From: andythewiros
Message: 66804
Date: 2010-10-24
>Is it for certain that it had ME /o:/? After all, wasn't <o> a common spelling of /U/ after <w> (as in e.g. <wolf>)? Words similar to OE <wudu>, like <cudu> "cud" and <hulu> "hull" and <lufu> "love", have 'short u' in Modern English, and after /w/, /U/ might be a normal development of OE *u (other examples seem only to be before /l/, as <wool>, <wolf> (as also frequently after /p/, /b/, and /f/ - pull, bull, full). But I guess <wonder> argues against such a development being regular.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
>
> >>>>> Is this English 3-way development of OE *o: before /d/
> >>>>> possibly due to the preceding consonant?
>
> >>>>> I.e. after a labial it becomes /u:/ (<mood>, <food>),
> >>>>> after /l/ it becomes /V/ (<blood>, <flood>), and after
> >>>>> other consonants before /d/ it becomes /U/ (<good>,
> >>>>> <hood>)?
>
> >>>> <Rood> has /u:/. So has <brood>.
>
> >>> Oh right. Ah well.
>
> >> That might not be a killer argument. Initial /r/ and /wr/ merged
> >> as [rW].
>
> Evidence?
>
> I don't know whether initial /br/ would have been [brW].
>
> No particular reason for it to have been.
>
> > Better counterexample: "wood" /wUd/.
>
> I omitted it because its vowel is from OE /u/, not /o:/. But it's
> true that after open syllable lengthening it had ME /o:/, so it
> should qualify.
>