Talk:Phonological history of English

Time layout
Some of these sound changes should be rearranged to fit with the chronology of the them. For instance, "/iː/, /uː/ become /əi/ and /əu/, later /ai/ and /au/." should come at the forefront of the Great Vowel Shift. This can be corroborated by multiple websites on the net as well as by pure logic. /i:/ and /u:/ must have changed before /e:/ and /o:/ became /i:/ and /u:/ respectively.

I recommend that someone go to a university library and look for a diachronic phonology of English book. I go and check University of Washington's libraries. :)

Proto-West Germanic
This term is rather odd, I think. The term West Germanic is normally taken to represent a dialect grouping rather than a reconstructable proto-language, isn't it? --Pfold 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, Proto-West Germanic is as reconstructable as any other proto-language. Angr/ talk 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But that was my point: WGMc is normally not regarded as a proto-language, and therefor not reconstructable. Here's what Penzel, for example, says (Vom Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen):
 * "Die Forschung der letzen Zeit hat mit Energie den Beweis geführt, daß ein westgermanisches Stadium ... nur diachronisch als ein Bezugssystem gelten kann, ihm aber historische Realität als Ursprache oder Grundsprache nicht zuzuschreiben ist."
 * --Pfold 09:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's his opinion. I don't think that's the standard view of historical linguists, though. Angr/ talk 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't quoting for Penzl's opinion on the fact but his view that this was the consensus. Here's Chris Wells, taking a similar line: "...we are left with WGmc, and controversy has raged about the nature and unity of the grouping" (German. A Linguistic History to 1945, p. 37). Doesn't this suggest that, at the very least, West Germanic is the more NPOV term?


 * BTW, since we're talking about terminology, does anyone else find the use of the terms High Germanic and Low Germanic on those and various other Germanic pages rather odd? --Pfold 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Here's a nice read about the legitimacy of Proto-West Germanic:
 * Ringe, Donald. 2012. "Cladistic principles and linguistic reality: The case of West Germanic", in: Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (http://books.google.pl/books?id=mU9PyzdD9oUC) (date of access: 16 Jul. 2013).
 * Ryba g (talk)

Northwest Germanic
I have started a Northwest Germanic page, and linked from here. --Pfold 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness for laypeople
I found an IPA chart for English that explains, with examples, some of the symbols found on this page - but of course, it doesn't cover those that have been dropped from the language. The actual IPA page is of no use for the layperson in determining the meaning of any of these symbols, and individual examples (the mysterious upside-down "r") can be found only on their own pages, like Alveolar trill. I understand that, by definition, it's difficult to provide English examples for sounds that have been phased out of the language or have merged into other sounds, but until there is some available, intelligble information on what these symbols mean - just approximations, something, anything - this page is hermetic knowledge. 151.198.160.248 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

" West Germanic: /æː/ becomes /aː/ [ɑː] " - really?
One major branch of this group (containing English and Frisian) shows a higher vowel, while to the east and south we see the vowel /aː/. Since the earlier Germanic vowel was /æː/, isn't it simpler to assume it just remained that way in Anglo-Frisian, but got lowered in the other groups? Otherwise you have the more complicated explanation of lowering and then raising again. This necessity to lower and then raise again also applies to Frisian, since the cognates for both Gc *ai and *æː appear as e: in Old Frisian, presupposing an earlier *æː certainly for the Gc *æː development, and probably also for the Gc *ai development. Otherwise, besides having a more complicated scenario (which, following Occam, is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary), you have to supply motivation for these back and forth swings. - Given systemic pressure, a change from æː to aː is pretty common; the fact that both Old Norse and OHG show the same change does not necessarily mean that it only happened once when they were the same language.Jakob37 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a reasonable point, but there is definitely some evidence of a back-and-forth change. For example, in order for PG *mæːnoth- to produce OE monath (Mod. month), the vowel had to pass through back a:, at least before n.  It's also a possible explanation for Latin stra:ta becoming Mod. street rather than *stroat (although you could argue that the word entered from a different Germanic dialect with back a:, and then was borrowed into Pre-OE with æː). Benwing (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yod-dropping
Shouldn't Yod-dropping be included somewhere at the end of the article?

