Written / Typed by: Mister Özgün Öztekin (SalviaSage)
Date Uploaded to Github.com : 2020-06-07
Date of Last Revision: 2022-02-27
Word Count: 8000+
Chapter Count: 5 chapters
This document is subject to change.
[TOC]
This work aims to be a monologue on the sound system (phonology) of the English language and a criticization of other literature and commentary. I am trying to throw as much information into this work as I know about the subject. Certain aspects of this work will be in contrast with that of other literature. However, my aim is not conformity. My aim is solely to explain this scientific subject, (English Phonology) conforming to what I know to be true and to point out what I think is false in other resources. The dialectic method is a methodology for explaining things taking into consideration that everything is either true or false and exists in a two factor state. If this is true then this is true as well. If this is false, then the rest of it is false and so on. The explanations here have to hold up to logic and factual observations.
Some of the content here will undoubtedly be original and may not necessarily be found in other literature. Furthermore, although I want to throw as much information in here as I can, it is not at all a complete explanation.
As it was counted by me, the English language has about 11 vowel phonemes that are mono-vocoids (monophthongs). Below is commentary on those vowels.
(1) {ɪ} as in "fit".
(2) {ɪ:} as in "feet".
(3) {u} as in "to".
(4) {u:} as in "too".
These two vowels come in short and long forms. They contrast with one another. For example:
"fit" and "feet" have two separate vowel phonemes. They are not at all the same vowel that happens to be long in some words. They are separate phonemes because they contrast with one another. Their pronunciations can not be substituted for one another, that would constitutes a pronunciation error and can cause the listener to misunderstand the speaker. The same thing is true for the other long vowel as in examples: "to" and "two".
(5) {a} as in "but".
(6) {e} as in "bet" (not found in ends of words).
(7) {æ} as in "bat" (not found in ends of words).
(8) {o} as in "bot".
(9) {u} as in "put".
(10) {œɻ} as in "first", "church", "thirst", "hearse", "nurse". This vowel is unique because it is the only rhotacized vowel. It is the only vowel that is always succeeded by the letter "R". Furthermore, the non-rhotacized form of this vowel {œ} is not found in the English language. I could not find a satisfactory explanation of this vowel in any text. “Wiktionary.org” acknowledged that it was a rhotacized central vowel, which is also what I am claiming. However, it did not acknowledge that it was a rounded vowel; which I highly thought it was, so I investigated it. Thus, the vowels in "where" and "were" are different in English phonetically and phonemically according to my explanations. The first is {weɻ} and the second is {wœɻ}. While in “Wiktionary.org” they are both listed as unrounded vowels, I make the claim that this vowel is rounded, central and always rhotacized. To confirm myself, I viewed a video of the pronunciation of the sentence "they were there" by a native speaker. Here, we have two unrounded words with the word I'm claiming to be rounded in the middle. The speaker clearly made their lips rounded to pronounce "were".
To try to find why there was such a vowel and such a unique case in English, I investigated the Old English language (English from and before the 11th century) for the front rounded vowel {ø} as it is found in German, Danish, Swedish and French; sometimes spelled as"oe", "œ", "ø" or "ö" in those languages and I came to the conclusion that this vowel did not exist in Old English.
They did not have a letter for writing it and there is no evidence at all to think that such a vowel was ever there. I searched Old English texts for words spelled with the letters "oe" and found only a few and those 2 letters do not represent that vowel but represent the vowels "o" and "e" separately.
Wikipedia itself says that this vowel is only attested in the Northumbrian dialect and fails to bring any kind of an evidence for it. Thus, we have to apply a good dose of Hitchens razor here and dismiss it as "what can be attested without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This is my commentary on the existence of this vowel in Old English. So, how come then, that vowel in its rhotacized form does exist in modern English? My explanation is thus: The succeeding "r" has caused the vowel to change into what it is today in some words. This is an example of phonetic simplification.
Old English word for "church", {ɕɪɹɪɕe} has become {ɕœɻɕ}.
Old English word for "thirst", {θuɹst} or perhaps {θʉɹst} has become {θœɻst}.
Old English word for "first", {fʉɹst} has become {fœɻst}.
With regards to the use of the vowel [y] in Old English. I too agree that such a vowel is there in Old English and it makes full sense in the example words that I gave above. It sounds “correct” to me. I believe the case with the [y] in Old English is well demonstrated in other resources while I reject the existence of the œ or ø as it seems undemonstrated. In this case, all the words from Old English where we find this kind of pronunciation meet our criteria of phonetic simplification. We already know that words are subjected to phonetic simplification over time in all languages historically, in some way. I already know of many examples from Greek and Turkish but I won't get into that here. Thus I believe, eventually, we got {œɻθ} out of what may have been pronounced [yɹθ] historically.
