3.1 John Hart

The spelling reformer John Hart offers a precise description of the monophthong [y]. In dealing with the ‘abuse’ of the vowel u, i.e. writing u for any other sound than [u] (his cardinal value; Reference Hart1569: 30^v), he writes:

Dobson (Reference Dobson1968: I, 79–81) rightly rejects Jespersen's arguments about Hart's evidence (Reference Jespersen1907: 44–8),Footnote ⁷ but admits that the above description shows confusion between the native diphthong /iu/ and the foreign vowel /y(:)/ and writes that a possible explanation for this confusion ‘is that in English itself’ Hart ‘knew two variant pronunciations’, which he ‘failed properly to distinguish’ (Reference Dobson1968: I, 81). But in his second volume Dobson admits another possibility: since Hart and other authorities ‘falsely identified English [iu] with foreign [y], they uncritically accepted descriptions of the articulation of the foreign sound as if they were also valid for English’ (Reference Dobson1968: II, 711).

The fact, however, is that the above description is by no means confused. In describing Fr and Sc u, Hart calls the sound ‘a diphthong’ because it is formed by combining two articulations: that of [u] (‘the u, right’) and that of [i] (‘the right sounde of i’), but he specifies that the sound ‘is made and put togither vnder one breath, confounding the soundes of i, and u, togither’, a wording that clearly indicates a simultaneous articulation of the two vowels.Footnote ⁸ Hart speaks of two articulations because his criterion for distinguishing front and back vowels was not the position of the tongue, but the degree of mouth opening,Footnote ⁹ so that to him the distinctive feature of back vowels was lip-rounding and the point of articulation of [u] was primarily labial. As will be seen below (section 3.4), Wallis, Wilkins and Holder include [u] among the ‘labial’ vowels.

It is then clear that Hart's peculiar use of the word ‘diphthong’ in this context cannot obscure the fact that the lines quoted above accurately describe the articulation of [y]. Moreover, Hart is clearly dealing with the ‘abuse’ of u in foreign languages and this implies that the sound [y] cannot be taken to be an English vowel. In other words, Hart is here describing ‘Fr and Sc u’, not the English reflex of lME /iu/.

Danielsson claims that the lines quoted above represent ‘an accurate description of [Hart's] speech-habits’ when trying ‘to imitate French or Scottish’ (Reference Danielsson1963: 134–5; cf. Reference Danielsson1959: 281–2). But the fact that Hart, like his contemporaries, normally substituted his own /iu/ for the foreign sound does not imply that he was unable to correctly describe the articulation of [y]. After all, John Hart is generally recognized as being not only an important spelling reformer, but also the best sixteenth-century phonetician (cf. Dobson Reference Dobson1968: I, 88 and Danielsson Reference Danielsson1959: 276).

In his transcriptions Hart invariably uses the digraph iu in words with lME /iu/, for example in use (OF use, L ūsus) and sure (AN sur) (Reference Hart1569: 48^r.12; 60^r.11). That he himself used a diphthong and not the sequence /ju:/ in words like new and due is shown by transcriptions like ð’ius ‘the use’ (Reference Hart1569: 58^r.23 etc.) and t'iuz ‘to use’ (Reference Hart1569: 48^r.12). However, the digraph occurs also in transcriptions like iung ‘young’ (OE iung; Reference Hart1569: 43^v.7) and iuþ ‘youth’ (eME yŭþ ~ yūþ, OE iuguþ; Reference Hart1569: 58^v.19, etc.), as well as in iu ‘you’ (ME yŭ ~ yọ̄, OE eōw) and iur ‘your’ (Reference Hart1569: 47^v.17, etc.; 59^r.8, etc.), all of which show that Hart used iu also for the sequence /j/ plus /u/. This is of course acceptable in the work of a spelling reformer, though other writers pursuing the same aim prefer to use y for /j/ (see Gil, section 3.2 below). Unlike the phonetician Robert Robinson, who distinguishes between iw in use (c. Reference Robinson and Dobson1617: 45.3, etc.) and yu in young (c. Reference Robinson and Dobson1617: 51.30, etc.), Hart regards both y and j as unnecessary for the representation of the semivowel.

