Anglic sound changes

[bradrn]

Is there any reason Middle English /iː uː/ are listed as having become [ei ou]? I thought the conventional understanding was that the shift was [iː uː] > [əɪ əu] > [aɪ aʊ] (for me and some others > [ɑɪ æʊ]).

The Wikipedia article on the Great Vowel Shift mentions both the [əi]/[əu] and [ei]/[ou] developments as possibilities and cites sources supporting each. I think the outcomes in regional speech, at least in southern England, suggest the former, and that's also more consistent with how they interacted with the ME diphthongs; in particular /iː/ merged with /ui/ (as mentioned earlier in this thread) but not with /ei/ (or however you want to transcribe the ancestor of the EModE vowel in main, wait etc.).

This is interesting. Looking at Wikipedia’s references, the only one I can get access to is Lass’s Cambridge History of the English Language, which advocates [ei]/[ou]; the book in general looks exceedingly useful, but in this case it leaves me with no way to assess what’s correct here.

…or should I maybe not bother with the decision, and indicate both alternatives as having been suggested in the literature? That might be a better option in general.

I'm not sure that the origin of the long vowel in father is actually understood: when it developed or why.

I don’t believe it is. What does everyone suggest I do about cases like this?

[anteallach]

I would give both alternatives. Indeed, it's quite possible that both may have happened in different parts of the country.

[Neonnaut]

There is a [typo?] in the section for British English and Australian English with the TRAP BATH split:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced],N[-voiced]}
After a voiceless nasal... nope. The sound change in the British section should look like this:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced], N}

This also implies the vowel in the word PLANT is [ɑː] for all Australian English speakers, which isn't true. So the sound change in the Australian section should look like this:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced], N} (This change before nasals occurs only in South Australia and in some words such as can't and aunt)

Also, in the Australian English section:
l → ɫ (the conditions of this are not elaborated upon)
The firespeaker article was saying that [l] is [ɫ] in all conditions, whoever wrote that article just left an underscore in.

[bradrn]

There is a [typo?] in the section for British English and Australian English with the TRAP BATH split:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced],N[-voiced]}
After a voiceless nasal... nope. The sound change in the British section should look like this:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced], N}

This also implies the vowel in the word PLANT is [ɑː] for all Australian English speakers, which isn't true. So the sound change in the Australian section should look like this:
æ → æː → ɑː / _{F[-voiced], N} (This change before nasals occurs only in South Australia and in some words such as can't and aunt)

Also, in the Australian English section:
l → ɫ (the conditions of this are not elaborated upon)
The firespeaker article was saying that [l] is [ɫ] in all conditions, whoever wrote that article just left an underscore in.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here — the sound changes I collected don’t list anything for British or Australian English. They just cover Middle to Early Modern English.

[Neonnaut]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here — the sound changes I collected don’t list anything for British or Australian English. They just cover Middle to Early Modern English.

I was talking about the Index Diachronica.

???

[bradrn]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here — the sound changes I collected don’t list anything for British or Australian English. They just cover Middle to Early Modern English.

I was talking about the Index Diachronica.

???

Ah… assuming you mean the old Index Diachronica, that one’s generally agreed to be thoroughly inaccurate. That’s why we’re starting afresh for this one!

[Neonnaut]

Excellent