ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:14:22 GMT

Anonymous
So what is the essence of a vowel???

The mouth is open and there is no audible friction of any of the organs of speech.

Re: W is a vowel

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:09:24 GMT

So what is the essence of a vowel???

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:31:31 GMT

Forbes
A moment's thought, however, may lead us to ask what the <e> is doing in mate. It clearly has a function in that it changes the vowel sound between the <m> and <t> - mat and mate are pronounced differently. Even so, the <e> has no value on its own - you have to take the whole package of <a> + <C> + <e> = the vowel sound in mate, a fairly regular correspondence.

this is my argument about not being able to pull apart dipthongs and make statements about their components

because of that, I find it hard to make the claim that <w> is really part of <aw>

<aw> is its own unit of sound, and just because it's represented using the letter <w> doesn't mean that <w> is an independant actor in the dipthong's sound

In other words, because we don't have a letter to represent the sound /aw/, we fudge a little and use two letters in combination. But the sound /aw/ is not really /a/ + /w/... if that makes sense.

So, the 'half a dipthong' arguments don't hold water, imo. For a letter to be a vowel, it's got to be capable of being used as a vowel outside the context of a dipthong. There is a large number of true consonants that, combined with a vowel, create an entirely new sound (like the <r> amd <l> in your examples).

But <r> and <l> aren't vowels, are they? Just because you add a consonant to a vowel and produce a new sound doesn't mean that you can then call the consonant a vowel.

Bottom line: Letters and sounds have a very, very loose connection. At best, letters are used to represent sounds, but never can one claim that a given sound is the exclusive domain of any letter or vice versa. So, it follows that sounds represented by multiple letters (dipthongs being the primary example of this) are distinct entities on their own. So /aw/, /ow/, and all their friends are not the product of combining letters (or even the sounds those letters represent, for that matter). They are distinct sounds of their own.

the /aw/ in 'paw' is a vowel

but /a/ and /w/ do not appear in the above word...even though <a> and <w> do appear

Therefore, we can say that /aw/ is a vowel, but we can't make the same claim for /w/ (or <w>) without having at least a few examples of their use as vowels.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:05:34 GMT

I am glad we agree about the sound /w/.

That leaves us with the letter <w>.

Letters of the alphabet must not be confused with sounds. By convention and for convenience, letters that represent vowel sounds are called vowels and letters that represent consonant sounds are called consonants. (In the rest of this post when I use the word "vowel" I mean a vowel symbol or letter and use "vowel sound" to refer to sounds.) This does not present any special problem for many languages, but for some, including English, difficulties arise when you begin to look into it. The complexities of English orthography arise, at least in part, because the way it is written is etymological rather than phonetic; that is, writing represents an earlier stage of the language.

Consider the words mat and mate. If asked, most people would have no hesitation in saying that <m> and <t> were consonants and <a> and <e> were vowels. A moment's thought, however, may lead us to ask what the <e> is doing in mate. It clearly has a function in that it changes the vowel sound between the <m> and <t> - mat and mate are pronounced differently. Even so, the <e> has no value on its own - you have to take the whole package of <a> + <C> + <e> = the vowel sound in mate, a fairly regular correspondence.

Consonants also influence the value given to vowels.

Take mating v matting. Here it is the doubling that changes the quality of the vowel sound. Are we justified in saying that there is some indication of "vowelness" in the consonants here?

The vowel sound of bath can be represented in several ways:

bath

harm

palm

etc

The <r> and <l> are not pronounced, but without them we have ham and Pam. Can <r> and <l> be said to be functioning as consonants?

Now consider the letter <k>. It is a consonant most will say. By what is it doing in knot? The <k> does help to show the pronunciation since not is pronounced in the same way. It is true that the presence of the <k> helps to distinguish the two words, but that is coincidental; it is simply the case that the <k> has not been eliminated since the /k/ stopped being pronounced. Are we justified in saying that in knot <k> is a consonant?

I have already noted above that <y> can function to represent (a) the sound /j/ (b) a vowel or dipthong and (c) an element of a dipthong.

<w> does not operate in quite the same way as <y> as (ignoring the rare borrowing from Welsh) it never operates on its own to represent a vowel or dipthong. It can :

(a) represent the sound /w/ in way

(b) combine with another vowel to represent a vowel sound as is law

(c) combine with another vowel to represent a dipthong as is cow

I therefore do not see the problem in saying that <w> has a dual function in writing - it is both a vowel and a consonant.

