Talk:Great Vowel Shift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Request for Expansion on Causes of Vowel Shift

I would like to see this article mention a few of the main theories on the cause of the vowel shift, and also mention how researchers were able to pinpoint the time at which it took place, since it was well before the invention of recording devices. -- Aaron W.

This response may be way obsolete, but it's worth a try.

Theories of why sounds change in this or that way come under the umbrella term functionalism. None of the theories work (including, most pointedly, the one stated below; which see). The ones that work best are very vague, such as the observation, repeated below, that stress-timed languages, e.g. English and the other Germanic languages, seem to have very unstable vowel systems (not just the long ones), whereas as syllable-timed languages, e.g. Japanese, Malayalam, and Spanish, tend to have very stable ones. Now of course that only points to the really interesting question, which is why -- and for which there seems to be no good answer.

As for the dating, the evidence is complicated and sketchy, having to do with such things as the appearance of spelling confusions, and the treatment of loan-words (whose arrival in written records can be dated) such as the failure of /ī/ to diphthongize in borrowings like redeem (first attested 1425 but then not again for 110 years), esteem (first attested 1528), breeze (first attested in the late 16th cent.) (examples from Jespersen). Had these words been borrowed earlier, they would have undergone the vowel shift, as did say devise (first attested in English around 1300), derive (first attested 1483), and so on. It's a pity that we don't have orthoepic manuals from Chaucer's day, but the social developments that inspired their creation didn't arise until the late 16th cent. Indeed, in all probability regional variation in the expression of the Great Vowel Shift was a major stimulus. Alsihler 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Vowel Shift and Continental languages

Could the Great Vowel Shift explain why native English speakers often find foreign languages difficult, in the sense that it knocked English vowels out of sync with the Continent?

Yes, that's what I thought reading this article : according to the examples, the original pronunciation was very close to the French or German one. SeeSchloss 21:26, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think we're confusing spelling and language. The phonemic values of the vowel symbols and digraphs (like ea, ee, and ou) in English are indeed mostly different from the usual continental values of the symbols, even when it doesn't appear so: the phonetics of, say, the vowel of wrote are quite remote from, say, the phonetics of German rot "red": the English vowel is actually [əw] (America), [εw] (Brit.) But I would say that learning new values for the vowel symbols is at best a bit of a nuisance at the very outset, like learning that <j w> in German stand for /y/, /v/. The far bigger problem in a monolingual English speaker learning just about any foreign language is the complex nature of our vowels. The details differ from region to region, but our long vowels, mostly the reflexes of Middle English long vowels, are full of raising offglides, many of the short vowels have more or less pronounced inglides (i.e., toward [ə]), especially in environments of prolongation, as in the words bed fell jazz; /æ/ before /g/ and /ŋ/ have a pronounced raising & fronting glide (the nucleus of bang bag is very different from the nucleus of bad ban -- in some dialects it's gone on to become [e:], with no glide). /æ/ and /ɔ/ (which don't occur in many languages anyhow) are in many varieties of English decidedly long, and have offglides toward schwa, with or without raising of the onset, that is [æə] to [eə] or even [ɪə] in a word like cat. (And of course once you get into r-less dialects, things get even weirder, with say bad, bared, beard being totally homophonous). By the way, the offglides typical of present-day English long vowels considerably postdate the Great Vowel Shift itself (always excepting /ay aw/ < /ī ū/, of course). It might be added, too, that offglide features are found in other languages. In Karo Batak, from Sumatra, the vowel system is basically a sort of Latin Five, but both mid-vowels have an appreciable (if variable) upglide in final position especially. Alsihler 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but FYI, <j> in German actually stands for /j/, not /y/. (/j/ is the sound of English <y>; /y/ is the sound of German <ü>.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I can answer this with an unequivocal no. I am not a native English speaker, and I found the problems of dealing with differences in phonetics negligible compared to other problems involved in learning a different language. In fact, I think the problems of dealing with differences in the relation of spelling and pronunciation is worse for foreigners trying to learn English than for native English speakers trying to learn another language. I suspect that the main problem for native English speakers when learning continental languages is grammar. English being grammatically a very simple language, the English are quite unprepared for dealing with such complications as (formal) gender, declensions, conjugations, etc. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

English grammar is anything but simple. English is however, a great language to speak poorly. Jalwikip 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Vowel shift talk page

Comment moved from Vowel shift which redirects here

(An article on the Great Vowel Shift exists already. One on vowel shifts generally should appear here. Some specific examples could also be listed (e.g., what are the similarities and differences between the vowel shift that the Greek language underwent, and that experienced by English?).)

