Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 22:51:05 EST From: David Bergdahl Subject: Re: Sulking Over Silky Milk & Other Words of That Ilk From: NAME: David Bergdahl FUNC: English TEL: (614) 593-2783 To: MX%"ADS-L[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]"[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 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 Is my historical linguistics outdated or didn't Elizabethan English fill the "slot" left by the raising of "long open o" to /o/ by converting {AL} and {AU/W} words like , , ? 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 and ; simplification occurred later to [long open o] by way of [open o diphthongized to U]." Thomas Pyles, Origins & Development, 2nd ed., p. 189: "The of Middle English preconsonantal was lost after first becoming a vowel: thus Middle English and fell together as , ultimately becoming [long open o](as in , ) except befere , , and , where it became [long low front digraph] in such words as , , and ." So aren't we REALLY talking about the re-introduction of an /l/ from the spelling analogous to disyllabic ? So what's all this talk about loss? Loss inthe case in words like also occurred in the early modern period in England. Is the claim that the "loss" of /l/ in but not 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