The well-known substitution of Eng /iu ~ ju:/ for Fr /y/ is exemplified in Hart by transcriptions like Fr diu ‘du’ and piuïsănse ‘puissance’ (Reference Hart1569: 66^r.16), which should be compared with the statement that the French pronounce Latin u as iu in words like tua, tuum, regnum, etc. (Reference Hart1569: 66^r.22–3). In another passage Hart observes that the English pronounce the proper sound of u in a word like Latin lux, but that in Latin words like lucet and lumine some use ‘the French and Scottish sound’ (Reference Hart1569: 34^r.18–20), that is, the contemporary reflex of lME /iu/.

We may then conclude that Hart's evidence cannot be adduced to show the existence in early Modern English of a vowel [y:] as a variant of the reflex of lME /iu/.

3.2 Alexander Gil

Gil's scattered comments on social and regional varieties of English include a passage in which he mentions the linguistic inventions of the Mopsae (‘Mopsarum fictitias’, Reference Gil1621: B3^r). Gil does not explain who these Mopsae were, but his disparaging words seem to refer to women from the countryside (the name Mopsa belongs to the pastoral tradition) inclined to use or imitate advanced pronunciations.Footnote ¹⁰

Now, in his criticism of effeminate affectations in the speech of the Mopsae (Reference Gil1621: B2^v–B3^r), Alexander Gil rejects Hart's use of iu and prefers to adopt the letter v (corresponding to Gr υ) for the reflex of lME /iu/. Dobson writes that Gil ‘probably used [y:], for he rejects Hart's spelling iu as representing the pronunciation of the Mopsae and instead uses a single letter for ME [y:] as though it were a simple vowel’ (Reference Dobson1968: II, 702).Footnote ¹¹ In his review of Dobson, Danielsson (Reference Danielsson1959: 281) dismisses this hypothesis as untenable by quoting what Dobson himself writes in his first volume, namely that the difference between the two writers ‘is really only in the method of transcription’ (Reference Dobson1968: I, 85).Footnote ¹² But this is not entirely true, for Gil writes that his dispute with Hart ‘concerns only sound’ (Reference Gil1621: B2^v: ‘quia de sono tantum certamen est’). In the case of Gil's transcription vz as opposed to Hart's iuz ‘use’ (OF use, L ūsus) this means either of two things: (a) Gil erroneously ascribes to Hart the pronunciation /ju:z/ or (b) Gil criticizes Hart's use of iu because it could be taken to represent /ju:/, as in the ‘affected’ speech of the Mopsae.Footnote ¹³ In either case, Gil's objection is quite understandable, since, as we have seen, Hart uses iu also to represent /j/ plus /u/ in you (< ME yŭ), which Gil transcribes as yü, i.e. yū (ME yọ̄), beside the old variant you (approximately [jǝu] < ME yū, OE eōw) (Reference Gil1621: 46. 2–3, etc.).

The fact that Gil chose a single letter and not a digraph to represent the reflex of lME /iu/ can easily be explained in the context of his approach to the reform of English spelling and by keeping in mind that the contemporary pronunciation of Gr υ was reproduced with the reflex of lME /iu/.

Gil gives no description of the articulation of vowels, because his aim as a spelling reformer was to devise a script based on all the available letters known to him – so much so that he criticized Hart for omitting ‘certain very useful letters’ (‘nonnullas literas ad usum pernecessarias’; Reference Gil1621: B2^v.40–1). Letters and their ‘powers’ are indeed very important for Gil, who is not infrequently influenced by the traditional spelling. He thus transcribes words like wine (OE wīn) with j (Reference Gil1621: 7.25), although he certainly used a diphthong (approximately [ǝi]) for the reflex of ME /ī/. His aim, here, was to differentiate the i in words like wine from the i in words like win (OE winnan; Reference Gil1621: 7.24). When confronted with words spelt with u the matter was of course more complicated, because he had to employ three different letters. The first two could easily be found: u for spun (OE gespunnen; Reference Gil1621: 13.10) and ü (i.e. ū) for spoon (OE spōn; Reference Gil1621: 13.11). But what about the u of words like due and true? The solution was near at hand, since the Greek letter upsilon was exactly what a learned man like Gil needed for his script. Nor should it be forgotten that this solution allowed Gil to distinguish words with lME /iu/ from words with lME /ɛu/ (e.g. fëu ‘few’; Reference Gil1621: 15.12) without having to employ iu, which might be taken to represent /ju:/. Gil's choice obviously implied that words with lME /iu/ represented by a digraph had to be transcribed with v, as in nv ‘new’ (Reference Gil1621: 117.15, etc.) and knv (OE cnēow; Reference Gil1621: 116.21, etc.), but this was inevitable and constituted no problem to a man who had set out to devise ‘a full and perfect alphabet’ (‘alfabetum plenum & perfectum’; Reference Gil1621: 5.17).

