dave wrote:
> But can one be sure of the absolute identity of
> pronunciation? There are slightly different ways of enunciating the sound.
[th].
Indeed. Is it the voiced/voiceless distinction? But in the same way that
the grapheme(s) <th> represent both (or more) voicings, so thorn and wynn
were simply orthographic positional variants.
Same difference as (later) with u/v for what we'd now represent as "u" or
"v". <v> was initial, <u> was medial, to represent both sounds. Or have I
got this ass-backwards?
> I've always liked the mysteries of the initial Anglo-Saxon 'ge', i.e when
is
> it hard and when soft as in a kind 'y-fallen' verb and I love too the
Scots
> use of 'qu' for 'w'.
Yo. Or yogh. Or 3. Is the beginning of line one of Beowulf -- What! we
3ar-danas -- the spear-danes or the year-danes, soft or hard 3? Life became
a little easier when <3> split into <g> and <y>.
Then there was the long <s> that looked a bit like an <f>, and could lead
to some confusion, as when Donne coins the line, "Or sucked on country
pleasures, childishly".
(Incidentally, I think the Scots <qu> for English <wh> is simply an
orthographic variant -- pronounces as where, wherever. As the <z> in
Menzies, pronounced Mingus, is simply a vestigial yogh after that character
dropped out of the printers' fonts.)
Robin
(Ane doolie season to ane cairful dight
Suld correspond, and be equivalent.
Richt so it was, when I began tae write ...)
|