NitrateVille.com

In another forum, the subject turned to the pronunciation of "wh--" words: "Hw--" vs. "W--," and how this came about. (Some instances: "whale" as "wale," "which" as "wich," "where" as "ware.") Noting that the (unfortunate!) decline of "hw" seems to have coincided with the successive rise of radio, talkies, and TV, and that, these days, the worst offenders (that is, those most avoiding the "hw" in favor of "w") seem to be newscasters, I had the thought that perhaps this development came about because those speaking on microphone were advised to avoid to the degree possible certain aspirates and sibilants (because the microphone doesn't deal with them well), and that constant exposure to this mandated "microphone pronunciation" had its effect on the speech of those in the audience. I have indeed found a reference to two to broadcaster manuals (such as that of NBC) suggesting this; but I haven't been able to find any actual text, only people referring to it, or people recalling it. Can anyone cast any light on this, or provide references/links? Many thanks!

I don't know about Britain, but there has long been a separate strand of unaspirated W. Aspiratation has long been subject to mutation in all varieties of English. Cockney English is well known for dropping the initial aspiration even when there is no second consonant to tie it to; various Irish dialects tended to strengthen the sound into something approximating F. The entire process is arguably an extension of Grimm's Law in which cognate words in Greek and Latin have a 'k' (disc; pisces) and the words in English have an H (dish; fish). Also consider the pairs shirt/skirt, which mark derivation from the original Anglo-Saxon and a reborrowing from the Norse. Initial aspirates are very unstable.

Although widespread writing tends to slow changes in spoken language and broadcast culture does even more, such changes do continue -- witness the rise of Estuary English over Standard Received pronunciation in Britain over the past half century and evidence of another Great Chain shift in Canada and the northern US. Sometimes, as in Caxton's era, the older pronunciations become embalmed in spelling -- apparently Caxton sought out the oldest, most respectable lady at court to give imprimatur to his press: hence all those -gh with varying values in modern English. They actually represent the guttal fricative that survived longest in Scots English ("twas a braw bricht moonlicht nicht").

Was American Broad Standard English set up because the microphones had trouble with those aspirations? Probably not, or we'd be dropping our aitches all over the place. Broadcast Standard somehow settled on the dialect of an area in Ohio and the reasons offered after the fact are probably spurious.

Bob

Thanks! I suppose manuals and handbooks and such can be just "scouts" (so to speak) for the natural evolution of the language/pronunication which is already taking place (or at other times they could be reluctant camp-followers). The "hw" is dying hard, though; one quote I ran across mentioned the "controversy" when NBC's guidelines mandated "w." Ah, well. Wotever...

My first awareness of this came from hearing John Charles Daly's deliberate emphasis on the "Hwat's" in "What's My Line?"

Cool Hwhip?

Paul Penna wrote:My first awareness of this came from hearing John Charles Daly's deliberate emphasis on the "Hwat's" in "What's My Line?"

Interesting, thanks, and very much to the point . . . overturning my hypothesis, unless Daly was OK to emphasize it specifically because it was the name of the show.

Just for the record: the NBC Handbook of Pronunciation, author James F. Bender, to which I referred earlier, first came out in 1943. Surely there were earlier pronunciation guides for those in radio and film...? Though there was already underway a movement from hw to w in the general population, varying somewhat from place to place, it's hard to think of how it could not have been accelerated by audiences hearing a constant pronunciation of w for hw from broadcasters and actors. It would be interesting to find a place where, for some reason, the opposite had been mandated for broadcasters and actors, and to compare the proportions of hw vs. w there with those in the other group.

odinthor wrote: It would be interesting to find a place where, for some reason, the opposite had been mandated for broadcasters and actors, and to compare the proportions of hw vs. w there with those in the other group.

(Blink.)

Arndt wrote:Cool Hwhip?

Gulp . . . that's what I say . . . You mean . . . you mean some people say "Cool Wip"? [gets depressed for rest of day, sporadically muttering, "Is this the end of Hwico?"]

Alas for my hypothesis, I just this moment found an on-line copy of the NBC Pronunciation Guide--at least, its second edition (1951)--and it is still recommending hw as the pronunciation for "the usual suspects" (see pp. 366-367).

