# Why is "y" pronounced /wai/?



## Testing1234567

Upsilon in Greek, "Greek I" in romantic languages, but /wai/ in English?


----------



## berndf

Nobody knows.


----------



## Testing1234567

any theories?


----------



## berndf

Nothing serious. All we know is that the name is at least 800 years old and was by that time (~1200) pronounced [wi:], i.e. like modern _wee_. It might be of Old French origin.


----------



## Testing1234567

Would it be related to /o:ne\/ > /won/ > /wv\n/ "one"?

(e\ is a schwa, v\ is the uh sound in but)


----------



## berndf

See #2.

_Ui_ or _vi_ is apparently a name for the letter can be found in medieval texts of different languages (I have only heard about it, not seen an actual attestation). In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of the letter is was in the middle between /u/ and /i/. Maybe this it the origin of that name, i.e. a _u-i._ But that is pure speculation.
_
_


----------



## Testing1234567

Are all of the alphabet names common in English, French, and Spanish, an entire myth?


----------



## berndf

For most letters, the name is just the sound it represents. For consonants a vowel is appended or prepended to make it pronounceable.


----------



## Dan2

In modern English, it would make more sense if "y" were pronounced [yu] and "u" were pronounced [waI]...

Good question!  To the native speaker of English, Y just "looks like" the sound [waI]; I would've never thought to question this!


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> See #2.
> 
> _Ui_ or _vi_ is apparently a name for the letter can be found in medieval texts of different languages (I have only heard about it, not seen an actual attestation). In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of the letter is was in the middle between /u/ and /i/. Maybe this it the origin of that name, i.e. a _u-i._ But that is pure speculation.


Or because the letter _Y_ resembles _V_ put above _I._


----------



## Testing1234567

Dan2 said:


> In modern English, it would make more sense if "y" were pronounced [yu] and "u" were pronounced [waI]...
> 
> Good question!  To the native speaker of English, Y just "looks like" the sound [waI]; I would've never thought to question this!


No, it would only make sense if y is [yai] and u is [wu].

In fact, the [yu:] is the standard pronunciation of a long "u", eg cute [kyu:t].

The only strange thing about [wai] is the "w" sound. The "ai" is perfectly normal. Also, in Old English, "y" was a vowel.

"Y" was the vowel between u and i... "y" was the front closed rounded vowel, found in French "du" /dy/. That may be the origin of /wai/... Breaking down /y/ into /ui:/ > /wi:/ > /wai/


----------



## apmoy70

berndf said:


> See #2.
> 
> _Ui_ or _vi_ is apparently a name for the letter can be found in medieval texts of different languages (I have only heard about it, not seen an actual attestation). In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of the letter is was in the middle between /u/ and /i/. Maybe this it the origin of that name, i.e. a _u-i._ But that is pure speculation.


&


Testing1234567 said:


> ...
> 
> "Y" was the vowel between u and i... "y" was the front closed rounded vowel, found in French "du" /dy/. That may be the origin of /wai/... Breaking down /y/ into /ui:/ > /wi:/ > /wai/


I'm not into historical linguistics but do you really suggest that the English name of y as [wai] is based on the Classical Gr pronunciation of υ as /y/? 
I find it far-fetched if not implausible given the fact that by that time the convergence of pronunciation of υ and ι as /i/ by the Greek speaking world is complete, and already a couple of hundred years old. How could the 12th c. English speakers be aware that the Greeks-of-old pronounced their ῡ/ῠ as /y/ when Erasmus isn't around yet, and Renaissance scholars and their Classicism would appear a whole century later?


----------



## berndf

apmoy70 said:


> I'm not into historical linguistics but do you really suggest that the English name of y as [wai] is based on the Classical Gr pronunciation of υ as /y/?
> I find it far-fetched if not implausible given the fact that by that time the convergence of pronunciation of υ and ι as /i/ by the Greek speaking world is complete, and already a couple of hundred years old. How could the 12th c. English speakers be aware that the Greeks-of-old pronounced their ῡ/ῠ as /y/ when Erasmus isn't around yet, and Renaissance scholars and their Classicism would appear a whole century later?


In England this way certainly known because until about that time the letter _y_ represented a sound close to the classical Greek _y_, namely the sound of the German _ü_. Compare English _evil,_ from OE _yfel_, and German _übel_.


