Do You Know ALL Your Vowels?
How the Quest(ion) Began
When I was about six years old, my brother, my parents, a family friend or two and I had a conversation in my home. How we got on to the topic of vowels I can’t remember, but my brother and I, as if we’d been tested, recited our vowels simultaneously: "‘A’ ‘E’ ‘I’ ‘O’ ‘U’ and sometimes ‘Y’." After we finished, one of our family friends–a Mr. Adair–added this interesting tid-bit: "And sometimes ‘W’." I distinctly remember dismissing the thought. That’s not what my teacher told me, after all. I remember him nodding in affirmation of his statement, but then the topic seemed to fall away, and I didn’t give in any other thought, really, for a good forty years, except to ponder every once in a while how Mr. Adair had reached such an odd conclusion.
First Feeble Evidence
Now, Mr. Adair was cool. My older brother liked him, and of course, a younger brother likes everything and everyone his older brother likes; that's the way of the world. Mr. Adair was a lot of fun, and I have only fond memories of him, other than this episode, and perhaps that quirk is what piqued my interest in his assertion. I suppose that another part is the very simple notion that the letter in question is, in fact, called "double ‘U’" not "double ‘V’," quite consistently in most languages where the same alphabet is used, and that seems to be one argument—albeit, a weak one—in Mr. Adair’s favour, especially since the letter looks more like a "double ‘V’" than a "double ‘U.’" But, whatever the cause, I eventually became driven to find out if Mr. Adair's assertion is true, and, when I finally completed my degrees in English, I began looking for evidence in order to test it.
It wasn’t until I had been teaching English for a number of years that I began searching with any degree of assiduity, but, despite my continuous interviewing of students and colleagues, I couldn’t find anyone else who was familiar with the idea of "W" as a vowel, and I even began wondering if I’d imagined or dreamed the incident. I started just trying to generalize when a "W" might function as a consonant in contrast with when it might function as a vowel, if, indeed, it ever did. That begged the question: Since "Y" is only sometimes a vowel, when does it function as a consonant, and when does it function as a vowel? It was no mystery. I discovered easily enough that "Y" is a consonant when it begins a syllable, as in "yellow." It functions as a vowel when it either ends a syllable, as in "candy," or when it falls in the middle of a syllable, as in . . . well . . . "syllable."
This definition is as clear as it gets; however, more often than not, when a "Y" falls in the middle of a word, it’s often more difficult to tell if it begins or ends a syllable, and therefore it’s more difficult to know if it functions as a consonant or as a vowel. Consider the word "foyer:" Is this word pronounced "Fo-yer," making the "Y" a consonant, or as "Foy-er," making it a vowel? Or, consider the name "Tokyo." Many Westerners seem to pronounce it, "Tok-ee-o," with three syllables, the "Y" being the vowel in its own syllable. However, most Easterners seem to pronounce it as two syllables: "Tok-yo," in which case, the "Y" begins the syllable, and is therefore a consonant. The confusion comes it to play because there's really not a lot of distinction between saying, "yo" for "Tok-yo" and saying "ee-o" for "Tok-ee-o." In both cases, the mouth makes the same series of shapes; it's really just the thought of separating the two sounds that makes them distinct, not the nature of the sound of the letters.
Because of the divided pronunciations, the function of the "Y" creates divisions among colleagues and students alike, so I was no further along in finding my answer. What I would need if I was going to argue that "W" can be a vowel, I determined, is a pair of words with the same internal vowel sound, with one of those words using a "W" in that vowel sound.
Ha! Yeah, right.
It wasn’t until I had been teaching English for a number of years that I began searching with any degree of assiduity, but, despite my continuous interviewing of students and colleagues, I couldn’t find anyone else who was familiar with the idea of "W" as a vowel, and I even began wondering if I’d imagined or dreamed the incident. I started just trying to generalize when a "W" might function as a consonant in contrast with when it might function as a vowel, if, indeed, it ever did. That begged the question: Since "Y" is only sometimes a vowel, when does it function as a consonant, and when does it function as a vowel? It was no mystery. I discovered easily enough that "Y" is a consonant when it begins a syllable, as in "yellow." It functions as a vowel when it either ends a syllable, as in "candy," or when it falls in the middle of a syllable, as in . . . well . . . "syllable."
