From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 3516
Date: 2004-08-31
> Richard Wordingham wrote:which
> > Non-Latinness!
>
> Eh? :-)
> > [..]
> > English <wh> is a bit of a problem, as <w> isn't Latin,
>
> <W> is not uncommon in medieval Latin, as e.g. in the proper name
> "Willhelmus". But in older documents it is still spelled <uu>,
> explains the English name of the letter.I did wonder if <w> could be considered as a Latin letter for the
> > but then it's also curious in that it is, at least in places,[hw].
> > I think <wh> is best regarded as a degeneration of <hw>,<wh> is
>
> I think in fact that <hw> (or, well, <huu>) in place of modern
> widely attested in ancient documents.<hw> is the Old English spelling. I'm not sure if there is an
> > As to English <sh> and <th>, I could pedanticaly suggestthat 'h' in
> > <sh> and <th> represents half-way Irish-style lenition for 'sh'Irish
> > and 'th' - there are lenition sequences [s] > [S] > [h] and [t]
>
> > [T] > [h]. However, it doesn't work for soft 'ch'.
>
> I though that h-digraphs were a relatively recent innovation in
> spellingI was referring to the phonetic significance; I wasn't suggesting
> These Greek sounds where originally aspirated stops, so the<stop+H> was
> quite motivated. When these sounds evolved to fricatives in Greek,Latin
> followed suit, as is demonstrated by the fact that <PH> is nowread [f] in
> all European languages. The Latin spelling of these Greekfricatives must
> have been a became precedents for using <H> together with anyletter to form
> spelling for new sounds.de
> E.g., the spelling <dh> for [ð] is already present in the Sarments
> Strasbourg, which are AFAIK the oldest sample of written Frenchand German.