#5618. īѤʵܥΥå with Ͻؤ --- ֱѸ˥饤2024פ ([2024-09-13-1]) ǾҲ𤷤Voicy heldio īѤʵܥΥå with ϽؤˤơԤ40ʬ30ä餤study student <u> ʬȯλۤʤΤϤʤǤפȤ䤤夲Ƥޤ#3295. study <u> û첻Τ櫓 ([2018-05-05-1]) ǤԽʬǤϤʤȤŦޤ
嵭ܥΥåפǤϼ긵˾ܤʤ֤Ǥ¨βäΤǤθ塤ܤĴ٤Ƥߤȡȹä𤬤褦Ǥstudy 1첻û첻ǤΤϡñ줬ȤȤϥƥͳǤʤ顤եͳƤȤаޤͿƤǤ
ˤĤƤϡѸ첻ˤ (339) ˼꤬꤬ä
F [= French] β̡OF [= Old French] 첻 CL [= Classical Latin] β̤ǤϤʤVL [= Vulgar Latin] IJǤûǤĹȤ§ѤME [= Middle English] βȿ F ̤Ƥοβ̤ФȿǤ롥
û첻ˤʤŪʲĶ3ۤɵƤΤ1Ĥˡ3ư졤̾졤ƻ1פp. 340ˡư study Ѹ studien ιܤ¿1ĤȤƵƤֻǼˡ
(3) 3ư졤̾졤ƻ1ᡧbanisshen (=banish)/ravisshen (=ravish)/vanisshen (=vanish)/perishen (=perish)/finishen (=finish)/florisshen (=flourish)/norishen (=nourish)/publisshen (=publish)/punisshen (=punish)/travailen (=travail)/honouren (=honour)/visiten (=visit)/governen (=govern)/studien (=study)/family/salary/memory/remedy/misery/chalaundre (=calendar)/chapitre (=chapter)/sepulcre/oracle/miracle/ministre (=minister)/vinegre (=vinegar)/covenant/rethorik (=rhetoric)/bacheler (=bachelor)/charitee (=charity)/vanite (=vanity)/jolitee (=jollity)/povertee (=poverty)/libertee (=liberty)/trinitee (=trinity)/facultee (=faculty)/vavasour/amorous/casuel (=casual)/natural/general/lecherous/seculer (=secular)/diligent
ư study ϡѸǤ studīen Τ褦3Ǥξ硤2 student Ȥϰۤʤꡤ1IJȤʤ뤿첻ûݤ롤ȤäȤʤޤ
סزˡ١Ѹ11罤۽Ź1985ǯ

Baugh and Cable ˤѸˤθŵŪ̾ Voicy heldio ˤ1᤺ɤƤäȿʤƤޤǯ7˳ϤͭǤޤɲʤɤǤ̾ heldio ˤ̵Ƥޤ
98ˤ12 heldio ۿδֱѸ˥饤2024פŤޤī 8:00-- 8:55 55ʬȤǡBaugh and Cable 57ɼ¶ѡפ̵ͽǤʳءˤϽؤʾءˤī3ͤ䤫ɲ깭Ƥޤ
ƥȤǤʤΤˡɤ뤳ȤˤʤäƤ57 "Chronological Criteria" (pp. 73--75) αʸʲ˷ǺܤƤޤűѸΥƥѸǯ¬˴ؤ륨ƥʲսǤäͽƤƤޤȡɼ¶ѤڤİȤǤȻפޤ
57. Chronological Criteria.In order to form an accurate idea of the share that each of these three periods had in extending the resources of the English vocabulary, it is first necessary to determine as closely as possible the date at which each of the borrowed words entered the language. This is naturally somewhat difficult to do, and in the case of some words it is impossible. But in a large number of cases it is possible to assign a word to a given period with a high degree of probability and often with certainty. It will be instructive to pause for a moment to inquire how this is done.
The evidence that can be employed is of various kinds and naturally of varying value. Most obvious is the appearance of the word in literature. If a given word occurs with fair frequency in texts such as Beowulf, or the poems of Cynewulf, such occurrence indicates that the word has had time to pass into current use and that it came into English not later than the early part of the period of Christian influence. But it does not tell us how much earlier it was known in the language, because the earliest written records in English do not go back beyond the year 700. Moreover, the late appearance of a word in literature is no proof of late adoption. The word may not be the kind of word that would naturally occur very often in literary texts, and so much of Old English literature has been lost that it would be very unsafe to argue about the existence of a word on the basis of existing remains. Some words that are not found recorded before the tenth century (e.g., pīpe 'pipe', cīese 'cheese') can be assigned confidently on other grounds to the period of continental borrowing.
The character of the word sometimes gives some clue to its date. Some words are obviously learned and point to a time when the church had become well established in the island. On the other hand, the early occurrence of a word in several of the Germanic dialects points to the general circulation of the word in the Germanic territory and its probable adoption by the ancestors of the English on the continent. Testimony of this kind must of course be used with discrimination. A number of words found in Old English and in Old High German, for example, can hardly have been borrowed by either language before the Anglo-Saxons migrated to England but are due to later independent adoption under conditions more or less parallel, brought about by the introduction of Christianity into the two areas. But it can hardly be doubted that a word like copper, which is rare in Old English, was nevertheless borrowed on the continent when we find it in no fewer than six Germanic languages.