[edit] the last link is busted

The link to lancaster is broken:

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/chimp/101/vowels/shift.htm

it comes up saying I don't have permission. I recommend the link be deleted.

Hwarwick

[edit] Clarification on table of vowel shifts

Knowing nothing of phonetics, I couldn't make out much of the table of shifts. After a bit of searching I decided the symbols were SAMPA so I've said this. Am I right? Also, people who didn't learn Latin would find it useful to have approximate vowel sounds for before as well as after. Some, but only some, are given in the paragraph following the table. For example, I still can't make out what /o:/ is. Thincat 16:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Break and beak are also listed as one vowel sound in modern English. That's just not the case.

I don't think you read the passage carefully (unless it's been touched up since the complaint was made): to amplify the statement, earlier [ɛ:] (often spelled in late ME -ea-) raises to fall together with the outcome of [e:], namely [i:], as in beak. But that in some words, such as break, it remains a mid vowel. --All true, but in a discussion like this it strikes me as unwise to muddy the waters by bringing up "exceptions" (there are only three forms like break, the others being steak and great -- and Gay rimes great and cheat in The Beggars Opera). The problem is that in a "compromise dialect" like that of standard (south-midlands-based) English there are "exceptions" by the dozens to all these sound laws. It makes a bad impression on the non-linguist, but there's nothing the least bit remarkable about such raggedness in compromise dialects.

Oh, and [o:] (a long higher-mid back rounded vocoid) would be like the pronunciation of stone with an Irish accent (i.e. monophthongal and very peripheral), or the vowel of German Floh "flea" or French beau "handsome". Alsihler 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement in vowel shift in German and Dutch

The statement on vowel shift in German and Dutch, concerning the pronunciation of the word for "ice" ("Eis" and "ijs" respectively") is true only for German. "Eis" is pronounced as /ai/, but "ijs" in ABN (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands, or General Civilized Dutch) is pronounced [ei], the modern pronunciation of the Dutch-Specific "Long IJ".

Really? I mean, I suppose I ought to take your work for it, since I don't speak Dutch; but the times I've heard Dutch spoken, the sound of "ij" has always seemed to me to have a low nucleus, much closer to [æi] than [ei]. AJD 01:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is. Convention has it that it is pronounced [ɛi], but it's closer to [æi] I think. See also the Dutch phonology page, which is otherwise a bit of a mess, but the IPA charts are ok. Jalwikip 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In Standard Dutch, ij and ei are homophones. In regard to spelling: Dutch spelling was not standardised until the nineteenth century. Before that spelling was typically phonetic and would depend on the writers dialect. There are some exemptions, mainly in place names and surnames, but also a few words: in the word 'bijzonder' the ij is pronounced [i].

In low-saxon, the ij is pronounced i. That is why kids in eastern Netherlands knew when to write ij or ei, whereas kids in western Netherlands often made mistakes. X10 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On another note: why is Icelandic named as having participated in a similar shift? As far as I know, they kept their í and ú pretty sraightforward. The only thing resembling the Great Vowel shift is ó being pronounced somewhat like [oU].

??Didn't /ā/ become [aw] in Icelandic? Alsihler 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Cause of the Great Vowel Shift

Note: My vowel charts don't show up correctly in this note. This passage still has the answer that you all seek.

The social factors presented in this article only tell why the sound change became so popular. Naturally a large city such as London would have had extensive influence over neighboring dialects through trade and education.

The real cause of the Great Vowel Shift is a linguistic principle in which a language may only have six different vowels of a particular set. This is due to the fact that vowels seek to differentiate themselves from other vowels for sake of clarity in pronunciation. Diphthongs are their own set and a language may distinguish its pure vowels either quantitatively (by lenght) or qualitatively (by tenseness and laxness.)

