Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 22:51:05 EST

From: David Bergdahl BERGDAHL[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OUVAXA.CATS.OHIOU.EDU

Subject: Re: Sulking Over Silky Milk & Other Words of That Ilk



From: NAME: David Bergdahl

FUNC: English

TEL: (614) 593-2783 BERGDAHL[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]A1[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]LANCE

To: MX%"ADS-L[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uga.cc.uga.edu"[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OUVAX[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MRGATE[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OUVAX



Am I wrong to take exception to the inclusion of words like talk in the

discussion of the loss of /l/? Is my historical linguistics outdated or didn't

Elizabethan English fill the "slot" left by the raising of "long open o" to /o/

by converting {AL} and {AU/W} words like talk , daughter , law ?



Margaret Schlauch. The English Language in Modern Times, p. 45: "au in Germanic

words, derived from a+w, remained a diphthong for a time, as in law and saw ;

simplification occurred later to [long open o] by way of [open o diphthongized

to U]."



Thomas Pyles, Origins & Development, 2nd ed., p. 189: "The l of Middle English

preconsonantal al was lost after first becoming a vowel: thus Middle English

al and au fell together as au , ultimately becoming [long open o](as in

talk , walk ) except befere f , v , and m , where it became [long low front

digraph] in such words as half , salve , and psalm ."



So aren't we REALLY talking about the re-introduction of an /l/ from the

spelling analogous to disyllabic forehead ? So what's all this talk about

loss? Loss inthe case in words like folk also occurred in the early modern

period in England. Is the claim that the "loss" of /l/ in folklore but not

folk not that it's easier to reintroduce an /l/ in a single syllable? Or is

the claim that southern speakers who "retain" /l/ have resisted a 400-hundred

year old sound change?



BERGDAHL[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OUVAXA.CATS.OHIOU.EDU

David Bergdahl

Ohio University/Athens

"Where Appalachia meets the Midwest"--Anya Briggs