The most conclusive evidence of the date at which a word was borrowed, however, is to be found in the phonetic form of the word. The changes that take place in the sounds of a language can often be dated with some definiteness, and the presence or absence of these changes in a borrowed word constitutes an important test of age. A full account of these changes would carry us far beyond the scope of this book, but one or two examples may serve to illustrate the principle. Thus there occurred in Old English, as in most of the Germanic languages, a change known as i-umlaut. (Umlaut is a German word meaning 'alteration of sound', which in English is sometimes called mutation.) This change affected certain accented vowels and diphthongs (æ, ā, ō, ū, ēa, ēo , and īo) when they were followed in the next syllable by an ī or j. Under such circumstances, æ and a became e, and ō became ē, ā became ǣ, and ū became ȳ. The diphthongs ēa, ēo, īo became īe, later ī, ȳ. Thus *baŋkiz > benc (bench), *mūsiz > mȳs, plural of mūs (mouse), and so forth. The change occurred in English in the course of the seventh century, and when we find it taking place ina word borrowed from Latin, it indicates that the Latin word had been taken into English by that time. Thus Latin monēta (which became *munit in Prehistoric OE) > mynet (a coin, Mod. E. mint) and is an early borrowing. Another change (even earlier) that helps us to date a borrowed word is that known as palatal diphthongization. By this sound change ǣ or ē in early Old English was changed to a diphthong (ēa and īe, respectively) when preceded by certain palatal consonants (ċ, ġ, sc). OE cīese (L. cāseus, chesse) mentioned earlier, shows both i-umlaut and palatal diphthongization (cāseus > *ċǣsi > *ċēasi > *ċīese). In many words, evidence for date is furnished by the sound changes of Vulgar Latin. Thus, for example, an intervocalic p (and p in the combination pr) in the Late Latin of northern Gaul (seventh century) was modified to a sound approximating a v, and the fact that L. cuprum, coprum (copper) appears in OE as copor with the p unchanged indicates a period of borrowing prior to this change (cf. F. cuivre). Again Latin ī changed to e before A.D. 400 so that words like OE biscop (L. episcopus), disc (L. discus), sigel 'brooch' (L. sigillum), and the like, which do not show this change, were borrowed by the English on the continent. But enough has been said to indicate the method and to show that the distribution of the Latin words in Old English among the various periods at which borrowing took place rests not upon guesses, however shrewd, but upon definite facts and upon fairly reliable phonetic inferences.
Baugh and Cable ɥΥХåʥСϡ#5291. heldio ΡֱѸˤθŵŪ̾ Baugh and Cable ɤץĴ˿ʤǤޤ ([2023-10-22-1]) ˷ǺܤƤޤҤε˥ƥȤꤷơ1ᤫ餪İС
Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 6th ed. London: Routledge, 2013.
ε#5549. Sturtevant's Paradox --- Ѳϵ§ŪԵ§߽ФԵ§§߽Ф ([2024-07-06-1]) κǸǡFertig "Sturtevant's Paradox" ȽŪΩǤ뤳ȤFertig (97--98) εʤΤǡޤޤѤ
Like a lot of memorable sayings, Sturtevant's Paradox is really more of a clever play on words than a paradox, kind of like 'Isn't it funny how you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway.' There is nothing paradoxical about the fact that phonetically regular change gives rise to morphological irregularities. Similarly, it is no surprise that morphologically motivated change tends to result in increased morphological regularity. 'Analogic creation' would be even more effective in this regard if it were regular, i.e. if it always applied across the board in all candidate forms, but even the most sporadic morphologically motivated change is bound to eliminate a few morphological idiosyncrasies from the system.
If we consider analogical change from the perspective of its effects on phonotactic patterns, it is sometimes disruptive in just the way that one would expect . . . . At one point in the history of Latin, for example, it was completely predictable that s would not occur between vowels. Analogical change destroyed this phonological regularity, as it has countless others. Carstairs-McCarthy (2010: 52--5) points out that analogical change in English has been known to restore 'bad' prosodic structures, such as syllable codas consisting of a long vowel followed by two voiced obstruents. Although Carstairs-McCarthy's examples are all flawed, there are real instances, such as believed < beleft, of the kind of development he is talking about (§5.3.1).
What the continuing popularity of Sturtevant's formulation really reveals is that one old Neogrammarian bias is still very much with us: When Sturtevant talks about changes resulting in 'regularity' and 'irregularities', present-day historical linguists still share his tacit assumption that these terms can only refer to morphology. If we were to revise the 'paradox' to accurately reflect the interaction between sound change and analogy, we would wind up with something not very paradoxical at all:
Sound change, being phonetically/phonologically motivated, tends to maintain phonological regularity and produce morphological irregularity. Analogic creation, being morphologically motivated, tends to produce phonological irregularity and morphological regularity. Incidentally, the former tends to proceed 'regularly' (i.e. across the board with no lexical exceptions) while the latter is more likely to proceed 'irregularly' (word-by-word).
I realize that this version is not likely to go viral.
ǤСؼԤϡηϤε§äơε§ε§Ż뤷ƤΤǤϤʤפ˷нŤäΤǤϤʤȤŦޤ "Sturtevant's Paradox" ζ̵Ƚ˼ƤˤȤäơܤФ褦ʻŦä
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: OUP, 2010.
