Has there been any theory on the vowel /o/ that was inserted into words like “tomorrow”?












0















Words like tomorrow, sorrow, arrow, follow, borough contain /o/, as in the diphthong /oʊ/, which was /wə(n)/ in Middle English which was weakened from Old English /x/ or /ɣ/ + some sort of vowel. There was no vowel /o/ there in the first place. For example: morrow < ME morwen (no /o/) < OE morgen (no /o/); follow < ME folwen (no /o/) < OE folgian (no /o/).



Has there been a theory on when and why it was inserted there? Also, why does North American English have /oʊ/ consistently regardless of whether the original Old English consonant was /x/ or /ɣ/, while British English has /ə/ for Old English /x/ (as in borough < ME borwe < OE burh) and /əʊ/ (as in bow < ME bowe < OE boga; however arrow in both NAE and BE < ME arwe < OE earh)?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 17:58











  • @Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:02













  • Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:13













  • @Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:44











  • It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 19:26


















0















Words like tomorrow, sorrow, arrow, follow, borough contain /o/, as in the diphthong /oʊ/, which was /wə(n)/ in Middle English which was weakened from Old English /x/ or /ɣ/ + some sort of vowel. There was no vowel /o/ there in the first place. For example: morrow < ME morwen (no /o/) < OE morgen (no /o/); follow < ME folwen (no /o/) < OE folgian (no /o/).



Has there been a theory on when and why it was inserted there? Also, why does North American English have /oʊ/ consistently regardless of whether the original Old English consonant was /x/ or /ɣ/, while British English has /ə/ for Old English /x/ (as in borough < ME borwe < OE burh) and /əʊ/ (as in bow < ME bowe < OE boga; however arrow in both NAE and BE < ME arwe < OE earh)?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 17:58











  • @Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:02













  • Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:13













  • @Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:44











  • It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 19:26
















0












0








0


2






Words like tomorrow, sorrow, arrow, follow, borough contain /o/, as in the diphthong /oʊ/, which was /wə(n)/ in Middle English which was weakened from Old English /x/ or /ɣ/ + some sort of vowel. There was no vowel /o/ there in the first place. For example: morrow < ME morwen (no /o/) < OE morgen (no /o/); follow < ME folwen (no /o/) < OE folgian (no /o/).



Has there been a theory on when and why it was inserted there? Also, why does North American English have /oʊ/ consistently regardless of whether the original Old English consonant was /x/ or /ɣ/, while British English has /ə/ for Old English /x/ (as in borough < ME borwe < OE burh) and /əʊ/ (as in bow < ME bowe < OE boga; however arrow in both NAE and BE < ME arwe < OE earh)?










share|improve this question
















Words like tomorrow, sorrow, arrow, follow, borough contain /o/, as in the diphthong /oʊ/, which was /wə(n)/ in Middle English which was weakened from Old English /x/ or /ɣ/ + some sort of vowel. There was no vowel /o/ there in the first place. For example: morrow < ME morwen (no /o/) < OE morgen (no /o/); follow < ME folwen (no /o/) < OE folgian (no /o/).



Has there been a theory on when and why it was inserted there? Also, why does North American English have /oʊ/ consistently regardless of whether the original Old English consonant was /x/ or /ɣ/, while British English has /ə/ for Old English /x/ (as in borough < ME borwe < OE burh) and /əʊ/ (as in bow < ME bowe < OE boga; however arrow in both NAE and BE < ME arwe < OE earh)?







phonology historical-change old-english middle-english






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 mins ago







Vun-Hugh Vaw

















asked Jun 22 '18 at 17:55









Vun-Hugh VawVun-Hugh Vaw

2,31412350




2,31412350








  • 1





    I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 17:58











  • @Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:02













  • Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:13













  • @Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:44











  • It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 19:26
















  • 1





    I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 17:58











  • @Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:02













  • Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:13













  • @Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

    – Vun-Hugh Vaw
    Jun 22 '18 at 18:44











  • It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

    – Lambie
    Jun 22 '18 at 19:26










1




1





I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 17:58





I cannot understand your first paragraph. What do you mean inserted? Do you mean evolved?

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 17:58













@Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

– Vun-Hugh Vaw
Jun 22 '18 at 18:02







@Lambie There was no /o/ there in the first place. Look at the Middle English and Old English forms. Notice there was only a sequence of /l/ or /r/ + /w/ in Middle English and + /x/ or /ɣ/ in Old English. Therefore, the existence of /o/ should be "insertion". All I could hypothesize right now is some vague sort of inherent physical quality of Middle English /w/ perhaps coupled with the loss of Middle English /ə(n)/ that makes an insertion of /o/ inevitable, to make words, like, easier to pronounce or something.

– Vun-Hugh Vaw
Jun 22 '18 at 18:02















Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 18:13







Ok, now at least I can understand it. But, how do you know how ME morwen was pronounced? You say no /o/ but you don't say how it was pronounced....

