> replaced ODa. tho: < ON þó; ODa. tho: is preserved
> in the Jysk
> initiating particle / interjection 'to'. That
> leaves Du. 'toch'
> unexplained.
>
> I was wondering if these g-/w- and g-/j- pairs
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61985
> (in which the w- and j- part seems to be the etymologically
> correct
> one) could reflect an insecurity between 'hard' and
> 'soft'
> pronunciation of /g-/ ?
>
>
> Torsten

You missed hiccough /hIk@.../, sometimes spelled hiccup