This definition is as clear as it gets; however, more often than not, when a "Y" falls in the middle of a word, it’s often more difficult to tell if it begins or ends a syllable, and therefore it’s more difficult to know if it functions as a consonant or as a vowel. Consider the word "foyer:" Is this word pronounced "Fo-yer," making the "Y" a consonant, or as "Foy-er," making it a vowel? Or, consider the name "Tokyo." Many Westerners seem to pronounce it, "Tok-ee-o," with three syllables, the "Y" being the vowel in its own syllable. However, most Easterners seem to pronounce it as two syllables: "Tok-yo," in which case, the "Y" begins the syllable, and is therefore a consonant. The confusion comes it to play because there's really not a lot of distinction between saying, "yo" for "Tok-yo" and saying "ee-o" for "Tok-ee-o." In both cases, the mouth makes the same series of shapes; it's really just the thought of separating the two sounds that makes them distinct, not the nature of the sound of the letters.
Because of the divided pronunciations, the function of the "Y" creates divisions among colleagues and students alike, so I was no further along in finding my answer. What I would need if I was going to argue that "W" can be a vowel, I determined, is a pair of words with the same internal vowel sound, with one of those words using a "W" in that vowel sound.
Ha! Yeah, right.
Eureka! Or Not
Except that, I found two such words not long after: "flour" and "flower." I thought, "If the ‘U’ in ‘flour’ is a vowel, then surely the ‘W’ in ‘flower’ is too." But I had to dismiss that thought because, as it turns out, "Flour" is a single-syllable word like "hour." (Like the "l" in "girl," the "r" in "flour," requires the rapid reshaping of the mouth to pronounce it, giving the word the illusion of being two-syllables.) "Flower," on the other hand, is distinctly two-syllables, like "power," so the "W" opens the syllable and therefore functions as a consonant, much as the "Y" in "lawyer" functions as a consonant. Technically, then, "flour" and "flower" aren't even homophones. Were Shakespeare to have paired these words as rhyme, he would have replaced the "W" in "flower" with an apostrophe to force it to rhyme with "flour."
So, OK, these words didn't give me the evidence that I needed, but, at least, I did come away knowing what I needed to look for. If I were to use a comparison of "U" and "W" as an argument proving that "W" can sometimes be a vowel, I’d need words that had no ambiguity in pronunciation, that sounded the same, and that were, hopefully, single-syllable for the sake of ease and clarity.
Ha! Yeah, right.
Except that two such words fell into my lap some time later. I found them together, quite accidentally, in the title of a student paper; instead of the old rhyme, "How now brown cow?" the title read, "How Now Thou Sow?" That’s when I knew that I had the first piece of strong evidence to support the idea of "W" being a vowel: "Thou" and "sow" rhyme perfectly; they are both single-syllable words, and the uses of the "U" and "W," respectively, were just what I needed: having precisely the same effect on the pronunciation of each respective word. Finally I was able to argue a case in which "W" functions as a vowel: if the "U" in "thou" is a vowel, then so must be the "W" in "sow."
I had my argument, but it was still somewhat weak. In order to strengthen my stand, I would actually need a word (at the very least, one word, but more would be preferable) with no vowels other than "W."
Ha! Yeah, right.
So, OK, these words didn't give me the evidence that I needed, but, at least, I did come away knowing what I needed to look for. If I were to use a comparison of "U" and "W" as an argument proving that "W" can sometimes be a vowel, I’d need words that had no ambiguity in pronunciation, that sounded the same, and that were, hopefully, single-syllable for the sake of ease and clarity.
Ha! Yeah, right.
Except that two such words fell into my lap some time later. I found them together, quite accidentally, in the title of a student paper; instead of the old rhyme, "How now brown cow?" the title read, "How Now Thou Sow?" That’s when I knew that I had the first piece of strong evidence to support the idea of "W" being a vowel: "Thou" and "sow" rhyme perfectly; they are both single-syllable words, and the uses of the "U" and "W," respectively, were just what I needed: having precisely the same effect on the pronunciation of each respective word. Finally I was able to argue a case in which "W" functions as a vowel: if the "U" in "thou" is a vowel, then so must be the "W" in "sow."
I had my argument, but it was still somewhat weak. In order to strengthen my stand, I would actually need a word (at the very least, one word, but more would be preferable) with no vowels other than "W."
Ha! Yeah, right.
Standing Strong
Except that, there are such words. They are rare, rarely used, and they are "adopted" words, mostly from the Welsh, but they do exist in English. I was introduced to the first by a very dear friend of mine: Sarah. Her grade 4 class searched the dictionary to "find a word without a vowel," and they found the word, "crwth." Again, sources are divided on its pronunciation–some pronounce it as a rhyme for "Goth," others as a rhyme for "tooth," but regardless of which of these you use, there can be no doubt that the "W" functions as a vowel, plain and simple. A crwth is a medieval musical instrument that is distantly reminiscent of the violin, and is also called--in 21st-century English--a "crowd."
