This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the text:
Consonant allophones The sounds marked in parentheses are allophones:
I don't see any parentheses in the subsequent list, though. Only brackets. Is this what was meant? -- Godtvisken 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In The Cambridge Old English Reader by Richard Marsden (Cambridge 2004), it says that these letters are voiced ‘at the start of a word or medially’ (he gives the examples þis and hwæþer), whereas this article seemes to say that they were voiced only medially. Is Marsden wrong? Widsith 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Another question. The article says that [ç] and [x] are allophones of /h/ ‘after front and back vowels respectively’. But surely /h/ also changed after liquids? E.g. a word like þurh ‘through’ must surely have sounded something like /θurx/, no? Widsith 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no thing such as "Old English" per se. We have records of various dialects, as well as cases such as the Beowulf which may have originally been set in one dialect (Anglian), but later preserved in another (West-Saxon). The phonology of modern English is largely derived from non-West-Saxon dialects, so at the very least it would be more responsible to indicate in the article that it is discussing just one dialect which acted as the standard written form (I doubt there was a standard spoken form) for several centuries. Of course a few lines about some of the major differences in phonology (West-Saxon vs. Kentish vs. Anglian) would not be amiss, even in a short article. Jakob37 05:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
According to "a History of English Phonology" (Jones 1989) p. 85-86, long vowels did not participate in Anglo-Frisian brightening. Jakob37 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice if there were a section on OE phonotactics. Anyone know of any sources where someone could get this info? True ( talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I made changes to the diphthongs section to provide a more balanced array of information on the iy/ie question. I have also found at least 2 examples in Bosworth and Toller of ie being spelt as ye, which could further sugggest that ie being spelt as y in latter OE texts did not mean anything of the sort that the diphthong was pronounced iy (because it is the primary element - the element not under question - that was represented as a y in these two examples, not the latter, which is the one being alleged to have been a y sound). Gott wisst ( talk) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The vowels need to be hyperlinked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.217.159 ( talk) 05:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the claim that "[dʒ] is an allophone of /j/ occurring after /n/ and when geminated" not a mixture of diachronic and synchronic approaches? Synchronically, I think one has to argue that OE /dʒ/ could be analysed as having phonemic status, as we can form minimal pairs, such as sencan /ˈsenkɑn/ vs. sengan /ˈsendʒɑn/. Moreover, I don't think the allophony (if there was any) would be centred on /j/, but rather on some kind of palatalized /ɡ/ as [ɡʲ] => [dʒ], which is far more phonetically plausible than [jj](?)=>[dʒ] imho. In any case, that would not be allophony in OE, but in Proto-WGmc at best. By the way, I like the entry as it is and many thanks for the many contributions; as with all wikipedia entries the information given has to be taken cum grano salis, which is fine. Symkyn ( talk) 10:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to split the description of sound changes to another article, and to outline the more important changes in this article. The article is ridiculously long now, and too complex for a non-specialist. For description of phonemes, only brief information is needed: a list of the sound changes that gave rise to diphthongs, palatalized consonants, umlauted vowels, etc. — Eru· tuon 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've created Phonological history of Old English, and moved content from here to there. I'm planning on deleting the sections on sound changes from this article, and adding just enough on sound changes to explain the inventory of phones: for instance, a brief statement on where the diphthongs, postalveolars, and palatal originated from. — Eru· tuon 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Schrijver has an interesting theory in his new book on Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages: that Old English breaking, backing, and i-mutation were phonological loans from the Celtic language of Britain. Schrijver points out that the vowel changes before velarized and palatalized consonants in Irish are similar to the vowel changes of breaking, backing, and i-mutation in Old English. He argues that Old English also had velarization and palatalization through language contact with British Celtic, and these phonological or phonetic features caused the observed Old English vowel changes.
It's generally agreed that Anglo-Saxons didn't replace the original population of Britain; rather, they became dominant over the native population and their language came to be spoken by British Celts. Schrijver argues that Britain had a dialect called Lowland British Celtic, distinct from Highland British Celtic, the language that became Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. Some Lowland British Celtic speakers moved to Ireland in the first century when the Romans invaded Britain, and later became Old Irish through a dramatic series of phonological changes when the native Irish adopted the language. But some Lowland British speakers remained in Britain, and since their language, Schrijver argues, already had velarization and palatalization, it loaned these features to Old English.
