Talk:English words without vowels

Merged discussion

Copied from Talk:Three-letter vowel-less English word

Cwm, nth

Many people do not recognize Y as a vowel although some say it is. I thought cwm was Welsh -- Tarquin 21:07 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

"Cwm" is a Welsh word. I've taken it out. The English people I know can't even say it. Sorry and all that. Deb 11:25 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

English has many words that were borrowed from other languages without changing the spelling. If you remove it from this article, you'll also have to remove it from the article on pangrams in which it is useful in forming two of the sentences. According to List of strange words in the English language, it is pronounced "koom" (easy enough for me to say it). GUllman 18:06 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

But how many of those pangrams actually make any sense to the average English speaker? Have you ever heard an English speaker use the word "cwm"? I doubt it. And how do you pronounce "koom"? Do you pronounce the "oo" as in "zoom" or as in "book"? (I'm not telling you which is correct.) Deb 18:14 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Cwm is certainly an English word now taken from Welsh. It is not however a vowelless word. It is also not apparently the only word using w as a vowel in English http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/v/vowelless.html

Rmhermen 18:30 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Have you ever heard anyone use the word "vowelless"? (Unless you were in a discussion with other students in an English class.) Only a few thousand of the words in a dictionary are in common use; the rest are more technical and used only by certain people in certain situations. For example, only a person in the mathematics field would have a habit of using the word "nth" in conversation. GUllman 21:15 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Not true. I hear people in the UK use the word "nth" all the time. Deb 20:55 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. People often say "to the nth degree" for example. -- Tarquin 20:58 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "nth" is a word any more than "45_th" or "21_st" are words. They are numbers with suffixes. Similarly, "Five thousand, four hundred, seventy nine" isn't a word either. It's merely a string of words. "N" is a mathematical idea or a variable. To refer to the "nth" something is to suffix 'th' or 'st' onto a verbalized variable name which isn't a word to begin with.

"To the nth degree" is a common phrase. Kingturtle 06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Commonly used vowelless word

I added the longest commonly used vowelless word to the article (it's rhythms). I wrote commonly used in place of what I actually meant, which is recognizable. You'd have a hard time finding someone who knew what a symphysy is, but just about everyone knows what rhythms are, without having to ever use it in their lifetime. However, describing it as the longest recognizable word in the article seems wrong. If anyone can think of a better way of putting it, feel free to change it. JeffyP 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument about vowelless words seems a little tricked up to me. In "gypsy" as in the other examples, the y is no more than a spelling convention, and you can find "gipsy" in standard dictionaries and in old, but not ancient, journalism and literature. The same is true, e.g., for the Welsh w. I think the article should be rewritten to incorporate an understanding of conventions and their relations to phonology. Josephlestrange (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Twyndyllyngs

Twyndyllyngs was added as the longest word without a traditional vowel. See Longest_word_in_English JeffyP 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This word doesn't appear to be in the OED. While I'm aware this doesn't exclude it from being an English word, it means that a definition here would be useful. Perhaps you can do the Wiktionary page at the same time? Twyndyllyngs Lukehounsome 09:54. 12 Sept 2006 (UTC)

If twyndyllyngs is removed, we should probably restore the sentence that it replaced:

The longest English word that does not contain any of the five traditional vowels is probably the eight-letter symphysy, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "Union or fusion of two bodies or parts of a body".

—Bkell (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pwn

Pwn. That is all. --Ihope127 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While correcting typos & filling in missing words in pwn section, I checked to see if the word actually exists or if this is vandalism. It exists in an online slang dictionary, which itself could have been vandalized. Because of that possibility, I did some further checking with offline resources and yes, it's a slang neologism commonly used by online multiplayer environment gamers. -- Lisasmall 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you didn't need to research the word "pwn." You could have just asked. Or wiki-ed it. Pwn is one of the most common words on the internets, used over 9000 times on some message boards. It arose at least one hundred years ago when online users (esp. gamers) frequently mistyped the "o" in the word "own," instead striking the adjacent letter "p" on their QWERTY keyboard. The word is pronounced "pown," though, so it isn't truly vowelless. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Y is a vowel

Wow--pardon my saying, but this page is kind of terrible. There's not a shadow of a doubt that "y" is a vowel in crypt, syzygy, or lynx; the discussion of the latter word looks to me like it falls into the "patent nonsense" category. And how does "y as a consonant" run "counter to the system of English spelling"? I'd recommend this for deletion if I felt qualified to. --Tahnan, dropping by

Well ... "y as a consonant" does pretty much run counter to reality if you read it as meaning "y is never a vowel", which is what the sentence is saying, when taken in context. But the wording "counter to the system of English spelling" is a bit obtuse. And I have to agree that even mentioning y-only words on this page is rather silly, except possibly for a brief one-sentence dismissal. The lynx entry in particular seems completely fabricated -- at least it refers to nothing I've ever seen before. Breadbox 00:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Y and w are vowels when used as such. This includes when used in pairings such as -ay and -ow. - jc37 07:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have always considered Y as a vowel, with only a few exceptions like "yoghurt".--90.185.48.70 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. In school they always list the vowels as "A,E,I,O,U and sometimes y" so the fact that many of the words listed on this wiki page have Y in them makes me think very poorly of this article. I personally think that Y is just a vowel that can take the place of a consonant, because most of the time Y still assumes a vowel sound to it. Take yogurt: the y is pronounced as a combination of the sound of e and o- "eogert", however our language has diminished over the years a bit so that the pronounciation is not as sharp as "eo" and now assumes the "Yo" sound we have today. in You, the same situation is in that word. So, if you are going to have an article about words without vowels, then don't have vowels in a majority of the examples... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.14.43 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Tahnan, and I'm appalled to see that the article contains the same nonsensical drivel this many years after his comment (and 4 agreeing comments, no disagreeing in the interim). Pretty much the whole of the article suffers from the same sort of nonsense - - the whoe thing is terrible, obviously written by someone who has no knowledge at all of phonology and no clue what the word "vowel" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealt (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This article was written neutrally with no biases and supplied sources to cite the claims made. With that being said; this article states that English has words with no vowels, examples such as “shh”, “hmm” and “psst” are used. The examples given are not words, they are sounds, and “shh” is a short form for the word shush, which does contain a vowel. The lead section of the article is dedicated to the letter [y], which is considered a vowel, it is considered a front, closed vowel on the International Phonetic Alphabet chart. The list of example words using [y]; use it as a vowel, which does not support the article of English words without vowels. As well, the use of the example Ng, a surname from another language to support the article about English words with no vowels is negligible, due to the fact that it is not supporting English words. Cadicksh92 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Additions

I know "Be Bold" is the accepted policy here, but the xkcd article states that it "Could not easily be an English word". Does it belong here?