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 18:13















@Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

– Vun-Hugh Vaw
Jun 22 '18 at 18:44





@Lambie More or less as it was spelt. English spelling and pronunciation were much more consistent back then. Anyway, if you know something about these former forms of English, you'll know what I'm talking about, so there's really no need for long and unnecessary explanation.

– Vun-Hugh Vaw
Jun 22 '18 at 18:44













It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 19:26







It's not my field (phonology, phonetics and phonemics) but the contradiction in your question remains.

– Lambie
Jun 22 '18 at 19:26












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














Old English [ɣ] became [w] in Middle English in certain environments when surrounded by voiced segments. Thus /sorɣe/-> /sorwǝ/. This in turn was subject to epenthesis and produced variants like soruwe, meaduwe for Mod Eng "sorrow" "meadow." The final /ǝ/ was subject to deletion like other /ǝ/ in later Middle English. The epenthetic vowel represented by o was retained because a word-final cluster *rw was impossible. The contemporary standard pronunciation with /o/ is at least in part a spelling-pronunciation. In the early 17th century, pronunciations like /windǝ/ and /arǝ/ for "window" and "arrow" were not so stylistically marked, and are described by Ben Jonson as normal pronunciation in reference to o which "in the last Syllabes before w...frequently looseth: as in willow, billow." I.e. /bɪlǝ wɪlǝ/. By the end of the eighteenth century, John Walker was describing it as substandard: “The vulgar shorten this sound and pronounce the o obscurely, and sometimes as if followed by r, as winder and feller; but this is almost too despicable for notice. Good speakers preserve the diphthong in this situation”



If it hadn't been for the 18th century zest for spelling-pronunciations, we might well think of "Sarah" and "Arrow" as being perfect rhymes today. The 18th and early 19th centuries were a period of great social change, social mobility and thus social insecurity in urban areas. The obsession with propriety and gentility led to obsession with propriety in language. At the same time, mass-literacy was spreading on a scale unprecedented in English history. An environment like that tends to encourage language change, and this one in particular was a breeding-ground for new pronunciations derived from spelling. Newly-literate people who spoke various non-standard Englishes, when trying to "better themselves" linguistically, often had no better guide to correct pronunciation than the traditional orthography. And our orthography is a nasty one for learners.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451530%2fhas-there-been-any-theory-on-the-vowel-o-that-was-inserted-into-words-like-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5














    Old English [ɣ] became [w] in Middle English in certain environments when surrounded by voiced segments. Thus /sorɣe/-> /sorwǝ/. This in turn was subject to epenthesis and produced variants like soruwe, meaduwe for Mod Eng "sorrow" "meadow." The final /ǝ/ was subject to deletion like other /ǝ/ in later Middle English. The epenthetic vowel represented by o was retained because a word-final cluster *rw was impossible. The contemporary standard pronunciation with /o/ is at least in part a spelling-pronunciation. In the early 17th century, pronunciations like /windǝ/ and /arǝ/ for "window" and "arrow" were not so stylistically marked, and are described by Ben Jonson as normal pronunciation in reference to o which "in the last Syllabes before w...frequently looseth: as in willow, billow." I.e. /bɪlǝ wɪlǝ/. By the end of the eighteenth century, John Walker was describing it as substandard: “The vulgar shorten this sound and pronounce the o obscurely, and sometimes as if followed by r, as winder and feller; but this is almost too despicable for notice. Good speakers preserve the diphthong in this situation”



    If it hadn't been for the 18th century zest for spelling-pronunciations, we might well think of "Sarah" and "Arrow" as being perfect rhymes today. The 18th and early 19th centuries were a period of great social change, social mobility and thus social insecurity in urban areas. The obsession with propriety and gentility led to obsession with propriety in language. At the same time, mass-literacy was spreading on a scale unprecedented in English history. An environment like that tends to encourage language change, and this one in particular was a breeding-ground for new pronunciations derived from spelling. Newly-literate people who spoke various non-standard Englishes, when trying to "better themselves" linguistically, often had no better guide to correct pronunciation than the traditional orthography. And our orthography is a nasty one for learners.






    share|improve this answer






























      5














      Old English [ɣ] became [w] in Middle English in certain environments when surrounded by voiced segments. Thus /sorɣe/-> /sorwǝ/. This in turn was subject to epenthesis and produced variants like soruwe, meaduwe for Mod Eng "sorrow" "meadow." The final /ǝ/ was subject to deletion like other /ǝ/ in later Middle English. The epenthetic vowel represented by o was retained because a word-final cluster *rw was impossible. The contemporary standard pronunciation with /o/ is at least in part a spelling-pronunciation. In the early 17th century, pronunciations like /windǝ/ and /arǝ/ for "window" and "arrow" were not so stylistically marked, and are described by Ben Jonson as normal pronunciation in reference to o which "in the last Syllabes before w...frequently looseth: as in willow, billow." I.e. /bɪlǝ wɪlǝ/. By the end of the eighteenth century, John Walker was describing it as substandard: “The vulgar shorten this sound and pronounce the o obscurely, and sometimes as if followed by r, as winder and feller; but this is almost too despicable for notice. Good speakers preserve the diphthong in this situation”



