# Wr- in English



## Erick404

What is the origin of the initial wr- in English? I suppose it was once phonetically different from an initial r-.
As far as I know, the pronunciation of the letter w in English is the same since Old English, and the r was supposed to be an alveolar tap, right?. I can't figure out how an wr- in Old English would sound like.


----------



## berndf

The combination seems to have existed in PIE already. In Germanic languages it still was frequent in Gothic. In West- and North-Germanic languages /wr/ mostly became /r/ starting in the 10th century, in OHG the process started already earlier (Grimm, Keyword: "WR-"), sometimes it became /vr/ (E.g. German "wringen" or Danish "vrang"), in same dialects also /fr/ and /gr/. In English it survived very long where process /wr/>/r/ started in the 15th century and was completed in the 17th century.

I see no insurmountable problems in pronouncing /wr-/.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Erick404 said:


> What is the origin of the initial wr- in English? I suppose it was once phonetically different from an initial r-.


Wr- seems to have been a Common Germanic cluster. A quick look at etymonline.com shows that it can go back to a PIE root starting with *wr-, a PIE root starting with *wer- (variant form wre-), or PGm *wr-.


> As far as I know, the pronunciation of the letter w in English is the same since Old English, and the r was supposed to be an alveolar tap, right?. I can't figure out how an wr- in Old English would sound like.


Mitchell and Robinson (in _A Guide to Old English_) are fairly short in their description of OE wr-: "All consonants must be pronounced, e.g. _c_ in _cnapa_, _g_ in _gnaet_, _h_ in _hlaf_, _r_ in _thaer_, _w_ in _writan_." OE <r> is described as a thrilled /r/, "as in Scotch", /w/ is the same as Modern English /w/.

Etymonline (and other sources) state that "still spelled -wr- in English, but except in dialects the -w- ceased to be pronounced c.1450-1700."

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Erick404

berndf said:


> I see no insurmountable problems in pronouncing /wr-/.



Thanks for the replies. But when I try to pronounce it, I hear the W sound like a vowel on its own, like if it were ur-.


----------



## berndf

Erick404 said:


> Thanks for the replies. But when I try to pronounce it, I hear the W sound like a vowel on its own, like if it were ur-.


_writan _(OE) = _to write_
_wringen_ (MHG) = _to mangle, to twist, to wring_


----------



## Outsider

I, too, find the combination [wr] quite unpronounceable at the start of a word, unless it's turned into [ur] ([vr] is easily pronounced, though). Wikipedia has the following remark:



> ‹wr› represents /r/. Originally, it stood for a labialized sound, while ‹r› without ‹w› was non-labialized, but this distinction was lost in most dialects, the two sounds merging into a single alveolar approximant, allophonically labialized at the start of syllables, as in red [ɹʷɛd].


----------



## artion

Just fot the history, the letter W originates from an old greek letter, exactly the same shape, which was used instead of omega (Ω) in some local Gr. alphabets. The contemporary small omega (ω) is a rounded W. I believe the ancienc omega was a long O sound. 
There are not many english words from wr- and I cannot see any relevance to greek words, exept possibly the "write". If this is comparable to graf- (γραφ-), the equivalent gr. verb, then wr- is the respective of γρ-. Notice that in other english words (between vowels) the W is pronounced almost as the Gr. "γ".


----------



## berndf

artion said:


> Just fot the history, the letter W originates from an old greek letter, exactly the same shape, which was used instead of omega (Ω) in some local Gr. alphabets. The contemporary small omega (ω) is a rounded W. I believe the ancienc omega was a long O sound.


The letter "W" is a ligature of "uu" or "vv" used in Old High German and to a lesser extend in Old English to represent /w/; most OE authors used the Runic letter wynn for /w/. I don't think there is any connection to the Greek Omega.



artion said:


> There are not many english words from wr- and I cannot see any relevance to greek words, exept possibly the "write". If this is comparable to graf- (γραφ-), the equivalent gr. verb, then wr- is the respective of γρ-. Notice that in other english words (between vowels) the W is pronounced almost as the Gr. "γ".