Gil's use of the Greek letter upsilon for the reflex of lME /iu/ is exemplified by such instances as dv ‘due’ (Reference Gil1621: 103.16, etc.), nv ‘new’ (Reference Gil1621: 117.15, etc.) and trv ‘true’ (Reference Gil1621: 27.30, etc.), as well as by the old variant yvth ‘youth’ (Reference Gil1621: 40.2, etc.), which seems to have /iu/ from /iu:/ owing to the development of a glide-vowel after /j/ in ME yūþ (OE iuguþ) – cf. Dobson (Reference Dobson1968: II, 699, fn. 1).

That even a learned man like Gil cannot be taken to have used [y:] for the reflex of lME /iu/ is confirmed by William Salesbury, the well-known humanist scholar. As a Welshman educated at Oxford who spoke English from childhood, Salesbury was able to distinguish Welsh (and Greek) [y:] from English [iu]. In a marginal note to his treatise on the pronunciation of Welsh, he writes that ‘the englishe Scolers tongues be marueilously tormented in soundyng of the Greke ypsilon and yet atain not to the right sound’ (Reference Salesbury and Ellis1567: 763).

We may then conclude that Gil's evidence cannot be adduced to show the existence in early Modern English of a vowel [y:] as a variant of the reflex of lME /iu/.

3.3 John Wallis

John Wallis is clearly influenced by the same tradition of keeping to the ‘power’ of letters, and his comments on articulation are essentially derived from Hart, with whom he shares a digraphic transcription of the reflex of lME /iu/. Hart transcribes this reflex with iu, whereas Wallis prefers iw (cf. Robinson, above). Dobson writes that Wallis ‘includes in his vowel-system a labial vowel which is clearly [y:]; he explicitly says that it, like French u, is “sonus simplex” and contrasts it with [iu], “sonus compositus”’ (Reference Dobson1968: II, 704).

But the passage in question and the whole context of Wallis’ testimony must be examined more closely. In his treatise De Loquela, Wallis introduces ‘thin u’ as a very familiar sound to the English and French (‘Anglis simul & Gallis notissimum’, Reference Wallis1699: 4), and says that the English use it in words with ‘long u’ like mute, tune, etc. as well as in words with eu and ew like new, brew, lieu, etc. (all with lME /iu/), although the latter are more correctly pronounced with retained ‘masculine e’ (‘quae tamen rectius pronunciatur retento etiam sono e masculi’; Reference Wallis1699: 4). With the latter variant Wallis means his reflex of lME /ɛu/ (probably [eu]) as an alternative to /iu/, which is attested by his transcriptions niwter ‘neuter’, fiw ‘few’, biwty ‘beauty’ (Reference Wallis1699: 22, s.v. eu, ew, eau). The ‘thin u’ (‘ú exile’; Reference Wallis1699: 4) of the English and French he calls a ‘simple sound’, as opposed to the Spanish iu in a word like ciudad ‘city’ (‘est enim iu sonus compositus, at Anglorum & Gallorum ú sonus simplex’; Reference Wallis1699: 4). Now, since the Spanish word has [ju], it appears that Wallis (like Gil before him) rejects /ju:/ and calls /iu/ a simple sound because of spellings like mute, tune, etc. and because of the well-known substitution of Eng /iu ~ ju:/ for /y/ representing Fr u and Gr υ.

That this is the correct interpretation is shown by two passages in the Grammatica linguae Anglicanae. In the first, Wallis introduces the English ‘long u’ and writes that it is pronounced like the French ‘thin u’, but almost as a combination of ĭ and w (‘Sono nempe quasi composito ex ĭ & w’; Reference Wallis1699: 22). Having described this sound as simple, Wallis was of course obliged to qualify his statement. In the second passage, Wallis comments on the ‘diphthongs’ eu, ew and eau and writes that /eu/ is used in words like neuter, few, beauty (all with lME /ɛu/), but that /iu/ is also possible (niwter, fiw, biwty), especially in words like new, knew, snew ‘snowed’ (all with lME /iu/), although the pronunciation with ‘clear è’ (i.e. [e])Footnote ¹⁴ is more correct (‘At prior pronunciatio rectior est’; Reference Wallis1699: 22). It is then clear that Wallis is here contrasting two diphthongs, one with [e] and one with [i] in combination with the second element [u]. The diphthong /iu/ he assigns to words with lME /iu/ such as new (OE nīwe, nēowe), brew (OE brēowan), snew (OE snēow), mute (OF müet, L mūtus), tune (AN tun, OF ton), etc. The diphthong /eu/ he gives as an alternative pronunciation in words with lME /ɛu/, such as neuter, few, beauty, etc.

We may then conclude that the evidence provided by Wallis does not support the assumption of a pronunciation [y:] for the reflex of lME /iu/.

3.4 William Holder

In his Elements of Speech William Holder aims at enquiring ‘into the natural production of letters’ (Reference Holder1669: 1) with a view to establishing in theory all the possible sounds of speech. His interest in the potentialities of the organs of speech is justified by his chief purpose, which is ‘to prepare a more easie and expedite way to instruct such as are Deaf and Dumb’ (Reference Holder1669: 15).Footnote ¹⁵ A good example of his theoretical approach occurs in a passage in which he deals with the articulation of vowels: ‘There is so much space between a and e, that there may be a vowel inserted between them, and a fit character for it may be ӕ, and perhaps some Languages may have a distinct use of such a vowel’ (Reference Holder1669: 81).

This comment seems to indicate a realization [a] for the reflex of ME /a/, but Holder's evidence is not always easy to interpret, because he adduces only a few word examples and even fewer transcriptions. His work is a valuable study in phonetic theory, but the scarcity of his examples and the fact they are not always readily reconcilable with his descriptions and classifications certainly impair its utility. Moreover, although he declares that he has avoided reading the writings of other men,Footnote ¹⁶ Holder surely knew the work of John Wilkins, whom he sometimes follows, at least in the use of certain symbols (see below). Nor should it be forgotten that, as a member of the Royal Society, Holder was personally well acquainted with his fellows Wilkins and Wallis, who shared with him a keen interest in pronunciation.

Dobson regards Holder as an accomplished phonetician and possibly the best authority for /y:/ in early Modern English (Reference Dobson1968: I, 265–6; II, 701–2), whereas Danielsson dismisses Holder's description of the symbol u as ‘an excellent one of [iu]’ (Reference Danielsson1959: 281).

The controversial passage deals with the two ‘letters’ u and ᴕ (a ligature taken from Wilkins),Footnote ¹⁷ which Holder describes in detail before coming to the conclusion that vowels can have a labial point of articulation (Reference Holder1669: 87–9). Holder's list of word examples for his eight English vowels presents difficulties (cf. Dobson Reference Dobson1968: I, 265–9), but the quality of ᴕ – exemplified by two (Reference Holder1669: 81) – can be shown to be [u], since Holder uses the same symbol for the semivowel of a word like waul ‘to howl’, transcribed as ‘ᴕaᴕl’ (Reference Holder1669: 95).Footnote ¹⁸

With regard to the vowel u, Holder says that it is articulated ‘by the Tong and Lip’ and that the tongue is ‘in the same posture’ as i. He then adds that it is ‘framed by a double motion of Organs, that of the Lip, added to that of the Tong’, so that it is ‘a single Letter, and not two, because the motions are at the same time, and not successive, as are eu. pla. &c.’ (Reference Holder1669: 87–8). He then goes on to observe that u does not seem to be absolutely so simple a vowel as the rest, because the voice passes ‘successively from the Palat to the Lips’, where it is ‘first moulded into the figures of oo and i, before it be fully Articulated by the Lips’ (Reference Holder1669: 88). This qualification has been taken by Danielsson (Reference Danielsson1959: 281) and others before him (Jespersen Reference Jespersen1907: 54–6; Zachrisson Reference Zachrisson1927: 84; Ekwall Reference Ekwall1958: 308) as attesting a pronunciation [iu] rather than [y:]. But Holder is merely saying that [y] differs from other simple vowels because it is formed by combining two articulations: that of [u] and that of [i]. Like Hart before him, Holder considers ‘labial’ as the distinctive feature of [u], so that the point of articulation of his oo is provided by the lips, not by the position of the tongue.Footnote ¹⁹

Holder himself proves Danielsson wrong when he writes: ‘Thus u will be onely i Labial …, that is, by adding that motion of the under-Lip, i will become u’, i.e. [y] (Reference Holder1669: 90).Footnote ²⁰ What Holder is trying to say finds an almost exact parallel in Hart, who gives an accurate description of [y:] but calls it a diphthong. Unlike Hart, Holder does not normally mention or discuss foreign languages, since he is chiefly concerned with the potentialities of the organs of speech. Yet he says that [y:] is not ‘so simple a vowel as the rest’ (Reference Holder1669: 88) because it combines the tongue position of [i] with the lip-rounding that characterizes the vowel [u].

However, what really matters in this context is that Holder is describing a theoretical vowel, just as he did when dealing with ӕ (see above). As Dobson notes (Reference Dobson1968: I, 269, fn. 2), Holder's argumentations about ‘labial vowels’ must take account of the discussion of phonetic theory by members of the Royal Society. Wallis and Wilkins postulate three ‘labial vowels’ ([o], [u] and [y]), whereas Holder maintains that the labialization of o is not essential and accepts only u and ᴕ ([y] and [u]) as ‘labials’. Now, the problem with Holder is always examples and lack of transcriptions. Wallis describes [y] but transcribes the reflex of lME /iu/ (as in new, mute, etc) with iw (see above); Wilkins describes [y] but says that i and u, as in light and lute (OFr l[e]ut) are diphthongs (Reference Wilkins1668: 364). Holder follows them in correctly describing [y], but gives no transcription for his sole example rule (AN, OF rule), which has ‘long u’, the reflex of lME /iu/ traditionally associated (though not identified) with French [y].

Dobson (Reference Dobson1968: I, 265–9) does his best to make order in the confusion created by Holder's word examples for each of his eight English vowels. Yet, when dealing with Holder's consonantal use of u, he must admit that it is ‘merely a theoretical concept’ (Reference Dobson1968: I, 269). However, Dobson does not mention Holder's sole example for the consonantal use of u, namely euge (Greek ɛὖγɛ) ‘well done’, which provides indisputable evidence that Holder's examples cannot be adduced as reliable evidence for real pronunciations.

That Holder's choice of rule was suggested by the spelling rather than by a real pronunciation is indeed confirmed by his theoretical discussion of diphthongs, which he rejects in favour of a consonantal use of the three highest vowels i, ᴕ and u ([i], [u] and [y]) preceded or followed by another vowel (Reference Holder1669: 93–5). When he comes to exemplifying the consonantal use of [y] (Reference Holder1669: 95), the only instance Holder can provide is euge (Greek ɛὖγɛ) ‘well done’, now pronounced /ˈjuːdʒiː/. This word exhibits the reflex of lME /ɛu/ (> /iu/), which in Holder's notation would be eᴕ, ew or iᴕ, iw, a sequence of vowel plus consonant which is said to require two successive articulations (Reference Holder1669: 88). In the same context, Holder offers waul ‘to howl’ as an example of the consonantal use of [u] (see above) and provides the transcriptions ‘ᴕaᴕl, wawl’ (Reference Holder1669: 95). For euge he gives no transcription, but his example cannot be taken to have been actually pronounced with [iy] (or [ey]).Footnote ²¹

Having refused to recognize the existence of diphthongs (apart from the ‘improper’ ea, oa and the ‘vulgar’ i in stile; Reference Holder1669: 94–5), Holder cannot provide a real example of consonantal [y] (as in, e.g., French huit, /ɥit/) and takes refuge in the far-fetched instance euge, in which, as he writes, u follows e (Reference Holder1669: 94–5). If he is not confusing letters with sounds, Holder is here pointing to a diphthongal pronunciation for what other writers call ‘long u’ (written eu, ew, eau), which was traditionally associated not only with Fr u and Gr υ, but also with Gr ɛυ (cf. Cooper's testimony, below). Be that as it may, there seems to be no doubt that the unique example euge (Greek ɛὖγɛ) shows that in discussing the ‘letter’ u Holder was thinking of the traditional pronunciation of Greek upsilon. His symbol u stands for [y] (which he accurately describes), but his discussion of the consonantal use of the three highest vowels i, ᴕ and u confirms that [y] did not exist in his type of speech and that his reflex of lME /iu/ was a diphthong which may or may not have included the reflex of lME /ɛu/.

As in the case of Gil and other authorities, Holder is influenced by the spelling and by traditional descriptions of Greek υ. That his reflex of lME /iu/ in rule cannot have been /y:/ is confirmed also by the evidence of John Wilkins. In his Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language, Wilkins explicitly says that ‘u Gallicum, or whistling u’ is not used in English (Reference Wilkins1668: 363). For the reflex of lME /iu/ he uses the digraph iᴕ (Reference Wilkins1668: 373, i.e. iw) in his transcriptions of crucified (OF crucifier) and communion (AN communion). For the reflex of lME /ɛu/ he gives the diphthong eᴕ (Reference Wilkins1668: 371, i.e. ew), as in hew (OE hēawan).

As mentioned above, Wilkins was Holder's close contemporary and, like him, Fellow of the Royal Society. If Holder's reflex of lME /iu/ had been [y], Wilkins would not have written that ‘the u Gallicum, or whistling u’ is of ‘laborious and difficult pronunciation to all those Nations amongst whom it is not used (as to the English)’ (Reference Wilkins1668: 363).

A younger contemporary, Christopher Cooper, writes of a diphthong iu (‘quem vocamus u longum’; Reference Cooper1685: 27) in mute and neuter (Reference Cooper1685: 16), as well as in huge (OF ahuge), chew (OE cēowan), etc., adding that the English use it for L eu and Gr ɛυ (‘sic semper pronunciamus eu latinum & ɛυ Græcum’; Reference Cooper1685: 28). He then compares the English diphthong to Fr u but states that this vowel is difficult and peculiar to the French (‘difficilis & Gallis propria’; Reference Cooper1685: 27–8).

In his short review of some early authoritiesFootnote ²² Roger Lass (Reference Lass1999: 98–9) refers to Cooper's comparison of the English diphthong to Fr u,Footnote ²³ but he does not mention Cooper's very clear statement that [y] is difficult and peculiar to the French. Confronted with apparently irreconcilable statements, Lass prefers to assume that ‘both the diphthongal descriptions and the likening to French /y/’ may be accommodated by assuming that the reflex of lME /iu/ was realized as [iü] or [iʉ], later [jü:] or [jʉ:], and that ‘Early Modern /y:/, like late ME /y:/, is imaginary’ (Reference Lass1999: 99). Such a solution is not newFootnote ²⁴ and is of course quite legitimate, at least in a work of wide scope, but it fails to explain the apparently conflicting evidence of the early sources.

When dealing with the early authorities who do not recognize or explicitly deny the existence of [y:], Dobson (Reference Dobson1968: II, 710–11) observes that (i) the early writers on orthography and pronunciation tended to deny ‘the existence of well-established pronunciations which they did not happen to use themselves’; (ii) the vowel ‘[y:], if it existed, was only a diaphonic variant of [iu]’ (i.e. a variant ‘used by different speakers or by the same man in different styles of speech’; Reference Dobson1968: II, 704, fn.); (iii) the vowel ‘[y:] (again if it existed) was obviously always the rarer variant, and by the second half of the seventeenth century may have been obsolescent’.

However, all these arguments cannot obscure the fact that (i) our authorities tend to condemn pronunciations which they did not use themselves, but none of them condemns the use of an alleged [y:] in the English language; (ii) none of them mentions [y:] as a variant, diaphonic or otherwise, while some of them explicitly state that [y:] is not used in English; (iii) little more than a century earlier, when the alleged [y:] cannot be said to have been obsolescent, William Salesbury states that Welsh u (i.e. [y:]) is not like English u in sure, though it is like French u, Dutch (i.e. German) ü and ‘the Scottish pronunciation of u’ (Reference Salesbury and Ellis1567: 760–1; cf. Dobson Reference Dobson1968: I, 16).

We may then conclude that the testimony of William Holder is only apparently in favour of an early Modern English vowel /y:/ instead of, or beside, the reflex of lME /iu/. Like Hart, he gives an accurate description of [y:] for his symbol u, but the evidence he provides shows that this cannot have been his reflex of lME /iu/.