His theory needs a lot more development, but it looks promising. If phonemically velarized consonants existed, then the Old English backing diphthongs ie, eo, ea are really plain vowels followed by a velarized consonant, the same as i, e, æ; and when i, e, æ are actually spelled, this indicates they were followed by a plain or palatalized consonant. Then words that are traditionally taken as showing a contrast between monophthong and diphthong really contrast in whether the consonant following the vowel is velarized or not. And when velarization was lost, the supposed diphthongs merged with the single vowels, showing they were really the same thing all along. Differences between presence and absence of breaking could be explained by presence and lack of velarization in different words and different dialects of Old English. And the way in which a back vowel caused vowel changes was through the intermediary of the velarization of the preceding consonant (similarly with a front vowel and palatalization). But this is just me expanding on what Schrijver says; he doesn't develop his theory this much.
Not sure if or in what way Schrijver's theory should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps I'll add a note on the possibility that the diphthongs were really simple vowels followed by a velarized consonant, in the case of breaking at least (perhaps not in the case of diphthongs inherited from Proto-Germanic *iu, *eu, *au). This is a possibility already considered in other sources, I think. — Eru· tuon 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Palatal diphthongization changed e, æ and a, ǣ, u and o, ē to the diphthongs ie, ea, ēo, ēa respectively hwæt? It changed 5 groups of sounds to 4 groups, respectively? Please rephrase like "e changed to ie" etc.-- 2.200.163.37 ( talk) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There are some words that show outcomes not following the rules of allophony, as a result of syncope: [6]
This shows that /j/, /ɣ/, /ɡ/ and /dʒ/ all contrast after a nasal. Rua ( mew) 17:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an ∅ in the "first consonant" of the "Old English syllable-initial consonant clusters" table? Isn't it a vovel? Excuse me if I'm wrong because it really isn't my area of expertise but I need to get the phonotactics of this language correctly and it seems to be incorrect. Besides that, the "coda" section seems to be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofarlung ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the version of the Lord's Prayer in Old English on this page is in a particular OE dialect or from a particular OE source; if so - it needs a reference. The version frequently found elsewhere and taught in colleges has differences, notably:
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg.
(also corroborated by the recording)
versus this article's:
Ūrne dæġhwamlīcan hlāf sele ūs tōdæġ
Example references:
Chernorizets ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The inventory of consonant surface sounds ...
Can somebody please explicate the term surface which is supposed to be explicated in. this. article.
Frankly I am sick and tired of coming here to find what I would consider essential information either removed or simply glossed over. 220.235.95.84 ( talk) 05:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the text:
Consonant allophones The sounds marked in parentheses are allophones:
I don't see any parentheses in the subsequent list, though. Only brackets. Is this what was meant? -- Godtvisken 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In The Cambridge Old English Reader by Richard Marsden (Cambridge 2004), it says that these letters are voiced ‘at the start of a word or medially’ (he gives the examples þis and hwæþer), whereas this article seemes to say that they were voiced only medially. Is Marsden wrong? Widsith 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Another question. The article says that [ç] and [x] are allophones of /h/ ‘after front and back vowels respectively’. But surely /h/ also changed after liquids? E.g. a word like þurh ‘through’ must surely have sounded something like /θurx/, no? Widsith 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no thing such as "Old English" per se. We have records of various dialects, as well as cases such as the Beowulf which may have originally been set in one dialect (Anglian), but later preserved in another (West-Saxon). The phonology of modern English is largely derived from non-West-Saxon dialects, so at the very least it would be more responsible to indicate in the article that it is discussing just one dialect which acted as the standard written form (I doubt there was a standard spoken form) for several centuries. Of course a few lines about some of the major differences in phonology (West-Saxon vs. Kentish vs. Anglian) would not be amiss, even in a short article. Jakob37 05:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
According to "a History of English Phonology" (Jones 1989) p. 85-86, long vowels did not participate in Anglo-Frisian brightening. Jakob37 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice if there were a section on OE phonotactics. Anyone know of any sources where someone could get this info? True ( talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I made changes to the diphthongs section to provide a more balanced array of information on the iy/ie question. I have also found at least 2 examples in Bosworth and Toller of ie being spelt as ye, which could further sugggest that ie being spelt as y in latter OE texts did not mean anything of the sort that the diphthong was pronounced iy (because it is the primary element - the element not under question - that was represented as a y in these two examples, not the latter, which is the one being alleged to have been a y sound). Gott wisst ( talk) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The vowels need to be hyperlinked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.217.159 ( talk) 05:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the claim that "[dʒ] is an allophone of /j/ occurring after /n/ and when geminated" not a mixture of diachronic and synchronic approaches? Synchronically, I think one has to argue that OE /dʒ/ could be analysed as having phonemic status, as we can form minimal pairs, such as sencan /ˈsenkɑn/ vs. sengan /ˈsendʒɑn/. Moreover, I don't think the allophony (if there was any) would be centred on /j/, but rather on some kind of palatalized /ɡ/ as [ɡʲ] => [dʒ], which is far more phonetically plausible than [jj](?)