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:45:43 GMT

Forbes
When you say that /w/ does not behave as a vowel you are in a sense correct. It does not behave like a "full" vowel in that it can never form the nucleus of a syllable. However, although it does not behave like a vowel it is formed liked a vowel. It is sometimes described as a "non-syllabic vowel". Whatever we call it, the fact is that it only occurs in positions typically associated with consonants. This is why I said ages ago in this thread that from the phonetic point of view /w/ is a vowel, but from a phonological point of view it functions as a consonant.

I'm glad we agree.. now lets tackle the other part

Forbes
But it is also often the case that the letter <w> does not represent the sound /w/. The word mown is sounded the same as the word moan. <ow> and <oa> are two of the ways in which the vowel sound can be written. The <w> and the <a> both perform exactly the same function. If we are going to insist that in the case of mown <w> functions as a consonant letter, I do not see how we can get round saying that the <a> in moan also functions as a consonant letter.

your example forgets that dipthongs are made up of multiple sounds together. The dipthongs /ow/ and /oa/ have the same sound when used in the words you provide as examples, but that doesn't mean that you can isolate half of each dipthong and then show that they the letters obviously represent the same sound. By that logic, <w> and <a> have the same function and the same soound.

The reason that you can't do that is because the dipthongs themselves are the units of sound. They cannot be broken into their component parts anymore than the letters that represent them can be broken into parts. So /ow/ is a vowel sound, a dipthong more specifically, but that doesn't mean that /o/ + /w/ = /ow/..... but you already knew that.

/ow/ and /aw/ are vowel sounds

/w/ is never a vowel

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:05:25 GMT

When you say that /w/ does not behave as a vowel you are in a sense correct. It does not behave like a "full" vowel in that it can never form the nucleus of a syllable. However, although it does not behave like a vowel it is formed liked a vowel. It is sometimes described as a "non-syllabic vowel". Whatever we call it, the fact is that it only occurs in positions typically associated with consonants. This is why I said ages ago in this thread that from the phonetic point of view /w/ is a vowel, but from a phonological point of view it functions as a consonant.

The preceeding relates to the sound /w/.

The letter <w> is something different.

It is often the case that the letter <w> represents the sound /w/. When it does it is entirely reasonable to say that <w> functions as a consonant letter.

But it is also often the case that the letter <w> does not represent the sound /w/. The word mown is sounded the same as the word moan. <ow> and <oa> are two of the ways in which the vowel sound can be written. The <w> and the <a> both perform exactly the same function. If we are going to insist that in the case of mown <w> functions as a consonant letter, I do not see how we can get round saying that the <a> in moan also functions as a consonant letter.

Re: W is a vowel

Kooyeen — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:39 GMT

I agree with those who say there could be several definitions.

Considering letters. Vowels: A E I O U (so W is not included here)
Considering sounds. Vowel sounds: all those in the IPA vowel chart. (so W is not included here either. "The" is pronounced "thee" and the article "a" becomes "an" before vowel sounds of this kind, so say "a wall" and "a university")
Considering sounds more broadly. I think dark l's (as in "wall"), r-colored schwas (as in the last syllable of "powder"), w-sounds and y-sounds ("wall", "year") can all have some points in common with vowels. That's why some people often consider W a semi-vowel.

In general, I usually don't consider W a vowel, for several reasons. Here's some that came to my mind:
the end - the winner <-- does not behave like a vowel when considering some changes in pronunciation
an oar - a war <-- does not behave like a vowel when considering those articles
at all - at work <-- does not behave like a vowel when considering tapped t's

That said, it's just my opinion, and there are lots of other different definitions of vowel that make sense.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:19:38 GMT

Here's a conundrum for you:

Latin as written in Roman times had no letter <w>, but it did have the sound /w/. The letter <u> was used to represent both the sound /u/ and the sound /w/.

uolo (pronouced more or less as "wallow")

cum

uulpus (pronounced more or less as "wool puss")

So.

Was the letter "u" a consonant or vowel?

The fact that the Romans did not feel the necessity for a separate symbol for the sound /w/ and also used the symbol <u> (also used for the sound /u/) to represent it is a clear indication that either (a) they did not perceive /w/ to be distinct from /u/ or (b) they considered the two sounds to be so close that they could without confusion be represented by the same symbol.

Similar observations may be made about modern languages derived from Latin. In French, Spanish and Italian there is no symbol for /w/ that is not also used for something else.

French oui

Italian uomo

Spanish huevo

It may also be noted that in Arabic /w/ and /u:/ are represented by the same symbol.

The idea that /w/ is identical to or a positional variant* of /u/ has been around for at least two thousand years and is today felt by the speakers of many languages. It is not some new-fangled notion of descriptive linguistics and certainly not obscure.