Could hymn go in? ads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.148.231 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

I haved flagged the article as unreferenced after looking through the history. - Tom Tolnam 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsk

The entry for "tsk" claimed this this sound is also sometimes spelled as "tisk". This is not accurate. "Tisk" is a complete misunderstanding that people come to upon reading the word "tsk" in print and assuming that it is a word which is pronounced "tisk", instead of what it actually is, which is a sort of a clucking sound. So these people, after reading "tsk tsk" in print enough times, will then go about saying "tisk tisk", assuming they are pronouncing the words they have read. And then others, having heard people say, "tisk tisk", will at times write down "tisk tisk" in print. While this might be an interesting linguistic phenomenon, or the accidental creation of a new word "tisk", it is not part of the definition or "tsk" or an alternate spelling of it. --Xyzzyplugh 09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PWN.

Stop using pwn as it is not a real word, it is inproper English, stop supporting it wiki, or you will lose some valued users!

<humor>If you want to be a spelling advocate, then don't spell "improper" improperly! Otherwise, you might find yourself pwned.</humor> --NetRolller 3D 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PILLOW ??

How is "w" a consonant in pillow ? Its a silent one , if it is. More likely the "ow" together represent a vowell sound ( as in sow, mow, or now ( where it is a different vowell sound )) If you want an example of "w" as a consonant, there are plenty, but pillow is not one of them.

I absolutely say the W in "now," and have at least heard it said, if only slightly, in all the "long O" words, including pillow. But then, I often pronounce, and can also sometimes distinguish, the H's after W sounds, and W's before R sounds. (Btw, s-o-w and m-o-w can also rhyme with now, as in, "Quit playing in the hay mow, and feed the sow, now!." Or as in the verb "mow," which means "put the hay in the barn.") Pvtbuddie (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cwm is not an english word. Its welsh. This word exists in english as combe or coombe and the welsh spelling is an affectation. Eregli bob 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, I find this hilarious:

"Rival etymologist factions have argued for centuries whether the letter "y" is a consonant or a vowel... The battle rages on today, as the consonant and vowel camps continue to fight for the ownership of the y in lynx."

This makes it sound like a war of some sort, rather than a linguistic debate.

Secondly, re: Pwn. OK, Mr Angry, all-Caps, unnamed leet-speak objector - what is it that makes something a 'real' word? If it is a word in fairly widespread use, surely that makes it a real one?

Besides which, pwn doesn't even appear in the article. WikiReaderer 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added subheaders to the W header. Hopefully that will clear anything up. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Three-letter vowel-less English word should be merged into List of words without vowel letters. As indicated by its title, the first article was created by a user who believed there was only one such word. But over time, other such three-letter words were added (so at very least the title is inaccurate). Then some words of other lengths were added — all of which are already in the second article. Since it is not an article about a unique word but as become a list, the first article duplicates the second (and not even completely). — Michael J 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Merged. kwami (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And rewrote, so I moved it to a more appropriate title. kwami (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhotic vs. nonrhotic

I think the dichotomy drawn between rhotic and nonrhotic dialects of English in this article is not apropos. It's not the case that rhotic dialects allow vowelless words by using /r/ as a syllable nucleus; rather, in most rhotic dialects, the /r/ which is used as a syllable nucleus is in fact a vowel, namely this one: [ɚ]. AJD (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently there are pure rhoticized vowels, and that may be the case for some people. For me, however, syllabic ar has the diphthongal quality of /uː/ or /iː/. For example girl is sesquisyllabic [ɡɹ̩əɫ], just as peel is sesquisyllabic [pʰiəɫ]. You could argue that there's a nuclear vowel in there, and that these words are phonemically /ɡʌrl/ and /pijl/, but there's definitely something consonantal as well. It isn't a pure vowel [ɝ]. kwami (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You write [ɡɹ̩əɫ], indicating a syllabic [ɹ̩]—but syllabic [ɹ̩] is [ɝ]. That is, [ɹ] is a semivowel, and it bears the same relationship to [ɝ] as [w] does to [u] and [j] does to [i]. So, like /i:/, may glide slighltly in the direction of more constriction, but that's a far cry from saying there's no vowel at all. The syllabic-r of (rhotic American) English has the same distribution as any other long vowel, and it's produced with no friction or obstruction in the vocal tract, which is the very phonetic definition of a vowel. AJD (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between an approximant and a vowel. [ɹ̩] isn't [ɝ] anymore than [w̩] is [u]. We should say that some people consider the er in herd to be a rhotic vowel rather than a syllabic consonant, but not everyone accepts that analysis. If I were transcribing my pronunciation precisely, maybe [ɡɝɹɫ] or [ɡɝɹəɫ] would be better. kwami (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworded it a bit to try to cover both views. kwami (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a difference between an approximant and a vowel, really, apart from syllabic function—certainly a syllabic approximant is the same as a vowel. What could "syllabic w" be if not [u]? Bu anyhow, thanks for the rewrite. AJD (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference in articulation between [ai̯] and [aj]. But you're right, it doesn't make much sense to speak of a syllabic w. kwami (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kwami is right. In Brazil there are three types of American-like r (always as coda), the alveolar, the retroflex and the purely rhotic vowel, and they are clearly distinct (though we can't serve as example since there isn't syllabic consonants in Portuguese other than the m in mm-hm and schwa is just allophone of /a ~ ɐ/, necessarily without coda other than liaison [i̯] or [u̯], in fast speech). And I don't know the difference between non-syllabic vowel and coda semivowel. Lguipontes (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To add to the argument, I am pretty sure that I can say /ɹɝ/, just as I can say /ji/ or /wu/. There is actually more restriction going on for the vowel "ee" /i/ than for the "er" sound. When you think about it. the only sound that is not a syllabic consonant is ɑ. Also, saying that the sound of girl is /gˌɹl/ and nerd /nˌɹd/ disagrees with the pronunciation key of Wikipedia and that of Merriam webster. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