Ancient Greek /w/ was represented by the letter Digamma word initially and Ypsilon syllabically. In the classical period, the consonantal /w/ was lost in most dialects, notably Ionic and therefore the Digamma was lost in Ionic-based classical and Koine spelling.

The Greek verb _γράφω _is cognate to English _to carve_; there is no connection with _to write_. I am not aware of a Greek cognate of_ to write_.


----------



## jazyk

> I, too, find the combination [wr] quite unpronounceable at the start of a word,


But wr is simply pronounced like a r. Write and right sound identical.


----------



## berndf

jazyk said:


> But wr is simply pronounced like a r. Write and right sound identical.


This thread is not about Modern English. It is about Old English.


----------



## ancalimon

Are there many words like "wrestle", "wright", "wreath", "wring", "wrath"  that instill fear or something dangerous, force or even holy? especially in old English?

According to my research, the "WR" sound instill fear "aka - fight or flight" on humans.


----------



## grubble

I found this link but I haven't yet found out who Joseph Stromberg is or what are his credentials.

_wr is the 'two letter /r/ that may only be used at the beginning of a word, and today, thanks to Joseph Stromberg, I learned that the wr phonogram will usually be found in words that convey the idea of "twisting" — wrestle, write, written, wreath, wrench, wrest, wringer_

http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor79.html


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> Are there many words like "wrestle", "wright", "wreath", "wring", "wrath"  that instill fear or something dangerous, force or even holy? especially in old English?


Why limit it to Old English? It's also found back in Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish, ...
A lot of words that start with wr- go back to a older words/forms/roots wich imply twisting, bending, distorting.
See etymonline.com:


> common Germanic consonantal combination, especially to start words implying twisting or distortion. Retained in Dutch and Flemish; reduced to -r- in O.H.G., O.N.; represented by vr- in Danish and Swedish; still spelled -wr- in English, but except in dialects the -w- ceased to be pronounced c.1450-1700.


----------



## grubble

Erick404 said:


> I can't figure out how an wr- in Old English would sound like.



Maybe we should ask the Dutch how they pronounce it if they still retain it.


----------



## itreius

grubble said:


> Maybe we should ask the Dutch how they pronounce it if they still retain it.



en _wreak_
nl _wreken_

en _wreckage_
nl _wrak-_ (wrak, wrakhout or wrakstuk)

Pronounced as *vr-*

However,

en _wrestle_
nl _worstelen_

en _root_
nl _wortel_

*wɔr-*


----------



## grubble

itreius said:


> en _wreak_
> nl _wreken_
> 
> en _wreckage_
> nl _wrak-_ (wrak, wrakhout or wrakstuk)
> 
> Pronounced as *vr-*
> 
> However,
> 
> en _wrestle_
> nl _worstelen_
> 
> en _root_
> nl _wortel_
> 
> *wɔr-*


Fascinating. For no reason that I can articulate, I am instantly attracted towards the extra syllable of "worstelen". I can easily imagine saying "wo'rite, wor'eath, wo'ring, wo'rath" and so on with a weak "wo" and the emphasis on the second syllable.

Which syllable has the emphasis in  "worstelen"?


----------



## berndf

itreius said:


> Pronounced as *vr-*
> ...
> *w**ɔ**r-*


I am not an expert on Dutch (Frank will correct me, if I am wrong) but I doubt you can seriously construct a phonemic or even an allophonic distinction here. The Standard Dutch pronunciation of the letter "w" is /ʋ/ but there is considerable regional and idiosyncratic variation. Sometimes it sounds closer to /w/, sometimes closer to /v/ and sometimes even like /f/.


----------



## itreius

berndf, I agree and when writing it down I felt  a bit queasy as I personally wouldn't pronounce them differently (the w in worstelen or the w in wreken). The way I had been taught, both would be pronounced *roughly* the same if not exactly the same (I certainly wouldn't notice the difference not being a native speaker). The transcription that I used was from a dictionary.

As for it being pronuounced like /f/, wouldn't that be true only for the grapheme v?


----------



## berndf

itreius said:


> As for it being pronuounced like /f/, wouldn't that be true only for the grapheme v?


Maybe I am confusing it but I thought I heard (almost) unvoiced "w" sounds by Northern speakers.


