A recording of English lute songs by Charles Daniels and Nigel North
comes to mind. But, interestingly, there are certain differences between
Daniels' pronunciation and David Crystal's theory. For example, 'love'
is sung as [lu:v], and 'move' / 'remove' are sung close to modern
pronunciation to preserve the rhyme. Crystal suggests exactly the
opposite - 'love' would have sounded more or less as it sounds now, but
'move' would have sounded differently. I personally prefer how it sounds
with [lu:v], but not sure if that's historically correct. Maybe there
were differences between spoken and sung pronunciation.
Dmitry
On 2/18/2018 1:31 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote:
Hi All,
The latest luteshop blog treats a subject which many of us find
difficult and interesting:
http://luteshop.co.uk/its-not-just-what-you-say-its-how-you-say-it/
Best wishes,
Martin
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