pwn

There have been reverts recently of 'pwn', with the claim that it's not a word, or that we're not supposed to used neologisms on wikipedia. For the former, it's clearly marked as internet slang. For the latter, WP:NEO is a style guide for clear prose, not content restriction. Any other reasons why this particular word shouldn't be included? kwami (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be outside the scope of the article. WP:NEO isn't just a style guide, it talks about content as well - WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. I don't see any secondary sources for "pwn" as a word, rather than as a bit of slang that doesn't belong in an article on the English language. I'd also take out the "nth degree" and "Many acronyms contain no vowels, such as MC and DJ (also spelled emcee and deejay) for Master of Ceremonies and disc jockey." as well - we could fill pages and pages with acronyms that don't contain vowels, and they're not actual words either. As the first paragraph of the article says, "Abbreviations such as km are of course not considered words in their own right." Orpheus (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course acronyms are words. But the reason for that sentence is so that we don't "pages and pages" with acronyms. As for NEO, no it doesn't apply here. We aren't creating an article about 'pwn', we're simply noting that it exists, because it's relevant to the topic at hand. kwami (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's still not an actual word. If the article was "Internet slang with no vowels", sure - but it's "words without vowels". The key part of the policy for this discussion is that content about neologisms still needs secondary sources. "pwn" isn't a word you'd find in a dictionary, or a serious article, so the fact that it has no vowels is kind of irrelevant. Would you include "w00t" and others along those lines in this article as well? My feeling is that if we accept "pwn" here, we're setting the bar for inclusion too low and we'll end up with a less encyclopedic article. Orpheus (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Slang words are still words. You make an excellent point about leet, and perhaps we should spell that out as another area we don't cover, like acronyms. The diff here, IMO, is that we have a new word that has no other spelling. "w00t" is letter substitution for "woot", but "pwn" is just "pwn". In that sense it's a lot like "nth", which is never spelled "enth". But I'm starting to see that it is borderline. (According to our pwn article, the past tense is spelled "powned".) Can you think of any other slang terms that are spelled without vowel letters? I don't think we're facing a flood here. kwami (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other non-vowel slang terms, but I can make a few up in similar fashion. Leet, for example, could become "lt" (I've seen this on IRC). Text becomes txt. When you abbreviate for SMS-speak, you tend to leave out the vowels and leave in the consonants, so there's lots of potential for extra terms.

About the uniqueness aspect, if the past tense is "powned", then "pown" could be considered an alternate spelling. The problem here is that slang terms are too flexible, a typo here and there and suddenly you've got another one with subtly different meanings and no reliable sources to distinguish between them. Incidentally, I've always used "n-th" rather than "nth" - that kind of jargon has cultural differences to worry about too. Orpheus (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between leet and slang. Text would be "txt" in stenoscript too, but it's still the same word. Thing is, "pwn" is the normal orthography. If you were to transcribe a TV show that uses it, like Southpark, that's the ortho you'd use. It doesn't look like the "pown" spelling you propose is used, and at wiktionary they give the past tense form as "pwned", not "powned". kwami (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Article organization

There is a disagreement on how this article should be organized. The current state (10/19, 9:57PT) reflects how I think it should be organized. You can look at earlier versions to see other organizations. I will present my points here and allow the other editor to present his points.

Note: I don't care what this article looked yesterday. I don't care about preserving that. I want the article to be correct. I started editing it because I noticed that the longest word in the modern English language which has no vowel letters at all, tsktsks, was not in the article.

Here are my editing points:

• The article is titled "Words without vowels". Discussion of words that actually don't have vowels (like tsktsks and nth) should come before words that have unusual vowels such as Y and W.
• Y and W are vowels when used as a vowel. See the Y article (or any dictionary...). A word such as rhythm is not truly a word without a vowel (though it is interesting that it is a two-syllable word with only one vowel). If it were completely up to me, I would probably put the sections on Y or W in a different article completely, but I'm ok with having it here.
• The dictionary is the authority on what is a word. A sequence of letters (tsktsks) that is in every dictionary we can find (including wiktionary and n-w.com) is a word. A sequence of letters (shhhh) that is not in any dictionary, is not a word. If we found a sequence of letters that is in some but not all dictionaries, we could debate it. Many interjections (e.g., shh) are not words.
• A sequence of letters that somebody has used is not a word unless it enters common usage. See WP:MADEUP. The dictionary is the authority on that.
• For new words, such as pwn, dictionaries are not always up-to-date. If it was completely up to me, I would leave pwn out of this article. However, I am willing to accept it because it is clearly in common usage and either has no vowels or a P or W as a vowel, depending on how you pronounce it.
• The lead of this article probably needs some work.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing fact with opinion. Fact is, Y and W are often considered consonants. The fact that they may stand for vowel sounds does not make them vowel letters. The "vowelless" poem, which is full of wyes, attests to that. Also, R may stand for a vowel, but no-one calls in a vowel letter; N may stand for a syllable (as in nth), yet no-one claims it's a syllabic letter. Should we say that the name "Ng" contains the vowel N, or that "brr" contains the vowel R? The simple, common convention is that the letters AEIOU are vowels and the rest consonants. It's irrelevant whether you agree with that convention.

See e.g. "words without vowels" in a children's spelling book (they all have wye)[1]

Your longest word isn't the longest, as I've already demonstrated ad nauseum.

Your legalistic approach to what is or is not in a dictionary is not appropriate, similarly the idea that slang words are real words. Words are as people use them. If you mean "longest word in dictionary X" (or "longest word with a dedicated entry in dictionary X"), then say that.

Meanwhile, please revert to the stable version of the article rather than edit warring to get your way. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributor Kwamikagami is confused. In response to his points:

• Y and W are not considered consonants. They are consonants. But, in English, Y can also be a vowel. If you don't believe the Wikipedia article on Y, I don't know what to say. Same goes for W though only in words from Welsh, and perhaps pwn, a recent coinage.
• The fact that somebody calls their poem vowelless and it has Y's in it, is not proof of anything. It's one poem by one person. If Kwami believes that Y is not a vowel, let's see a citation (and, no, an example in a children's book is not good enough -- if we allowed children's books like this as definitive sources, then gravity exists as Newton defined it and there's no such thing as general relativity). I cite the Y article that says it is.
• I don't know what vowels might be in Ng, but it is a Vietnamese word, not an English word. The article says it has no vowels and I have no reason to doubt that. It is a name, not a word.
• Kwami states that R is a vowel but has not cited an example. I know of no such example. It is not a vowel in brr, and brr is not in any of my dictionaries. I have many but I do not have the OED.
• I have no idea what this statement means: N may stand for a syllable (as in nth), yet no-one claims it's a syllabic letter, so I cannot respond to it. I will say "nth" is a one-syllable word, so N can't be a syllable by itself unless you think it's pronounced "enth" and the TH in nth are silent.
• Kwami wrote The simple, common convention is that the letters AEIOU are vowels and the rest consonants. It's irrelevant whether you agree with that convention. Well, duh. Y is a consonant. It's not considered a consonant. It is one. It's not a "common convention". It's English. Anyone who learned English in the US learned all this in about first grade (I don't know about other countries, I learned English here). We also learned at that time that Y can also be a vowel. This is not my opinion. It's fact. See Y.
• Kwami claims that tsktsks isn't the longest word with no vowel letters. He writes Your longest word isn't the longest, as I've already demonstrated ad nauseum. Actually, he just repeated himself a lot. He gave words with Y and W, where those letters are acting as vowels. He gave interjections that are not in any dictionary. On his talk page, he stated that OED listed sssssssh as a word. When I asked him for the full definition, he did not provide it. It appears that the OED uses the non-word sssssssh to illustrate another word, but I can't tell that since I don't own an OED. Perhaps he is right that there are longer words than tsktsks. All he has to do is provide a citation. I'd like to see the full entry he is citing.
• Kwami objects to my "legalistic" approach to what are words. Hey, it helps to have some authority. I would say, checking lots of dictionaries gives us a pretty good idea! If Kwami has another way to define it, other than that we should just use his opinion, I'm open to that.

I think the currently version of the article is both accurate and stable. Of recent versions, it is the most representative of the subject of the article. I respectfully request that Kwamikagami not make major changes (and I will agree to the same, provided he does not revert to an earlier version with errors) until this is resolved through discussion with other parties. RoyLeban (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you must be new here, since you obviously don't know how this works, but you've been here 3 years! "You're free to edit as long as I personally approve" is not how decisions are made on WP. WP:Truth is also not how things are done.

Read WP:BOLD. Per that guideline, I will revert to the last stable version of the article. You're the one proposing the change, therefore you need to justify it, and so far you have failed to give more than your personal POV. If you continue to edit war over it, I will request to have you blocked for disruption. — kwami (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am most certainly not new here. I've edited Wikipedia since the very beginning. I used to do so anonymously and under a now-abandoned pseudonym. I came to the conclusion that anonymity on sites like Wikipedia is the cause of many problems. Among other things, anonymity allows people to act in a more hostile manner than they would if people knew who they were. So I edit under my real name. You should too. (Yes, I know that's off topic.)

Your statement "You're free to edit as long as I personally approve" is, to me, a perfect description of what you're doing. You have the opinion that the current version of the article, my last edit, is not stable. You have no evidence of this, but you say you'll revert the changes. You also have the opinion that certain (actually incorrect) statements are true and you want to block changes as a result. How does that improve Wikipedia?

The only thing I have said which is my opinion is that information which is actually about the subject of the article shouldn't be buried in the last paragraph of a section and it should be before other, less relevant information. Yes, this is my opinion, but you have never stated why you disagree with it. It seems like a pretty obvious good idea to me.

You are misreading WP:TRUTH. It doesn't say we shouldn't have truth on Wikipedia. Of course we should have truth on Wikipedia! It says that you can't just state something to be true. We need evidence. I'm referencing dictionaries. You're pointing to your opinion and previous versions of the article. The person only giving their personal POV is you. Yesterday's version of the article is not evidence of truth -- it's just yesterday's version.

I have read WP:BOLD many times. I'm being bold. You're being obstructionist, not helpful. I am really, really trying to be civil with you. You are making it hard.

I am not edit warring. You are. Each one of my edits, except my very last revert, was an attempt to respond to your criticisms, at least the ones I could figure out. Your actions were to simply revert. I'm offering evidence. You're offering opinion. Who's warring? You are not assuming good faith, and threatening to block me for trying to improve Wikipedia is uncivil.

I also have to ask a question, which I hate to do, because it ought to be irrelevant. Is English your native language? I'm thinking it's not because, if it was, you ought to just know a lot of this, and you'd be looking for additional supporting evidence instead of arguing. And I can't imagine any native English speaker making this nonsensical statement Fact is, Y and W are often considered consonants.

The proper thing to do here is to leave the current version, which is stable (and you have presented no argument to the contrary, except that you don't agree), and wait for other people to comment. Let's let other contributors weigh in.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How can you have been here 3 years and think the version you just wrote, and which I am contesting, is the "stable" one? How could you be here 3 days and think that? I've reverted to what I estimate is the last stable version, which is the old version plus some contributions you made which aren't a problem. If you do not accept that version (since it has my modifications of your edits), we can revert further, prior to your arrival here altogether. That version is uncontroversially stable. Please reread WP:BOLD, which you should be more familiar with: BOLD doesn't mean edit warring over your bold edit when it's rejected.

Again, you don't seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. As for TRUTH and RS, really, to say tsktsks is the longest word w/o vowels in English, you need a RS that says it is. What is your source? A dictionary doesn't count unless it actually says "longest word in English w/o vowels". Maybe the Guiness Book will help (though that's not really a RS). If you determine it yourself, it's called WP:OR and not allowed.

If you think I misunderstand WP policy and guidelines, take it to DP. Don't edit war here.

Yes, English is my native language. I learned AEIOU are vowel letters, and the rest consonants. I gave you a current phonics book showing that children are still learning this. There is the "vowelless" poem (full of wyes) which also shows this. Yes, we do learn "and sometimes Y", but that is secondary and is reflected as such in the stable version of the article. — kwami (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. I give up. You have succeeded in removing accurate information and reverted to a version of the article that has inaccuracies, typos and obvious errors. You are sloppy. You repeat over and over again the same incorrect statements about what I wrote (for example, the text I wrote says "The longest such word (not counting interjections)..." -- do you really have any basis for saying that is inaccurate? It is plainly obvious that you agree with it! You stubbornly believe that your opinion that the section on words with Y and W should come before the section on words without Y or W trumps my opinion that the actual subject of the article should come first. Why is your opinion better than mine? And why can't you wait for others to weigh in? You don't have any good reason to revert except you happen to like the old way better.

If you really believe that the statement on tsktsks is OR, you should delete almost all of the article. Where is the citation for rhythms? or syzygy? or symphysy? Or twyndyllyngs?!! Duh, it's the same citation as tsktsks! Should I add fifty cite tags? No, I shouldn't because that would be disruptive -- just like your edits.

