From: Jarrod Clark
Message: 5502
Date: 2005-08-18
>____________________________________________________
> > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a
> back vowel.
> > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a
> back vowel.
> > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a
> continuant that was
> > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE
> *ækr).
> >
> > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate
> [tS]. Before a
> > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West
> Saxon. In late
> WS
> > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also
> <ce>, <cie> and
> > <ci>).
>
>
> Still bearing in mind all those provisos, I'd just
> like to modify 4,
> thus:
>
> 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate [tS].
> Where the <e>
> is from Proto OE, before a stressed syllable this
> became <cie> in
> Early West Saxon. (In late WS the same combination
> is often spelt
> <cy> (but also <ce>, <cie> and <ci>).) This still
> leaves the
> combinations <cea> from PrOE *kæ, and <céa>
> (=Anglian <cé>) from
> PrOE *kæu < Gmc. *kau, each of which developed the
> pronunciation
> [tS].
>
> Llama Nom
>
>
>
> >
> > Okay, these are the rules for when <ce> = [tSe] in
> OE (not
> counting
> > the combination <sc>), according to Campbell's Old
> English
> Grammar.
> > At least this is how I understand them... They
> work most of the
> > time, but not always. Some exceptions are due to
> analogy with
> parts
> > of the paradigm where different rules applied.
> Another exception
> is
> > the middle consonant of <cieken> "chicken", as
> indicated by the
> > spelling in the Mercian Rushworth Gospells, a
> unique scibal
> attempt
> > at distinguishing the front and back
> pronunciations of <c>. This
> > can't be due to analogy with other parts of the
> paradigm, but
> might
> > be accounted for by dissimilation. Anyway, here
> are the rules.
> > (For <ce>, read <ce> or <cce>.)
> >
> > 1. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> is due to i-umlaut of a
> back vowel.
> > 2. <ce> = [ke] within a word, if preceeded by a
> back vowel.
> > 3. <ce> = [ke] if the <e> arose before a
> continuant that was
> > originally syllabic (e.g. æcer "acre" < Proto OE
> *ækr).
> >
> > 4. Otherwise <ce> did result in the affricate
> [tS]. Before a
> > stressed syllable this became <cie> in Early West
> Saxon. In late
> WS
> > the same combination is often spelt <cy> (but also
> <ce>, <cie> and
> > <ci>).
> >
> > Some OE textbooks print a dot above <c> in words
> like 'bæc'
> > and 'æcer'. This indicates that they are thought
> to have been
> > palatal stops in early OE, something like [c], as
> in
> > Icelandic 'kenna'. According to Campbell, in such
> positions, <c>
> > never evolved into [tS], but instead reverted to
> [k]. Regarding
> > Rule One, don't forget that /æ/ counts as a front
> vowel, so if <e>
> > is due to i-umlaut of /æ/, this would result in
> affrication.
>
>
>
>