*Is that the correct terminology?

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:57:30 GMT

friend, I looked at your links

the case presented over and over is that W is a semivowel because sometimes it is used to represent PART of a dipthong

I don't think that qualifies. In fact, every one of your sources (excpet the woefully inadequate wikianswer site) says that SOME linguists call W a semivowel. I maintain the stance that that opinion is wrong.

There is no consensus in linguists about this. If you want to teach that W is a semivowel, go ahead. My point is that it's an obscure opinion that isn't backed up by much that can't be summarily dismissed as esoteric descriptive linguistics because of the limits of the discipline in general (you can make an equally flimsy case using descriptive linguistcs that it is not a semivowel). So, until it's a generally accepted part of the english set of vowels, it shouldn't be taught as if it is.

It's all semantics anyway. As you've pointed out, the letters themselves aren't exactly representative of the full range of sounds in the language. People have to 'fudge' when creating new linguistic material (words, sounds, etc.) in a language. Hebrew has had to invent letters in the last 100 years.

TLDR: W isn't a vowel

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:24:55 GMT

Have a look at these opinions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t50.html

http://answergirlnet.blogspot.com/2007/07/can-you-give-example-of-use-of-w-as.html

http://www.roanoke.com/columnists/jennings/wb/xp-4058

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Word_uses_w_as_a_vowel

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/valderbooks/lesson6.html

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0004D&L=ads-l&P=7346

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/04/vowel-play.html

http://www.eduqna.com/Words-Wordplay/795-Words-Wordplay-7.html

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:56:02 GMT

Forbes
That just about sums it up really.

no, he's wrong

W does not have 'something of a vowel' about it.

period

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:17:29 GMT

I am not sure I can say anything further without repeating myself.

I think we should go back to the second post in this thread:

J Lewis
The problem with any category is that once you have established it you will always find something that doesn't quite fit. The Letters W and Y both have something of a vowel and something of a consonant about them. Fittingly they are known as semi-vowels.

That just about sums it up really.

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:25:39 GMT

Let's take this a step at a time, Forbes...

Forbes
It is unwise to rely on the etymology of a word to discern its meaning, or, if it has a range of meanings, to insist that the "original" meaning is somehow "more correct" . Words mean what they mean. In any discussion of the meaning of a word it is often instructive to look at its etymology as a starting point, but once you have done that you have to move on.

Unless the point was to say that the definitions have been intentionally muddled over time by people who have developed discriptive linguistic theories that have not panned out or provided additional understanding. We use an alphabet in English. The letters of the alphabet are broken into two categories: consonants and vowels. The OP was wondering why the LETTER W isn't considered a vowel. My answer was that the LETTER W does not function as a vowel by itself, ever. Vowels have to be able to FUNCTION as vowels BY THEMSELVES. The LETTER W never does this.

Forbes
The problem with defining a consonant as a sound that cannot stand on its own is that you then need to go on and ask: "If it cannot stand on its own what does it have to go with?" and the answer to that will be "a vowel". So you then ask: "What is a vowel?" If your answer to that is "any sound that is not a consonant" we end up with consonant being defined in terms of vowels and vowels in terms of consonants, which is not very helpful. That means you need to define one or the other in its own terms and without reference to the other.

There is no reason to automatically assume that vowels would be defined in terms of consonants. 'Vowel' has its own definition independant of that of consonants. Your argument here is pointless, as nobody in this thread has tried to define these two words in terms of each other.

Forbes
If we decide we shall start with defining a vowel, a reasonable enough definition is one that says it is a sound that is made without any obstruction of the vocal tract. When we have done that we have to decide what sounds in the language we are looking at are vowels. When it comes to the sound /w/ we may have some difficulty in deciding. The tricky bit is (because at school we were taught that the vowels are a e i o u) that at the back of our mind is the idea that /w/ ought to be a consonant and it is difficult to overcome it. This partly arises out the failure to distinguish between the sound /w/ and the symbol <w>. If the difficulties can be overcome, it is not totally unreasonable to come to the conclusion that /w/ is nothing but a short /u/. The articulation of /w/ does not seem to involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. If we move on and look at the contexts in which /w/ is found it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is never articulated on its own, or, as you put it "you cannot pronounce W without attaching a vowel to it." However (forgetting for a moment that we have not yet defined consonant) that does not justify us calling /w/ a consonant if we agree that its articulation does not involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. It is perhaps more apt to call /w/ a non-syllabic vowel - our definition of vowel does not imply that it must be capable of forming a syllable.

