Wolfe's argument that Gil's DUE vowel may have been /iu/ is utterly incoherent. 
First, because had he used a pronunciation /iu/ this would be easy to represent with <iu>, parallel to the <eu> that he uses in "beauty" <beuti>. But he manifestly does not do this and criticizes Hart for so doing. This cannot be an objection of the same type as <wið> for <with>
"Objecting to use of the vowel sign for what he considered a consonant" makes no sense wrt "use" in which there was no word-initial consonant. Wolfe is conflating the word's modern pronunciation with its early 17th century pronunciation.
"Absence of contemporary evidence for retention of [y]?" Are you kidding me? Wallis describes [y] as his DUE vowel not fifty years later and Wolfe knows it.
Gah. People who write about this period of English frustrate the bejeezus out of me.
Gah. People who write about this period of English frustrate the bejeezus out of me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