=>[dʒ] imho. In any case, that would not be allophony in OE, but in Proto-WGmc at best. By the way, I like the entry as it is and many thanks for the many contributions; as with all wikipedia entries the information given has to be taken cum grano salis, which is fine. Symkyn ( talk) 10:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to split the description of sound changes to another article, and to outline the more important changes in this article. The article is ridiculously long now, and too complex for a non-specialist. For description of phonemes, only brief information is needed: a list of the sound changes that gave rise to diphthongs, palatalized consonants, umlauted vowels, etc. — Eru· tuon 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've created Phonological history of Old English, and moved content from here to there. I'm planning on deleting the sections on sound changes from this article, and adding just enough on sound changes to explain the inventory of phones: for instance, a brief statement on where the diphthongs, postalveolars, and palatal originated from. — Eru· tuon 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Schrijver has an interesting theory in his new book on Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages: that Old English breaking, backing, and i-mutation were phonological loans from the Celtic language of Britain. Schrijver points out that the vowel changes before velarized and palatalized consonants in Irish are similar to the vowel changes of breaking, backing, and i-mutation in Old English. He argues that Old English also had velarization and palatalization through language contact with British Celtic, and these phonological or phonetic features caused the observed Old English vowel changes.
It's generally agreed that Anglo-Saxons didn't replace the original population of Britain; rather, they became dominant over the native population and their language came to be spoken by British Celts. Schrijver argues that Britain had a dialect called Lowland British Celtic, distinct from Highland British Celtic, the language that became Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. Some Lowland British Celtic speakers moved to Ireland in the first century when the Romans invaded Britain, and later became Old Irish through a dramatic series of phonological changes when the native Irish adopted the language. But some Lowland British speakers remained in Britain, and since their language, Schrijver argues, already had velarization and palatalization, it loaned these features to Old English.
His theory needs a lot more development, but it looks promising. If phonemically velarized consonants existed, then the Old English backing diphthongs ie, eo, ea are really plain vowels followed by a velarized consonant, the same as i, e, æ; and when i, e, æ are actually spelled, this indicates they were followed by a plain or palatalized consonant. Then words that are traditionally taken as showing a contrast between monophthong and diphthong really contrast in whether the consonant following the vowel is velarized or not. And when velarization was lost, the supposed diphthongs merged with the single vowels, showing they were really the same thing all along. Differences between presence and absence of breaking could be explained by presence and lack of velarization in different words and different dialects of Old English. And the way in which a back vowel caused vowel changes was through the intermediary of the velarization of the preceding consonant (similarly with a front vowel and palatalization). But this is just me expanding on what Schrijver says; he doesn't develop his theory this much.
Not sure if or in what way Schrijver's theory should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps I'll add a note on the possibility that the diphthongs were really simple vowels followed by a velarized consonant, in the case of breaking at least (perhaps not in the case of diphthongs inherited from Proto-Germanic *iu, *eu, *au). This is a possibility already considered in other sources, I think. — Eru· tuon 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Palatal diphthongization changed e, æ and a, ǣ, u and o, ē to the diphthongs ie, ea, ēo, ēa respectively hwæt? It changed 5 groups of sounds to 4 groups, respectively? Please rephrase like "e changed to ie" etc.-- 2.200.163.37 ( talk) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There are some words that show outcomes not following the rules of allophony, as a result of syncope: [6]
This shows that /j/, /ɣ/, /ɡ/ and /dʒ/ all contrast after a nasal. Rua ( mew) 17:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an ∅ in the "first consonant" of the "Old English syllable-initial consonant clusters" table? Isn't it a vovel? Excuse me if I'm wrong because it really isn't my area of expertise but I need to get the phonotactics of this language correctly and it seems to be incorrect. Besides that, the "coda" section seems to be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofarlung ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the version of the Lord's Prayer in Old English on this page is in a particular OE dialect or from a particular OE source; if so - it needs a reference. The version frequently found elsewhere and taught in colleges has differences, notably:
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg.
(also corroborated by the recording)
versus this article's:
Ūrne dæġhwamlīcan hlāf sele ūs tōdæġ
Example references:
Chernorizets ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The inventory of consonant surface sounds ...
Can somebody please explicate the term surface which is supposed to be explicated in. this. article.
Frankly I am sick and tired of coming here to find what I would consider essential information either removed or simply glossed over. 220.235.95.84 ( talk) 05:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)