But "crwth" is not alone in English. There is also the word "cwtch" pronounced "cooch" as in "coochie-coo," and, in fact, it means "to cuddle," or "to be ensconced." And we also have the word "cwm," which is pronounced as "coom." It is a geographical term that refers to a glaciated valley, also known as a cirque, and often anglicised in spelling to "coomb."
That's better--three words with no other vowel but a "W," but it's still not enough. It could be argued that perhaps "crwth," "cwtch" and "cwm" are simply words in English that are spelled without vowels, like "shh" or "brr," and if they are, that would mean that the "W" is not a vowel in either "crwth," "cwtch" or "cwm." In order to placate all potential skeptics, I would need find standard words in English that don't use vowels to contrast them with these three words.
Ha! Yeah, right.
But "crwth" is not alone in English. There is also the word "cwtch" pronounced "cooch" as in "coochie-coo," and, in fact, it means "to cuddle," or "to be ensconced." And we also have the word "cwm," which is pronounced as "coom." It is a geographical term that refers to a glaciated valley, also known as a cirque, and often anglicised in spelling to "coomb."
That's better--three words with no other vowel but a "W," but it's still not enough. It could be argued that perhaps "crwth," "cwtch" and "cwm" are simply words in English that are spelled without vowels, like "shh" or "brr," and if they are, that would mean that the "W" is not a vowel in either "crwth," "cwtch" or "cwm." In order to placate all potential skeptics, I would need find standard words in English that don't use vowels to contrast them with these three words.
Ha! Yeah, right.
More Proof, He Wants
Except that there are words in English--usually used as interjections or as onomatopoeia--that are spelled without vowels. They are in standard use and are even recognized by common spell-check software. But when you look at these other words that have no vowels--as few and far between as they are--you’ll notice that the consonants that comprise them flow in pronunciation from one to the next with no need for a transition sound between, that is to say, no vowel sound. They are, then, simply glorified consonant blends or digraphs (as the case may be) used to convey meaning independently. For instance, one can pronounce "psst" without needing to say "passt," "pisst" or "pesst." Or one can say "grr" without saying "garr" or "gurr." Or, one can say the surname, "Ng," without saying "Ing."
But these are all single syllable; let's see some polysyllabic terms, here.
Fine. What about "m-hm" and "hm-m," meaning "yes" and "no," respectively? These are two-syllable words pronounced without even opening the mouth, precluding the need for a vowel. But "crwth," "cwtch" and "cwm"--all single-syllable words--require an open mouth after the "c" sound--that is, they require a transition sound between consonants, necessitating a vowel which is provided by the use of the letter "W."
OK, but let's be thorough, here. We have three words that have no vowels other than "W." If both "Y" and "W" are both only sometimes vowels, are there any analogous words in English whose vowel sounds are provided solely by the letter "Y"? If not, then, at the very least, there is a weakness in my argument. I need to find words with no other vowels than "Y."
Ha! Yeah, right.
But these are all single syllable; let's see some polysyllabic terms, here.
Fine. What about "m-hm" and "hm-m," meaning "yes" and "no," respectively? These are two-syllable words pronounced without even opening the mouth, precluding the need for a vowel. But "crwth," "cwtch" and "cwm"--all single-syllable words--require an open mouth after the "c" sound--that is, they require a transition sound between consonants, necessitating a vowel which is provided by the use of the letter "W."
OK, but let's be thorough, here. We have three words that have no vowels other than "W." If both "Y" and "W" are both only sometimes vowels, are there any analogous words in English whose vowel sounds are provided solely by the letter "Y"? If not, then, at the very least, there is a weakness in my argument. I need to find words with no other vowels than "Y."
Ha! Yeah, right.
Are We Happy, Yet?
Except that, there are, indeed, such words, and I’m not even going to try to use as evidence such common words as "flyby," "myth," "hymn," "lynx" and "rhythm." Why, I wouldn’t hear of it! But when I consider words such as, "Pygmy" and "Gypsy," I feel so satisfied that I don’t even feel the need to mention such obscure words as "syzygy," "symphysy" and "sylphy." (Yes, they’re real words; feel free to look them up.) I even knew one family whose surname was "Ryyth," pronounced "rooth." "Take that, Bembridge scholars!"
As a final concern, if there are words that use "W’s" as their vowels, are there also words that use double "U’s"? And, if so, is the pronunciation of a double "U" as a vowel, different from the pronunciation of a "W" as a vowel?
