Print

Print


John Cowan wrote:

>Ray Brown scripsit:
>
>
>
>>I am certain the problem is a typo in Andreas' original message. It is
>>surely "where", not "were" that JJRT wrote.
>>
>>
>
>No, there can be no reasonable doubt.  I have checked several different
>editions, and in Appendix E is written:
>
>	As far as can be determined the sounds represented
>	by these letters [...] were of normal kind, though
>	doubtless many local varieties escape detection. That
>	is, the sounds were approximately those represented
>	by i, e, a, o, u in English machine, were, father,
>	for, brute, irrespective of quantity.
>
>Note also the rhyme were/hair in Bilbo's poem, quoted in my previous
>posting.  I'm half tempted (but only half) to change "hair" to "fur"
>when I read this aloud, since were/fur is a perfect rhyme for me.
>
>
I have heard dialects of english with we@ or we: (sorry if that's
slightly wrong... supposed to rhyme with "hair") for were.

>--
>John Cowan  [log in to unmask]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
>[R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before
>Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do
>with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among
>the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite
>undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness.  --T. H. Huxley
>
>
>