ɸϡޤޤ˸뤳ȤǤ롥ֲˡ§ϵ§ŪԵ§߽Фˤ¤Ե§§߽ФפȤ⤤뤷ַˤƵ§ŪʲѲϥȥԡ礵Ե§ŪѤϥȥԡפȤ⤤롥Ѳ (sound_change) (analogy) γơħޤɽΤǤʺε#5548. Ѳν̤ƹͤ ([2024-07-05-1]) ȡˡΰ⤤ˤĤƤϡʲδϢ뵭Ƥ
#1693. §ŪʲѲԵ§ŪʷѲ ([2013-12-15-1])
#838. ηϤȥȥԡ ([2011-08-13-1])
#1674. ѲȶοʿˤĤƤŪͻ ([2013-11-26-1])
ζǽ˽Ҥ٤ΤïäפФȤƤFertig ɤǤơ Sturtevant Ǥȶ줿Fertig (96) ꡤϢʬѤ롥
Long before there was a Philosoraptor, historical linguists had 'Sturtevant's Paradox': 'Phonetic laws are regular but produce irregularities. Analogic creation is irregular but produces regularity' (Sturtevant 1947: 109). It is catchy and memorable. It has undoubtedly helped generations of linguistics students remember the battle between sound change and analogy, and, on the tiny scale of our subdiscipline, it is no exaggeration to say that it has 'gone viral', making appearances in numerous textbooks . . . and other works . . . .
Τ˥åʶǤ롥Fertig ϤΥå椨˸ʤʤäƤʬΤǤϤʤȷپĤ餷Ƥ롥
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale UP, 1947.
Ӹ (comparative_linguistics) ζȤ٤ǯʸˡ (neogrammarian) ˤֲѲ㳰ʤפθ§ (Ausnahmslose Lautgesetze) ϡѲ (sound_change) (analogy) ̤ȤΩ衤θѲ2ĤθϡƤʤΡʤΤȤƲᤵƤ2ˤꡤäˤŪʸѲκƤޤȤۤɤθ̤Ǥ롥
ŪʥơФȿ⡤³ŪФƤ㳰ʤȤ벻Ѳ⡤ѤаΧŬѤ줿ȤƲǤΤǤϤʤȤո¤ΤȤ伫ȤóȻ (lexical_diffusion) ᤰΤʤǡ2θѲθϡߤܶᤷΤǤϤʤȹͤȤä
νפˤĤơFertig (99--100) ŸƤ롥Fertig 2̤٤ȤŪʸΩäƤϤ뤬εϥƥϡFertig Τ褦ΩΩĺҤ٤Ƥ1Ѥ (95) ñȯˤ϶ʤɿΰ۷ (variants) ȤҲθˤǤ롥
The restriction of the term 'analogical' to processes based on morpho(phono)logical and syntactic patterns has long since outlived its original rationale, but the distinction between changes motivated by grammatical relations among different wordforms and those motivated by phonetic relations among different realizations of the same wordform remains a valid and important one. The essence of the Neogrammarian 'regularity' hypothesis is that these two systems are separate and that they interface only through the mental representation of a single, citation pronunciation of each wordform. The representations of non-citation realizations are invisible to the morphological and morphophonological systems, and relations among different wordforms are invisible to the phonetic system. If we keep in mind that this is really what we are talking about when we distinguish analogical change from sound change, these traditional terms can continue to serve us well.
Ѳݤˤϡ٤äꤳ˸礦ɬפȹͤƤ롥
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
father ȤñϡӸؤǤ褯礤ˤɽʤȤʤΤ餳ʤΤθŪȤʤȤʤߤθϲѲη̤ʤΤ뤤η̤ʤΤ餯ξʣäϥ֥åɤʤΤܸۤɡ츻ΤϤʤ
Ǥ Fertig (78) contamination Ѥ褦1Ĥˤʤ
The d > ð change in English father (<OE fæder is a popular example of contamination). (The parallel case of mother is cited less often in this context, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me.) The claim is that, by regular sound change, this word should have -d- rather than -ð- both in Old English (as it apparently did) and in Modern English (as is clearly does not). The -ð- in Modern English is thus attributed to contaminating from the semantically related word brother, which has had -ð- throughout the history of English . . . .