(11) [ə] (not found in ends of words).
This vowel is called a "schwa" in literature. We have already defined this vowel as the easiest to pronounce vowel, being a central close unrounded vowel.
All vowels can be stressed in the English language except for this specific vowel, the schwa. (Assertation of a fact #1)
I am making the claim that this vowel is never stressed in any syllable where it is found. Again, there are those who say that this vowel exists in stressed syllables.
Including “Wiktionary.org” as demonstrated by the link here for the word "superfluous": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superfluous
Not only is the article listing the schwa vowel as being stressed as shown by the IPA transcription; the audio pronunciation is also pronounced that way by the US speaker.
However, I am saying that that is not how this word is pronounced and that although they are right that the second syllable is a reduced vowel in this word, the stress is in fact on the 'flu' syllable.
I understand that they may say: "You are wrong, the schwa can be stressed." However, I insist that it is not stressed and that is not how speakers speak and so neither should the dictionary show it as such. I believe it is incorrect information. The same patterns can be found in other languages such as Russian and German as well where they also have an unstressed schwa. The whole point of vowel reduction is to weaken its pronunciation, stressing it only strengthens it.
And since all mono syllable words are stressed (because at least one syllable has to be stressed in all words in this language), this schwa vowel can not be found in any single syllable word in English. (Assertation of a fact #2)
The only one syllable word where it is found is in the word "the", {ðə} which itself is a reduced pronunciation from the pronunciation {ðɪ}.
This vowel, the schwa, is central to the explanation of phonetic stress as it is found in English. The fact that this vowel is not found in any single syllable word and in any stressed syllable aids my claim that in English, all words must have stress falling on one of the syllables, including the single syllable words.
I already know from the Russian language that the explanation of vowel reduction in any given language, if it has such a thing, is very important in helping us understand how a word is supposed to be pronounced. Often, the written words will not tell us how to reduce our pronunciation when reading the words. In Russian, we have a vowel reduction system that is even more complex than the one in English.
Further of note, unlike in German, this sound is not found in the ends of words. The vowel {e} is also not found at the end of words. Because of this, in any foreign language word where {e} is found at the end of a word, English speakers say {ey} instead.
Now that we have the English mono-vocoids (monophthongs); we can try to map the possible English di-vocoids (diphthongs or gliding vowels). These are sounds that start off as one of these vocoids and end as another one during the course of their articulations.
As it was counted by me, there are at least 8 diphthongs and 3 “constricted diphthongs”, which is a word of my own coining.
"foil" = {oɪ}
"goat" = {ou}
"fail" = {eə}
"clear" = {ɪə}
"ratio" = {ɪo}
"mania" = {ɪa}
"mouth" = {au}
"equal" = {uə}
"gait" = {eɪ}
"gate" = {ey}
"right" = {ay}
"toy" = {oy}
There may be other ones not listed here.
Here, I am making the claim, in contrast with “Wiktionary.org” that "gait" and "gate" are not pronounced the same.
“Wiktionary.org” is listing them both as {ɡeɪt}. While, I list them as {ɡeɪt} and {ɡeyt}.
To my argument, they don't even follow the same spelling scheme and even though the difference is so minute, I think it is irresponsible to merge both pronunciations when that is not the case.
Again, in order for our explanations to hold up to Boolean logic, these di-vocoids could only be based on the mono-vocoids as pulling off a vocoid that doesn't exist in the language then merging it with an already existing vocoid makes no sense.
Thus, here, I make the claim that all English diphthongs are based on its monophthongs. (Assertation of a fact #3)
This brings the total number to at least 11+11 separate vowel phonemes in the English language. It is important to be able to make the distinction between a hiatus, that is, two vowels that are next to one another that form syllables of their own and do not form diphthongs.
It seems that such hiatuses do not exist in English but is perhaps found only in some foreign language based words such as "zoölogy". Here it is spelled with a diaresis to indicate the hiatus. This however, is a Greek word.