----------



## Frank06

Hi

Wow, that's quite a can of worms... And I am afraid that Modern Dutch is not going to help us a lot. Maybe standard Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands(???)



berndf said:


> I am not an expert on Dutch (Frank will correct me, if I am wrong) but I doubt you can seriously construct a phonemic or even an allophonic distinction here.


I doubted it too: in my varieties of Dutch (standard, dialect, idiolect), <wr-> is always pronounced as /vr-/. However, I read that some people seem to do their best to make a distinction between wr- and vr, if I may believe this article. I must say that, so far, I never noticed this myself.



> The Standard Dutch pronunciation of the letter "w" is /





> ʋ/ but there is considerable regional and idiosyncratic variation. Sometimes it sounds closer to /w/, sometimes closer to /v/ and sometimes even like /f/.


It's (usually) /ʋ/ in the Netherlands, /w/ in Flanders. But I must say that I have no idea how the combination vr- is pronounced in the Netherlands these days.

As for the can of worms: see Dutch: difference between "w" and "v", Pronunciation of 'w' variation, The Pronounciation of 'F' versus 'V' and 'W', Dutch 'V' and Dutch "w", confusion


----------



## grubble

berndf said:


> Maybe I am confusing it but I thought I heard (almost) unvoiced "w" sounds by Northern speakers.



Hmm... maybe, but to be certain you would also have to listen to words beginning with "r" and make sure this isn't a more general habit.


----------



## se16teddy

Erick404 said:


> Thanks for the replies. But when I try to pronounce it, I hear the W sound like a vowel on its own, like if it were ur-.


Those who find it difficult to imagine w pronounced as a consonant in a consonant cluster might try U-tubing "Welsh national anthem". The chorus of this song contains the word gwlad (repeated several times): this word is pronounced as a single syllable, with the _a_ the only vowel. Some of the versions on U-tube even show the lip movements clearly. (You might be more familiar with the Welsh disyllabic name _Gwladys_, which is derived from this word.)


----------



## JuanEscritor

Labialized /r/ still exists in English (as Outsider pointed out).  A question that might get us a better answer by more accurately representing the historical development regarding /rʷ/ would be:

Why did English /rʷ/ go from being its own phoneme to being the allophone of /r/?

I think there is some good and interesting evidence that might assist us in solving the mystery related to _this_ question.

JE


----------



## grubble

Well, I just realised that there is an English word that retains the spelling "wor". It is "to worry". Not only that but it originally shared the common thread of the "wr" words in that it referred to twisting or grasping.

worry (v.) 
O.E. wyrgan "to strangle," from W.Gmc. *wurgijanan (cf. M.Du. worghen, Du. worgen, O.H.G. wurgen, Ger. würgen "to strangle," O.N. virgill "rope"), from PIE *wergh- "to turn" (see wring). The oldest sense was obsolete in English after c.1600; meaning "annoy, bother, vex," first recorded 1670s, developed from that of "harass by rough or severe treatment" (1550s), as of dogs or wolves attacking sheep. Meaning "to cause mental distress or trouble" is attested from 1822; intrans. sense of "to feel anxiety or mental trouble" is first recorded 1860.worry (v.)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wry&searchmode=none


----------



## grubble

well, i just realised that there is an english word that retains the spelling "wor". It is "to worry". Not only that but it originally shared the common thread of the "wr" words in that it referred to twisting or grasping.

Worry (v.) 
o.e. Wyrgan "to strangle," from w.gmc. *wurgijanan (cf. M.du. Worghen, du. Worgen, o.h.g. Wurgen, ger. Würgen "to strangle," o.n. Virgill "rope"), from pie *wergh- "to turn" (see wring). The oldest sense was obsolete in english after c.1600; meaning "annoy, bother, vex," first recorded 1670s, developed from that of "harass by rough or severe treatment" (1550s), as of dogs or wolves attacking sheep. Meaning "to cause mental distress or trouble" is attested from 1822; intrans. Sense of "to feel anxiety or mental trouble" is first recorded 1860.worry (v.)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wry&searchmode=none


----------



## JuanEscritor

> grubble in Message 25:
> 
> well, i just realised that there is an english word that retains the spelling "wor". It is "to worry". Not only that but it originally shared the common thread of the "wr" words in that it referred to twisting or grasping.


