MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Flying Chaucers (Linguistics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 73, 74, 75  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How else can the output of breath during pronunciation be written??

Any number of ways! When the spelling is not standardised, it is up to you to choose a suitable representation, or none at all. (It is possible to get away without any vowels at all, don't forget.)

The fact that H is just a breathy sound should not necessarily lead us to conclude that it was used with precision to represent breathy sounds. For one thing, H is not just a breathy sound.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Head may have been 'heda' showing that the 'd' had a definite 'du' sound to the end of the word

But is that a definite D or a definite A? As Ish might suggest, the A might just indicate that the mouth is open after pronouncing a clear D, rather than an indistinct, tongue-still-touching-your-top-teeth one; the vowel sound itself being neither here nor there and could have been represented by any vowel or punctuation.

If someone asks you to repeat what you said because they couldn't tell B from D and you enunciated "duh" very clearly, how do they know whether the "uh" gets written down, too? How do people writing a language for the first time manage? Which sounds are implicit and which ones warrant their own letters? There was no such thing as correct spelling to refer to when they started.

over time 'heda' could become 'hed' or 'head'.

"Becoming 'hed'" with a rationalisation of spelling, or even a change of pronunciation, makes sense (though whether it did is a matter of historical fact), but "becoming 'head'" would be a rather different process: there's a lot more going on with moving a letter, or it appearing to move, or it disappearing and later reappearing.

The jargon here is "metathesis" and I'm not convinced it occurs where orthodoxy says it does. Frinstance, brenn and burn do not result from moving the vowel from one position to another: they are just alternative spellings for the same "brn" word. Go on, sound it out, as if for a child: buh-ruh-nuh. I suppose we'd better spell at least one of those 'uh's (schwas), but which one? X voted 'brenn' and Y voted 'burn'. There were many other possible contenders, but 'burn' won in the end.

"Proper", Received Pronunciation makes brenn and burn rather different, but try it in different regional accents. A comic Scottish accent brings them out the same.

'aks' and 'ask'

This might be an even more complicated artefact of writing.

'Aks' is how we spell the mispronunciation, which certainly happens because some people find it trips off the tongue more easilier. I don't know whether it is a regional or an educational difference, but it may just be that the 'proper' pronunciation is unnecessarily difficult.

In Chaucer, it's axe, axen. Notice that both X and SK can make the sound "sh". What if the old word was ash, perfectly reasonably written a-x or a-s-k? (Go on, you can think of some connections between ash and asking/praying.)
What if, as in ski, the "sh" pronunciation has been superseded by "sk" due to the written form?
What if the X does not represent the "ks" sound here and the modern mispronunciation does not hint at a historical change from KS to SK?

And relax.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

With reference to 'ask' - in Somerset / Devon it is pronounced 'aks' in rough rustic 'ooaarr'. So 'to ax' could well be the same word just written in colloquial form.

If we suggest a standardised spelling was born out of standardised speech (ie 'it had to have been pronounced this way as it was spelled this way) then we are saying that all the regional accents / pronunciations have developed since the time writing was introduced, aren't we??

As for 'ash' it has been spelled 'ashe' , 'asse' , 'asce' and probably many more ways.........
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If we suggest a standardised spelling was born out of standardised speech (ie 'it had to have been pronounced this way as it was spelled this way)...

This is expressly opposite to anything I would claim.

...then we are saying that all the regional accents / pronunciations have developed since the time writing was introduced, aren't we??

That's either a) a radical new suggestion following from the previous claim or b) a plain absurdity that shows the previous claim to be false; or c) it doesn't follow at all. I vote for anything but a).

Please elucidate if you think I've missed something, Pulpy.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am in fact agreeing with you DJ..... just maybe not expressing it well in print (now there's a thing, eh!)

What I was saying was that if it is accepted, as Mick suggests, that a standardised spelling was the result of an old / original way of pronouncing the word (ie 'hey-ad' produced 'head'), then surely all regional accents and alternative MODERN pronunciations must have come about after this unknown time when people ALL spoke this way...... and therefore this is virtually impossible that they ALL ended up being similar to each other (ie 'hed').....

I was in fact agreeing with you!!!
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're all being a bunch of dickheids. The rule, in case you have forgotten it, is "What is is what was". In other words the people who decided the rules for transcribing English sounds into Latin lettering would have used the simplest, most easily understood principles:
1. The five short vowels sounds were written using single vowels
2. Long vowel sounds were written using two vowels.

So when we have 'head' written with two vowels and when (furthermore) it is still pronounced heed in large areas of early English-speaking, the case is closed.

But by applying these rules more widely we shall open a much bigger case.

PS I know of no case where 'head' is pronounced with two syllables. It is true there are places with a drawl affectation where ALL words of one syllable are spoken as two but that is not linguistics, it is...er....something else. If 'head' had been said with two syllables originally the founding fathers would have inserted a y (or something) to indicate that fact. Since they would have known that people wouldn't have recognised the word otherwise and would suppose that this curious word 'head' must mean something other than the thing on your neck.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And relax.

On our filmic retreat, we were trying to remember where this catchphrase came from. Dan? Anyone?

Speaking of films, it is an entirely Irish affectation to pronounce the 'l' in film. Just as it is a West Indian affectation to deliberately mispronounce the 'sk' in ask.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And relax.

On our filmic retreat, we were trying to remember where this catchphrase came from.

It might be a general expression relating to those work-outs and aerobic sessions which always end with the torturer/teacher bringing the students back down to a manageable level of existence.

it is an entirely Irish affectation to pronounce the 'l' in film.

Another, fraightfully irritating, affectation is pronouncing golf as 'goff', which the Irish do pronounce as golf, bless 'em.
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

And 'Gowf' is Scottish.

