tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post1900746857168159425..comments2024-03-27T07:11:34.768-07:00Comments on The bLogicarian: Kökeritz Remodeled: The Problem and Promise of "Original Pronunciation"A.Z. Foremanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-63879050765645444412023-04-02T02:47:52.380-07:002023-04-02T02:47:52.380-07:00Hi Alex, You put so much effort into deciphering a...Hi Alex, You put so much effort into deciphering and scorning DC's phonology, why have you never contacted him to ask about his choices? And the whole profiting from OP either through performance or publishing is neglible afaik. I worked with the Passion in Practice ensemble and though the performances we played were unique, they were limited and not necessarily money makers. best William S. William S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03743822221324985098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-23540389622636595982022-02-15T19:13:16.020-08:002022-02-15T19:13:16.020-08:00I would like to join others in thanking you for th...I would like to join others in thanking you for this long piece. Although I am not a specialist of early Modern English phonology, I have found some of Crystal´s ideas about Shakespeare´s original pronunciation quite bizarre. I was happy to realize I am not alone in thinking so. I like very much your transcription of that sonnet at the end. Thank you once again.Aurelijus Vijunashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07472048147773353788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-83043031827035808922022-01-29T08:56:23.271-08:002022-01-29T08:56:23.271-08:00I have been trained in the Crystals' version o...I have been trained in the Crystals' version of "original pronunciation" and find your evidence about its shortcomings compelling. I'm trying to learn something more accurate (and more reflective of the diversity of the language at the time), and would love to discuss with you what your research shows. Is this something you're comfortable helping me with?<br /><br />If so, I would appreciate if you could get in touch. I'm craig b daniel at g mail.Craig B. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235225757152024145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-35775741371867400802021-05-21T22:16:13.698-07:002021-05-21T22:16:13.698-07:00"His only witness to the merger is <veiage...<i>"His only witness to the merger is <veiage> for voyage."</i><br />That may well be a continuation of ME <i>viage</i> /viːˈaːdʒə/ rather than being evidence for the merger, given that <i>viage</i> is the usual Middle English form; forms with <i>-oy-</i> are <a href="https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED51084" rel="nofollow">nearly nonexistent in ME</a>. Modern <i>voyage</i> (1527) would then be a adjustment to the form that ended up prevailing in standard French; it may have been originally only orthographic, with the pronunciation in /vɔɪ-/ being a later spelling pronunciation.Jiketi Mukenaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02808592674219437249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-68230579859564002162021-05-21T22:15:46.631-07:002021-05-21T22:15:46.631-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jiketi Mukenaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02808592674219437249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-1337009513039054162021-05-21T22:15:17.376-07:002021-05-21T22:15:17.376-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jiketi Mukenaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02808592674219437249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-16391808098062699202021-02-15T10:08:50.473-08:002021-02-15T10:08:50.473-08:00Words like "is" and "was" (als...Words like "is" and "was" (also "this", "both", "of" and many other words) originally had voiced and unvoiced forms for the final consonant. Thus "this" was pronounced "thizz" when before a vowel or a voiced consonant. You can actually see this allomorphy directly represented in the mid-16th century phonetician John Hart who transcribes "ðiz bụk" and "bọð ðe" for "this book" and "both the" in his specimens of connected speech. <br /><br />Eventually many of these words got "frozen" in either their voiced or unvoiced allomorphs, and there seems to have been a fair amount of inconsistency in the process. For Alexander Gil in 1617, "waz" was the general form, but he does transcribe "was" before voiceless consonants occasionally.<br /><br />Probably for Shakespeare, Wyatt, and Marlowe you can assume that a voiceless consonant in "is" and "was" was available as a real option in pronunciation. When poets in the late 17th century do it, though, matters probably stand otherwise. <br /><br />"Paradise/wise" I think should be understood as an inexact rhyme in Shakespeare. It's worth noting that the Paradise/Wise rhyme in Shakespeare is in an intentionally-sloppy sonnet composed by a character in a comedy. The sacrifice/wise rhyme occurs in a chorus passage that also rhymes dumb/run, soon/doom, live/relieve. <br /><br />Rhymes were not always meant to be exact. Spenser in a very solemn poem can still rhyme see'st/seek'st. <br /><br />Feel free to email me. My email address, disguised to hide from irritating bots, is: poemsintranslation AT gmail døtt k0mA.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-63282490622038920232021-02-15T08:01:23.647-08:002021-02-15T08:01:23.647-08:00Thanks so much! I really appreciate that! I'll...Thanks so much! I really appreciate that! I'll look into those. <br /><br />I've also been thinking about the possible homophony of /s, z/ that comes up for a lot of EME writers of the type "is/amiss," "paradise/wise," "alas/was," etc. (definitely appearing in Shakespeare, Wyatt, and Marlowe). How seriously do you take those kinds of rhymes?<br /><br />More and more thoughts keep popping up for me. If you have any way for me to privately send you my email address, I'd love to chat further (and if you're not comfortable with that, no problem!). Thanks for all the fascinating analysis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17880572711226918477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-17465056053153726932021-02-13T23:28:43.843-08:002021-02-13T23:28:43.843-08:00If you want something from last year, here's a...If you want something from last year, here's a recent article by an independent scholar which is IMO a very mixed bag. Important insights but important misfires<br /><br />https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039020300011A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-89578342572330069952021-02-13T23:19:42.698-08:002021-02-13T23:19:42.698-08:00A miscellaneous collection of the kind of stuff ou...A miscellaneous collection of the kind of stuff out there:<br /><br />Bjurman, M. (1977). "The phonology of Jacques Bellot's Le maistre d'escole Anglois (1580): Together with readings of the anonymous editions of 1625, 1647, 1652, 1657, 1670, 1679, and 1695." Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.<br /><br />Danielsson, B. (1955, 1963) "John Hart's Works on English Orthography and Pronunciation 1551, 1569, 1570." Stockholm<br /><br />Dobson, E.J. (1968) English pronunciation 1500-1700. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.<br /><br />Lass, Roger (1999), Phonology and Morphology. In: Roger Lass (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 3: 1476–1776. 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Cercignani, Fausto (1981) Shakespeare's Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation, Oxford, University Press (Clarendon Press).<br /><br />Smith, Jeremy J. "Sound Change and the History of English" Oxford 2006<br />A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-74040079365930735172021-02-13T15:03:59.193-08:002021-02-13T15:03:59.193-08:00Hi, A.Z. I was wondering if you've ever found ...Hi, A.Z. I was wondering if you've ever found any other modern scholar than Crystal who discusses Early Modern English phonology. I agree with some of your qualms but have always come up empty looking through the 21st-century literature. Any help would be great, thanks!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17880572711226918477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-56190166117560949052020-07-22T10:31:20.669-07:002020-07-22T10:31:20.669-07:00I cannot possibly express the depth of my utter un...I cannot possibly express the depth of my utter unconcern for your boobies. Goddamn bots gumming up my comments sections. It's like whack-a-mole. A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-46970190442596449972020-06-17T02:52:15.286-07:002020-06-17T02:52:15.286-07:00Yeah, shortening of -ook words seems to have been ...Yeah, shortening of -ook words seems to have been a development of the 19th century in many places. A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-77116938760848157492020-05-10T18:53:06.735-07:002020-05-10T18:53:06.735-07:00"The o ~ u variation seems to be entirely nex..."The o ~ u variation seems to be entirely next to n and m. Isn't this just another instance of o being used to avoid too many consecutive mınıms?"<br /><br />Largely, yes. The only exception I can come up with off the top of my head is "sullen" which may be spelled "sollein" or "sollen" by e.g. Spencer.A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-26530517152369990612020-05-09T17:27:04.211-07:002020-05-09T17:27:04.211-07:00I don't really think there's any actual li...I don't really think there's any actual limit on how much phonetic dissimilarity can be smoothed over by relying on precedent like that. Take a look at Chinese rhyming systems as they have developed over the past millennium or so. It's pretty wild. A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-67212599378079490112020-05-09T17:23:03.359-07:002020-05-09T17:23:03.359-07:00That is sort of my point. Compromise rhymes which ...That is sort of my point. Compromise rhymes which are perfect for some but not all speakers can sneak in and be felt to be true rhymes thanks to tradition long after the type of pronunciation on which they were based has disappeared. E.g. in English evil/devil, love/prove. By the same token, something that is a phonetic full rhyme but runs counter to traditions about what "really" rhymes with what may be offputting. Like all those non-rhotic speakers who lost their minds at Keats for rhyming higher/Thalia ( = /θǝlɑɪǝ/) calling it a "cockney" rhyme even though it worked just fine in their own speech. <br /><br />"they wouldn't be considered rhymes at all; not "trying and failing", which is how Shakespeare's inexact rhymes would be judged, but "not even trying"."<br /><br />I'm not sure that is necessarily true. It would depend on various sociophonetic factors and accidents of history probably. Vowels far less similar than that can be treated as full rhymes. In Arabic verse /ī/ and /ū/ can interrhyme, for example. A.Z. Foremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178150009150360184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-20907389422955930562020-05-06T09:41:42.466-07:002020-05-06T09:41:42.466-07:00I forgot to mention that -ook words still have [uː...I forgot to mention that <i>-ook</i> words still have [uː] in (parts of?) northern England.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-51757427605042177642020-05-06T09:19:12.100-07:002020-05-06T09:19:12.100-07:00The o ~ u variation seems to be entirely next to n...The <i>o</i> ~ <i>u</i> variation seems to be entirely next to <i>n</i> and <i>m</i>. Isn't this just another instance of <i>o</i> being used to avoid too many consecutive mınıms?<br /><br />Did you hear Fiona Hill testify in Trump's impeachment trial? Her FACE vowel is am[ɛ̞ː]zing.<br /><br /><i>In German, höh/See and über/lieber are not considered inexact rhymes.</i><br /><br />Well, if they hadn't been grandfathered in, they wouldn't be considered rhymes at all; not "trying and failing", which is how Shakespeare's inexact rhymes would be judged, but "not even trying".<br /><br />The reason they have been grandfathered in is that half the German dialects have lost the rounding contrast, and had already lost it 500 years ago. Up until the mid-20th century, lots of people who wrote in German couldn't even pronounce front rounded vowels; for them, this type of rhyme was exact. Nowadays the permission for <i>ö</i> to rhyme with <i>e</i> and for <i>ü</i> to rhyme with <i>i</i> is taught as an arbitrary convention – "of course they don't rhyme, but we've always acted as if they did anyway".<br /><br />The biggest single reason for the historical prestige of the pronunciation of Standard German in Hannover is that Low German, as a whole, has kept the rounding contrast just like the spelling has. Upper Saxon, for instance, has not.David Marjanovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233722577300632805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949545621580005879.post-44021054146175089532018-08-25T04:17:23.150-07:002018-08-25T04:17:23.150-07:00Thank you for not sparing us the minute details!Thank you for not sparing us the minute details!Tomas Kalmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347789141178173787noreply@blogger.com