father 2ҲȤΤϡѸ˾Ǥ1ĤȤäƤ褤ʤ father father ʤΤϤޤФƤʤʲϢ뵭ȡ
#480. father ȥͥˡ§ ([2010-08-20-1])
#481. father ˵ä ([2010-08-21-1])
#698. father, mother, brother, sister, daughter λ (1) ([2011-03-26-1])
#699. father, mother, brother, sister, daughter λ (2) ([2011-03-27-1])
#703. űѸο²̾ζɽ ([2011-03-31-1])
#2204. d th θءѲ ([2015-05-10-1])
#4230. ʤ father, mother, brother Ǥ -th- Τ sister ˤϤʤΤǤ --- hellog 饸ǡ ([2020-11-25-1])
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
ǯ٤ꡤī㡼ɶˤƥָֺ츻ŵǤɤѸˡ˰٤Υڡdz֤Ƥޤ
ޤǤ1ָ츻ŵǤɤѸˡפ427ڡˤˡ2ֱѸäˤѤפ58ڡˤ˳֤ޤ줾äۤ¿ˤäȤʤޤؿؤפޤ
3ֱñȡ֥ˡ§ספ轵68ڡˤ 17:30--1900 ˳֤ޤ̤ơ̡饤ˤϥ֥åɷǤγ֤Ȥʤꡤֵ1֤Ρָƨۿץӥ⤴ѲǽǤֺ¤ǤϤޤƲϤΩƤޤפɬפʬ䤤ޤΤǡ椫λäǤꤢޤؿΤϡꤪߤ

2ƤΥȥ3ϡ褤ѸûˤγäƤޤΥɤˡ§ (grimms_law) Ǥ̾ʲ§ (sound law) 뤳ȤǡѸûˤΤ̥Ū¦̤˵ŤǤ礦ˡ§αѸû˾ΰյϡפΤۤĹǿǤѸóؽΩĤȤϤ²¾θäؤδؿͯƤȻפޤرѸ츻ŵ١ʸҡ1997ǯϤȤ츻ŵ䡤̤αѸ켭ŵޤᡤλȤɤμ¤ѤäƤϤǤ
ֺ¤Ǥϥˡ§δؤ¿θ츻ŵǰҤɤ߲ʤ顤ŪƱˡ§ƤͽǤɤñ줬夲뤫ͽۤĤĹֺ¤פǤޤȡޤޤڤʤϤǤرѸ츻ŵ٤ϡΡָ츻زפ 3.4.1. Grimm ˡ§ 3.4.2. Verner ˡ§ ɤͽƤȤᤷޤ

ͤޤǤˡܥ˴ؤ hellog βؤΥʲĥäƤޤ3ֺ¤⡤¿γΤäԤƤޤ
#5453. īֺ¤οָ츻ŵǤɤѸˡפ427Ϥޤޤ ([2024-04-01-1])
#5481. īֺ¤οָ츻ŵǤɤѸˡפ1λޤ ([2024-04-29-1])
#5486. 518ڡˤī뿷ֺ2ֱѸäˤѤפΤ ([2024-05-04-1])
ʰʲ嵭2024/05/30(Thu)
߷ ˧ͺԽ紴ˡرѸ츻ŵ١ҡ1997ǯ
Ѹ˸ԤǤڹʷܳرءˤȤ뵡ޤ̾ץȡ (name_project) ΰĤȤơ¾ΥץȥСΤ͡ءˤϽʾءˤ⤴Ǥ
Ǽˡ̾פᤰ Voicy heldio/helwa ϤϿꤷޤʲ3ܤۿƤޤĹǤΤǡ֤ΤȤˤǤ⤪İС
(1) heldio #1034. ̾ȱѸˡס4ͤ̾ץȴ #3ۡ59ʬ
(2) helwa ֡ڱѸˤ #113ۡ̾ȱѸˡΥեȡʢβΤͭΥץߥۿǤ60ʬ
(3) heldio #1038. do 뿷Ѹ --- Ya-DO-me ڹ˶ơ20ʬ
θ塤ȤΥ֥ˤơ嵭μϿȴϢƤε2ܽƤޤΤǡҲ𤷤ޤ
3α4
Ѥθβư
2ĤΡѤθβưפϡ嵭 (2) helwa ˡ̾ε礭졤ȯΥȡ˲֤餤ޤӤǤȡˡܸȱѸǤϸλȤ첻Ĵˤۤʤ뤳ȤռƤȽҤ١줬ͯޤѸǸβư褬ۤʤ뤳ȤޤȤȤҤ٤졤θꥹʡ֤οޤߤפȤ˾Ф줿ΤΤӥ֥ǶͭƤǤұѸȯ˳褫ƤС
ʤߤˡˤĤƤäȾܤΤꤿϡkhelf ȯԤΡرѸ˿ʹ67줾3̤ΡֱѸ˥饦 by khelfפˤơ2ˤ錄Υӥ塼ǺܤƤޤ
͡ʡhel (helkatsu) ꤤޤ
ε#5442. إ饤ȥϥ¼ŵ7ǡ٤Ͽ֤ĤŤȯס ([2024-03-21-1]) ǡֿפ̣ư blow θѸǤγѤȤȯ˿줿Ȥ櫓 blew ֤ä /bluː/ ȯդ¥ᤰäơ֤ Voicy heldio Ǥ夲ƤΤǡİ褷ƤС
#1023. new ϡ֥˥塼פ̡֥פ --- ѲȸóȻ
#1025. blow - blew ֥֥롼 - blown
#1026. ʤ now know ȯ㤦Ρ
blow ϸűѸˤƤ϶Ѳư7°ưäƱ7°Ӥ٤ưȤ know, grow, throw 롥ơѸ know - knew - known; grow - grew - grown; throw - threw - thrown Τ褦 blow Ȥ褯Ѥ4ưˤĤơűѸǤ4ޤȤƤ4ʤɸűѸ춯Ѳưξܺ٤ˤĤƤϡ#2217. űѸ춯ѲưΤޤȤ ([2015-05-23-1]) #42. űѸˤϲθ촴ढä ([2009-06-09-1]) ȡˡ
| 1 | 2 | ʬ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "blow" | blāwan | blēow | blēowon | blāwen |
| "know" | cnā_wan | cnēow | cnēowon | cnāwen |
| "grow" | grōwan | grēow | grēowon | grōwen |
| "throw" | þrāwan | þrēow | þrēowon | þrōwen |
#5438. μ̥ --- ǤΡإ饤ȥϥ¼ŵ7ǡ٤ ([2024-03-17-1]) ǾҲ𤷤Ǥ줿Ϸޱ¼ŵοǤˤĤƺƤӼ夲ޤ
ƱδϿ¤ƤޤϿƥĤΥȥåפΤ֤ĤŤȯ (pp. 1666--77) ǤѸֻȯЪΥ (spelling_pronunciation_gap) ˴ؿΤϡҽɤƤߤȯ¿Ȼפޤ
Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פˤ#1025. blow - blew ֥֥롼 - blownꤷơblew /bluː/ ֻȯδطˤĤƤäޤ֥֥塼פȯdzФƤ⤤뤫⤷ޤϡyod-dropping ƤΤǡ blue Ʊ֥֥롼פȯǤdrew, flew, grew, slew, threw Ʊͤǡ/juː/ ǤϤʤ /uː/ 첻ޤ
Ǥϡإ饤ȥϥ¼ŵ7ǡ٤Ρ֤ĤŤȯפꡤblew ȯˤϢ uː ι (p. 1668) Ƥߤޤ礦
15uː
ܸΡ֥פ꿰ݤͤФ褦ˤơ֥פĹȯ롥
§ŪʤĤŤ
(ōō): boot /búːt/ Ĺfood /fúːd/ ʪ
s, ch, j, l, r θ
(ü): super /súːpɚ | -pə/ Ф餷June /ʤúːn/ 6blue /blúː/ Ĥrule /rúːl/ §
ew (=ü): chew /ʧúː/ 褯ࡤJew /ʤúː/ ͡blew /blúː/ blow βcrew /krúː/ Ȱ
դ٤ĤŤ
(ui): suit /súːt/ ʰΡˤҤȤjuice /ʤúːs/ fruit /frúːt/ ʪ
ou (=ōō): group /grúːp/ 졤soup /súːp/
ä <ew> /uː/ δطСƤΤǤ͡

ֿ ԡˡإ饤ȥϥ¼ŵ7ǡ١ҡ2023ǯ
ܸδˤСʿ̾Ρ֤פФơ֤ס֤פˤơ֤ס֤פФơ֤פΤ褦ˤդ롥˳ˤĤơФ뤿ȯʹ (diacritical_mark) ϹԻҲ㳰Ȥơ§Ȥ̵Фͭ뤿εȤ롥ΤλˤϤۤܰӤƤꡤηŪǤ롥
Ѹ3 [f]/[v], [s]/[z], [θ]/[ð] ˤĤƤϡˡɤΤ褦ʽʬʤƤˤĤƤϡ1ۤ Mond ˴줿ܤγФ褦ʼؤβΤʤʬŪ˵
boss äƤʤ s դĤʤΡ8̼˼䤵ޤʤǤǤ

[f] [v] ˤĤƤϡ줾 <f> <v> ֤Τ縶§ǤꡤۤܰӤƤ롥of [əv] Τ褦ʸϤ뤬㳰Ū
[s] [z] νʬ˴ؤƤϡ嵭βǤ⡤ʤǤ뤳ȤŦ<s>, <ss>, <se>, <ce>; <z>, <zz>, <ze> ʤɤֻʣ߹äƤΤʤ٤ʬȤ̣Ϥ뤬˰Ȥϸ
[θ] [ð] ˻äƤϡ <th> Ȥ1ֻǽɽ蘆졤ʬѤϤʤŪˤСʬ褦ȤտޤϤⴶʤäȤ餤롥
ʾĤС
̾Ѥʬϡ֥ȥåʡ
[f]/[v] νʬϡֹʡ
[s]/[z] νʬϡ֥ꥮ
[θ]/[ð] νʬϡ
Ȥʤ롥νŤΥԥ졼ͿƤ줿Τ Daniels (64) μ1ʸǤ롤
Phonemic split sometimes brings new letters or spellings (e.g. Middle English <v> alongside <f> when French loans caused voicing to become significant; cf. also <vision> vs <mission>), sometimes not---English used <ð> and <þ> indifferently, even in a single manuscript, for both the voiced and voiceless interdentals, a situation persisting with Modern English <th> due to low functional load. Japanese, on the other hand, uses diacritics on certain kana for the same purpose.
ʤˤĤƤϡԤ Voicy ΥץߥꥹʡۿֱͥѸˤء (helwa) ۿ֡ڱѸˤ #95boss äƤʤ s 2ĤʤΡ217ۿˤǼ夲Ƥ롥
Daniels, Peter T. "The History of Writing as a History of Linguistics." Chapter 2 of The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Ed. Keith Allan. Oxford: OUP, 2013. 53--69.