First some notes on vowel systems. There are three different sorts of languages with regards to vowel systems:

-Those that distinguish long and short vowels (Middle English, Latin, German.) These languages may also have tense and lax vowels, however, for sake of the rule of six, only long and short sets of vowels are distinguished from one another. One might say the long and short distinction supercedes the tense and lax one. More on that below.

-Those that distinguish tense and lax vowels (English, French, Italian.) In most instances, inquiring individuals are apt to comment that English does have a distinction between long and short vowels as well. Those that are designated long and the others short are due purely to conventions established in Middle English. English does in fact have long and short vowels, however, they are in complementary distribution and thus subphonemic (i.e. linguistically insignificant.)

-Those that do neither (Spanish.) There is the technicality in the Spanish language that they do have the lax vowel /a/, however, this perception is mostly prevalent in European languages. In reality /a/ is not realized as either tense or lax cross-linguistically.

In Early Middle English the vowel system was as follows (capitals are used throughout to signify lax vowel for simplicity, also @ = schwa):

i:, I u:, U

e:, E:, E @ o:, O:, O

æ A

Old English æ: became E: and a: became O: in all instances.

If we look at this sytem, we can see from the above descriptions that it is based on a long and short vowel distinction. Thus the two sets of vowels are:

[i:, e:, E:, u:, o:, O:] and [I, E, æ, A, U, O] (@ is a reduced vowel only occuring in word final syllables.

As we can see the rule of six is not broken at this point. There are six long vowels, six short vowels, and one reduced vowel. So what pushed it over?

In the thirteenth century a sound change took place whereby a non high (i.e. not I or U) short vowel became long in disyllabic words when in the first syllable if that syllable were open (i.e. when, most typically, followed by a single consonant.) Thus:

nA-m@ 'name' became nA:-m@

E-t@n 'to eat' became E:-t@n

chO:-sen 'we/you all/they chose became chO:-s@n

At this point, the E and O in this position merged with the original E: and O: phonemically (i.e. they were now understood as the same sound.) A:, however, was not realized phonologically because it occurred in complementary distribution with A. Thus, it occurred only in the first syllable of disyllabic if that syllable were open and A occurred elsewhere.

What caused the system to topple was this:

All Germanic languages are known for their strong word initial syllable stress. This is especially so in more northern Germanic languages, such as English. In prehistory, this strong word initial stress caused short vowels to disappear and long vowels and diphthongs to become short in word final (i.e. unstressed) syllables.

This trend continued in Middle English. Word final /n/ and /@/ disappear following the vowel changes described above. Because of this development A: and A are no longer in complementary distribution.

The A: in nA:m 'name' (<nA:-m@) occurs in the same phonetic environment as the A in nAm 'I took.' Due to this these two sounds became different phonemes and the Middle English vowel system now contained 7 long vowels and 6 short vowels.

Since the vowels could not properly distinguish themselves by the rule of six, i: and u: (both high vowels) "jumped ship" and became the diphthongs @j and @w. As the article states, the remaining vowels shifted upwards. The article erroneously mentions A: becoming fronted going to ej. Although it doesn't fit the classical model of vowel systems, the vowel A is in actuality a front vowel.

Classic View of Vowel Systems with Regards to the Position of the Tongue in one's Mouth

i, I u, U

e, E @ o, O

æ A a

Modern View of Vowel Systems with Relation to the Tongue's Position in the Mouth

i u

 I         U
e     @     o
 E          O
  æ
   A        a

The discrepency comes from more advanced technology better determining the position of one's tongue during the production of each vowel respectively.

Because each vowel can't shift into the position of the vowel above it one may construct a chronology of the vowel changes as follows.

Great Vowel Shift

Step one: i: and u: became @j and @w respectfully Step two: e: and o: became i: and u: Step three: E: and O: became e: and o: Step four: A: became æ: Step five: e (< E:) became i: Step six: æ: (< A:) became e: Step seven: e: and o: became ej and ow (British @w)

All long vowels eventually merged with short in length due to their qualitative distinction. Hope this helps!