I think is one of the most obvious changes. I hadn't heard it in tv shows until about 2 or 3 years ago, now they are saying nw instead of new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebandune (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WHO is saying "noo" instead of "nyoo" (for )? Younger people? Women? British? Americans?? Please be more clear than "they". Jakob37 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about /ʌl/ in General American

 * Nothing mentioned about the General American pronunciation of before ? Ulcer, gulf  are pronounced .  is pronounced in the previous words before  differently from before other consonants. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that? Born and raised in Minneapolis, I pronounce before  (like all ) as an unrounded central vowel, and I would misunderstand  as "golf". —teb728 t c 07:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen to golf in   and gulf in   . The audio clips for both words in the three dictionaries are identical. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe to you, but I can definitely hear a difference. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  02:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's definitely a difference in General American between the two vowels. However, I have heard American English speakers who do not distinguish between (pull),  (poll),   (pulverize), and maybe also  (pall), pronouncing all or some of these as something like . — Eru·tuon 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Æµ§œš¹: I hear the obscure difference, but it's very small. I opened that discussion because the actual pronunciation of before  in GA isn't the same as  before other consonants. For example:  in up, nut, nun, utmost... isn't the same as in ulcer, ultimate, multi, gulf.... It would be kind of you to explain the difference of both vowels :) --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have a reference for that? The pronunciation text of the dictionary entries that you cite does not support your contention. —teb728 t c 02:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's and different phonetically than other contexts (which is what tends to do in English), it maintains the phonemic contrast for native speakers, which is hardly "identical."  Teb728 is right; find sources for this.  It seems like you're relying on your fairly unreliable ears.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  03:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I apologize for using the word identical. Before and after reading that article, I searched for an explanation for the issue of, but I didn't find yet. That's why I was wondering if someone found something about that. There is a misunderstanding, I wasn't threatening to alter the article when I stated that discussion in order to I receive those rough replies (@ teb728, Æµ§œš¹ last replies). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, shouldn't have been so rough. There might be something present in dialectology studies.  I'm not sure.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  04:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry you found my posts rough; I certainly didn’t intend to be rough on you. Could you explain what it was you found rough? If it was just that I asked you for a reference, I assume from the fact that you are posting on this talk page that you want to propose a change to the article, but Wikipedia policy requires that content be verifiable with references to reliable sources. If you don’t have a reference, that’s OK, but what makes you think it is true? If it is just that that is your personal experience, maybe the answer is in Erutuon’s post that some American English speakers do not distinguish some vowels before ‘l’. (In my experience of GA, however, /ʌ/ and the vowel part of /ʌl/ are identical.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 May 2011
 * I think Auesoes meant he shouldn't have been so rough, not you shouldn't have been so rough. —Angr (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Mahmudmasri, who mentioned me. —teb728 t c 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting into one article per stage
While it's useful to have this article, it is becoming very long as more details about changes are being added. And it also makes it very hard to make similar articles for other languages, because there is so much in common between them. An article on the development of German, for example, would necessarily have to duplicate all the information about Proto-Germanic and West Germanic from this article. I think it would therefore be best to split this article into several smaller articles, each of which details a particular stage of the language. Many of such pages already exist, for example West Germanic languages. This page could then be reduced to a summary of the stages, and link to the page about each stage as a main article. CodeCat (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ProtoGermanic-Modern English Vowel Changes
Down there, in the vowel chages section, it has the option to click a link that supposedly takes you to said chart. However, clicking the link takes you to the Old English Phonology article, where no such chart exists. I see one with changes from Late OE (I think it said), and one with changes from WGmc, but not Proto Gmc. I'm just confused, is all (and, I admit, a little disappoint XD). Is the chart from WGmc the one it was talking about, or is that chart gone, or what happened? (Sorry if I'm not making sense; I'm tired and really shouldn't be on the 1n+0rn3+z right now. XP) 98.71.134.181 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eight
I am trying to trace eight from *h₁ok̂tō(u) to 'eight'. From PIE to Proto-Germanic is easy. Fortson gives PGrm. *ahtau whereas Ringe gives *ahtōu, my own calculations end at *ahtōu (but I assume this is largely a notational difference). Getting from *ahtōu to eahta is harder. Brightening 'a' > 'æ', breaking *æht- to eaht-. But how do I get from *-tōu to -ta? Fortson (2010: 360) says that Germanic *au (= Ringe's ōu) becomes ēa, this would give me *-tēa, Wikipedia says unstressed dipthongs were monophtongized /au/ > /oː/ this would give me *-tō but neither *eahtēa nor *eahtō is the Old English word for eight. Please help. Tibetologist (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unstressed final-syllable o usually became a in Old English. This also happened in other words like the n-stems (*gumô > guma) and the genitive plural ending (*-ôN > -a). CodeCat (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tibetologist (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was also trying to trace eight back from P.I.E. And I stumbled on two problems. Firstly, the [t] in *h₁ok̂tōw remained intact and still was *ahtōu somehow. So I think it became *h₁okdōw in early Pre-Germanic. The second problem was the one you just explained. -Muonium777 Muonium777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fricativisation of PIE failed in "eight" because of the consonant cluster: see Grimm's law. As for the final vowel, what probably happened is the final diphthong monophthongised to a overlong vowel (ô), which would be regularly reflected as -a in OE. This monophthongisation cannot be reconstructed for PGmc. since Gothic still retains a distinct reflex of the diphthong (𐌰𐌷𐍄𐌰𐌿). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Gothic origins are disputed
Many scholars regard the supposed Scandinavian origin as Cassiodorus' invention. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple table of vowels
I thought I saw a really simple table of vowel developments from Old English to Modern English somewhere on Wikipedia, but I've lost it and can't figure out where on earth it was. It was much simpler than the tables in this article, which include all the complications. It basically showed the conventional developments of Old English short vowels, long vowels, and some diphthongs, with some word sets. It had a good overview of the Great Vowel Shift and the foot–strut split, which are impossible to see in the tables in this article.