ꥹԻ Birmingham ȯ /ˈbəːmɪŋəm/ Ǥ롥ꥹ̾ˤ褯뤳ȤĹˤΤʤȯû岽Ƥ̤Ǥ롥̾ξ -ham ƬҲæƤޤäƤ롥
Ʊ̾ΥꥫԻԤǤϡ h ¸Ƥ /ˈbɚːmɪŋhæm/ ȯ롥/h/ ¸ƤȤϡषֻȯ (spelling_pronunciation) Ȥ褵줿ȤۤŬڤ⤷ʤ
ơꥹԻԤˤĤƤϡ⤦1Ū罰ŪȯȤ /ˈbrʌməʤm̩/ ȤΤǤ롥ȤμդˤĤơClark (476) Τ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
Further complications arise from a sporadic palatalisation and assibilation of -ing(-) > [ɪnʤ] that affects suffix and infix alike: e.g. Lockinge, Wantage < OE Waneting (also originally a stream-name --- PN Berks.: 17--18, 481--2), and also the traditional, now vulgar, /brʌməʤm̩/ for Birmingham (PN Warks.: 34--6). Explanations have ranged from variant development of gen. pl. -inga- . . . to fossilised survival of a PrOE locative in *ingi, assumed to have dominated development of the names in question in the way that dative forms not uncommonly do . . . .
⤬Ȥȡ -ing εȤʤ첻ξʰ㤤ˤäơȯ /ˈbəːmɪŋəm/ 罰Ūȯ /ˈbrʌməʤm̩/ ʬƤޤäȤˤʤ롥ơΰ۷֤ɤ줬ˤäƤ1500ǯۤɤˤͭ뤫⤷ʤȤȤˤʤ롥
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
#5268. ԡˡWorld Englishes ١ʾƲ2023ǯˡ ([2023-09-29-1]) ǾҲ𤷤νϤˤơɸѸѤҲ첻βǤѸνѼǤ줫αƶưۤʤȯѤ㤬Ƥ롥
ޤֻҲ줫αƶפƤߤ褦 (12)
| Ҳ | ѸѼ |
|---|---|
| [θ] [ð] [t] [d] ѡʻĺˤʤ | ɱѸ [th]ʱѸ졤եԥѸ졤ݡѸ졤ޥ졼Ѹ졤ܤαѸ졤αѸ졤ߥޡαѸ |
| [θ] [ð] [s] [z] ѡʻˤʤ | ɥĤαѸ졤٥˥αѸ졤ڹαѸ [s]ܤαѸ졤αѸ |
| [f] [p] ѡʿξĺˤʤ | եԥѸ졤ڹαѸ [ph]αѸ졤ߥޡαѸ |
| [v] [w] ζ̤ʤ | ɥĤαѸ졤եɤαѸ졤ɱѸ졤üԤαѸ졤αѸ |
| 첻ơź | ѸѼ |
|---|---|
| 첻Ĺ첻ˤʤ | ޥѸ졤ɱѸ |
| 첻ûñ첻ˤʤ | ʱѸ졤եԥѸ졤ݡѸ졤ޥ졼Ѹ |
| Ҳθ첻 | ڹαѸ졤ܤαѸ졤Ρ̱ѡ |
| Ĺ첻û첻ζ̤ʤ | եԥѸ졤ݡѸ졤ޥ졼Ѹ졤ڹαѸ졤٥˥αѸ |

ԡˡWorld Englishes ١Ʋ2023ǯ
Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ˤ#849. ˤȥꤹۿ
(iconicity) ϡϢܥ֥Ǽ夲Ƥ롤ĤߡĴظܼ2023ǯˤǤ礭夲ƤꡤȤ櫓2ϡ֥ --- Ọ̇̄פǾܤƤ롥֥ɥɥס֤ꤽס֥ס֥֡֡פΤ褦ܸ쥪Υޥȥ (onomatopoeia) ŵŪˤߤνʣ (reduplication) ˻ϤޤꡤȤ櫓첻Ҳβץǥʤɲħ (sound_symbolism) ɽ벻ΥܤƤ롥
ȤϡΥΤ䥳Ȥ˼̤ݤ˼տ路ƤΤȤǤ롥ҥȤϡ¤ΥΤ䥳Ȥ100%Τޤޤ˸˥ԡ뤳ȤϤǤʤʥץꥫϤɤƤʤΤǤ롥ҥȤǽϤˤϸ³뤷⤽ȤΡʤǤäդ˸ꤷƹͤˤˤ¤롥ǤΤϡ¤ƤΤ褦˶Ū˼̤뤳Ȥ餤Ǥ롥
줰餤ˤ̤Ǥ뤫顤ष嵭¤ΤʤǤϤʤʤ˼ͳǤꡤ礭դϤʤΤΡϰǤϥꥨ˭٤Ǥ롥ƱǤϤʤˤˤʤ餳Ŭ٤ʼŬ٤ͷӤäѤ䤹ȤȤ
ˤ륢ϡȯˤĤƸ뤳Ȥ¿礭ñ̤ˤĤƤ뤳Ȥꤽޤäդ˸ꤻդ˹ͻϰϤȤСŪΤǤ뤫饢γξϷŪǤƱˡ¿ʬ˥ŪǤ롥
⡤ˤ륢ˤĤƻĤĹͤƤߤޤ嵭 heldio ۿΥʤɤˤС

Ĥߡ ظܼ --- ȤФϤɤޤ졤ʲ١2023ǯ
֤ǡμͭӥ Mond ˴ƤϤμ5ۤɲޤǤͭޤ
(1) ɸɽʤѸüԤˤϡܿͤɰդʤΤǤ礦
(2) Ū˸ơָѲάפʤΤǤ礦
(3) ֥饸YouTubeʤɡ͡ʥǥ̤ƱѸˤ츻˴ؤȯƤä㤤ޤΥǥȤ˥ץ䥳ץȤѤƾƤޤ
(4) ʤ͡ϡʤĿͺϤɡ˥ꥹեʤɤΥȤ̥ŪɤȤ䥤ɤΥȤ̥ϤʤɤȤΤǤ礦
(5) Ѳϡɤ٤®٤ǵޤ㤨СդɽϡɤΤ餤٤ޤΤʤΤǤ礦
Mond ˴Ϥμ¿ͤǤܸȽȤӤȤμ䤬Ωޤ (1) (4) Υ°뤫ȻפޤͤˤȤä̤¸ߤǤꡤޤ˻פ줬ˡ¾θ٤ƤðۤäƤΤȺФƤޤȤФеޤȤ櫓ؤ̤οޤä¾ӤȤˡκΩäħܤդȤ¿̻֤ޤ
Ĺǯؤ˿Ƥи鴶뤳Ȥϡ̻ϱˤƹԤ뷹ȤȤǤΤ˳ơθˤϸͭħΤǡǤܸ㳰ǤϤʤΤǤܸΤߤ˴ѻħȤΤϡۤ¿櫓ǤϤʤźνϤϤ褽ĤΤǤѤʵ˴ؤľϡ뤳Ȥ⤢ޤȳ뤳Ȥ¿ΤǤ
5μΤ3ġ(1), (2), (4) ϡ֤äƤߤСˤޤĤ (language_myth) ˴ؤä褦˻פޤŪʹͻ̤ơβǤΤȤ⥨ƥǤ͡
μͭӥ Mond Ǥ˲ޤ
![[t] ƲϤĤ顩 --- Mond μ](https://user.keio.ac.jp/lib/mond_20230831.png)
ȤƤϡt Ʋ (flapping or tapping) ٤ȤѸʹߤƤȤȤˤʤޤɤǰ۲ȤƹԤʤƤΤ17ʹߤ˥ꥫޤϤ˰ܿѾ줿ΤȻפޤt ƲϥꥫѸŵŪħǤȤݤǤ¾¿ΥꥫѸħȤȤˡºݤεɤ˵줽Ǥ
ǤϺĴ˺ݤäŵƤޤǤ Dobson (Vol. 2, p. 956) Minkova (147--48) ˵ޤDobson εҤȤƻĤƤޤ
