Print

Print


I can't speak for anyone else, but I rather like this idea. I hipe you see
fit to run with it!

Adam

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> While browsing through the Internet, looking at minor Romance
> langs/dialects, I chanced on Romagnol and found it has [θ] and [ð],
> written _z_ and _ż_ respectivally.  They apparently originated
> fromearlier affricates [ts] and [dz] (in Castillian Spanish [θ] also
> originated from earlier [ts]).
>
> Those affricates don't exist in Britainese, but [ð] does as a result of
> original lenition of Vulgar Latin [d] in certain positions (in
> Britainese /ð/ and /d/ are distinct phonemes).
>
> At present, as well as tydying up the Consonants and Vowels pages, I am
> also revising the Orthography page, which badly needs rewriting.  I have
> been wondering about _z_.  It will not have been in the earliest
> Britainese but will be introdiced quite early in more learned words such
> as _baptizar_, _evangelizar_ etc.  The learned pronunciation would
> almost certainly be [dz] as it was in Old French.  I had been sort of
> assuming it would pass to plain [z] as it dis in French.  But in one or
> two wild moments I had considered [dz] -> [ð], so that Britainese /ð/ is
> written _z_, rather than _dh_ (or _đ_ ).
>
> I had dismissed this as a wild idea, but having met it this evening in
> an actual Romancelang, I am wondering if it isn't so whacky after all?
>
> Ray
>