----------



## Testing1234567

apmoy70 said:


> &
> 
> I'm not into historical linguistics but do you really suggest that the English name of y as [wai] is based on the Classical Gr pronunciation of υ as /y/?
> I find it far-fetched if not implausible given the fact that by that time the convergence of pronunciation of υ and ι as /i/ by the Greek speaking world is complete, and already a couple of hundred years old. How could the 12th c. English speakers be aware that the Greeks-of-old pronounced their ῡ/ῠ as /y/ when Erasmus isn't around yet, and Renaissance scholars and their Classicism would appear a whole century later?



No. In Classical Greek it was pronounced u. In Old English it was pronounced /y/.


----------



## Testing1234567

Oh, looks like it was really pronounced /y/ in Classical Greek.


----------



## Dan2

Dan2 said:


> In modern English, it would make more sense if "y" were pronounced [yu] and "u" were pronounced [waI]...





Testing1234567 said:


> No, it would only make sense if y is [yai] and u is [wu].


You took my statement more seriously than I intended it.  It was meant to be read aloud, and had no reference to the history of English.


Testing1234567 said:


> In fact, the [yu:] is the standard pronunciation of a long "u", eg cute [kyu:t].


No, it's *a *pronunciation of "long u", occurring after the six consonant letters {b, c, f, h, m, p} (but with exceptions) and word-initially.  After the 10 consonant letters {d, j, k, l, n, r, s, t, w, z} it's pronounced [u:] by the majority of native speakers of English.


----------



## Testing1234567

Dan2 said:


> You took my statement more seriously than I intended it.  It was meant to be read aloud, and had no reference to the history of English.
> 
> No, it's *a *pronunciation of "long u", occurring after the six consonant letters {b, c, f, h, m, p} (but with exceptions) and word-initially.  After the 10 consonant letters {d, j, k, l, n, r, s, t, w, z} it's pronounced [u:] by the majority of native speakers of English.



I see, thanks for teaching. Could you kindly provide an example for each consonant? What about sh and th and ch?


----------



## ahvalj

I see the post #10 got unnoticed: yet it seems to be the *only* plausible explanation. We have:

_ß_ "Eszet" from the ligature of _ſ_ and _z,_ and named accordingly;
the Cyrillic _Щ_ pronounced _št_ in Bulgaria and which in its original variant (_Ψ_ but with a squarer top) looked like _Ш_ [š] placed over _T_ [t];
the modern _W_ "double u, double v, v double";
the Greek _F_ "digamma", "two gammas".
How could early Medieval schoolboys and teachers from various countries call a letter that was pronounced differently in, say, Romance and Germanic and whose Latin names, _ypsilon _and _i graeca,_ were too exotic? _V_ was the undivided letter for the modern _U_ and _V,_ so _Y = V _(top)_ + I _(bottom) gives us the mnemonic _ui,_ which then regularly produces the modern English [waɪ].

P. S. Let's also recall that the modern _å, ä, ö_ and _ü_ all come from the former ligatures where _o_ and _e_ were written over the base vowels: it is perfectly possible that _Y_ was perceived in the same manner.


----------



## Dan2

Dan2 said:


> You took my statement more seriously than I intended it.


I meant it as an amusing way of pointing out the _name _of the letter Y starts with the _sound _of [u] and the _name _of the letter U starts with the _sound _of [y].  (For the initial sound of "yes" both you and I are using [y] rather than standard IPA [j].)


Testing1234567 said:


> Could you kindly provide an example for each consonant?


Letters followed by [u] not [ju], example words, standard American pronunciations: _duke, juke, lute, nuclear, rude, suit, tune_.  For the remaining three consonants in this set, there are no long-established words, but the fact that recent borrowings have [u] is perhaps even stronger evidence of a natural association of 'u' with [u] rather than [ju].  From Webster's New World dictionary: For 'k', _kudu, kudzu, kugel, Kuhn_, and many others; for 'w': _Wu, Wuhan_ (and more importantly, [wju...] is perceived as impossible in English); 'z': _Zulu, Zuni_; and [zju...] perceived as impossible (at least in AmEng).


Testing1234567 said:


> What about sh and th and ch?


These are followed by [u], not [ju], which is perceived as impossible.  No traditional words for 'sh' and 'th', but dictionary entries like _Shu, thulium_ have [u].  For 'ch', _chute and parachute_, and foreign name_ Chu_, have [u].


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> yet it seems to be the *only* plausible explanation.