Thus, we can say that in English there are about 22 vowel phonemes including the diphthongs. (Assertation of a fact #4)
All words in this language are made up of at least one vowel. (Assertation of a fact #5)
As it was counted by me, the English language has 24+22 consonants. Below is a list of the base phonemes along with their allophonic counterparts, which also have a place in the language.
p == pʸ
b == bʸ
t == tʸ
d == dʸ , ɾ
k == kʸ
ɡ == ɡʸ
f == fʸ
v == vʸ
θ == θʸ
ð
s == sʸ
z == zʸ
ʃ == ʃʸ
ʒ
y
w
h == hʸ
ɕ == ɕʸ
ʑ == ʑʸ
l᷾ == l᷾ʸ
ɻ == ɻʸ
m == mʸ
n == nʸ , ȵ , ꬻ
ŋ
In the “Wikipedia.org” page for "English Phonology", the consonant [x] is listed and the word "loch" is given as an example word.
However, that word is not English, it is Scottish. And simply bringing one foreign language word in there and saying that [x] exists is not right.
In fact, that sound, although it may exist in Scottish Gaelic and Russian and Spanish, does not actually exist in English.
The “Wikipedia.org” webpage is saying that there is a voiceless form of the sound "w" in pronunciation by some speakers represented by the IPA letter /ʍ/.
I personally believe that there is no such a sound or a pronunciation in English and have not made any such observations. This pronunciation was employed in the TV series “Family Guy” as a joke.
Also, for accuracy's sake, I include more consonants in my explanations than in “Wikipedia.org”. Here, you will find a higher consonant count than in “Wikipedia.org. This is because they are failing to count some of the contoids and are failing to be as accurate as one could be.
{ȵ} (lamino-alveolar nasal) instead of {n} wherever {n} is found before sounds like {ɕ} and {ʑ} as in "range" or "ranch".
{ꬻ} (interdental nasal) instead of {n} wherever {n} is found before sounds like {θ} and {ð} as in "tenth" or "and the".
They don't necessarily need to be used in transcriptions but it can be used in the TPA precise phonetic notation.
Furthermore I dismiss any claim of "non-released plosives" as untrue and undemonstrated in English.
This language possesses in it, phonetic stress. A phenomenon whereby a single, specific syllable is pronounced with more of a force (volume) than the other syllables. Single syllable words are all stressed. Further of note is that, stress can exhibit itself in various different ways. In some languages it may just be higher in volume, the vowel may be longer in the duration of its pronunciation as well as being more open (that is, the jaw is lower down if the vowel is stressed). I would say that it is all three in English. It is important to note that we have "phonetic stress" in English and not "phonemic stress". In “phonemic stress”, if another syllable is stressed in a word, it can actually change the meaning of a word. For example, I believe the Turkish language has "phonemic stress". That is, in some words, if you stress the second syllable instead of the first syllable, you might change the meaning of the word while this is never the case in English. English does have however, "word stress". In which case, one of the words out of the other ones in a sentence is stressed. That can be phonemic and can change the meaning of the sentence.
In this language, there exists a specific reduced vowel commonly called a "schwa" in phonetics. [ə]
This vowel is an unrounded central close vowel. In other words, it is the easiest vowel to pronounce. That is why many languages use this vowel as a reduced vowel. This vowel is never stressed wherever it is found, also in many other languages, not just in English.
This also correlates with the fact that this vowel is never found in one syllable words since all words receive stress in at least one syllable in this language.
I must warn you, what I am writing here does contradict with the opinions expressed by others in the sense that a schwa could be stressed or that it could be in single syllable words. However, I vehemently reject that idea and hold what I type here to be true.
Assertation of fact #6:The schwa is the specific English reduced vowel. It is not marked in writing and does not have a letter for it. It is not the only language to do this. German and Hindi does the same thing for example.
Assertation of fact #7: Having observed Old English texts, I do not see a schwa vowel fitting in there. It is true if such a pronunciation existed, it would not have been marked just as it is not now, but it seems the schwa is a later development which makes sense as it is easier to pronounce words that way.
For example: "fæder" {fæ̱deɹ} and not {fa̱ðəɻ} as it is pronounced today. I personally don’t use any schwa pronunciations in my Old English pronunciations.
Assertation of fact #8: All words are stressed in at least one syllable.
Assertation of fact #9: A schwa is never stressed and is never found in a stressed syllable and can not be found in a stressed syllable.
Assertation of fact #10: A schwa can not be found in single syllable words. This is because all single syllable words are stressed, because facts #3 and #4 are true, fact #5 is true.
Assertation of fact #11: A schwa can not be found at the end of words. Although, it is found in the end of words quite commonly in German, in words like “bitte”, this just isn’t the case in English.
Assertation of fact #12, Disregard of “syllabic consonants”: Due to the fact that there are no words that do not have vowels in English, the concept of "syllabic consonants" is superfluous and false. Again, this is seen in textbooks. In fact, in many languages around the world there isn't anything at all called a "syllabic consonant". I believe this term is very much false and should not be used. A consonant has to be a part of the syllable, it can’t constitute a syllable on its own, unless of course if the whole word is made up of only consonants, in which case we would have one syllable.