I can't come up with a single instance in which the LETTER W is pronounced in an English word without any obstruction of the vocal tract. Pursing one's lips to articulate the sound is, without a doubt, an obstruction of the vocal tract.

Forbes
However, the analysis of speech into phonemes is artificial (though it does not seem so because of the way we write!) and the natural division of continuous speech is the syllable

When looking at how a syllable is produced, one will never find an example in the English language of a syllable that is produced entirely by the LETTER W. It is for this reason (and the other one) that one cannot call the LETTER W a vowel.

1) the sounds that the LETTER W represents cannot be pronounced without obstruction of the vocal tract (however small the obstruction is)

2) the sounds that the LETTER W represents cannot be pronounced on their own (without attaching another sound to them)

I seriously don't see the case being presented for W being a vowel- no matter how esoteric the discriptive linguistics get.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:53:28 GMT

It is unwise to rely on the etymology of a word to discern its meaning, or, if it has a range of meanings, to insist that the "original" meaning is somehow "more correct" . Words mean what they mean. In any discussion of the meaning of a word it is often instructive to look at its etymology as a starting point, but once you have done that you have to move on.

The problem with defining a consonant as a sound that cannot stand on its own is that you then need to go on and ask: "If it cannot stand on its own what does it have to go with?" and the answer to that will be "a vowel". So you then ask: "What is a vowel?" If your answer to that is "any sound that is not a consonant" we end up with consonant being defined in terms of vowels and vowels in terms of consonants, which is not very helpful. That means you need to define one or the other in its own terms and without reference to the other.

If we decide we shall start with defining a vowel, a reasonable enough definition is one that says it is a sound that is made without any obstruction of the vocal tract. When we have done that we have to decide what sounds in the language we are looking at are vowels. When it comes to the sound /w/ we may have some difficulty in deciding. The tricky bit is (because at school we were taught that the vowels are a e i o u) that at the back of our mind is the idea that /w/ ought to be a consonant and it is difficult to overcome it. This partly arises out the failure to distinguish between the sound /w/ and the symbol <w>. If the difficulties can be overcome, it is not totally unreasonable to come to the conclusion that /w/ is nothing but a short /u/. The articulation of /w/ does not seem to involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. If we move on and look at the contexts in which /w/ is found it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is never articulated on its own, or, as you put it "you cannot pronounce W without attaching a vowel to it." However (forgetting for a moment that we have not yet defined consonant) that does not justify us calling /w/ a consonant if we agree that its articulation does not involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. It is perhaps more apt to call /w/ a non-syllabic vowel - our definition of vowel does not imply that it must be capable of forming a syllable.

If we decide to start with defining a consonant as a sound that involves some obstruction of the vocal tract, I think we are going to come to the same difficulty when we get to /w/. [It would be tedious to set the process out as in the previous paragraph.]

The fact that in the IPA there are separate symbols /u/ and /w/ says something. I am not quite sure what it says, but the possibilities are:

1. There is a qualitative difference between the two

2. There is a quantitative difference between the two and it is useful to be able to indicate when the sound is syllabic and when it is not

3. The whole thing is confusion

It may be noted that any two phoneticians may disagree about whether a particular utterance should be transcribed using /u/ or /w/. To an extent the convention for a particular language may depend on whether that language has a separate symbol for /w/.

The fact that many languages have the sound /w/ but have no symbol <w> to represent it (instead using <u>) also says something. It says that the way that any language is written (if written with an alphabet) involves a prior analysis of its sounds. When we come to look at the language afresh we must not be unduly influenced by that prior analysis.

The questions raised by this thread arise partly because written English employs an alphabet. Apart from the fact that that leads to a confusion between sound and symbol, in an alphabetic system language is analysed into phonemes. That is fine as it means that only a relatively few symbols need to be employed and the success of alphabetic systems throughout the world speaks for itself. However, the analysis of speech into phonemes is artificial (though it does not seem so because of the way we write!) and the natural division of continuous speech is the syllable.

Re: W is a vowel

shaved — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:08:34 GMT

Anonymous
Well, that is One definition, and, If you choose that One Definition, then -- case closed...

that 'One Definition' (capitalized to maintain the previous poster's emphasis) happens to be the one that is based on the etymology of the word

any other definitions have been added after the fact, meaning that they have been tacked on to a word that was invented to describe a particular phenomenon (letters that cannot be pronounced alone)

So, implying that my perspective on the subject is limited is a pointless and ineffective argument, considering the fact that the 'One Definition' happens to be the original and CORRECT definition of the word.