Contrary to your examples, _Y _is not a ligature and has never been. In the black letter minuscules of the time the letter _y_ did not really look like a _V_ on top of an _I_. To me it is not the _only _plausible but the least plausible of those presented so far but (together with the one presented in #5) the only completely *im*plausible one.

The only thing that makes sense to me is the reference the letter _ü_ in your PS that originated as _u_ with a superscript _e_. But that is compatible with the phonetic explanations because the motivation of this letter is to describe the umlauting (_i_-mutation) process which is a phonetic one.

Anyway. The only thing that is halfway tangible is that _ui, vi_ or _gui_ existed as names of the letter in Europe (quoted in etymonline and wiktionary and should be verified form other sources). Everything else is pure speculation.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Contrary to your examples, _Y _is not a ligature and has never been. In the black letter minuscules of the time the letter _y_ did not really look like a _V_ on top of an _I_. To me it is not the _only _plausible but the least plausible of those presented so far but (together with the one presented in #5) the only completely *im*plausible one.


It wasn't a ligature, but it looked like one, especially for schoolboys. You have a letter that has no stable name: it is quite natural that you invent a nickname you can memorize. 

Why should we rely on the minuscules?


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Why should we rely on the minuscules?


Because those were the letters used at the time. Antiqua fonts are a Renaissance thing.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Because those were the letters used at the time. Antiqua fonts are a Renaissance thing.


Christian Carolingian Frankish Fragment of a Dedicatory Limestone Relief Plaque


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Christian Carolingian Frankish Fragment of a Dedicatory Limestone Relief Plaque


And? What have


ahvalj said:


> early Medieval schoolboys and teachers


to do with stone masonry?


----------



## Testing1234567

So we got a word here that is very often used and very simple and yet we have no explanation about.


----------



## Testing1234567

Do we have any other examples of prepending "w", such as /o:ne/ > /won/ (one)?


----------



## berndf

Testing1234567 said:


> So we got a word here that is very often used and very simple and yet we have no explanation about.


We have and answer to your question:


berndf said:


> Nobody knows.


And I am afraid that is the last word with regard to the current stage of linguistic research.


----------



## Frank78

Testing1234567 said:


> Do we have any other examples of prepending "w", such as /o:ne/ > /won/ (one)?



"Choir" comes to my mind where an unsual /w/ occurs.


----------



## Testing1234567

Dan2 said:


> I meant it as an amusing way of pointing out the _name _of the letter Y starts with the _sound _of [u] and the _name _of the letter U starts with the _sound _of [y].  (For the initial sound of "yes" both you and I are using [y] rather than standard IPA [j].)
> 
> Letters followed by [u] not [ju], example words, standard American pronunciations: _duke, juke, lute, nuclear, rude, suit, tune_.  For the remaining three consonants in this set, there are no long-established words, but the fact that recent borrowings have [u] is perhaps even stronger evidence of a natural association of 'u' with [u] rather than [ju].  From Webster's New World dictionary: For 'k', _kudu, kudzu, kugel, Kuhn_, and many others; for 'w': _Wu, Wuhan_ (and more importantly, [wju...] is perceived as impossible in English); 'z': _Zulu, Zuni_; and [zju...] perceived as impossible (at least in AmEng).
> 
> These are followed by [u], not [ju], which is perceived as impossible.  No traditional words for 'sh' and 'th', but dictionary entries like _Shu, thulium_ have [u].  For 'ch', _chute and parachute_, and foreign name_ Chu_, have [u].


Thank you for your detailed explanation. I would like to point out that the u in both nuclear and tune are /ju:/.


----------



## Testing1234567

Frank78 said:


> "Choir" comes to my mind where an unsual /w/ occurs.


That is from French. The "o" from Latin chorus, chorum, /koru/ was broken into /we/ (cuer /kwer/) and then borrowed into English as /kwi:r/, where the /i:/ became /ai/ after the Great Vowel Shift.


----------



## Testing1234567

I would guess that the spelling choir is due to latinization, by analyzing it as chor /kor/ + i /ai/ > /koair/


----------



## bearded

Dan2 said:


> After the 10 consonant letters {d, j, k, l, n, r, s, t, w, z} it's pronounced [u:] by the majority of native speakers of English.


Hi,
Do you really pronounce ''duke'' as du:k?  The WRDictionary shows its pronunciation as dju:k.  Don't you think that an English Dictionary should take into account how words are pronounced by ''the majority of native speakers''?  Or is the WRD only based on BE?