Mick, do we not all pronounce Film with an 'l' or am I misunderstanding?

One of my pet-peeves is the the insertion of an 'i'.

"Filim". Drives me mental!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"And relax"... might be a general expression relating to those work-outs...

Yes... but I was thinking specifically of Harry Hill.

it is an entirely Irish affectation to pronounce the 'l' in film.

Well, I pronounce the 'l' in film, but in one syllable; the/some Irish (and Scots?) pronounce it in two. Who got to decide it wasn't to be fillem?

Another, fraightfully irritating, affectation is pronouncing golf as 'goff'

But L = U, don't forget. L is a vowel.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The rule, in case you have forgotten it, is "What is is what was".

And what is, in case you have forgotten, is a thought-to-be-kooky assemblage of conflicting spelling rules that result from disparate and all-perfectly-reasonable-in-their-own-right conventions being standardised upon, without the inconsistencies being fully rationalised out.

What is is that single vowels are sometimes short and sometimes long; and combinations of vowels are sometimes long and sometimes short.

The other half of the rule, in case you have forgotten it, is "...unless it wasn't".

And what wasn't was spelling being standardised in the time of, say, Chaucer.

What wasn't was English being written down at all. There have been some transitions.

In other words the people who decided the rules for transcribing English sounds into Latin lettering would have used the simplest, most easily understood principles:

But simple and easily understood are functions of their use. The people who decided the rules for transcribing English sounds into Latin lettering were making it up as they went along.

In the early stages, "rule" is a misnomer.

1. The five short vowels sounds were written using single vowels
2. Long vowel sounds were written using two vowels
.

I gave examples above of how the five single vowel letters represent long vowel sounds.

PS I know of no case where 'head' is pronounced with two syllables. It is true there are places with a drawl affectation where ALL words of one syllable are spoken as two but that is not linguistics, it is...er....something else.

Rectitude and more rectitude! And that's swearing.

The problem with writing anything down is that natural speech is organic and admits of degrees everywhere. The problem with historical linguistics is that they assume it to have been done with great fidelity.

How much of a drawl counts as a separate syllable? At what point do you think another letter is needed? And which one? And does it get judged the same way twice?
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
How much of a drawl counts as a separate syllable? At what point do you think another letter is needed? And which one? And does it get judged the same way twice?

This is my thinking. In the USA south, head is often pronounced "He-yeah-d". Which is two syllables. Though Mick said this isn't linguistics - but something else, it makes me ask "what is it then?".

In a novel or non-fiction book the dialogue of a character or genuine person may be written in the vernacular. In the case of USAian that dialogue may be written as "I braked m' hee-ed".

Its inclusion in a written text gives it some linguistic merit surely?

I am out of my depth on this thread. It is quite impressive so far.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, if you want to hear 'head' as two syllables, go to the South Wales valleys......
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

dialogue... may be written in the vernacular.

Actually, it can't. And you just proved it. It may be written "I braked m' hee-ed", but this is something you just made up: it isn't the way to write it. And the probability is high that some people will not understand it, or perhaps worse, believe that they do.

If anyone is repeating to themselves just what you had in mind, it's because you share a lot of training in the use of Standard English and a lot of exposure to American accents and idioms.

Precise, high-fidelity rendition of natural speech has not been cracked -- even the International Phonetic Alphabet leaves out nuances of pronunciation and says bugger all about delivery -- and that's not what writing was ever about. The linguistics industry proceeds on the basis that it has and it was.

Its inclusion in a written text gives it some linguistic merit surely?

Wadya mean, that it can be treated as an authentic representation of the dialect?

Sure, it says something, but considering the problems of encoding it in the first place, what are the chances that it will be interpreted correctly?

Suppose I said Brummies say "currectlai". Just on the ending, you might...
...agree immediately.
...read -AI differently and say "no they don't".
...read -AI differently and think Brummies come from somewhere else.
...know how Brummies speak and learn the sound that -AI represents.
...know what -AI represents and learn something about the West Midlands accent.
...point out that -AI is subtly different, has a different lilt perhaps, depending on the dialect.
... ... ...

"O as in 'bottle'" tells us something... but not a lot.

When it comes to pronunciation, each word ('logogram') has to fit into an awful big picture to make any sense. Luckily, we read words not letters, as a rule, and pronunciation is rarely of any concern.

This thread is about reading the words in Chaucer, since -- thanks to THOBR for pointing it out -- we already know what most of them are.

The historical linguists, having nothing else to go on -- and therefore being unable to escape the circularity of the argument, while being unwilling to acknowledge it -- assume that the spellings accurately reflect the transition from Anglo-Saxon to modern English.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I wish you guys would concentrate. It's no good pointing to cultures where all vowels sounds are drawn out. That is a specific cultural affectation and cannot possibly affect the way general English rules of spelling have been invoked. We are dealing here with English, as she is writ and spoken.

It is true that English has some elongated "drawl' vowels sounds -- mail, boil, mile, newt -- but these are signalled by using two vowels or by signalling with a consonant. Similarly it has long-forms of vowels -- mate, boat, height -- which it also signalls by adding extra vowels and consonants. But when it comes to short vowels -- hat, let, hit, rot, but -- it uses one vowel.

This is so clear a rule that when we come across a word that is pronounced short but spelled long -- as with head -- then we should treat it as axiomatic (for the moment) that it was pronounced long ('heed') when English was first written down but that it has changed to a short vowel ('hed') in the centuries since. This is why it is important to concentrate on Scotch, rather than Texan or Welsh. They spoke English early doors.

I would expect this rule to be borne out by a textural examination of Chaucerian vowel rhymes.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 73, 74, 75  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 75

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group