This language boasts phonetic phenomena consisting of stressed syllables, all words having at least 1 stressed syllable, consonant clusters both at the start of words and at the end of words. Consonant clusters may be up to 3 consonants at the start of a word and 4 consonants at the end of a word as demonstrated by words such as "strengths" = {stɻeŋθs} and "sixths" = {sɪksθs}. There are also diphthongs and multiple secondary articulations in the language. The secondary articulations are namely, palatalization and velarization (lingual retraction). Even though the velarization (lingual retraction) is only true for the sound represented by the letter "L".
Assertation of a fact #13: There are no nouns that end with the sound "voiced inter-dental fricative" {ð}.
It has come to my attention that there are noun words that end with the spelling "th" such as "breath", "teeth", "scythe", and so on. I came to the conclusion that any noun that ends with this sound is voiceless, so, "scythe" would be pronounced {sayθ}. While verbs such as "teethe", breathe" and "seethe" are supposed to be pronounced as {tɪːð, bɻɪːð, sɪːð}.
Assertation of fact #14: Further of note, on the “Wiktionary.org” pages for this word "thou" "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%BEou#Middle_English", it is listed with an initial voiceless sound on some phonetic transcriptions. This is incorrect as this same word exists today in all descending germanic languages as voiced. There is absolutely no evidence that it would be voiceless with the existing evidence hinting that it would be voiced in Old English and Middle English.
Furthermore, I know that this word is being pronounced wrongfully with a diphthong as {ðaʊ} today. I believe this stems from the spelling of the word confusing the modern reader and causing it to be pronounced as such. We know that this word has since changed to the word "you" in English. There, it is not pronounced as a diphthong. The correct historical pronunciation of this word is in fact {ðuː} and its plural which has since been dropped from the language altogether is "thee" {ðɪ:}.
English does not have tonal vowels. (Assertation of a fact #15) English does not have vowel nasalization. (Assertation of a fact #16) English does not have ejective or implosive consonants, but then again most languages do not. (Assertation of a fact #17)
Further of note, I find it a serious error that the “Wikipedia.org” page for English phonology is choosing to attribute different vowels to different dialects of English. I vehemently object to this notion. There, they are claiming that there are more vowels in British English than in American English. This is in fact not true. The fact that vowels may be pronounced slightly differently between dialects has nothing to do with the language having different vowels. It has to do with minute differences in the motions of the tongue and is more strongly linked with auditory language acquisition than it is with pronunciation.
For example, the defining feature of the “southern accent” from southern United States of America is that all the vowels are pronounced in a more central manner. That itself however doesn't move our vowels from where we set them initially and should not affect our explanations.
CHAPTER THREE (Ⅲ): The Explanation of English Secondary Articulations in contrast with Wikipedia.org
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology)
If you look at the Wikipedia webpage for "English phonology", you will see that this webpage has much superfluous and incorrect information with regards to the pronunciation of English. Especially in the area of secondary articulations. Here, we see that a glottal stop exists in the language, when in reality, it is completely absent in the pronunciation of American speakers and it is rare and dialectical in the British Islands. I can boldly make the claim that it does not exist in American English anywhere nor does it exist in the British islands except for some regional areas and dialects.
A glottal stop is an added action within the throat and it is easier to pronounce words without it and thus few people would pronounce words that way.
Furthermore, in the Wikipedia article for "English Phonology", aspiration as a secondary articulation is talked of in detail. It is very clear that aspiration is not at all a phonetic phenomenon in this language and is not marked in any way as such. Again, as it is in the case of the glottal stop, it is an added effort to pronounce consonants with more of an aspiration and this distinction is simply not made by the language or by its speakers. We do know that a distinction as such can be made and it is made in the Hindi language and in the Sanskrit language and perhaps other languages from the Indian subcontinent, where, even orthographically, a distinction is made. However, this simply is not the case in English.
Furthermore, sometimes in literature, a "fortis-lenis" distinction for consonants is talked of. This is also superfluous and there is no such a thing in the language. The concept of "fortis-lenis", just like the concept of "syllabic consonants", is not well defined nor is it demonstrated to be taken seriously.
The “Wikipedia.org” article is simply referring to the voiced-voiceless distinction, which they are calling a "fortis-lenis" distinction. These words are confusing and we should opt for a "voicing" distinction instead.
It saddens me that non-factual and superfluous explanations are ever-present.