----------



## Sobakus

I think one should keep in mind that there's at least one preserved case where the U spelling represents a I pronunciation: _busy_. I don't know how much written evidence there is for it, but it can be explained by either these being the two different reflexes of OE /y/ in different dialects, or by the source dialect actually preserving the sound, with the scribe and the prestige dialect going for different approximations. This peculiarity must have been no less striking than modern dialects preserving /ʊ/ in place of /ʌ/, with plenty of examples. The question remains: did people of the time have a way of connecting this duality with the letter Y (such as preserving the OE spelling)?


----------



## Testing1234567

I just realized that /ju:/ has nothing to do with the Great Vowel Shift. Perhaps it is just a palatalization of /u:/?

How was letter u name pronouned in Old English? The other vowels were just named /a: e: i: o:/


----------



## Testing1234567

Sobakus said:


> I think one should keep in mind that there's at least one preserved case where the U spelling represents a I pronunciation: _busy_. I don't know how much written evidence there is for it, but it can be explained by either these being the two different reflexes of OE /y/ in different dialects, or by the source dialect actually preserving the sound, with the scribe and the prestige dialect going for different approximations. This peculiarity must have been no less striking than modern dialects preserving /ʊ/ in place of /ʌ/, with plenty of examples. The question remains: did people of the time have a way of connecting this duality with the letter Y (such as preserving the OE spelling)?


From etymonline:
"
busy (adj.) 


Old English bisig "careful, anxious," later "continually employed or occupied," cognate with Old Dutch bezich, Low German besig; no known connection with any other Germanic or Indo-European language. Still pronounced as in Middle English, but for some unclear reason the spelling shifted to -u- in 15c. "


----------



## Sobakus

Testing1234567 said:


> I just realized that /ju:/ has nothing to do with the Great Vowel Shift. Perhaps it is just a palatalization of /u:/?


It's the result of merger of /u:/ with /eu/, /iu/ and /y/ in French loans. As for your Etymonline quote, it doesn't add much to the discussion I'm afraid.


----------



## Testing1234567

Sobakus said:


> It's the result of merger of /u:/ with /eu/, /iu/ and /y/ in French loans. As for your Etymonline quote, it doesn't add much to the discussion I'm afraid.



Well, the etymonline quote was to show that the u in "busy" has nothing to do with /y/.


----------



## Sobakus

Testing1234567 said:


> Well, the etymonline quote was to show that the u in "busy" has nothing to do with /y/.


Check out this link. Etymonline isn't exactly a groundbreakingly scholarly source.


----------



## Testing1234567

Sobakus said:


> Check out this link. Etymonline isn't exactly a groundbreakingly scholarly source.


Do you have any examples of /o:ne/ > /won/ (one)?


----------



## Sobakus

Testing1234567 said:


> Do you have any examples of /o:ne/ > /won/ (one)?


If I remember correct, this is the only case in English, but there's the opposite development in ON where the initial glide was dropped before rounded vowels, and ON was widely spoken in Britain of the time. Actually, considering that it had the /y/ sound which was spelled as Y, this means the Britons of the time certainly had a way to associate the sound with the letter.


----------



## Testing1234567

Sobakus said:


> If I remember correct, this is the only case in English, but there's the opposite development in ON where the initial glide was dropped before rounded vowels, and ON was widely spoken in Britain of the time.


Sorry, "on" (preposition) or Old Norse? And do you have any examples here?


----------



## Sobakus

Testing1234567 said:


> Sorry, "on" (preposition) or Old Norse? And do you have any examples here?


Old Norse (prepositions aren't written in capital letters). Pick any word with w+rounded, such as _wolf, worm, wonder_ etc. and check their Scandinavic cognates.


----------



## berndf

*Moderator Note*

*As nobody, including myself, has been able to come up with anything but hot air and/or side tracking issues of undemonstrated relevance to the topic, I am closing this discussion now. Should anyone come up with new evidence, he/she is welcome to contact me or any other moderator.*

*A brief summary of the tangibles:*
*- The name wy(e) can be traced back to around 1200 with the apparent pronunciation [wi:].*
*- There are continental medieval names of the letter spelled ui, vi or gui. apparently representing the same sound value [wi:] or at least a very similar one. Though assuming a connection between the two is quite plausible, nothing has (yet) been demonstrated.*


----------

