English without GVS?

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Aleks
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 00:37

English without GVS?

Post by Aleks » 23 Dec 2015 18:08

I was wondering let's say the great vowel shift never happened. How would the language have evolved and sounded if this never occurred?

User avatar
Sglod
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 22 Dec 2015 11:06
Location: +44

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Sglod » 23 Dec 2015 18:43

Is it that a different shift to the GVS happens or that there is no shift at all?

User avatar
Aleks
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 00:37

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Aleks » 23 Dec 2015 19:27

No shift happening, would this have a big impact on it?

User avatar
HinGambleGoth
greek
greek
Posts: 459
Joined: 01 Jul 2014 04:29
Location: gøtalandum

Re: English without GVS?

Post by HinGambleGoth » 23 Dec 2015 20:27

Well, the English orthography would make sense and English speakers would have an easier time pronoucing foreign words and learn other languages.
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:

User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3829
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Thrice Xandvii » 23 Dec 2015 21:10

Does this mean long vowels would actually be phonetically long? If so, that'd change a lot about our (native English speakers, that is) ability to pronounce things!
Image

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: 16 May 2015 17:48

Re: English without GVS?

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 24 Dec 2015 00:05

English would be like this.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Aleks
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 00:37

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Aleks » 24 Dec 2015 00:25

Middle English sounds so beautiful, if only it stayed that way. To me it sounds better than English today.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: 16 May 2015 17:48

Re: English without GVS?

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 24 Dec 2015 00:52

Aleks wrote:Middle English sounds so beautiful, if only it stayed that way. To me it sounds better than English today.
I agree. Middle English + "rolled R" instead of the ugly approximant = English would actually sound good. I'm also fond of the /x/ in Middle English. I can't really stand Modern English much, maybe that's crept into my speech since someone once told me I "had an accent" then proceeded to try to figure out if it was German or from different countries rather than something you'd actually find where I live.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Aleks
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 00:37

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Aleks » 24 Dec 2015 04:21

Indeed, I am quite partial to /x/ although as an English speaker don't say it often like /h/. Rolled R would definitely spice it up.

User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: English without GVS?

Post by GrandPiano » 25 Dec 2015 00:11

HoskhMatriarch wrote:I agree. Middle English + "rolled R" instead of the ugly approximant = English would actually sound good.
IIRC it's hypothesized that the approximant was an allophone of the trill in Middle English and possibly even in Old English. Is there evidence that it wasn't always an approximant in Middle English?
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1477
Joined: 15 May 2010 23:25

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Xonen » 25 Dec 2015 00:42

GrandPiano wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:I agree. Middle English + "rolled R" instead of the ugly approximant = English would actually sound good.
IIRC it's hypothesized that the approximant was an allophone of the trill in Middle English and possibly even in Old English. Is there evidence that it wasn't always an approximant in Middle English?
As far as I've been able to gather, the history of rhotics in Germanic in general is a highly complicated mess. :roll: Pretty much all possible rhotic phones seem to be attested, in various different distributions (complementary or otherwise), in some dialects of most of the languages, but there appears to be no obvious pattern. The approximant is common enough that it's tempting to reconstruct it as an allophone for Proto-Germanic already, but who knows?

For Old English, supporting evidence comes from post-vocalic liquids causing "breaking" of preceding front vowels in the same manner as velar consonats, which has led to the assumption that they were velarized - which in turn is apparently more likely if /r/ was an approximant and not a trill. A minority view is that it might have been uvular.

Personally, I'd favor the distribution found in old-fashioned RP: tap between vowels, approximant elsewhere.

BTW, I'm fairly sure that [a:ʒ(ə)] (instead of [a:dʒ(ə)]) is a hypercorrection. I blame the (modern) French. [:P]

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4406
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: English without GVS?

Post by qwed117 » 25 Dec 2015 05:08

"To the left, you'll see unburdened hatred of a single phoneme. NO BILLY DON'T TOUCH THAT RHOTIC!"
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: 16 May 2015 17:48

Re: English without GVS?

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 25 Dec 2015 05:20

GrandPiano wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:I agree. Middle English + "rolled R" instead of the ugly approximant = English would actually sound good.
IIRC it's hypothesized that the approximant was an allophone of the trill in Middle English and possibly even in Old English. Is there evidence that it wasn't always an approximant in Middle English?
Yes, that's why I said it would be good if there were a trill in addition to normal Middle English pronunciation, instead of just saying that Middle English pronunciation had a trill (which it might have, or might not, nobody knows).
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6250
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Ahzoh » 25 Dec 2015 08:59

Unreasonable hatred for one phoneme. I like the approximant rhotic... although would be better if it was a flap intervocalically, like in my conlang.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2413
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 20:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Egerius » 25 Dec 2015 11:57

Ahzoh wrote:Unreasonable hatred for one phoneme. I like the approximant rhotic... although would be better if it was a flap intervocalically, like in my conlang.
I do the flap intervocalically (and sometimes between words) before weak vowels when I speak conservative RP. It sounds pretty old-fashioned, but I like it.
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2775
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Dormouse559 » 26 Dec 2015 07:09

qwed117 wrote:"To the left, you'll see unburdened hatred of a single phoneme. NO BILLY DON'T TOUCH THAT RHOTIC!"
Image

cntrational
roman
roman
Posts: 953
Joined: 05 Nov 2012 03:59

Re: English without GVS?

Post by cntrational » 26 Dec 2015 07:53

It could be anything.

User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 505
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Davush » 27 Dec 2015 23:36

Aleks wrote:Indeed, I am quite partial to /x/ although as an English speaker don't say it often like /h/. Rolled R would definitely spice it up.
My dialect (Scouse) has both of these. [:D] The rhotic is consistently /ɾ/ and /k/ is [x] or [χ] when word-final and sometimes between vowels. Quite a lot of Northern British dialects still have /ɾ/.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1779
Joined: 16 May 2015 17:48

Re: English without GVS?

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 28 Dec 2015 00:08

Davush wrote:
Aleks wrote:Indeed, I am quite partial to /x/ although as an English speaker don't say it often like /h/. Rolled R would definitely spice it up.
My dialect (Scouse) has both of these. [:D] The rhotic is consistently /ɾ/ and /k/ is [x] or [χ] when word-final and sometimes between vowels. Quite a lot of Northern British dialects still have /ɾ/.
Does Scottish count as Northern British? Most Scottish people say they're not British (even though they're on the island of Great Britain) so I'm honestly not sure. It's the main dialect I think of as having both of those. As far as Northern British dialects go, I know Northumbrian is the dialect that had/has the /ʀ/ (which is the only thing better than /r/, although only marginally, because /r/ is still really nice, I just have a weird thing for /ʀ/). Why couldn't standard forms of English have come from Northern Britain is one thing I've thought for while, although mostly because Northern British dialects are more Norse-influenced and Southern British dialects are more French-influenced (although Norse probably still has more influence than French for Southern British dialects, considering there's the pronoun "they" and a whole lot of syntax that looks like Danish in all English and nothing like that with French in any major dialect).
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2413
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 20:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: English without GVS?

Post by Egerius » 28 Dec 2015 12:03

HoskhMatriarch wrote:Why couldn't standard forms of English have come from Northern Britain is one thing I've thought for while
There's more to it than just dialect influence. The capital was moved from Winchester to London in/after 1066, so the prestige dialect was now a western Midlands dialect (instead of the Southern I'd have preferred as standard/I'd prefer speaking if I suddenly found myself in 14th century Britain).

Also, Chaucer wrote in London English and Caxton explicitly told a story (of two merchants asking for eyren/eggys in Kent) of how much the Midlands were a compromise between South and North (compare John Trevisa's translation of the Polychronicon).
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com

Post Reply