User:24.16.166.16

If this is the case and this is not original research (see Wikipedia:No original research), why don't you give some citations for this theory, noting that it is one theory among others, and work it into the article instead of just adding this to the talk page? After all, you seem to be knowledgable in the subject, and Wikipedia would be happy to have your contributions. —Lowellian (reply) 07:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to me to be true — French, for example, has sixteen vowels (not counting the halfway-in-between vowels that often appear in unaccented syllables), and while some of these are in fairly complementary distribution, most are not (and I think it would be hard to argue that the fairly complementary ones are simply allophones). How would you divide up /i/ (y), /e/ (et), /ɛ/ (est), /ɛⁿ/ (hein), /a/ (a), /ɑ/ (as), /ɑⁿ/ (en), /u/ (ou), /o/ (au), /ɔ/ (as in homme), /ɔⁿ/ (on), /y/ (eu), /ø/ (eux), /œ/ (as in heure), /œⁿ/ (un), and /ə/ (as in je)? — Ruakh_TALK 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me, either and I am just as happy that this is NOT worked into the main article. It's very mystifying. I'm unaware of any "linguistic principle" limiting the number of vowels to six (by "particular set" I'm guessing that you mean any group of syllabics distinguished by the same cavity features, e.g. all short oral vowels. It's not clear whether front rounded vowels would belong to the same "set" as "the Latin Five"). English, or rather my English, has seven short vowels: pit pet pat pot put putt bought, and dialects of English have an eighth in a distinction between the syllabics of four, hoarse vs fore and horse. French has eight short vowels of the ordinary kind, by my count, plus a reduced vowel and three front rounded ones, for a total of ten full short vowels (though to be sure the contrast between /a/ and /ɑ/ seems to be on the run; and at least in some environments, the contrast between /e/ and /ɛ/). A seven-vowel system seems to be the industry standard for sub-Saharan languages (two high vowels, four mid ones, and /a/).

Besides, the theory in question does not in fact have any obvious bearing on why all the vowels shifted. An overcrowded vowel-space would be simply dealt with by merging two or more vowels (as happened earlier, with the loss of three front rounded vowels and later when two products of the Shift, /ī/ and /ē/, merged as /ī/) and anyway, after all that commotion, there were still seven long vowels (which to be sure shrank to six before long, perhaps validating the Rule of Six, but I doubt it). What a lot of trouble to go to for nothing!

Another problem is that the Great Vowel Shift isn't an it, it's a they. The details differ quite a bit in the north. In Scottish, for example, /ū/ did not diphthongize. This did not bottle up /ō/, however; it didn't merge with /ū/, as it might have, instead it fronted, first presumably to [ö:] and then, because all phonologies with only one front rounded vowel have only a high one, to modern /ü/, usually written as bluid, duir for "blood, door". And I also have the impression that in the north, OE ā (from Proto-Germanic *ay) did not in fact raise and round, as in the south, but fell together with the outcome of lengthened ă (as in name). Hence pronunciations like hame, stane, gait for southern home, stone, goat, etc. This may be something else entirely: conventional wisdom takes such forms to be Scandinavian loans, reflecting the Scandinavian treatment of *ay. I'm not at all convinced that this is the case. There's too much of it, it seems to me, and it's too heavily concentrated in words with one particular vowel. But if the falling-together interpretation is correct, there goes the "trigger" envisioned for the shift. Alsihler 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Push/pull chain shift

Hi, I think the GVS article needs to mention that it's a chain shift. It would also be nice to mention the debate on whether it's a push chain or a pull chain. --KJ 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is conflicting. Or rather, different scholars have identified contradictory "triggers", i.e., some indicate the movement started low, some indicate an early diphthonization of the high vowels. Even the outcomes are conflicting. In northern dialects, /ū/ failed to shift (so Scots "wee hoose" and the like) but /ō/ was on the move anyway, failed to merge with /ū/ (which it might have) and fronts instead, to /ȫ/ in conservative dialects, /ǖ/ later. That certainly looks like a (frustrated) push-chain, but lo: in those same dialects, Old English /ā/ does NOT become /ō/ as it did to the south, but original /ā/ (as in gát "goat", hám "home") merges with the outcome of lengthened ă (as in name < OE năma): thus the Scots forms for home, goat spelled hame, gait or gate. So, if the behavior of /ō/ points to push-chain, what was pushing it? And if truth be known, in most shifts of any kind it's rather hard to tell whether pushing or pulling is involved. One begins to suspect that the neat division of shifts into the two types doesn't have much to do with the realities on the ground. And the practical consequences aren't obvious, either. In Australian English, /iy/ (as in bee) has become [ɰi:]; the sequence /ir/ as in beer has lost all phonetic trace of the /r/ and is now [bi:] with a very high front totally monophthongal vowel. Now: did the vowel of bee jump, or was it pushed? And what difference does it make? Alsihler 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, whoever named this phenomenon chose not to call it a Big Vowel Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.192.87 (talk • contribs)

