When I was in the earliest grades of elementary school (from 1983-5) they taught us that the vowels were “a, e, i, o, u, sometimes y and w.” I’ve seen cases when “y” was a vowel, but never “w.” I find it odd, since I studied the language extensively before taking my degree in English Teaching. Has anyone ever seen a case where “w” was a vowel? I’m sort of wondering if it was just a conspiracy cooked up by the teachers I had in Lawrence, MA.
Yeah she took me home man she threw me all around the room man. I mean this chick was really hot she was nice to me you know. She let me keep on my cowboy boots and everything.
Not only are we geeks, lissener, you and I are old geeks.
Now back to crouching in the shadows, waiting for someone to use the phrase “whip it” in passing . . .
“W” isn’t a vowel all by itself (in English), but it can sometimes make a vowel sound when paired with another vowel. Therefore you have such words as “bawl” and “pew” and, well, “vowel”. I think that’s what your teachers may have meant. However, my teachers never taught me that “w” was a vowel :).
Or maybe they were just confused by that whole “double u” thing.
I’ve heard the sometimes “y” and “w” thing only in relation to Welsh words, where the “w” is pronounced as a vowel. But I’ve never heard the sometimes “w” rule in America. Interesting.
Well, according to this web site, Tamex is right in his explanation of “w” as being a vowel when used as a digraph or diphthong.
However, the Welsh word “cwm” is a case where “w” alone is a vowel. Here’s a site which supports my explanation as well.
And here’s another one which explains that “w” is not a vowel, but a glide consonant (just like “y” when it’s not making the long “i” sound.)
So, it seems to me that your teachers were technically wrong, unless they did have “cwm” in mind.
sigh, I really should have played more Mad-Libs as a kid.
so maybe it should be A, E, I, O, U but sometimes not U and sometimes Y
but on the plus side with more hawkish people back in power in this world and the 90s are quickly fading from memory our chances of being redused to a small population in some horrible global catastrophy have definately increased. And I pledge that if I am one of those few people who survive I will work my hardest to have a nice easy phonetic language that follows nice simple rules. Maybe Vulcan. They’re nice and logical I’m sure their language is too.
I also think Zarathustra hit BINGO
The thing that really gets me is that I was listening to pop music by guys who looked like this. But our generation had Murray Head’s “One Night in Bangkok”, and noone can take that away from us . . .
IIRC, Fowler’s Modern English Usage also goes with “a historic”, but I don’t have my copy around to verify.
Enjoyed the EBN-OZN references BTW.
Do you really, really want the poop about Y and W?
Well, read on…
In phonetics (a course on which I just finished), Y and W (or more properly, /j/ and /w/) are called glides. They are included in the class of vocoids, along with the vowels. In terms of feature geometry, they are indistinguishable from the vowels /i/ and /u/, except that they occur outside the nucleus of the syllable.
The case of diphthongs is disputed. Some authorities say we pronounce “cow” /kaw/, others claim it’s /kaU/. The latter case - that it’s a vowel in this case - makes more sense (at least in English), since it’s part of the diphthong.
So, when the letter “w” is at the end of the word “cow”, it’s part of a diphthong and is a vowel. When it occurs at the beginning of “woman”, it’s in the onset of the syllable /wU/ and therefore is a consonant, since vowels can only occur in the nucleus (middle) of the syllable.
/w/ and /j/ aren’t the only glides that exist, but the others don’t exist in English. All possible high vowels (the ones between /i/ and /u/) have a glide associated with them.
matt – i’m not clear on a point here. So whats the dispute with “cow”? “OW” is pronounced as one syllable, not two. For example, in Polish, one can say “kal” (the “l” has a line through it) and it sounds pretty much like the English “Cow.” If you say “kau” you’re saying something that sounds like “kah-oo.” Two
distinct syllables.
Same with the letter “y.”
There’s a difference in, let’s pick Slovenian, although many other Slavic languages will work, between
“Slovenia” and “Slovenija.” Here it’s not a matter of two syllables versus one. “ia” sounds approximately like “ee-uh.” “Ija” sounds like “ee-yuh.” There’s a subtle, but discernible difference between the two sounds.
I’m sure I’m missing a fine point here, so fill me in…
Puly, the dispute is over whether in “cow” the final part of the diphthong patterns as a glide or a vowel. I would argue that it patterns as a vowel, because it strikes me as silly to argue that “cowl” patterns as
* s s
/| /|
O R O R
| |\ | |\
| | \ rather than | | \
| N C | N C
| | |\ | |\ |
k a wl k aU l
.
Whether Polish “kau” is two syllables is not very important to English; it may be that Polish doesn’t allow branching nuclei, like Japanese (in which “kau” would definitely be /ka.u/). But English does.
Polish “kal-” is a bad example because what they’ve got there, to my knowledge, is a velarized L, not a glide at all. Here’s a different, and contrastive, example in Esperanto: “praulo” is three syllables (/pra.'u.lo/) but “fraúlo” is two (/'fraw.lo/). (Accent in Esperanto is always on the penultimate syllable.)
As for “Slovenija”, I’m pretty sure that in that case, the glide j would be in the onset of the final syllable, due to onset maximization.
s s s s
/| /| /| /|
O R O R O R O R
/| | | | | | | |
|| N | N | N | N
|| | | | | | | |
sl o v e n i j a
Whew. Phonetics are a bitch to do in ASCII, aren’t they?
Whether the glides can be considered more as vowels or more as consonants depends on the point of view of your particular language. In Latin and the Romance languages, the bias is definitely in favor of considering them as vowels. In fact, 23-letter Latin made no distinction between I and J, or between U and V. They were the same (vowel) letters, regardless of whether they came at the beginning, middle, or end of syllables.
Arabic and the other Semitic languages are strongly focused on consonant structures, and vowels are sort of incidental. In the Semitic consonantal alphabets, w and y are definitely considered as consonants. They open and close syllables. They are never confused with the vowels i and u, which can only occur in the middle of syllables. The second member of a diphthong is always the consonantal w or y. In Arabic, two vowels cannot occur side by side without a hamzah or glide intervening.
Turkish orthography also shows that the glides function as consonants in Turkish. Diphthongs are always formed with consonantal v or y as the second element. Vowels only occur in the middle of syllables, so two vowels cannot rub shoulders without a consonant intervening.
Sanskrit morphophonology has the glides shifting between vocalic and consonantal status, according to sandhi changes. The vowels i and u can change to the glides y and v when followed by other vowels; conversely, when y and v form diphthongs, the diphthongs ai and au are treated as long-vowel units, not as vowel-semiconsonant combinations.
matt – what’s a velarized “L.” I’m not a linguist, but I have an intense interest in it. With my Polish example that you cite, the “l” (with the slash) sounds exactly like an English “w” (except in a few cases where it’s used to unvoice the consonant preceding it.)
Other than that, I see what you’re saying, and I seem to like your analysis of it completing the diphthong pattern as a vowel, rather than a glide, better.
I pronounce H sounds and use ‘a’ before them rather than ‘an’ in everyday speech. However when I’m writing or being more careful with my speech (not using slang, not dropping the final ‘g’ from words ending in ‘ing’ etc) I use ‘an’. eg an hotel, an historic event. I tend to think of ‘an’ as being correct even when the H is pronounced strongly. Is that wrong?
It’s quite correct if you’re an Elizabethan. But sure looks obsolete in the 21st century.
An ordinary “l” (in most languages except English) is an alveolar lateral approximant, that is, an “l” sound with the tongue on the alveolar ridge behind the teeth. (Ask a French person or a Spaniard to pronounce an “l” for you.) In English, we have a “dark” “l”, which is an “l” with the tongue pulled to the back of the mouth. Polish barred-l is the same, only more so (even “darker”).
hmmm…matt, hate to say this, but i’ve spoken Polish all my life, and barred-l is not an “L” sound of any kind, at least not in any of the dialect I’ve heard (Southern Highlander Polish, Silesian and “Great” Polish.). It is exactly the same as an English “w.” Exactly. And I mean, I can tell the difference between a Polish “t” and an English “t,” so I doubt I’m missing some sort of nuance.
According to this web site barred “l” (if you don’t have the proper international character set, it’s represented by a “?.”) is a bilabial voiced semivowel. (In Lithuania and Belorus, the variant is a dental voiced semivowel.) The pronounciation indicated is “w” as in “window.”
Actually Matt, pulykamell is correct. Barred l in Polish, according to the article on Polish orthography in “The World’s Writing Systems” by Daniels and Bright is pronounced as /w/. It is only in the archaic-regional variants that it is “dark l”.
Daniels and bright say on barred l:
Clarification: When I use “dark l” in the quote i gave, it’s not that Daniels and Bright used it. They actually used “l with tilde” (represented as an l with a tilde through it).