If someone knows where this simple table is, I'd be really grateful if you'd point me to it, and I might want to add a modified version to this article and the article on the Great Vowel Shift. — Eru·tuon 01:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it! It's at . Hard to know whether it should be kept in that article or moved here. — Eru·tuon 07:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

When did /ɔ/ in "lot" become /ɒ/?
Under the lot–cloth split, this article reads as follows:
 * "in some varieties, lengthening of /ɔ/ before voiced velars (/ŋ/, /ɡ/) (American English only) and voiceless fricatives (/s/, /f/, /θ/). Hence American English long, log, loss, cloth, off with /ɔː/ (except in dialects with the cot–caught merger where the split is made completely moot)."

However, under the father-bother merger, the article says this:
 * "/ɒ/ as in lot, bother merges with /ɑ/ as in father, so that most North American dialects only have the vowel /ɑ/."

As it is not mentioned when the unlengthened /ɔ/ was lowered to /ɒ/, naturally, I wonder when did such happen. I do understand that /ɒ/(IPA) says few languages make a distinction between /ɔ/ and /ɒ/. However, just as there is a distinction between their unrounded counterparts: /ʌ/ and /ɑ/, there probably would be a distinction between these vowels. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.218.18 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The distinction is small and since it's also purely phonetic - basically /ɔ/ sounding a bit more open - it would be unlikely to be documented in any way in the pre-modern era. Even in modern times, non-English speakers need to exercise special attention in order to notice that RP /ɒ/ is not just identical to their /ɔ/ (even apart from the tendency of /ɒ/ to actually develop back into /ɔ/ in modern Southern British English).--87.126.21.225 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, already John Eliot's 17th century spelling for Wampanoag used o for Wampanoag /a/, so at least in his variety the original /ɔ/ would seem to have been rather open. Or at least closer to an /a/ than his pronunciation of the reflex of Middle English /a/ (spelt 'a') in most words.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just now getting around to read this, and I have trouble with the idea—I'd say and urban myth—that most American English dialects have COT-CAUGHT merger. Labov, et al. (2006) The Atlas of North American English, shows that only six of the 20 dialects they identify have the merger, and at least one of those is transitional. Would anyone object if I rewrote this section to reflect this. Miiknaans (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The proportion for COT-CAUGHT in the US was 60% non-merger vs 40% merger in the 1990s, but with a tendency for the merger to expand (as found in other, much more extensive surverys by Labov and explained in the main article about it). I don't know what the percentages have become by now. Also note that this is quite separate from the subject of this thread. What most American English dialects do have - and that's no urban myth - is the FATHER-BOTHER merger. --87.126.21.225 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

*óynos ---> *oinoz?
If the Verner's law affected the final syllable of the word oynos (one), then why was it stressed on the first syllable in P.I.E? Muonium777 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"/wo:n/ >! /wʊn/ mysterious" - No, it isn't
/ɔː/ > /wɔː/ (then subsequently > /wɔ/ > /wʌ/ before [n]) was the normative sound change in the West Country, and this form for one and once eventually spread to London and then became standard. I am not familiar with the specifics of how or when this happened, but it is no mystery. See dialectical versions of other words like woak for oak. Ribose carb (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

conservative varieties of Modern English
I have an issue with the following statements:


 * 1) “Early on, high-mid diphthongs were raised: /ei/ merged with /iː/ (hence eye < OE ēġe rhymes with rye < *riġe < OE ryġe)”
 * 2) “Later, the new /ɛː, eː/ are shifted again to /eː, iː/ in Early Modern English, causing merger of former /eː/ with /iː/; but the two are still distinguished in spelling as ea, ee.” … The Meet–meat merger /eː/ (ea) raises to /iː/ (ee) Thus Meet and meat become homophones in most accents. Words with (ea) that were shortened (see above) avoided the merger, also some words like steak and great simply remained with an /eː/ (which later becomes /eɪ/ in most varieties) merging with words like name, so now death, great, and meat have three different vowels.

For the first statement, about eye having /iː/ in Middle English (>Modern English /ai/) is only true of certain regions. This variation in eye’s vowel affects present-day English as well, with some people saying /ai/ (< Middle English /iː/) and others saying /iː/ (< Middle English /eː/) for eye. In some varieties of Modern English (in e.g., North American, southern England) words like eye, flies, thigh, died, (& light, night, sight) have /ai/: the same vowel as words that had /iː/ in Middle English (e.g., time, Friday, five, white, ice, knife). However, in other varieties of Modern English (in e.g., Yorkshire, Westmorland, etc.), words like eye, flies, (light) etc. have /iː/: the same vowel as words that had /eː/ in Middle English (e.g. geese, green, cheese, weeds, creep) (see The Linguistic Atlas of England (Orton et al. 1978)). Eye couldn’t have had /iː/ in all varieties of Middle English or we would wrongly predict it to have /ai/ in Yorkshire English. I don’t know enough about Middle English to know if the issue is with the rule or the example, but I know something is wrong. Perhaps eye is not a good example of early Middle English /ei/ or perhaps the /ei/ → /iː/ change is regional only. I’m not sure.

As for statement (2), Early Modern English /eː/ (<Middle English /ɛː/) and /iː/ (<Middle English /eː/) merging is only regional. The Linguistic Atlas of England (Orton et al. 1978) reports that large areas of rural England (perhaps even most areas) still made this distinction in the 1950s, particularly in Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, the west Midlands and the South West. Also, this merger is listed in both “up to Shakespeare’s English” and “Up to the American–British split.”

I’m not an expert in English historical linguistics, so I’m not going to attempt to edit this article myself, but this article treats many changes in English as universal when they only affect certain varieties. It seems to specifically ignore the rural British and Irish English speakers, prioritizing North American English and English spoken by wealthier, urban Brits. It comes off as rather classist, like the article claiming rural people don't speak Modern English, or that their English is less valuable that that of urban upper class people. Jackpaulryan (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Voiced fricatives
It is surprising that there is little info on the /s/-/z/ split, especially since the rest of the article is so detailed. The only article where I find this explained properly is Middle English phonology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_phonology#Voiced_fricatives It would probably be a good idea to introduce the information here, too. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Various treatments of the th sounds"
How helpful is it to have a list of nearly every possible sound change that can happen to the θ/ð phonemes and simply state that they are occurring? This section needs to specify to which dialects each sound change is happening. Most of these sound changes have not occurred in any standard dialect of English, although they are still worth mentioning if they are occurring in other dialects. th-debuccalization and th-alveolarization are to my knowledge not even sound changes occurring to any major dialect of English. Jeryas (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)