Page 1 of 2

English without GVS?

Posted: 23 Dec 2015 18:08
by Aleks
I was wondering let's say the great vowel shift never happened. How would the language have evolved and sounded if this never occurred?

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 23 Dec 2015 18:43
by Sglod
Is it that a different shift to the GVS happens or that there is no shift at all?

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 23 Dec 2015 19:27
by Aleks
No shift happening, would this have a big impact on it?

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 23 Dec 2015 20:27
by HinGambleGoth
Well, the English orthography would make sense and English speakers would have an easier time pronoucing foreign words and learn other languages.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 23 Dec 2015 21:10
by Thrice Xandvii
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!

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 24 Dec 2015 00:05
by HoskhMatriarch
English would be like this.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 24 Dec 2015 00:25
by Aleks
Middle English sounds so beautiful, if only it stayed that way. To me it sounds better than English today.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 24 Dec 2015 00:52
by HoskhMatriarch
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.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 24 Dec 2015 04:21
by Aleks
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.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 00:11
by GrandPiano
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?

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 00:42
by Xonen
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]

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 05:08
by qwed117
"To the left, you'll see unburdened hatred of a single phoneme. NO BILLY DON'T TOUCH THAT RHOTIC!"

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 05:20
by HoskhMatriarch
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).

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 08:59
by Ahzoh
Unreasonable hatred for one phoneme. I like the approximant rhotic... although would be better if it was a flap intervocalically, like in my conlang.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 25 Dec 2015 11:57
by Egerius
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.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 26 Dec 2015 07:09
by Dormouse559
qwed117 wrote:"To the left, you'll see unburdened hatred of a single phoneme. NO BILLY DON'T TOUCH THAT RHOTIC!"
Image

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 26 Dec 2015 07:53
by cntrational
It could be anything.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 27 Dec 2015 23:36
by Davush
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/.

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 28 Dec 2015 00:08
by HoskhMatriarch
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).

Re: English without GVS?

Posted: 28 Dec 2015 12:03
by Egerius
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).