According to my observations, there only exists three or four kinds of secondary articulations for English phones. These are: Palatalization (the phenomenon of raising up the tongue towards the palate during the pronunciation of a consonant), Velarization or lingual retraction (the phenomenon of retracting the tongue root backwards during the pronunciation of a consonant) and the existence of a specific rhotacized vowel.
In the English language, there exists palatalized consonants. They are all allophonic with their non-palatalized variants. Meaning exchanging one for the other never results in a new word. And, there are no palatalized consonants that do not have a non-palatalized variant, as they are variants of their base phonemes. These palatalized consonants exist because of a concept known as phonetic assimilation. That is, they assimilate and gain this characteristic (palatalization) because of a succeeding vowel, the vowel {u}.
The important thing here, is to understand is that all of these palatalized consonants are found before the vowel {u} and are not found anywhere else.
Here are some words where it is found: "build", "guild", "huge", "flute", {b͜yul᷾d} {ɡ͜yul᷾d} {h͜yuːʑ} {fl͜yuːt}.
The Wikipedia article below talks about this phenomenon and comes close to the correct explanation, but it just doesn't get it right...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology#cite_ref-16
"The sound at the beginning of huge in most British accents is a [voiceless palatal fricative] [ç], but this is analyzed phonemically as the consonant cluster /hj/ so that huge is transcribed /hjuːdʒ/. As with /hw/, this does not mean that speakers pronounce [h] followed by [j]; the phonemic transcription /hj/ is simply a convenient way of representing the single sound [ç]. The [yod-dropping] found in [Norfolk dialect] means that the traditional Norfolk pronunciation of huge is [hʊudʒ] and not [çuːdʒ]."
There, first, a claim is made that a voiceless palatal fricative [ç] exists in the English language when this phone does not exist anywhere. Then the article tries to correct itself by regarding it as a [h] followed by a [j] and then further negates itself by claiming this does not mean that speakers pronounce [h] followed by [j] and that it is a convenient way of representing the [ç] sound which actually doesn't exist in the language. Here, they are trying to explain a real phenomenon and I must congratulate them for doing so, however they simply do not hit the mark.
The real explanation is the fact that the "h" here is in fact palatalized and that the same thing is found in many other words where there is a succeeding {u} vowel.
And of course, to further complicate matters, this does not happen in all cases where {u} follows.
Examples:
"hoof” == {hʊ̱ːf}
"hood" == {hʊ̱d}
"human" == {h͡yʊ̱mən}
"hue" == {h͡yʊ̱ː}
"horse" == {hɔ̱ɻs}
"hung" == {ha̱ŋ}
There is one rhotacized vowel in the English language. Similar to the palatalized consonants, this vowel exists as a result of phonetic assimilation, that is, it is rhotacized because it is always followed by the sound / letter "r". Again, this seems to be a historic development as this vowel did not exist in the Old English language. Instead, it was just pronounced as a vowel followed by the letter "r" such as in the word "church" which is found as "cirice" in the Old English language. Pronounced {ɕɪɹɪɕe}, however the same word is now pronounced {ɕœɻɕ}.
Other words like this are "first" , "thirst", "third", "flirt" and so on.
When counting the English language vowels, I came across this vowel which I knew, did not exist in the English language. It seemed to me like a front rounded vowel similar to the vowel [ø] like in German and Scandinavian languages. However, I knew that this vowel did not exist in this language and that made no sense. Further examination led me to see that the vowel is always succeeded by the letter "r" and thus it was a rhotacized vowel. Finally, I settled on the explanation that it is a rhotacized rounded central open vowel. This explanation fits into a historical explanation and is logical with regards to the development of the sound historically and it is exactly how the vowel is pronounced by speakers.
Basically, here I am saying that "were" and "where" are not homonymous. "were" is pronounced with the rounded rhotacized vowel while "where" is not.
I even watched the lips of speakers in a video clip to validate this claim. And again, “Wiktionary.org” uses the rhotacization diacritic of the IPA to show this vowel in words like "first" and "were". However, there, they are showing the vowel incorrectly as unrounded whereas it is as clear as daylight to me that this vowel is rounded and could clearly see the speakers rounding their lips to pronounce this vowel.
An interesting phenomenon is that of the "dark L". The literature here is basically explaining to us that the "L" sound in the English language is pronounced a little differently than other languages in the way that there is lingual retraction during its pronunciation. I investigated to try to see if this was only the case at the ends of words but it turns out that it is like this everywhere. I fail to explain why it is pronounced that way when clearly it is easier not to do the lingual retraction as it is the case in other languages. But, this explanation is very much true and there is lingual retraction here.
