Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Melend
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:36 am

Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Melend »

Okay, n00b question time.

Reading about English phonology at Wikipedia, I came across a brief discussion of the phenomenon of "yod-dropping". I don't understand where the /j/ comes from to be dropped. When I pronounce 'cute', I habitually say it k-yoo-t; when I say 'union', it's yoon-yun. And of course the name of the letter U is yu. I know from experience that 'u' can mean either oo or yoo, depending on context. I've never given it any thought before; now that I have, I'm completely perplexed.

Why is the palatal aspect of the sound so integral that its omission is considered sufficiently noteworthy to have its own formal term? Why is it there in the first place?

User avatar
Vuvuzela
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:34 pm

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Vuvuzela »

Melend wrote: Why is the palatal aspect of the sound so integral that its omission is considered sufficiently noteworthy to have its own formal term?
Most sufficiently widespread sound changes in English have names.
Why is it there in the first place?
<u> in Middle English did not represent /u:/. The symbol for that sound was <ou>. Instead <u>, when long, represented /y:/, which was only found in loanwords. The French are to blame; though in that language, it makes sense because etymology. The modern English reflex of /y:/ is /ju:/, via the diphthong /iu/ (see: dew-duke merger).

User avatar
Melend
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:36 am

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Melend »

Vuvuzela wrote:Most sufficiently widespread sound changes in English have names.
Well, yeah... but I didn't grok why the presence of a /j/ wasn't named instead of its absence.
<u> in Middle English did not represent /u:/. The symbol for that sound was <ou>. Instead <u>, when long, represented /y:/, which was only found in loanwords. The French are to blame; though in that language, it makes sense because etymology. The modern English reflex of /y:/ is /ju:/, via the diphthong /iu/ (see: dew-duke merger).
Ah, that clarifies matters greatly. Also, the French can be blamed for practically everything! This is a wonderful discovery. Is there any reason why 'yu' should be a more common sound than 'oo'?

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by finlay »

The reason is historical. But it also covers a variety of different words and it is more common not to have it than to have it. Yod dropping in words like new or tune is very common, but in words like cute or union it is not. Some rural areas of England have in beautiful.

There's also yod coalescence, which is when another sound change happens to the cluster like tj > tS.

User avatar
Terra
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 10:01 am

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Terra »

There's also yod coalescence, which is when another sound change happens to the cluster like tj > tS.
Thus, the places with yod-coalescence have "dew, tune, tube" sound like "jew, "chune", chube", while the places with yod-dropping sound like "do, toon, toob".

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by linguoboy »

Terra wrote:Thus, the places with yod-coalescence have "dew, tune, tube" sound like "jew, "chune", chube", while the places with yod-dropping sound like "do, toon, toob".
The British synthpop band Ultravox has a song with the line "like empty tuneless harmonies" which I, with my yoddroppy dialect, for years heard as "like empty Jewish harmonies".

User avatar
Hydroeccentricity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Hydroeccentricity »

I was always taught that /y:/ merged with /i:/, as in "bry:d" > "bride," and that the /iu/ and /eu/ clusters had a separate origin. Is that not right?
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by finlay »

i think that old english's y: became i: but what we're talking about is y: that entered into middle english from french and was probably adapted there and then.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Salmoneus »

(Iirc, /y/ did deround in some English dialects but not in others, leading to a few couplets in later english where words come from different dialects. Couldn't cite you any, though, and I may have misrecalled)
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by linguoboy »

Salmoneus wrote:(Iirc, /y/ did deround in some English dialects but not in others, leading to a few couplets in later english where words come from different dialects. Couldn't cite you any, though, and I may have misrecalled)
All I can think of is bury, where the standard spelling comes from one dialect and the normative pronunciation from another.

User avatar
Dewrad
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:02 pm

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Dewrad »

linguoboy wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:(Iirc, /y/ did deround in some English dialects but not in others, leading to a few couplets in later english where words come from different dialects. Couldn't cite you any, though, and I may have misrecalled)
All I can think of is bury, where the standard spelling comes from one dialect and the normative pronunciation from another.
"Busy" (and its derivatives, of course). Exactly the same story.
Some useful Dravian links: Grammar - Lexicon - Ask a Dravian
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Yod-dropping: why is it there in the first place?

Post by Nortaneous »

Hydroeccentricity wrote:I was always taught that /y:/ merged with /i:/, as in "bry:d" > "bride," and that the /iu/ and /eu/ clusters had a separate origin. Is that not right?
it is. before the merger, there was some confusion between /y/ -- or at least /y:/, not sure if the short version did this -- and something written <ie>, which is generally considered some sort of diphthong /iy/ but my completely uneducated guess is that it was /1/.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

Post Reply