Haha, that would be bad. -Aknorals 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layman's terms

Saying "(as in mouse)" does no good because it's only half of the shift pair, if you're going to give recognizable examples make sure they are unambiguous and that you do so for both sides. --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable about the GVS, but I would love to improve the article. What would the other half be? Could you tell me how it could be ambiguous, please? --Kjoonlee 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the phonetic symbolism and jargon employed in this article, I gained nothing from it. As users of modern english, typical readers such as myself know the sound of "a" in day or make. Please indicate the sound of both the middle english and modern pronunciations in modern words that we know. In that regard, the current article only gives us examples of sounds that we already know by telling us that "a" is now pronounced like the "a" in cake, without telling us how it was pronounced in middle english.

Well, you already know the "a" in "ah", "e" in "bet", "i" in "bit", "u" in "book". Just lengthen those sounds and you'll be pretty close. I'll see what I can do to make that a bit more obvious.. --Kjoonlee 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How was this discovered?

There's much talk about why the shift occured, but none on how we today became aware of it. Was it by studying rhyme schemes of old poems? Staecker 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For one thing the spelling didn't change, so words like "wine" or "house" are still spelled with the old vowels, but pronounced differently. This can easily be confirmed by looking at other languages related to English which mostly still have the old vowels. --Chlämens 10:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandic?

German, Icelandic, and Dutch also experienced sound changes resembling the first stage of the Great Vowel Shift Icelandic? Although I'm not a linguist, I dont think so. It can be seen using the very examples in this page. In German and Dutch, "ice" is Eis and ijs, with /ai/. But in Icelandic is ís, with long i. "House" in German and Dutch is haus and huis with the diphthong. In Icelandic is hús, with long u. Something is wrong. Ciacchi 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement "Icelandic also experienced sound changes resembling the first stage of the Great Vowel Shift" is true in that some long vowels were diphthongised, so [a:] → [au], [e:] → [ie], [o:] → [ou] (not very accurate IPA here, I'm afraid). For [i] and [u], the short variants had already drifted towards the centre, so the long variants remained in place. After this shift, the length of the vowels became determined by the surrounding consonants. This also explains the use of the acute accent in Icelandic orthography. So the first sentence applies to Icelandic but the following explanation concerning [i:] does not. Stefán Ingi 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perharps we should give some examples that show it better. The problem is, which examples? The article says nothing about the English diphthong [ɪə], as in here ([hɪə]. Where does it come from? Could it be compared to Icelandic hér (/hjɛr/) and German hier ([hɪɐ])? Is there any relation? How come Icelandic had it's á lengthened to /au/ and other Germanic languages didn't? For example, Icelandic has já pronounced as /jau/. German, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish have ja pronounced as /ja/. Perharps the modifications in Icelandic had another origin? Icelandic had vowel changings, but they didn't match the vowel changings of other Germanic languages. Ciacchi 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I found something about it: Modern English [ɪə] came from Middle English [e:] before r. But I don't believe there's a relation to Icelandic. Ciacchi 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic já vs Mainland Scandinavian ja doesn't say much here since it's a special case, an exception. All scandinavian dialects have experienced a Great Vowel Shift, and often the result has been a diphthong. Let's take Dalecarlian (Dal.) as an example. Old Norse (ON) á [ɑː] first shifted into [ɔː]. (This happened in all scandinavian languages and is responsible for the invention of the special Mainland Scandinavian letter å.) This made ON ó [oː] getting shifted to [ʊː], pushing ON ú [uː] to [ʉː] and pulling ON á to [oː]. Later, ó became diphthongized to [uoː]. Simultaneously, ON ú turned into [əʊː] and then [ɑʊː]. It also happened that ON é [eː] became [iː], ON í [iː] became [aɪː], ON ý [yː] became [øː] > [ɶʏː] > [ɔʏː], ON œ [øː] became [ʏœː]. Furthermore, ON primary diphtong ei [ɛiː] became the monophthong [eː] which got diphthongized to [ɪeː]. Let us summarise by looking at specific examples: ON ár [ɑːr] 'year' > Dal. [oːr], ON kné [kneː] 'knee' > Dal. [kniː], ON bíta [biːta] 'to bite' > Dal. [baɪːta], ON sól [soːl] 'sun' > Dal. [suoːɽ], ON hús [huːs] 'house' > Dal. [ɑʊːs], ON hýsa [hyːsa] 'to house' > Dal. [ɔʏːsa], ON mœta [møːta] 'to meet' > Dal. [mʏœːta], ON stein [stɛiːn] 'stone' > Early Modern Dal. [eː] > Dal. [ɪeː]. Also e.g. Gutnish had a similar extensive diphthong system as a result of the vowel shift process. To some extent, also Central Swedish (on which Standard Swedish is based) had diphthongs as a result. For example, ON á [ɑː] is today a "subtle" diphthong [oɔː] in Central Swedish (CS). Similarly, ON ú [uː] > CS [ʉɵː], ON ó [oː] > CS [uʊː] etc. All ON long vowels are "subtle" diphthongs in the most dominant pronunciation standard for Modern Swedish. // Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I doubt that most Scandinavian languages experienced a great vowel shift. Using standard Central Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål for comparision instead of the mre distinct Dalecarlian, I'd say the vowel shift was relatively minor (except for perhaps Danish). 惑乱分からん 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's my point – Scandinavian languages suffered a different Vowel Shift. Not a Great one, like English. Probably it was a different process that was further developed in English. I mean, it affected Scandinavian languages to a certain extent and finished it's work in German and English. --Ciacchi 17:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate term - Tudor Vowel Shift?