This is similar to the case in Korean where they also have the letter / sound "L". However, it is pronounced with the tip of the tongue curled upwards. They are not difficult pronunciations, but I believe it is worthy of note.
Today, many of the phonological phenomena observed in the English language can only be explained by using history.
For example, "Why is "knife" spelled with a "k" when clearly there is no "k" sound there?"
This is because there was a "k" sound there, and not only that, the vowels pronunciation has also been changed from {ɪ} to {ay} as this word was pronounced {knɪf} in Old English and is now being pronounced {nayf}. Same is true for words such as "knight" which was pronounced {knɪçt} and the word "night" which was pronounced {nɪçt}. Another way we know all this is the fact that, that word is still being pronounced as {nɪçt} in the German language while its pronunciation is different in English. This shows to us that it is English that went through many changes, while I would say German has been more conservative of its sound structure. Also of interest is that Old English sounds quite alike to German. One explanation for this is the Norman conquest of England in the 11th century. They spoke French and because of that, not only the phonological qualities of French but also many words and semantics and other aspects of the French language influenced the English language. In fact, today, I would say that English is more close to French than it is to German, despite the fact that German and English are both from the Germanic language family while French is from the Romance language family. Furthermore, this again, is an example of phonetic simplification as it is easier to say {nayf} than it is to say {knɪf}.
Clearly, the vowel {ɪ} became {ay}in so many words, somehow. They now exist allophonically in English. In words such as "either" where both pronunciations are considered correct. English speakers will even mispronounce the word "Iraq" as {ayɻæk} when this is not the case in any other language, and no other language could even assume that it would be pronounced that way. For example, the word "ice" was clearly pronounced [ɪːs] in Old English and it is now being pronounced as [ays].
For our usual explanation of phonetic simplification to work, only the long vowel form of the vowel {ɪː} could become {ay}as the short one also turning into this diphthong does not fit into phonetic simplification as this pronunciation is more difficult than the original one. That, does not mean that the original pronunciation could have been short, but it does mean that it is more likely that it was long.
Here are some example words as to how they would be pronounced coming from Old English into Modern English:
ryse / ris -> rice
īs -> ice
nys / nyce -> nice
The examples may have been spelled differently as such, because at that time, Old English spelling was not standardized.
But, it is highly likely that it was pronounced as {ɪː} which is sometimes marked as ī with a macron by modern scholars, and that indicates length.
However, many things from Old English are correctly retained, such as the "w" sound. For which, the Old English scribes even had a specific letter for, called "wynn". As well as the voiced and voiceless interdental fricatives which also had their own letters in Old English called “thorn” and “eth”. They did away with those letters later on in order to just use the digraph “TH” instead. This however, does not tell us whether it is the voiced or the voiceless interdental fricative. The folks simply have to figure this out themselves. I did however, find that all the nouns that end with “th” are voiceless, while some verbs that end with “the” are voiced.
Some consonant clusters were simplified such as the initial {kn} becoming {n} as well as the initial {hw} becoming {w}.
For example, the word ”loaf” is a very old word and likely, it was pronounced as something like hlaːf in Old English, which is now pronounced lɔəf in modern English.
The “hn” and “hw” sound combination, I believe was also there, all of which has been since dropped.
I wouldn't say Old English had a difficult pronunciation to it. It heavily resembles German in sound, but I would actually say its pronunciation may be easier than todays German and English and did not have the "r dropping", the schwa, or any other recent developments and has a certain eloquence to it.
The Old English language had the letter "y" in it. It was used in its spelling to denote a specific vowel that no longer exists in modern English. It is the sound represented by the letter "ü" in German and "ue" and “u” in French. This sound has also been merged or dropped throughout the development of English, I would say in transition from Old English to Middle English. I can’t comment on exactly when.
Interestingly, the IPA makes use of this same letter “y” in the same sense as it does in Old English. I wonder if the IPA took this letter from Old English. It also seems like they took the letter “x” from Russian, where it represents that same sound.
I must also discuss the sound "schwa". This now exists as a reduced vowel in non-stressed syllables in English. But, what about Old English. Did Old English have this sound?
Well, we can never know that answer because they did not mark it in spelling just as English today does not mark it in spelling. It may have been in there, and certainly if some of those words were pronounced as such, their pronunciations would be simpler but we have to take into consideration that the schwa pronunciation may have been a later development going into early modern English. We can not even prove that it existed in Middle English.
Thus, I am in favor of pronouncing Old English without the schwa. That is also easier as we are not guessing where the schwa would be used.
Moving on, Old English also had vowel diphthongs that have since been simplified such as "seofon" becoming "seven".
Here, we can observe that the first open diphthong has become a monophthong and the second syllable is now being pronounced as a schwa.
Furthermore, the diphthong "eo" that we commonly find in Old English, now can not be found in English. The reason for that is also, phonetic simplification.
Further of note is the dropping of "h" initial consonants such as "hlaf" for "loaf" and words starting with "hn" and "hw".
We have reason to believe that the "h" there was pronounced either as an {h} or as a {x} with the {x}. Either way, I don’t think that is important.
It is true that here, Old English may be using the letter "h" to represent the sound {x} as it can not find an alternative.
All that has been dropped of course and the sounds {x}and {ç} does not exist in English today. It continues to exist in German today.
Also, we can see double letters such as "tt" in spelling in Old English. That could very well mean that it had long plosives which we do not have in English today. Likely, English just did away with that as well, if it ever did have long consonants (gemination).
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
{ɪn ðə beɡɪnɪŋ wen ɡad kɻɪeytəd ðə hevəns æn ðə œɻθ,}
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
{ðə œɻθ waz æ fo̱ɻmləs voɪd æn da̱ɻknəs ko̱vəɻd ðə feys of ðə dɪːp, wayl æ wɪnd fɻom ɡad swept ovəɻ ðə feys of ðə wo̱təɻs.}
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
{ðen ɡad sæd, "let ðeɻ bɪː layt"; æn ðeɻ was layt.}
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
{æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ðə layt waz ɡud; æn ɡad se̱pəɻeytəd ðə layt fɻom ðə da̱ɻknəs.}
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
{ɡad kold ðə layt dey, æn ðə da̱ɻknəs hɪː kold nayt. æn ðeɻ waz ɪ̱ːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz mo̱ɻnɪŋ, ðə fœɻst dey.}
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
{æn ɡad sæd, let ðeɻ bɪː æ doʊm ɪn ðə mɪdst of ðə wo̱təɻs, æn let ɪt se̱pəɻeyt ðə wotəɻs fɻom ðə wotəɻs.}
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
{soʊ ɡad meyd ðə doʊm æn se̱pəɻeytəd ðə wo̱təɻs ðæt wœɻ andəɻ ðə doʊm fɻom ðə wo̱təɻs ðæt wœɻ æbav ðə doʊm. æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
{ɡad kold ðə doʊm skay. æn ðeɻ waz ɪ̱ːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz mo̱ɻnɪŋ, ðə se̱kənd dey.}
[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
{æn ɡad sæd, "let ðə wo̱təɻs a̱ndəɻ ðə skay bɪː ɡæ̱ðəɻd tuɡe̱ðəɻ ɪ̱ntu wan pleys, æn let ðə dɻay lænd æpɪəɻ." æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
{ɡad kold ðə dɻay lænd œɻθ, æn ðə wotəɻs ðæt wœɻ ɡæðəɻd tuɡeðəɻ hɪː kold sɪːs. æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ɪt was ɡud.}
[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
{ðen ɡad sæd, "let ðə œɻθ put foɻθ veʑəte̱yʃən: plænts yɪəldɩŋ sɪːd, æn fɻ͜yuːt tɻɪːs of evɻɪ kaynd on œɻθ ðæt beəɻ fɻ͜yuːt wɪθ ðə sɪːd ɪn ɪt." æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
{ðə œɻθ bɻoʊt foɻθ veʑəteyʃən: plænts yɪəldɩŋ sɪːd of evɻɪ kaynd, æn tɻɪːs of evɻɪ kaynd beəɻɪŋ fɻ͜yuːt wɪθ ðə sɪːd ɪn ɪt. æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ɪt waz ɡud.}
[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
{æn ðeɻ waz ɪːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz moɻnɪŋ, ðə θœɻd dey.}
[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
