2005

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1257  Friday, 29 July 2005

[1]     From:   Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 09:46:28 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

[2]     From:   Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 08:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

[3]     From:   Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 11:24:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

[4]     From:   Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 20:22:00 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Judy Prince <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 09:46:28 -0400
Subject: 16.1250 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

Ya gotta luv a good logicker!  Thank you, Richard!    Judy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen C. Rose <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 08:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1250 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

We Roses were staunch lower-middle class mining types from the Sutton
Coalfields area and had no truck with anyone who was eulogized. Scrub
the Rose thesis. Not enough slur in it for uptown.  :)

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 11:24:41 -0500
Subject: 16.1250 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

Wriothesly -- it is almost completely unlikely that the -io- diphthong
was pronounced with an emphasis on the -o-.  io- is a "falling
diphthong" throughout its history in early English (up to, say, 1800),
which means that the second vowel was lightly pronounced, and was the
central neutral vowel linguists call "schwa" (the 'uh' sound).  Schwa
can be and still is spelled with any one of the 5 vowel letters (cf. the
final, unstressed, syllables of sofa, rover, aspirin, common, stirrup).

This would make the most probably pronunciation of "Wriothesly" (sorry I
can't use phonetics) 'ri(uh)thizly', with stress on the first vowel,
which would almost automatically result in the disappearance of the
"falling" member (-o-) of the diphthong over time.  Pollard knew this.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dan Decker <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jul 2005 20:22:00 EDT
Subject: 16.1250 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1250 Roses

 >And the question is this: in all these spellings of Wriothesley,
 >as recorded, and claimed by Green to have been heard as Rosely, why did
 >no one write it down as Rosely?

Perhaps Shakespeare was the one who spelt it proper for us.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.