Originally posted by marthe
View Post
As to the pronunciation of 'l' in words like could and would (and RVW's Ralph), the situation is a bit complicated. Many words were affected by an academic trend mainly from the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries that sought to emphasise the classical roots of English. For instance 'plumb' and 'debt' gained their 'b' (from plumbum and debitum), 'indict' and 'verdict' their 'c' (we even adopted a different pronunciation eventually for verdict), 'autumn' gained an 'n' and so on. I'm pretty sure that Ralph gained an 'l' in this way, since the name began as a contraction of Rafael (which explains the 'Rafe' pronunciation); the more usual modern pronunciation is a later one influenced by the spelling change.
'Would', 'could' and 'should' are Anglo-Saxon and thus have been around for some 1500 years - plenty of time for pronunciations to change at a different pace than the spelling. 'Would' is from 'wolde' (that which is willed or desired) and would have been pronounced as two syllables, but as English lost most of its case endings, 'wolde' became 'wold' (or at least the 'e' fell silent) - and the 'ld' is not especially easy to say after a closed vowel such as the schwa-like 'ou', since the tongue is not in a good position. That is, unless it separates two syllables as it used to. I'm not sure where the 'u' came from, though.*
I'll take off my anorak now...
*[Putting the anorak back on] It seems that 'would' and 'should' always had 'l's - wolde and scolde/sholde (sc- is sh- in Anglo-Saxon) but 'could' didn't (A-S cuthe, Middle English coude), so I imagine it picked up the 'l' later in imitation of would and should. 'Coude' of course has a 'u', which might have influenced the other two in turn. Or it might have been part of the 'Frechifying' of English in the 17th and 18th Centuries (as when we started to put a 'u' in colour, favour and other words - though I think it's older than this). [Anorak comes off again.]
Comment