When I learned about this particular vowel shift, my source referred to is as the Tudor Vowel Shift. What's the history of this term, anyone?

[edit] Theories

One the paragraphs is rubbish (the one beginning, "The effects of the shift were..."), perhaps there should be a theories section of some sorts... needs proper editing by someone who can write better than me...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.114.102 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Jesperson's role

Jespersen hardly "discovered" the English Vowel Shift; his 1909 A Modern English Grammar (Vol. I) quotes Luick (Untersuchungen zur englischen Lautgeschichte "investigations into the history of English sounds", 1896) in his discussion of theories of what happened first in a chain of events. And there had been elaborate histories of English pronunciation reaching back to the middle of the 19th cent., including Henry Sweet's [he who was supposedly the model for Shaw's Henry Higgins in "Pygmalion"] 1888 History of English Sounds. But Jespersen seems to have been the first to dub it "great'. I may adjust the language in the article Alsihler 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More clear examples

Somebody please ad a few more clear example words for those of us who are not familiar with the phonetic symbols. One key change that is not clear is when the a in "cat", and "hat" was invented, how those words were pronounced before. ted@tedhuntington.com

That is not part of the great vowel shift, see Phonological history of the English language#Up to the American/British split (c. AD 1600–1725) Stefán 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The I page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I says that the short /I/ as in "bill" happened in the Great Vowel Shift, but what about the name Imhotep? Doesn't that use the short /I/ sound?

No that page says the long [i:] changed to [ai] during the Great Vowel Shift. The short vowel in bill may have been an [ɪ] for a very long time for all I know. (It is very close to [i] in any case.) Stefán 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting I guess there is no info on when the short i in "bill" evolved. TedHuntington 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stefán's point is that the short i in bill hasn't evolved very much. It's been approximately the same sound probably since proto-Germanic times at least. Today, however, it's undergoing some severe backing in New Zealand English. AJD 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this question to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I since I am interested in the evolution of the short i sound in words such as dill. thanks all! TedHuntington 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Comparisons.

