[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Brithenig diphthongs (was: Yiddish influences in Brithenig)
Rhaifun Bryn yscrifef:
> The question, I suppose, is whether length distinction would've arisen
> between two sets of diphthongs, but not elsewhere. That is a different
> matter. On reflexion I can see problems here. The obvious reason would be
> that original /ae/ and /oe/ developed to /a:/ and /o:/ in some dialects but
> fell together with /ai/ & /oi/ in others; an artificially "correct"
> pronunciation /a:i/ and /o:i/ was developed by the educated.
It may be worth noting that in the posted vocabulary "ai" and "oi"
are quite rare, only 5 and 6 examples respectively, whereas "ae" has
21 examples and "oe" 13. (This excludes names.) So if we want to keep
the phonetics [ai]/[@i] and [oi]/[Oi] in the language at all, we
should move warily on de-unifying "ai"/"ae" and "oi"/"oe".
You seem to always write "Raifun", but Andrew's original remarks
made it "Rhaifun". Is this some grammatical point I'm missing
whereby signatures get the soft mutation?
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)