{æn ɡad sæd, "let ðeɻ bɪː layts ɪn ðə doʊm of ðə skay tu sepəɻeyt ðə dey fɻom ðə nayt; æn let ðem bɪː foɻ sayns æn foɻ sɪːzɵns æn foɻ deys æn yɪəɻs.}
[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
{æn let ðem bɪː layts ɪn ðə doʊm of ðə skay tu ɡɪv layt apon ðə œɻθ. æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
{ɡad meyd ðə tuː ɡɻeɪt layts - ðə ɡɻeɪtəɻ layt tu ɻuːl ðə dey æn ðə lesəɻ layt tu ɻuːl ðə nayt - æn ðə staɻs.}
[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
{ɡad set ðem ɪn ðə doʊm of ðə skay tu ɡɪv layt apon ðə œɻθ,}
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
{tu ɻuːl ovəɻ ðə dey æn ovəɻ ðə nayt, æn tu sepəɻeyt ðə layt fɻom ðə daɻknɵs. æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ɪt waz ɡud.}
[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
{æn ðeɻ waz ɪːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz moɻnɩŋ, ðə foɻθ dey.}
[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
{æn ɡad sæd, "let ðə wotəɻs bɻɪŋ foɻθ swoɻms of lɪvɪŋ kɻɪəɕəɻs, æn let bœɻds flay æbav ðə œɻθ akɻos ðə doʊm of ðə skay.}
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
{soʊ ɡad kɻɩe̱ytəd ðə ɡɻeɪt sɪː monstəɻs æn evɻɪ lɪvɪŋ kɻɪəɕəɻ ðæt muːvs, of evɻɪ kaynd, wɪθ wɪʆ ðə wotəɻs swoɻm, æn evɻɪ wɪŋd bœɻd of evɻɪ kaynd. æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ɪt waz ɡud.}
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
{ɡad blest ðem, seyɩŋ, "bɪː fɻ͜yuːtful æn multɪplay æn fɪl ðə wotəɻs ɪn ðə sɪːs, æn let bœɻds multɩplay on ðə œɻθ}
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
{æn ðeɻ waz ɪːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz moɻnɪŋ, ðə fɪfθ dey.}
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
{æn ɡad sæd, "let ðə œɻθ bɻɪŋ foɻθ lɪvɪŋ kɻɪːɕəɻs of evɻɪ kaynd: kætəl æn kɻɪːpɪŋ θɪŋs æn wayld ænɪməls of ðə œɻθ of evɻɪ kaynd." æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
{ɡad meyd ðə wayld ænɪməls of ðə œɻθ of evɻɪ kaynd, æn ðə kætəl of evɻɪ kaynd, æn evɻɪθɪŋ ðæt kɻɪːps apon ðə ɡɻaund of evɻɪ kaynd æn ɡad sɔː ðæt ɪt waz ɡud.}
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
{ðen ɡad sæd, let as meyk h͜yumənkaynd ɪn aʊɻ ɪməʑ, ækoɻdɩŋ tu aʊɻ layknəs; æn let ðem hæv domɪnyən ovəɻ ðə fɪʃ of ðə sɪː, æn ovəɻ ðə bœɻds of ðə æəɻ, æn ovəɻ ðə kætəl æn ovəɻ ɔl ðə wayld ænɪməls of ðə œɻθ, æn ovəɻ evɻɪ kɻɪːpɪŋ θɪŋ ðæt kɻɪːps apon ðə œɻθ.}
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
{soʊ ɡad kɻɪeytəd h͜yumənkaynd ɪn hɪz ɪməʑ, ɪn ðə ɪməʑ of ɡad hɪː kɻɪeytəd ðem; meyl æn fɪːmeyl hɪː kɻɪeytəd ðem.}
[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
{ɡad blest ðem, æn ɡad sæd tu ðem, "bɪː fɻ͜yuːtful æn multɪplay, æn fɪl ðə œɻθ æn sabd͜yuː ɪt; æn hæv domɪnyən ovəɻ ðə fɪʃ of ðə sɪː æn ovəɻ ðə bœɻds of ðə æəɻ æn ovəɻ evɻɪ lɪvɪŋ θɪŋ ðæt muːvs apon ðə œɻθ.}
[1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
{ɡad sæd, sɪː, ay hæv ɡɪvɵn yuː evɻɪ plænt yɪəldɩŋ sɪːd ðæt ɪz apon ðə feys of ɔl ðə œɻθ, æn evɻɪ tɻɪː wɪθ sɪːd ɪn ɪts fɻ̑uːt; yuː ʃal hæv ðem foɻ fuːd.}
[1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
{æn tu evɻɪ bɪːst of ðə œɻθ, æn tu evɻɪ bœɻd of ðə æəɻ, æn tu evɻɪθɪŋ ðæt kɻɪːps on ðə œɻθ, evɻɪθɩŋ ðæt hæz ðə bɻeθ of layf, ay hæv ɡɪvən evɻɪ ɡɻɪːn plænt foɻ fuːd. æn ɪt waz soʊ.}
[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
{ɡad sɔː evɻɪθɪŋ ðæt hɪː hæd meyd, æn ɪndɪːd, ɪt waz veɻɪ ɡud. æn ðeɻ waz ɪːvnɪŋ æn ðeɻ waz moɻnɪŋ, ðə sɪksθ dey.}