Well, in answer to the first part, yes there are words that use double "U’s." I’ll list only a very few of them: "squushy," "vacuum," "continuum," "residuum" and "muumuu." The double "U’s" in "Squushy," "vacuum" and "muumuu" are pronounced "oo" like the "W" in "Crwth." The double "U’s" in "continuum" and "residuum" are divided in to separate syllables: "con-tin-you-umm" and "re-zid-you-um," respectively. So, in some cases "UU" sounds like "W," but there is enough of a distinction between the two constructions that "W" stands on its own.
As a final concern, if there are words that use "W’s" as their vowels, are there also words that use double "U’s"? And, if so, is the pronunciation of a double "U" as a vowel, different from the pronunciation of a "W" as a vowel?
Well, in answer to the first part, yes there are words that use double "U’s." I’ll list only a very few of them: "squushy," "vacuum," "continuum," "residuum" and "muumuu." The double "U’s" in "Squushy," "vacuum" and "muumuu" are pronounced "oo" like the "W" in "Crwth." The double "U’s" in "continuum" and "residuum" are divided in to separate syllables: "con-tin-you-umm" and "re-zid-you-um," respectively. So, in some cases "UU" sounds like "W," but there is enough of a distinction between the two constructions that "W" stands on its own.
Conclusion
There you have it, boys and girls: Mr. Adair was right. There's a new rule for your English classroom. Your vowels have been amended: "'A,' 'E,' 'I,' 'O,' 'U,' and sometimes 'Y' and 'W'." And, it appears, that the rule for when a "W" functions as a vowel is the same as when "Y" does: in the middle or the end of a syllable.
I am proud to start a crowd: the Double-ewers. "How Now Thou Brown Cow?" "He who doth sew is not to be called a sewer." Oh! that's so rude it's lewd. There are too few math pros who won't whisper "Ew!" when they realize there's more to know in English. Who but a faun would fawn over the introduction of a new vowel, after all? "Ow!" that's gotta hurt! Cry "Foul!" thou Fowl! One flew over the crow's nest.
Be encouraged, though. There are so few people out there who are aware of this vowel, that, when you demonstrate your wealth of education to your English prof, you're sure to be greatly honoured--or ostracized, perhaps, take your pick. But if you are, indeed ostracized, you can say with good cheer, "Don't be a fwl. This is gwd; 'tis fwd for the brain."
I am proud to start a crowd: the Double-ewers. "How Now Thou Brown Cow?" "He who doth sew is not to be called a sewer." Oh! that's so rude it's lewd. There are too few math pros who won't whisper "Ew!" when they realize there's more to know in English. Who but a faun would fawn over the introduction of a new vowel, after all? "Ow!" that's gotta hurt! Cry "Foul!" thou Fowl! One flew over the crow's nest.
Be encouraged, though. There are so few people out there who are aware of this vowel, that, when you demonstrate your wealth of education to your English prof, you're sure to be greatly honoured--or ostracized, perhaps, take your pick. But if you are, indeed ostracized, you can say with good cheer, "Don't be a fwl. This is gwd; 'tis fwd for the brain."
An Addendum
I have been scouring (scowering?) the English lexicon looking for a new panvowl (a word that contains every vowel) that includes a "W." So far, no luck. The closest I've encountered is an adjective form of "cauliflower." If a soup or other food has too much cauliflower, it might be said to be "too cauliflowery," perhaps. But then we're left with the same problem with the "W" that we had above: does the "W" really function as a vowel in "flower"? Since I argue above that it does not, I'll have to say that, even though this word does contain every vowel including "Y," as a vowel, it does not contain a "W" as a vowel in spite of the "W" being present in the word. Alas. I'll keep searching, but should any of you find such a word that contains every vowel including "W" as a vowel, please let me know.
I have been scouring (scowering?) the English lexicon looking for a new panvowl (a word that contains every vowel) that includes a "W." So far, no luck. The closest I've encountered is an adjective form of "cauliflower." If a soup or other food has too much cauliflower, it might be said to be "too cauliflowery," perhaps. But then we're left with the same problem with the "W" that we had above: does the "W" really function as a vowel in "flower"? Since I argue above that it does not, I'll have to say that, even though this word does contain every vowel including "Y," as a vowel, it does not contain a "W" as a vowel in spite of the "W" being present in the word. Alas. I'll keep searching, but should any of you find such a word that contains every vowel including "W" as a vowel, please let me know.
copyright © 2013 by A. J. Mittendorf
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