Could someone please make up a table containing something along the lines of;

Word - Pronunciation Before - Pronunciation After

Done for each shift and with layman's phonetic descriptions instead of IPA (or whichever standard is being used here). It'd be much appreciated! tactik 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be much appreciated! It HASN'T been done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.225.34.187 (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Let me also add my request that this be done. I find this subject to be really interesting, but I can't understand examples using IPA. Using IPA as a standard, or expecting the layman to grasp information using IPA is like the Roman Catholic mass being said in Latin, with the priest facing the altar. Only the initiates, the priestly caste can really understand what is being said. The congregation is mytified. JGC1010 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly try to make things easy for people. But no layman's approximation is ever really good. They are vague, they are ambiguous, and they privilege the speakers of some dialects over others. They are very logical if you come from the same background as the writer, and totally misleading if you don't. My favourite example: when I started learning German I was confused that a textbook told me that Liebe ('love') should be prononced leeber. What was the -r doing on the end? Years later I discovered that for the English, a terminal -r is silent, so when they see one it signals that the preceding -e- has a schwa sound which approximates to German terminal -e. But I am Scots. When I see a terminl -r it tells me I have to say /r/. The IPA is easy to learn, it is precise and scientific, if we use it wisely (i.e. don't attempt a narrow transcription when a broad one will do) it is mostly not so very much different from normal writing, and it is definately the way to go. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest this is added. It can't be very hard to do for anyone who understands the symbols. As for the problem of dialect, it should surely be assumed that vowels follow current recieved pronunciation? This article is presumably about the English language in the UK, so anyone reading will no doubt be familiar with English recieved pronunciation? Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vocoid

I just turned 'Vocoids' in the last paragraph into a link. I hope it is helpfull.Vijeth 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] /eI/ sound in "beta" may be earlier

Arabic speaking people pronounce the word Bayt (house), the origin of the letter B all the way back to Akkadian, as the /eI/, what I would type as "BAT" (rhymes with mate) in my phonetic alphabet. So as an aside, I think the /eI/ in ape was in use long before this vowel shift. Maybe this is irrelevent, as it probably was not used by English speakers unless they had to say "beta", for example those who may have read Greek. TedHuntington 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed irrelevant; this article is about a change in English phonology. It's not claiming that human vocal tracts suddenly changed to create new vowels that were previously impossible. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In other languages

I think 1) the 'in other languages' section is written in a poor non-encyclopedic style, 2) is unclear, as Icelandic is mentioned but not in the examples (see also other discussions about it) and has other failures, 3) is about vowel shifts partially comparable to the Great Vowel Shift, but has actually very little to do with it. So I propose we just remove the entire section, or move it to some other page (didn't check if there's a general vowel shift page). Jalwikip 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements on Dutch can certainly be improved. I don't think there has been much vowel shift in Dutch. X10 06:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The diagram

I like the idea of having a diagram like that. However, it appears to be a strange mish-mash of IPA and... some sort of other representation scheme. I'd remake the table in IPA, but I don't think I'd be able to sort out what characters go where. Any takers? Strad 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is - it is the diagram I got in my student days, and it it should be brought into the modern phonetical alphabet. Problem is: I teach literature of that period (that is why I put it there, so that my students find it where they will look for it...) yet I am not a linguist who will do the job properly. I'd be happy if someone updated the thing using some sort picture publisher to replace the letters. --Olaf Simons 07:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples in the field?

Could one have more examples of actual soundings shown through surviving texts? I don't have Iona and Peter Opie's writings before me, but they claim the rhyme from this couplet dates it as prior to the vowel shift. "She went to the joiner's to buy him a coffin;/ When she got back, the dog was a-laughing." (I'm copying this verse from your article, "Old Mother Hubbard.") I imagine there are other poor souls like me, to whom charts and the international phonetic alphabet mean nothing. Pittsburgh Poet 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

It would be very valuable if someone who really knows this would write up a section on Scotland. The brief remark that the effects in Scotland were different is not enough. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request link to explanation of vowel symbols

Like others who have posted above, I can't understand the table on this page. (And that's a shame beacuse I find the subject fascinating.)

This problem would be easily solved with a link (just above the table) to a list of all the vowel symbols, showing how to pronounce them. But where is such a list? I've searched Wikipedia and the only thing I could find was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language (under the 'Vowels' section) However, that list seems quite different to the vowel sounds used in the table here, with many symbols not listed.

Clearly, the symbols used in one of these two pages is either wrong, or incomplete. Someone needs to fix it!

Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)