      If it hadn't been for the 18th century zest for spelling-pronunciations, we might well think of "Sarah" and "Arrow" as being perfect rhymes today. The 18th and early 19th centuries were a period of great social change, social mobility and thus social insecurity in urban areas. The obsession with propriety and gentility led to obsession with propriety in language. At the same time, mass-literacy was spreading on a scale unprecedented in English history. An environment like that tends to encourage language change, and this one in particular was a breeding-ground for new pronunciations derived from spelling. Newly-literate people who spoke various non-standard Englishes, when trying to "better themselves" linguistically, often had no better guide to correct pronunciation than the traditional orthography. And our orthography is a nasty one for learners.






      share|improve this answer




























        5












        5








        5







        Old English [ɣ] became [w] in Middle English in certain environments when surrounded by voiced segments. Thus /sorɣe/-> /sorwǝ/. This in turn was subject to epenthesis and produced variants like soruwe, meaduwe for Mod Eng "sorrow" "meadow." The final /ǝ/ was subject to deletion like other /ǝ/ in later Middle English. The epenthetic vowel represented by o was retained because a word-final cluster *rw was impossible. The contemporary standard pronunciation with /o/ is at least in part a spelling-pronunciation. In the early 17th century, pronunciations like /windǝ/ and /arǝ/ for "window" and "arrow" were not so stylistically marked, and are described by Ben Jonson as normal pronunciation in reference to o which "in the last Syllabes before w...frequently looseth: as in willow, billow." I.e. /bɪlǝ wɪlǝ/. By the end of the eighteenth century, John Walker was describing it as substandard: “The vulgar shorten this sound and pronounce the o obscurely, and sometimes as if followed by r, as winder and feller; but this is almost too despicable for notice. Good speakers preserve the diphthong in this situation”



        If it hadn't been for the 18th century zest for spelling-pronunciations, we might well think of "Sarah" and "Arrow" as being perfect rhymes today. The 18th and early 19th centuries were a period of great social change, social mobility and thus social insecurity in urban areas. The obsession with propriety and gentility led to obsession with propriety in language. At the same time, mass-literacy was spreading on a scale unprecedented in English history. An environment like that tends to encourage language change, and this one in particular was a breeding-ground for new pronunciations derived from spelling. Newly-literate people who spoke various non-standard Englishes, when trying to "better themselves" linguistically, often had no better guide to correct pronunciation than the traditional orthography. And our orthography is a nasty one for learners.






        share|improve this answer















        Old English [ɣ] became [w] in Middle English in certain environments when surrounded by voiced segments. Thus /sorɣe/-> /sorwǝ/. This in turn was subject to epenthesis and produced variants like soruwe, meaduwe for Mod Eng "sorrow" "meadow." The final /ǝ/ was subject to deletion like other /ǝ/ in later Middle English. The epenthetic vowel represented by o was retained because a word-final cluster *rw was impossible. The contemporary standard pronunciation with /o/ is at least in part a spelling-pronunciation. In the early 17th century, pronunciations like /windǝ/ and /arǝ/ for "window" and "arrow" were not so stylistically marked, and are described by Ben Jonson as normal pronunciation in reference to o which "in the last Syllabes before w...frequently looseth: as in willow, billow." I.e. /bɪlǝ wɪlǝ/. By the end of the eighteenth century, John Walker was describing it as substandard: “The vulgar shorten this sound and pronounce the o obscurely, and sometimes as if followed by r, as winder and feller; but this is almost too despicable for notice. Good speakers preserve the diphthong in this situation”



        If it hadn't been for the 18th century zest for spelling-pronunciations, we might well think of "Sarah" and "Arrow" as being perfect rhymes today. The 18th and early 19th centuries were a period of great social change, social mobility and thus social insecurity in urban areas. The obsession with propriety and gentility led to obsession with propriety in language. At the same time, mass-literacy was spreading on a scale unprecedented in English history. An environment like that tends to encourage language change, and this one in particular was a breeding-ground for new pronunciations derived from spelling. Newly-literate people who spoke various non-standard Englishes, when trying to "better themselves" linguistically, often had no better guide to correct pronunciation than the traditional orthography. And our orthography is a nasty one for learners.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Sep 10 '18 at 0:35

























        answered Aug 31 '18 at 23:01









        Alex ForemanAlex Foreman

        15124




        15124






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451530%2fhas-there-been-any-theory-on-the-vowel-o-that-was-inserted-into-words-like-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre