Three-way split of love, grove, prove is hence due to spelling ambiguity, not sound change: This sentence is too obscure for non-linguists to read. I think I understand what it's trying to say; but it should be rewritten by somebody more expert than I. Doops | talk 17:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't help that it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this page. It probably belongs on English spelling - does anyone disagree? --JHJ 16:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to English spelling. It could probably do with further editing, though.--JHJ 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon is much more commonly known as the foot-strut split, so I think the title of the article should be that name. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I wouldn't be opposed to incorporating it back into History of the English language either. I don't see any pressing need for this to be an independent article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the name foot-strut split is misleading in suggesting that the word foot had the same vowel as in put at the time that the split occurred, which it didn't. The word foot did not participate in the split, so put-strut split is a better name. 64.200.124.189 12:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that? How do we know when the shortening of /u:/ to /U/ happened in foot? The shortening could have happened as early as it did in blood and flood, but then stayed /U/ rather than unrounding to /V/ because the preceding consonant is labial. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps it did then. 64.200.124.189 14:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]