I've given up on civility. You are hopeless and I'm only saying that because I can't completely give up on civility. The time you have wasted on such a simple edit is amazing. Your accusations of edit warring when I'm just trying to improve the article (and you know it) are uncalled for.Your stubbornness in getting your way instead of improving the article is a prime example of the worst of Wikipedia. Way to go. RoyLeban (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A Mess

The article is a mess. It doesn't have a single source that suggests that this is even an existing topic that might deserve coverage in wikipedia. It doesn't establish any motivated definitions of its two main parts "word" or "vowel". The notion that letters are "consonant letters" is erroneous - they are symbols that have no value outside of a particular orthography. In welsh Y and w are used to write vowel sounds - in Spanish they are used to write consonant sounds. The concept of vowel and consonant only make sense phonetically - but even phoneticians have long discussions about whether it is possible to have words without vowels, and what a vowel is. The article is also apparently arbitrarily restricted to cover words without certain letters in the English language. If there weren't people actively working here I would probably just prod or afd the article. But if the two of you can start following our content guidelines instead of arguing based on opinion then maybe you can get somewhere with the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Maunus, thanks for weighing in. Agree with everything you wrote. At this point, I'm sorry I wasted time trying to improve the article. Good luck dealing with the obstructionist editor. RoyLeban (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulty with the idea that W and Y are consonants in Spanish. Y is in fact a vowel: in words like "y" it is very obviously a vowel. In words like "ya" it is an i-glide forming a diphthong with the following vowel, ie it is a short a short vowel, nothing like a consonant (exactly like the i vowel in the word "gracia" in fact). In words like "soy" it is an i-glide forming a dipthong with the preceding vowel, ie a short vowel again, nothing like a consonant. As for "w", it is used only in words borrowed from other languages, and I can't think of a single word that Spaniards would regard as Spanish that uses it (my Spanish is not at native fluency level, so I may be wrong about W; but the Real Academia apparently agrees with me). Michealt (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Spanish orthography. As in English, Spanish y can be a consonant or a vowel. Spanish differs slightly in that it makes some contrast with an ongliding diphthong (e.g. abierto) with a palatal fricative (e.g. abyecto). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm weighing in here since I edited the article recently to try to clean up. Some things

The "poem" is not notable or relevant. In fact, I deleted the whole "usage" section because it didn't actually describe usage and instead focused on respellings from texting that removes vowels.

There were a few weird things in the lede that didn't make any sense but seemed irrelevant. For example, "Moreover, word that are candidates to enter the language must contain a vowel, which disadvantages embedded words (e.g., in English, disfavoring win in twin because "t" cannot be a word)." The citation provided for this was not about the topic. I deleted it.

The status of Y as a vowel is one of those sky is blue things that doesn't need citations. While the sky is not always blue, we would need to provide some pretty extensive and authoritative sources before we start presenting the y-is-not-a-vowel as fact. W is a little different, since it's not quite as common knowledge, but it would be strange to consider y and w differently. When we get to names (which are words) like Ng and Hrdlička where a letter normally used for a sonorant consonant is used to represent a vowel, I think it's safe to say that such words are vowel-less, but maybe there are authorities on the matter that say otherwise. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You did a lot in a single edit, making it difficult to pore over the various changes. I'd be happy to discuss the various changes throughout. For example, I agree that trying to list all of the y examples isn't a great idea. - jc37 17:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of the WP:BRD process, but if you can't actually identify anything disagreeable in my edits but revert anyway, it comes off as a bit OWNy. Take a minute and look it over. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doing a lot of editing in a single edit is not uncommonly reverted.

But anyway, for one thing, what's your issue with reference to the poem? It would seem directly relevant?

I'm still in the process of going through the references. (For example, I find that the OED lists xylophone as an example.)

I also think a bit of etymological work would be better than deletion of the Y section, as pronunciations have shifted over time. WP:ENGVAR aside, how we in the modern era may pronounce things are often not how they were pronounced in the past. - jc37 18:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy that justifies undoing an edit because it did too much. Take a look at the specific section of WP:OWN I linked to, as well as WP:DRNC.

The poem is both non-notable and irrelevant. Why does it matter that someone somewhere wrote a poem with words that don't have vowels? It doesn't speak to broader usage, which a "usage" section should, it shows a nonstandard view of "y" as not a vowel, and looks more like a random assortment of words than anything coherent.

I haven't proposed deleting a "y section" and I'm not sure what you're referring to as far as pronunciations changing over time. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are to reflect common practice, not the other way round. And accusations of WP:OWN are a waste of both our time. I presume your goal is to better the article, and I would hope that you believe the same of me. And through collegiate collaboration, we may end up with something better than what we may have done individually.

Anyway, back to the content. You statement about the poem, reminds me of something someone said about e.e. cummings. Explicit usage in poetry can indeed be used as an example, I would presume?

I was saying that it would be nice if we expanded the Y section, rather than deleting parts of it. Etymologically, Y has had different phoenetic sounds applied to it over historical usage. (Not to mention, things like the Great Vowel Shift.) - jc37 18:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

While this is an essay, it has some good advice, I think, and may be helpful: Wikipedia:Good editing practices. - jc37 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to the examples of words with y, I think we don't need so many examples. Just a few is enough for people to get the idea. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Though I am considering that "buy" should be added as an example. Let's list the words here annd see if we can sift through similarities (through references, of course). - jc37 18:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about dwelling on the meta-discussion about the reverts, rather than the actual content, but you have not explained your opposition to my changes except to say that it was all done in one edit. While the essay you linked to does explain that incremental changes are better, it doesn't follow that reverting is therefore appropriate, particularly as you have had several opportunities to elaborate on your opposition to the edits and made it clear that your reversion has nothing to do with content. That is inappropriate.

Moreover, the changes are not such that you can't tell what I've done. I've seen changes that were drastically different or that seem as such because of the vagaries of the comparison format, but my own edits are hardly as such. Just look and see. It's pretty simple stuff, most of which I've explained here in the talk page.

Anyway, expanding on the pronunciation of y seems pretty tangential to the topic of the article since y itself is a vowel. I don't think buy is an example of a word without a vowel; though there are some analyses that English diphthongs end in semivowels (rather than being just, you know, diphthongs), that debate seems especially tangential. It's not something to get caught up in. Why would we need references for example words with y? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We've only just started discussing. And I have indeed made specific objections (though I have more, I was merely starting with these) concerning Y, and the inclusion of the poem.

Good point about buy. I was thinking of it in terms of the Y sound in buy, and neglected that U is a vowel  : )

While I agree that we shouldn't need references concerning the sky being blue, if it turns out there is a contention on the blueness of the sky, then references are the typical arbiter. I haven't quite determined how far apart your and my read of the current references is, so it's hard for me to guess how heavily we'll need to lean on sourcing to resolve this.

