1 3 4 5 6 7  9 10
It appears that it did not, and I expect the reason lies in spelling:

The "i," "a," and "o" became diphthongs without changing the spelling, so that neither English "bite" nor Latin "iter," for example, would have been respelled.
The case was different with "u," pronounced (u). That was respelled as "ou" (now sometimes "ow") as in "hus" being respelled "hous" (now "house") and "brun" becoming "broun" (now "brown").

Latin would not have been respelled because that would have caused problems in communicating with non-English writers of Latin. As a result, with the spelling staying as "u," the pronunciation stayed (u).

In those cases where a Latin word containing a "u" eventually became an English one, the word did go through the Great Vowel Shift: The words "trowel," with the Latin etymon "trulla," and "cowl" with the Latin etymon "cucullus" are examples of this.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Latin

"KAY-vee" I was wondering if that had happened too. Hence /i:/-/aI/ /A:/-/eI/ /O:/-/oU/ but did /tu:/ become /taU/?

It appears that it did not, and I expect the reason lies in spelling: The "i," "a," and "o" became ... AFAIK. Latin would not have been respelled because that would have caused problems in communicating with non-English writers of Latin.

Would English scholars have kept their pronunciation of Latin as it was, ie /u:/, to avoid a misunderstanding? What is being suggested here is that there was in pre-GVS times a standard, Europe-wide, pronunciation of Latin, which was not the case later.

As a
result, with the spelling staying as "u," the pronunciation stayed(u). In those cases where a Latin word containing a "u" ... Vowel Shift: Thewords "trowel," with the Latin etymon "trulla," and "cowl" with the Latin etymon "cucullus" are examples of this.

Presumably then these were words loaned into the English of those who did not speak Latin, and therefore had no reason to preserve the Latin pronunciation. How did the monoglot English speakers acquire them?
Edmund
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
1) The "ban on birth control" is a moral one, and it does not affect you, unless you want to be affected by it,

It affects all of us because it affects birth rates and therefore population levels and therefore affects directly the resources ... the transmission of sexual diseases like AIDS. And the more people who have AIDS, the more people will get AIDS.

Plus it is not pleasant to stand by and watch the children of large Catholic families in South American and Africa go hungry because of the Church's asinine position on birth control. Coop and Pat are wrong in thinking the Church won't change, though. It will eventually be forced to bend to the will of the people or go out of business. This report from today's RTE online from Ireland is relevant:

'A poll published today shows a strong majority of Irish people are in favour of reform within the Catholic Church.
In the Sunday Tribune/IMS opinion poll, 80% of respondents said the Church should relax its views on artifical contraception. Three quarters said the church should also allow women priests, support IVF treatment and relax its stance on divorce.'

Charles Riggs
There are no accented letters in my email address.
Plus it is not pleasant to stand by and watch the children of large Catholic families in South American and Africa go hungry because of the Church's asinine position on birth control.

If a Catholic person doesn't approve of the Church's position on birth control, he can , today , do otherwise. Can a person conceive, say, five, children, because the Church doesn't approve of contraceptives, when he knows that they're bound to die? Letting children die is not a very Catholic thing to do, so I'd like to meet one of those people. If they don't know what aids is, or they don't have contraceptives, or... of course one cannot blame the Church for this. And, anyway, the Church's view is really not binding, so...
'A poll published today shows a strong majority of Irish people are in favour of reform within the Catholic Church.

I venture to say that the Irish people hold debatable views on more than one question...

FB

"I saw something nasty in the woodshed!"
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film)
How can you get aids if you make love to one woman only, the woman you have married before God?

Simple: unbeknownst to you, she has sex with someone else. Mike Hardy

So, this is a debatable case.
(Or you get if from a blood transfusion, or from a hypodermic needle that was not properly sterilized after its last use, etc..)

And this, too.
Bye, FB

"Suppose I say I'm not interested."
"Does five hundred dollars interest you?"
"Very much."
"Then bring it: it's an expensive restaurant".
(The Cheap Detective)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
It affects all of us because it affects birth rates ... people who have AIDS, the more people will get AIDS.

Plus it is not pleasant to stand by and watch the children of large Catholic families in South American and ... the will of the people or go out of business. This report from today's RTE online from Ireland is relevant:

Tony and I didn't say the Church wouldn't change, did I? Tony implied that a change would be taking place, and I followed up by indicating that it already had (meaning that the Church would let the matter slide as a burning topic, if it were allowed to). Then I launched into my diatribe about people, free will and conscience.
I would think that, by extension, people following the demands of free will would find other ways of worshipping (if they absolutely have to worship) than doing a lock-step march into the Abyss following Church leaders who only "listen to God".
And, the Church, noting the desertion from their ranks, would come around to a more amenable interpretation.
I embarrassed myself at the end by using a singular noun with a plural possessive.
". . . to persuade Popes and other saints to change their mind?"

But that happens in rants.
It affects all of us because it affects birth rates ... people who have AIDS, the more people will get AIDS.

Plus it is not pleasant to stand by and watch the children of large Catholic families in South American and Africa go hungry because of the Church's asinine position on birth control.

Asinine? I can think of many calificatives for the RCC position on birth control, but "asinine" does not seem right. In its 2000 years of existence, longer than any other known social organization, it has learned that unhappy people are more prone to seeking religious consolation than happy people. Business is business, so ...

Javi
The genitive -'s suffix is no longer a case marker ... to the last word of the noun phrase it's in.

Many people do seem unconfortable with attaching 's if the noun phrase would already have ended in that. They don't ... second 's to nothing and then wonder why it sounded wrong, and others would avoid the construction altogether. Comments, John?

It's a bug, no doubt about it. The plural possessive sounds exactly like the simple plural or the singular possessive (which are identical anyway), so we have to figure that there's already a process that deletes repeated final [email protected] morphemes, and many people would generalize it to any final /z/.

That shows up with proper names. The longer the word, the less likely it is to take a syllabic plural or possessive morpheme if it already ends with /z/.

For instance, I would pronounce
Aristophanes's as /[email protected]'[email protected]/, not */[email protected]'[email protected]@z/ the Joneses' as /[email protected]'[email protected]/, not */[email protected]'dZonz/
-John Lawler - http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
"Academic integrity still plagues campus"
Headline, University of Michigan Daily 11/12/02
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
... but his Italian is actually flawless. To my ear ... II's. (John Paul's II? Or no "s" at all...? Uh.)

In informal use you can attach 's to the end of pretty much any phrase used as a noun, so it's definitely "John Paul II's". In formal use it's best to avoid such possessives altogether and say "than that of John Paul II".

Many thanks, to you and the others who replied. I do like "grammatical playfulness" myself, but since English is not my native languege I guess I'll stick to "of..." in formal and/or tricky situations :-) Ciao,

Isa
Work like you don't need money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching
http://web.tiscali.it/alfabeto auschwitz/index.htm
Show more