This is interesting, but it doesn't really address the issue of what happened to phonemic /rʷ/¹ (the sound originally represented by the ‹wr› spelling).

JE
__________
¹ Variations on the /r/ aside.


----------



## grubble

JuanEscritor said:


> This is interesting, but it doesn't really address the issue of what happened to phonemic /rʷ/¹ (the sound originally represented by the ‹wr› spelling).
> 
> JE
> __________
> ¹ Variations on the /r/ aside.



My thought about this (entirely based on speculation at the moment) is the following:

Originally there would have been two words "worry" and "wory" (today's "wry"). In the former the "wor" syllable was emphasised in the latter the second syllable was emphasised.

worry ---> WOrry
wory ----> woRY


If the "wor" syllable in "worry" had become first compressed to "rʷ"   and then to "r", the word could be confused with the existing "wry",  and the fact that we emphasise the first syllable of worry would have made  it  less likely to disappear.

However with other words beginning with "wor" the loss of the extra syllable would not cause confusion.

Example

/woreck/  ---> /rʷeck/ ---> /reck/

It's all conjecture but my hypothesis is: _If the initial "wor" is stressed then it survives, if it is unstressed it eventually degenerates to "r"_


----------



## Dan2

grubble said:


> My thought about this (entirely based on speculation at the moment) is the following:
> 
> Originally there would have been two words "worry" and "wory" (today's "wry"). In the former the "wor" syllable was emphasised in the latter the second syllable was emphasised.
> 
> worry ---> WOrry
> wory ----> woRY
> ...
> /woreck/  ---> /rʷeck/ ---> /reck/
> 
> It's all conjecture but my hypothesis is: _If the initial "wor" is stressed then it survives, if it is unstressed it eventually degenerates to "r"_


I'm confused as to what you are claiming (or speculating). What evidence is there that "wry" and "wreck" had earlier forms with a vowel between the /w/ and the /r/? My understanding is that they did NOT. (I apologize if I'm missing your point.)


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> I'm confused as to what you are claiming (or speculating). What evidence is there that "wry" and "wreck" had earlier forms with a vowel between the /w/ and the /r/? My understanding is that they did NOT. (I apologize if I'm missing your point.)


The standard hypothesis is indeed that Germanic /wr/ is derived from PIE roots which had a vowel in between. "Wreck" is related to "to wreak" the origin of which is reconstructed as PIE "*werg-".

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wreak


----------



## Lars H

I checked on a few English wr- words that are active in modern Swedish. Even if some Sw. words have slightly changed meaning, it's obviously the very same words:

Wrath/vrede, wreck/vrak, wrench/vrida, wrinkle/rynka, wrist/vrist, write/rita, wrong/vrång.

Among these, *wrinkle* and *write* has lost the v-sound in Swedish and is both written and pronounced with r-. The rest have kept their v sound intact (as in English vast) in Swedish. Furthermore, I checked the ethymology in Sw. sources and I found no traces of a lost vowel between v and r for any of these. 

And, before we put too much effort in search of a missing vowel, isn't there something onomatopoetic (sound imitating) with the "wr" that would get lost with a vowel inbetween? Just a thought.


----------



## berndf

Lars, I said "the  origin of Germanic /wr/". The supposed loss of a vowel, if it took place, happened much earlier, somewhere on the way from PIE to Proto-Germanic.


----------



## Dan2

By way of clarification:  By speculating that "wry" was previously "wory" and "wreck" was previously "woreck", grubble seemed to be suggesting that an earlier stage of English had an /o/ between the /w/ and the /r/. But not only did _English _never have this vowel, even proto-Germanic did not.


berndf said:


> The supposed loss of a vowel, if it took place,  happened much earlier, somewhere on the way from PIE to  Proto-Germanic.


I have absolutely no expertise with respect to PIE, but I think Berndf is correct to include "if it took place": According to the two sources I just checked (Calvert Watkins's Appendix to the American Heritage Dictionary and the etymologies in Webster's New World Dictionary), the PIE root corresponding to "wreck" is "wreg-".


----------