And yes, I think that in this case, incremental changes would be helpful. In the meantime, I have been looking over your edits/removals/modifications. Parsing through the redone 'and merged paragraphs is not a minor thing. But I'm working my way through... - jc37 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have references that say y is both a vowel and a consonant. Has anyone provided sources saying otherwise? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So much for discussion. Besides the fact that there is no deadline, I guess some people prefer to push their POV instead of actually discussing on the talk page... - jc37 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We can still discuss the issue, but so far the only objections to the edits that you've raised is that you think mention of the poem should be there. Yet when I made a case against it, you didn't actually address my arguments. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so unless someone has something compelling that says y is not a vowel, I'm going to dramatically shorten coverage of y in this article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing content

Surely a page like this should have a comprehensive list of words, or at least a link to such a page? DBoffey (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

On your first suggestion, surely not. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail". A comprehensive list is unnecessary to illustrate words without vowels as a concept. To your second suggestion, a stand-alone list could be created and linked to, subject to the usual requirements for notability and verifiability, as well as the style description at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The third possibility would be to convert this article to a stand-alone list, but that might duplicate List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U. Cnilep (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

recent deletions

To forestall any edit warring, I have to agree with Kwami's restoral, here {http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=English_words_without_vowels&diff=533641974&oldid=533620671]. The issue is that these words are described in the sources as without vowels or vowel sounds (as opposed to syllabic coinsonants). The proper response if one has a problem with this is to make further clarifications, not to delete material from what is supposed to be a comprehensive article. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I contest that the sources do as such. Overwhelmingly, sources on language and orthography characterize y as a vowel. There are five sources cited in regards to statements about y. The first three reflect this dominant view, I can't access the other two, though the fourth one seems by its title to take the uncommon view that y is not a vowel; this fourth source doesn't exactly look authoritative when it comes to a matter like this. That someone has scoured sources until they found corroboration of this unusual idea doesn't mean it's reflective of the dominant viewpoint.

In addition to this, that y is a vowel is common sense. I have above challenged editors to make a case that the common sense is incorrect or that the counter view is anything more than ignorant or WP:FRINGE. This challenge has not been met and I don't think it's appropriate that the article reflect such a view until it has. If this takes scouring what sources say on the matter and weighing the viewpoints, then so be it, but the burden is on those making the unusual claim that y is not a vowel. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Y is normally said to be a consonant. At least one of the sources in the article speak of words like "sky" not having any vowels. There are poems written to have no vowels, though they're full of wyes. We pretty clearly state that Y is often considered a vowel letter in words like "sky", so both POVs are presented. The fact that you don't like one of them doesn't mean that it's inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of what you say is false. Y is normally said to be both a vowel and a consonant. Someone found a single poem of dubious notability characterized as vowelless that had words with ys. Finally, the article does not actually state two different POVs, it talks about y and mentions words with y but does not fully state anything to the effect of "some people think that y is never a vowel." Instead, it covers y in a way that, to the many people who understand y to be a vowel, is tangential and confusing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Absent further discussion, I'll be restoring the earlier deletions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is Y so famously the only vowel that is also a consonant? All vowel letters, with the exception of A, can form consonant sounds.

• E: [j] in europe, euphemism, few
• I: [j] in onion, calcium (some pronunciations), opinion, Old Latin used it for those purposes as well; it can also form digraphs like Asia, nation
• O: [w] in choir, menage a trois
• U [w] in quiet, suite, language; [j] in queue; sometimes the [j] sound precedes long-U, effectively making it both a consonant and a vowel
• Y: of course, [j] in yes, canyon, you

Should "E", "I", "O", "U" be consonants? Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we would need to find sources that say as much to prevent accusations of original research. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an "either or" situation. I think a good reading of WP:NPOV would be helpful here. We don't force our POV in an article. And we definitely don't pick "winners" as if this is some sort of competition. We're merely to convey what verifiable reliable sources have said. And so if those sources have conflicting information, we present all of it, not just what we might prefer. - jc37 00:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already linked to WP:FRINGE in explaining my position on the claim that y is only a consonant. There has been no corroboration with the claim that verifiable, reliable sources have "conflicting information." I have tasked editors with presenting such an academic conflict (since I can't be asked to prove a negative), and have gotten silence. All of what I've seen points to y being considered both a vowel and a consonant.

I also think that a plain reading of the coverage of y is problematic, even if we accept that there is conflicting information, as we don't explicitly say anything to the effect that some people do not consider y to be a consonant. That strikes me as a misleading presentation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tiresome, since the other parties in this dispute are either unable or unwilling to provide reliable sourcing to back up their claims and are apparently too busy to even discuss the matter. I'm not a fan of edit wars, even if they're very slow, so if the current pattern continues then we may need to take the matter to the next step in dispute resolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And restoring the NPOV version again. Frankly, Aeusoes, your position strikes me as either "I don't like it", or "it's wrong because I wasn't taught this in school". Neither is a valid argument. As for sources, we've had this discussion before, with plenty. I'm not going to spend time looking them up. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "NPOV version" because, as I said, it doesn't actually state both positions. It isn't "I just don't like it" because, as I've said, the y-is-not-a-vowel position can't be found in reliable resources. I don't see the "plenty" of resources of which you speak; I see one source, with an incomplete citation, that is hardly reliable compared to the dozens easily available at Google books and Google scholar that show an overwhelming representation of the y-is-both position. If you can't bother to demonstrate where you're getting your idea of how common these two positions are, and I suspect that you have not actually scoured the relevant literature as much as I have, then please stop edit warring over the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I support Kwami's recent restoral, although I doubt even he thinks its perfect. Instead of a deletion again can we have a deliberate (as in unhurried) discussion of contested sentences one by one? μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I can't approach the disputed content in the way you are asking.

• "In English, the letter ⟨y⟩ can represent either a vowel or consonant sound" This is a strange start for a section titled "words without written vowels" since it clearly states that y is a vowel. Given the title, it would seem that a "but" is on the way.
• "and a large number of Modern English words spell the /ɪ/ and /aɪ/ sounds with ⟨y⟩" makes sense, though this isn't a "but" since it just furthers the notion that y is a vowel.
• "such as sky, why, tryst, gym, hymn, lynx, lynch, myth, wyrm, myrrh, rhythm, pygmy, gypsy, flyby, and syzygy which are vowels in this case." That's a pretty long list of words with y. No indication is given as to why the article is covering this phenomenon when it's already been established that y is a vowel
• "The longest dictionary words (base forms excluding plurals) are rhythm, spryly, sylphy and syzygy. The longest such word in common use is rhythms, and the longest such word in Modern English is the obsolete 17th-century word symphysy. If archaic words and spellings are considered, there are many more, the longest perhaps being twyndyllyngs, the plural of twyndyllyng meaning "twin"." More examples. One whole paragraph and there's still no indicating why information on words with a particular vowel, as it is presented in the article itself, is relevent in an article about vowelless words.

It's not even until the third subsection/paragraph in the section on words without written vowels that we actually cover words without written vowels in modern English. The section doesn't even make a case that most of this material qualifies as relevant; the presentation actively works against such a case.

It is only when a confused reader comes to the talk page that they find the argument that y is not actually a vowel, something that (and I can't stress this enough) the article should not say anyway, since no reliable source makes such a claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 07:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello? I thought you wanted a discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an act of bad faith to continually revert to one's preferred version and ignore talk page discussion. I understand that people can be busy or miss things, but when the pattern repeats itself the distinction between dickishness and honest absentmindedness becomes blurry. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

List at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up distinction between vowel letters and vowel sounds

This article is entitled "English words without vowels" and begins with the sentence English words without vowels are words in English written without vowels. [bolding added] But the two major sections are headed Words without written vowels and Words without vowel sounds. Thus the first sentence defines the subject too narrowly. I'm going to clarify this issue. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Those changes seem generally appropriate to me, with one small quibble. In making the headings technically accurate (e.g. "Words written without exclusively vowel letters") you've made them quite long. Wouldn't less precise but pithier wording such as "Words written without vowels" or the old "Words without written vowels" suffice, especially since the technicalities are spelled out in the prose? Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern. The problem with this is that the article insists on focusing in part on words in which y is the only vowel, and pretending that y is not a vowel. In fact it is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, depending on context. Likewise, in words with only w, w serves as a vowel. I would oppose having a false heading just for the sake of brevity, and I can't think of any much briefer way that is still correct. One possibility, a little briefer and possibly less clunky, would be to make the section heading be "Words without a, e, i, o, or u". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to address my concern. Cnilep (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Can" without a vowel sound

Under the section "words without vowel sounds"... sorry, but I must digress. Why does an article "English words without vowels" have a whole section on English words with vowels? Anyway... in that section, I submit that "can" is not only an auxiliary word that "may lose [its] vowel in more rapid speech", but also will lose its vowel in less rapid speech, because pronouncing the "a" changes the meaning, or at least the emphasis. There is a real difference between "I cn come" and "I can come"; the latter suggests a contradiction of the previous utterance and would probably be italicized in print. Not adding this to the article because this is OR, although given the rest of the article, that really shouldn't be a consideration. David Brooks (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be equating the weak form of can (/kən/) with [kn̩], but the situation is not that simple. /kən/ can be pronounced as either [kən] or [kn̩], and even the difference between [ən] and [n̩] is not easy to elucidate (unless the preceding consonant involves the tongue tip touching the roof of the mouth, e.g. [t], [d], [l], in which case whether or not the tongue tip leaves the roof gives it away) because the voicing during the tongue's approach to the closure may be considered a schwa-like vowel in itself. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Huge tangent

All the examples with ⟨y⟩ would also be words with vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: What's your point? Those are not in the "Words without vowel sounds" section and the lead and the section "With Y" do clarify the difference between vowel letters and sounds and that y may represent either a vowel or a consonant. Nardog (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If we're talking about things that don't seem to fit, that would include words with Y. Y can be a vowel, so saying words that use Y as a vowel have no vowels would be incorrect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we're getting that specific, W can also represent a vowel (or at least a glide), and meanwhile to regard [ɹ̩] as a consonant is even more of a stretch because it's a vocoid and is syllabic, the two requisites for a sound being a vowel. By that rationale, we might as well be stating feet has no vowel because [i] is a syllabic [j]. Nardog (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds like we might need to refer to experts on the matter so that we don't get unhinged. The article states that there is scholarly dispute about whether the nurse vowel is a syllabic consonant, something that is uncited but we can corroborate pretty easily. Are there any experts who consider words like feet to have a syllabic /j/?

Using ⟨w⟩ as a vowel is very uncommon, but using ⟨y⟩ as one is very common. I'd imagine this atypicality would make ⟨w⟩ worthy of mention while ⟨y⟩ is not. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is a split among scholars over whether to regard the r-colored vowel as a vowel on its own (or a vowel + /r/) or a syllabic consonant, but no linguist would deny it's a syllabic vocoid (unless it's pronounced as a fricative or lateral or something in some dialect I'm not aware of). Syllabic means a vowel in the phonological sense and a vocoid in the phonetic sense, and [ɹ̩] ticks both boxes. So no matter how you define a "vowel" (phonological, phonetic, orthographic) [ɹ̩] would always fall under it. Are there any experts who consider words like feet to have a syllabic /j/? No, which is precisely my point.

But y representing a consonant is also fairly common. The conventional wisdom is that the "vowels" of English are a, e, i, o, and u, which is why rhythm is often cited as a word without a vowel (even though y here clearly serves as a vowel), which I think makes it worthy of mention by itself, with a caveat of course. Nardog (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss as to what your point actually was, short of taking my position (that ⟨y⟩ is a vowel) and pairing it with increasingly absurd positions to hand-wavingly dismiss this point without arguing against its actual merits.