Here's the URL:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57726082/NBC- ... ounciation" target="_blank" target="_blank

Every time I check this thread, I think of Mrs Hwiggins.

odinthor wrote:

Paul Penna wrote:My first awareness of this came from hearing John Charles Daly's deliberate emphasis on the "Hwat's" in "What's My Line?"

Interesting, thanks, and very much to the point . . . overturning my hypothesis, unless Daly was OK to emphasize it specifically because it was the name of the show.

Well, Daly was particularly careful about not only his diction, but his use of language in general. Whenever he felt it necessary to clarify a guest's yes or no answer to the panel, the result was not unlike a legal decision. Much to everyone's - especially Bennett Cerf's - amusement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lich59xsjik

It gets topical from 0.55.

How do you even pronounce "hw"?

Jim

Paul Penna wrote:

odinthor wrote:

Paul Penna wrote:My first awareness of this came from hearing John Charles Daly's deliberate emphasis on the "Hwat's" in "What's My Line?"

Interesting, thanks, and very much to the point . . . overturning my hypothesis, unless Daly was OK to emphasize it specifically because it was the name of the show.

Well, Daly was particularly careful about not only his diction, but his use of language in general. Whenever he felt it necessary to clarify a guest's yes or no answer to the panel, the result was not unlike a legal decision. Much to everyone's - especially Bennett Cerf's - amusement.

Daly was aware of his verbosity and seemed to enjoy spoofing it, so much so that he occasionally would make a mindbendingly long judgment just for the fun of it. Red Skelton once did an impersonation of him (it's on youtube) that's very funny, although Skelton initially sounds more like Herbert Marshall than Daly.

Jim Roots wrote:How do you even pronounce "hw"?

Jim

"Hw."

Later in the sentence, "hw."

Less jocularly: English lit fairly well begins with a "Hw" in the "Hwæt" which commences Beowulf. There's an audio file at

http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/ ... logue.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

(click the link at "1-3" at the beginning of the page). Granted, it's not a very prominent rendition of "hw"; but that's the nature of "hw."

Jim Roots wrote:How do you even pronounce "hw"?

Jim

You pronounce "w" and simultaneously exhale. We were still being taught to do this hwen I was going to elementary school in the late '60s.

For anyone who wishes, here's a site which offers spoken pronunciation.

http://www.howjsay.com/" target="_blank" target="_blank

As a test, I input "which". It gave aspirated and non-aspirated usages -- the non-aspirated version first.

Bob

Another way of approaching it would be to say "Hawaii," and then to say the first part again but without the little detour the first "a" sends one on. Now, if any people are going to come up to me and tell me that they pronounce the state's name "Awaii," they are going to get a stern look from me. Maybe two, if I've had a long day.

In truth, over the years I have heard not only the "just a 'w'" crowd but also a number of people who go to the other extreme and actually characteristically elongate the "hw" sound such that, for instance, "why" becomes "hu-wye" (not far from "Hawaii") and "when" becomes "hu-wen" (and I must say that this adds a bit of zest to the question being asked: "Hu-wye is there another man hiding under the bed, Caroline?").

It still doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to pronounce the "h" in a word like "what", wouldn't you pronounce it "whu-hut" rather than "huh-wat"? Why reverse the consonants? Even for British English, that seems unnecessarily perverse.

Jim

Jim Roots wrote:It still doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to pronounce the "h" in a word like "what", wouldn't you pronounce it "whu-hut" rather than "huh-wat"? Why reverse the consonants? Even for British English, that seems unnecessarily perverse.

You don't really do that. Placing the "H" first is just a convenient way to represent the sound of an aspirated W using conventional text.

Paul Penna wrote:

Jim Roots wrote:It still doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to pronounce the "h" in a word like "what", wouldn't you pronounce it "whu-hut" rather than "huh-wat"? Why reverse the consonants? Even for British English, that seems unnecessarily perverse.

You don't really do that. Placing the "H" first is just a convenient way to represent the sound of an aspirated W using conventional text.

Ohhh ... thanks for clarifying!

Jim