(4) Intervocalic [t] becomes [r]
385. From early in the sixteenth century there appear the forms porridge, porringer, &c. for earlier pottage, potager (see OED, s.vv.), though the older forms also survived (thus Salesbury has potanger and Bullokar potage). Coles gives porridg and porringer as 'phonetic' spellings of pottage and pottinger, from which it appears that written forms with t may sometimes conceal spoken forms with [r].
Ϣơ#61. porridge ϰƼѹ٤ ([2009-06-28-1]) r rhotic ε⻲ȡ
Dobson, E. J. English Pronunciation 1500--1700. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford: OUP, 1968.
Minkova, Donka. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2014.
űѸο̾ΰ (hypocorism) ħϲȤ뤰䤤ФơClark (459--60) ԸͤˤĤġ⤷ҥȤͿƤƤ롥˲˴ؤŦŻҲ (geminate) ΩĤΤȤ
Clearly documented hypocoristics often show modified consonant-patterns . . . . Thus, the familiar form Saba (variant: Sæba) by which the sons of the early-seventh-century King Sǣbeorht (Saberctus) of Essex called their father showed the first element of the full name extended by the initial consonant of the second, in a way perhaps implying that medial consonants following a stressed syllable may have been ambisyllabic . . . . In the Germanic languages generally, a consonant-cluster formed at the element-junction of a compound name was often simplified in the hypocoristic form to a geminate, Old English examples including the masc. Totta < Torhthelm, the fem. Cille < Cēolswīð, and also the masc. Beoffa apparently derived from Beornfrið . . . .
ŻҲҲñ㲽ȤСܸΡ֤äס֤äס֤äס֤ޤä۵롥ܸβǤϽŻҲ¥ˤΤΤŪꤵƤȤäƤ褤̾䤽ΰΤʤɤˤϤȤ櫓¿ѤƤ褦ʰݤ롥ħ (sound_symbolism) δ顤餫ŪϲǽʤΤ
Clark, Cecily. "Onomastics." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 452--89.
ɸ3ȯϳơΤ褦ˤʤ롥Ҳܤ줿
knowledge [ˈnɑlɪʤ]
Greenwich [ˈgrɪnɪʤ, ˈgrɛnɪʤ, ˈgrɛnɪʧ]
spinach [ˈspɪnɪʧ, ˈspɪnɪʤ]
ֻ̾ȯδطǤ <dge> [ʤ]<ch> [ʧ] ̤Ǥ롥knowledge ͽ̤Greenwich, spinach ˤĤƤ <ch> [ʤ] ȯ⤢ȤǤۼǤ롥
θˤͭ˻ [ʤ] ϡ̵˻ѸͭΤǤ롥ѸǤ Verner's Law ȤΤ벻Ѳ (cf. #858. Verner's Law ȻҲͭ ([2011-09-02-1])ˡ֥ȤҲľˤʤȤλҲͭפȤ§ѲǡȤƤ褯Τ ˈabsolute -- abˈsolve, ˈanxious -- anxˈiety, ˈexecute -- exˈecutive, exhiˈbition -- exˈhibit, ˈluxury -- luxˈurious, ˈoff -- of ʤ [s, z, ks, gz, ʃ, ʒ, f, v] ؤڥɸθΤ褦˻ [[ʧ, ʤ]] ؤΤ⤢롥
Prins (225) ꡤԤȤ
5. ʧ > ʤ
ME knowleche > MoE knowledge partriche > partridge spinach > spinach ['spinidʒ]
and in the suffix -wich in place-names: Norwich [noridʒ], Greenwich [grinidʒ], Woolwich [wulidʒ], Harwich [hæridʒ], Bromwich [brʌmidʒ]
Instead of the obsolete old pronunciation Ipswich [ipsidʒ] we find now [ipswitʃ].
The voicing is also found in MoE ajar < Scots and Nth dialect achar < on char-e (OE čerr, 'turn').
ѤκǸˤ̤ꡤajar űѸ on cierre ̤ȤΤ̣
Prins, A. A. A History of English Phonemes. 2nd ed. Leiden: Leiden UP, 1974.
ī6ۿƤ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פ517ʬȤ#716. Ѹˤؤ֤ʤ鲻ؤ⤷äؤܤϤޤΥ֥ heldio ʤɤ̤ƱѸˤ˴ؿ⤦ǤߤȤϡҲ (phonetics) Ȳ (phonology) ؤǤФȻפޤ
嵭ǡѸˤؤ֤äƲؤ˳ؤӤͳȤ4ޤʲվƤޤΤƤ
(1) äդ universal
(2) ߤȲԤ褹뤿
(3) ѲʸˡѲ⤿餷
(4) äդȽդȤδط뤿
hellog heldio δϢ3ۤɷǤƤޤ
hellog #4231. ѸˤΤβء ([2020-11-26-1])
heldio #712. ϥҥեإ --- khelf Сȳؤ֥ȥФΡֲ
heldio #703. 첻֤ --- إ饸ˡظ¡٤˥ԥ졼ơ
ơΤεμϡֱѸˤؤ֤ʤ鲻ؤˡפƶ֤ȤǤϤޤ嵭 heldio #716 μϿͻҤưȤƻƤΤǡȤǤ Voicy ϿͻҤȤ櫓ǤϤʤؽѡξȯμʤȤ Voicy Τ褦ʲǥͥƤ뤳ȤŪȯԤäǤYouTube ʤɤưǥʼֲˤޤǥǤСäͥ줿Ѥ䥳ѤǾȯǤޤ
嵭 heldio #716 ϡ3ץפ14ʬ51äۤɻ䤬ºݤäƼϿƤޤμϿͻҤΰϽư軣ƤƤߤΤǤheldio Ͽˤϴޤޤʤ塤ץ֤ΰθդ٤ƴޤᡤư軣Ƥ֤21ʬ20äǤθ塤ץΥȥդϥå奿դŽꡤۿͽʤɤκȤ³ޤǤץ饹5ʬ٤ǤĤޤꡤ15ʬ1ˤ¼Ūʻ֤ϡ20ʬۤɤȤȤǤ⤷ YouTube ƱƥĤ褦Ȥȡ˺Ǿ¤ԽǺѤޤˤ衤20ʬȤ֤Ǥ̵Ǥ礦ʤȤ23ܤλ֤Ϥޤ
ʲưheldio 2023ǯ517μϿͻҡǤYouTube Ǥɤˡ
ǥʤɤ̤ƱѸˤξȯƤȤ褤ʤȻפäƤޤһͤˤʤСʤʤˤ١#4815. Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פμϿͻҤǤ ([2022-07-03-1]) Ȥ heldio ϿͻҤϤƤޤ
GW Τ褦 Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ˤ khelfʷѸ˥ե˥СȤ̲ϤƤޤkhelf ǤֱѸ˥ƥ50ⳫǤξԤݤ碌ǥƥĤξҲΤ⤪⤷פ#5115. ե٥åȤεȯãˤĤƤ2ĤΥƥġ ([2023-04-29-1]) Ҳ𤷤ޤ
Ѹ˥ƥĤ heldio äǤ420رˤ줿ƥ#7. consumption p Ϥɤ顩ܤޤ

ΥƥĤ heldio ǤޤԤƣ蘆Ȥ̲Ǥ#700. consumption p Ϥɤ顩 --- ƣ蘆κоȤۿƤޤΤǡҤİȯ˴ؤʤΤǥ饸ȤȴǤ
ƥĤ̤ǿƤ治ź (epenthesis) ϡźǤ褯벻Ѳ1Ǥ consumption, assumption, resumption /p/ Τۤ epenthesis ؤñƤߤޤ
September, November, December, number /b/
Hampshire, Thompson, empty /p/
passenger, messenger, nightingale /n/
Τۤ she θεᤰ벾1ĤǤϡepenthesis δͿƤޤcf. #4769. she θ츻 --- Laing and Lass ˤ "Yod Epenthesis" ξҲ ([2022-05-18-1])ˡ
epenthesis ȴϢ뤽¾βѲˤĤƤϡ#739. glide, prosthesis, epenthesis, paragoge ([2011-05-06-1]) ⤴Ȥ
˻䤬ϪξäĤ /m/ ȯפϡ饸Ǥ̤ˤäΤǡưޤΤǤYouTube ǤˡỤ̄äƤС
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow