Why is there the "wh"

[jayjay]

@rfgdxm

I pronounce those different. Caught rhyming with ought, and cot with not.

Ought and not are pronounced differently, too? :eek:

[rfgdxm]

@jayjay

Ought and not are pronounced differently, too? :eek:

For me, yes. Ought is pronounced like “cawt”. Now is pronounced like “naht”. According to http://www.m-w.com, these 2 words don’t rhyme.

[rfgdxm]

@rfgdxm

For me, yes. Ought is pronounced like “cawt”. Now is pronounced like “naht”. According to http://www.m-w.com, these 2 words don’t rhyme.

Added: yet I don’t pronounce “ought” like m-w.com lists it as.

[rfgdxm]

Ought is pronounced like “cawt”.

Sigh. Make that “awt”.

[bordelond]

Yikes! Read this thread and be done with it. Sound samples and all.

Shocked the hell out of me when a Californian was unable to hear the vowels in “Don” and “Dawn” differently when they were pronounced differently in the sound samples. Not a value judgement … I was just surprised.

[rowrrbazzle]

I checked the OED, and if I’m reading it right, the word “what” is from the Old English “hwæt” and the hw- changed to wh- around 1200. That could explain why we’re sometimes told to pronounce the wh- as hw-. So how many of our wh- words come from Old English hw- words? And why the switch?

[Acsenray]

@rowrrbazzle

I checked the OED, and if I’m reading it right, the word “what” is from the Old English “hwæt” and the hw- changed to wh- around 1200. That could explain why we’re sometimes told to pronounce the wh- as hw-. So how many of our wh- words come from Old English hw- words? And why the switch?

Switch? You mean in the spelling?

[pasunejen]

@CurtC

That makes about as much sense to me as saying that there’s very little difference between a “T” sound and a “D” sound, so they’re essentially obsolete, and the two different sounds don’t seem to serve much purpose. Although I could understand someone who used only one sound or the other, the two different sounds make it easier to understand what someone is saying.

The difference between the t/d distinction and the (lack of) w/wh distinction is basically this: when you replace t with d, the meaning changes–for instance, tab and dab mean very different things, and you will not be able to communicate effectively if you use the wrong one. However, at this point–for most if not all speakers of English–replacing the wh in “what”, “which”, etc. is not an impediment to understanding. Thus, while there is a physical difference in the way the sounds are produced, the distinction is no longer particularly meaningful in English.

[Johanna]

@acsenray

Linguists usually write the “wh” sound as “hw” or as a turned w. “Hw” makes more sense to me than “wh” because it’s closer to the way the sound is actually made.

I would hesitate to call it an “aspirated” sound. True phonemic aspiration, as in most Indo-Aryan languages, occurs simultaneously with the main articulated sound, whereas in this case, the “h” comes noticeably before the “w.”

I am skeptical of that assertion. Do you know why the phoneticists use the turned w symbol in IPA for this sound? Instead of transcribing it as h followed by w? The description of the turned w sound is “unvoiced bilabial approximant.” This means the outbreath and the bilabial approximating action take place simultaneously, not first /h/ and then /w/. The Korean language has an unvoiced palatal approximant, which they spell <hy>. Again, if you listen to a native Korean say something like “Hyundai,” you’ll notice they don’t lead off with the /h/ sound and then follow it with a y. It’s a single phoneme rather than a sequence of two.

[spingears]

WHuh
whizzer
wizard
wrist, write, wrap, wrestle

[umop_ap_sdn]

@AWB

(And don’t get me started on “who”, where you can’t even hear a “w” sound!)

I always thought the word “who” was pronounced that way because its Old English root sounded more like “hoo” then “woe”. Makes sense to me but that’s just a wild guess.

@Chronos

As I understand it, classical Greek also had an aspirated “P”.

Correct, in fact it also had aspirated T and K (although the K is sometimes transliterated as hard C). Theta and chi didn’t used to be fricatives.

[Cisco]

@spoke-

There is a definite wh/w distinction in Southern dialects.

Just a data point for you.

. . .

For some reason (or maybe no reason) I associate the failure to make the w/wh distinction with midwestern and west coast dialects. (The same dialects that make no discernable distinction between “wok” and “walk,” to cite a similar example.)

I was born in GA, and grew up in NC and I don’t know anyone from either place that makes the distinction.

The only people I do know who make the distinction are my dad, who was born and raised in southern California, and a former co-worker who was born in Arizona and raised in Oregon. Both west coasters.

[CurtC]

@pasunejen

The difference between the t/d distinction and the (lack of) w/wh distinction is basically this: when you replace t with d, the meaning changes–for instance, tab and dab mean very different things, and you will not be able to communicate effectively if you use the wrong one.

Everything you just said about the t/d distinction applies equally well to the w/wh distinction. The words when/win, what/watt, why/wye, whack/wack, which/witch, all have different meanings, and the only thing that separates their pronunciations is the aspirated w sound.

[dlack]

@CurtC

Everything you just said about the t/d distinction applies equally well to the w/wh distinction. The words when/win, what/watt, why/wye, whack/wack, which/witch, all have different meanings, and the only thing that separates their pronunciations is the aspirated w sound.

I pronounce some of these the same, though.

when/win : Different, but “e” and “i” aren’t the same vowel anyway. (Wait, if you say pen and pin the same, then my distinction may make no sense.)

what/watt: Different, I pronounce “what” with a short “u” sound (rhymes with “putt”) and “watt” so that it rhymes with how I say “hot” (probably doesn’t help you much, I know). I think this is a bad example for the w/wh question.

why/wye: The same for me.

whack/wack: The same for me.

which/witch: The same for me.

[dlack]

I certainly wouldn’t say a dialect which is still in use is “obsolete” though. That’s just silly.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

From England, Thames valley
horse = hoarse

or at least very similar, I pronounce the word hoarse with a slightly longer or sound, but such variation is commonly made to sound more or less posh. On there own they may sound the same depending on how posh I am sounding. Only when spoken together would the difference be noticeable

Merry != marry != Mary
caught != cot

[Dan_Turk]

Listen to any Lil John song and you’ll notice that the wh is very much alive in his “HHUUWHHHAAAAT?!?!”

[pretend_my_name_is_witty]

@Bippy the Beardless

From England, Thames valley
horse = hoarse

or at least very similar, I pronounce the word hoarse with a slightly longer or sound, but such variation is commonly made to sound more or less posh. On there own they may sound the same depending on how posh I am sounding. Only when spoken together would the difference be noticeable

Merry != marry != Mary
caught != cot

Another Brit piping in, but from the South-West (not generally reknowned for linguistic clarity…)

I too pronounce horse slightly shorter than hoarse, without so much of an ‘r’ sound in the middle. If you get what I mean. Horss. Something like that.

Merry/Marry/Mary are pronounced very noticably differently by everyone I know, even if said quickly in sentence.

Cheers

H

[Daver914]

@bordelond

Some English speakers still maintain the distinction. Olpeculiar is largely correct, though – the distinction is essentially functionally obsolete. It’s no longer necessary to convey meaning.

Olpeculiar, the arpirated [w] in older forms of English is related to the “qu-” in Latin. Both are traceable back to Proto-Indo-European “*kw-”.

If I understand right, the “wh” isn’t aspirated at all, it’s voiceless; the difference between [w] and [w] is that the first one is made with a slight vibration of the vocal cords, where the second one isn’t. It’s analogous to the difference between [f] and [v]. A truly aspirated vowel is followed by a short puff of air, like the [p[SUP]h[/SUP]] at the beginning of “pit”.

Also, is it just me, or is everything traceable back to the PIE [*kw]?

[CurtC]

@Daver914

If I understand right, the “wh” isn’t aspirated at all, it’s voiceless; the difference between [w] and [w] is that the first one is made with a slight vibration of the vocal cords, where the second one isn’t.

When I say it, the “wh” sound is aspirated, “w” is not.

Just for the record, I agree with the Brits that horse and hoarse are pretty much the same, but hoarse may be a little longer. And

marry == merry == Mary, exactly.

pin == pen

But caught != cot, not even close.

And hock != hawk.