LL-L "Phonology" 2007.10.22 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  21 October 2007 - Volume 05
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Sandy, I meant to ask you about something you said under "Etymology" ...

This, and various other incursions, is said to explain the presence of
Norse words in Saxon dialects of the west of England. For example, as
someone pointed out on the list recently, the pronunciation of
"house/hause" is fairly consistent across dialects from German to
English, but in Scots it's "hoose" /hus/ because of Norse influence. In
Somerset dialects, this is "huish" (such as "Huish Epsicopi" (Bishop's
House), near Yeovil, and "Huish Park" (the Yeovil football ground).

How do you know it's a case of Norse influence and not simply conservative
phonology, i.e. non-participitation in diphthongization that occurred in
English?

It's similar in Low Saxon and West Flemish versus German and Dutch:

Scots (uu): *hús* > hoose, t*ún > *toon, *út > oot*
Saxon (uu): *hûs* > Huus, t*ûn > *Tuun, *ût > uut*
W. Flemish (uu > üü): *hûs* > uus, t*ûn > *tuun, *ût > *uut

English (uu > au): *hús* > house, t*ún > *town, *út > out*
German (uu > au): *hûs* > Haus, z*ûn > *Zaun, *ûz > aus*
 Dutch (uu > üü > üi > œü): *hûs* > huus > huis, t*ûn > tuun *>* *tuin, *ût
> uut *>* *uit

Or are you saying that Scots resisted this particular diphthongization
because of Norse influence? (The Nordic languages just never underwent any
of those changes.)

Interestingly, while Saxon and West Flemish resisted all diphthongization,
Scots did participate in the the diphthongization of /ii/ (the non-rounded
counterpart of /uu/), at least to about the stage English was at in Early
Modern (Elizabethan) English: /ii/ > [əı]; e.g.

Saxon (ii): *tîd > Tied, b**î > bie, m**în > mien**, l**îna > Lien***
W. Flemish (ii): *tîd > tied, b**î > bie, **m**în > mien, **lîne > lien***

Scots (ii > əı): *tíd* > tide, b*í* > by*, **líne > line*
 English (ii > *əı > aı): *tíd* > tide, b*í > by**, **líne > line***
 German (ii > *əı > aı): z*ît > Zeit, b**î > bei, **lîna > Leine*
 Dutch (ii > əı ~> aı): *tîd > tijd, b**î > bij, **lîne > lijn*

Incidentally, what is interesting is that (broad) Australian (and New
Zealand) English is now beginning to undergo another round of this.  What in
other English dialects are [uː] (too, soon, boot) and [iː] (tea, eel, deep)
have developed into "slight" diphthongs, something like [ʊʉː] ~ [ɤʉː] (too,
soon, boot) and [ıiː] ~ [əiː] (tea, eel, deep) respectively, probably
something very similar to the diphthongs English had in words like "house"
and "tide" in late Middle English, just prior to the Early Middle English
stage.

I believe that this is the reason why what in other English dialects is [aı]
(might, bite, pie) Downunder had to shift to an open [ɑı] (that to many
uninitiated people sounds like "oy") because /ɛı/ (mate, bait, pay) became
[aı] in order to distance itself from /ii/ (-> [ıiː] ~ [əiː], meat, beet, p
ea) for distinction purposes. At the same time, /au/ (louse, crown, foul)
shifted to [ɜʊ] to distance itself from /uu/ (-> [ʊʉː] ~ [ɤʉː], loose, croon,
fool). This may have begun in Cockney and developed farther Downunder.

One sort of shift tends to cause other shifts to become necessary. The
domino effect?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071022/73bc2d0a/attachment.htm>