Conventional wisdom is that ⟨y⟩ can serve as a vowel, not that it is only a consonant. Are there authoritative sources that contradict this? Are there authoritative sources that say ⟨y⟩ is only a consonant? I couldn't find any the last time I looked and I doubt that the literature has changed in the last five years, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In daily parlance and pedagogy (especially primary/secondary education), it is widely held that the vowel letters of English are a, e, i, o, and u. Everybody knows y can represent a vowel sound, but it's usually not counted among the vowel letters or at best is given a marginal status. So the article title may better be something along the lines of "English words without vowel letters" or "English words spelled without vowels", as English words without vowel sounds seem to only exist in paralanguage. Nardog (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We are both appealing to the same thing but coming up with different answers. Where you claim that common parlance/conventional wisdom/elementary education posits "AEIOU". I've instead heard "AEIOU and sometimes Y" in those same places. We can really go back and forth on the matter without authoritative sources. I suppose since you've twice now declined my request to back up your claim with actual sourcing, let me provide the fruits of a rudimentary search:

• A Survey of English Spelling by Edward Carney (1994) lists (on page xv) vowels as ⟨a, e, i, o, u, y⟩ and says explicitly "The letter ⟨y⟩ belongs to both the ⟨C⟩ and ⟨V⟩ sets." The author of this work is a linguist.
• Patterns of Spoken English by Gerald Knowles (1987) refers to five "main vowel letters" (p. 8), implying that there are other non-main vowels. Gerald Knowles is a phonetician it seems.
• The Structure of English Orthography (1970) by Richard L. Venezky lists the vowel letters (on p. 101) as "a, e, i/y, o, u" and also makes it clear that every mention of ⟨i⟩ also refers to ⟨y⟩. The author is a linguist.
• English Word-Stress by Erik Fudge (1984) provides several tables on pp. 6-8 that treat ⟨y⟩ like other vowels. The author is a linguist.
• Oxford Companion to the English Language in its entry on vowel letters, says, "the five classic vowel letters of the Roman alphabet are A, E, I, O, U, to which Y is usually added; apart from its syllable-initial role as a semi-vowel or semi-consonant in words like year, y functions in English largely as an alternative vowel symbol to i." The authors are linguists and language educators and Oxford tends to be pretty authoritative when it comes to English language issues.
• "a study of the representation of English vowel phonemes in the orthography" by Eleanor Higginbottom (1962) Has a vast table that lumps ⟨y⟩ in with other vowel letters (pp. 82-86). As far as I can tell, the author is a linguist.

This is just a cursory look with Google Scholar. Do I need to go on? Do you have sources that contradict these? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the most bizarre discussions I've been in on Wikipedia. As I understand it, it is not the facts of the matter that we disagree on, but what to include in the article – which is not a matter of verifiability but is at editors' discretion. You say we should elimiate mention of words with Y because Y is both a consonant and a vowel, and I say it doesn't hurt to mention them because of Y's "sometimes" status in schools, although I don't think reducing them (to e.g. one sentence) would be a bad idea either. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, you said that ⟨y⟩ is not considered a vowel. If you say that it is considered both a vowel and a consonant depending on context, it sounds like I've convinced you. That's fine, I suppose because that means we now agree. If you'd like to take this edit of mine that was reverted a few years ago as a starting point, I think we can come to something we both agree to. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I never said y is not considered a vowel. I said (or if I failed at that, meant) the vowel letters of English are said to be a, e, i, o, and u, and y is often, but not always, either neglected or overlooked to mention or given a marginal status. There's not much use in authoritative sources about this because if they neglected or overlooked they wouldn't be so authoritative. You didn't convince me about anything. Your proposed edit looks reasonable to me, and I would have said the same thing had this correspondence not taken place (although I would have also said that it wouldn't hurt to offhandedly mention the fact that words with y are occasionally considered "words without vowels", again with the caveat that such a definition of a vowel may be a defective one). In any case, I don't have as strong an opinion about inclusion of words with y one way or the other as you seem to do anyway.

With the benefit of hindsight, it sounds like our failure to communicate started when I brought up the hypothetical interpretation of feet as having a syllabic [j]. It seems like you interpreted it as a counterargument to exclusion of words with y, when in fact it was a counterargument to inclusion of words with [ɹ̩]. I'm getting the vibe that you sometimes tend to take someone's comment as a complaint or rebuttal to something when they are (or at least I am) merely commenting on it (I especially felt that way at Talk:Flapping#Notes on the sources), but this is totally subjective and I'm probably making it up, and even if I wasn't it's totally understandable because I suspect most comments on Wikipedia are indeed complaints and rebuttals. Nardog (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed getting weird. You seem to be saying contradictory things; you said that Y is "often" neglected or overlooked as a vowel but then also suggest that we should mention that it is "occasionally" considered not a vowel. This latter point sounds agreeable to me, but I don't know whether there's something I've said that you disagree with or if you're not paying close enough attention to what you're saying for me to bother trying to correct/disagree.

Your characterization of your comment following my suggestion that we should be considering ⟨y⟩ a vowel is also rather nonsensical. You began said comment with the word well, and it doesn't take a degree in discourse analysis to understand that this word is used to mark a response intended as a counterargument. If it wasn't your intention to offer those points as a counter to mine and to strongly imply that it is a stretch to consider ⟨y⟩ a vowel, then I suggest you rethink your rhetorical approach so that your communication isn't so muddled. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers like "often" and "occasionally" are of course always relative and context-sensitive. Naming the vowel letters of English is a task any layperson can competently perform, but laypeople, being laypeople, can easily fail to recognize y. Coming up with English words without vowels, on the other hand, is not something you expect random people on the street to be able to do without some thinking or research. And if one has thought or researched enough to publish their conclusions, one is much less likely to neglect to count y as a vowel. So no contradiction there.

I don't know whether there's something... Did you express your finding agreeable my suggestion of offhandedly mentioning words with y with a caveat, before your last reply? That's the only point I had a (potential) disagreement about as far as I can see, and it sounds like you're down with it.

"Well" was in reference to If we're talking about things that don't seem to fit. You first pretty bluntly brought up something which had seemingly nothing to do with the OP, which frankly took me aback, so I asked what your point was and you said it was one of the things it is dubious as to whether we should include in the article. So I brought up w (which may not have been entirely germane now that I think about it) and [ɹ̩] (which I found even more egregious than y). At that point I wasn't aware that you were so vehemently opposed to inclusion of words with y, or even of your edits and comments 5 years ago, so I was under the impression that we were just keeping the ball rolling! But now I can totally see why you took my comments that way and I particularly regret splitting the sentence before "by that rationale". At any rate, thanks for your advice. I'll work on it. Nardog (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Consider XYZZY

Xyzzy, or XYZZY, pronounced "kzizy" or "zizzy", is early computer software programmer "shop talk slang" that became a magic word in Willie Crowther's seminal text adventure game, Adventure (famously modified by Don Woods). Note that XYZZY is not an acronym. 97.113.139.70 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an unusually spelled word, but ⟨y⟩ is a vowel, which means that this two-syllable word has two written vowels that correspond to the two spoken vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

English

What is the longest English without vowels 112.211.87.213 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

zhng, zhngs.

Singlish, but still English.

• • Zhng** means to modify, redecorate, or embellish.

w:zhng Don't really know how links work, hope this one does.

Just a suggestion.

LogicallyNebulous (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You presumably mean Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zhng -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any offical sources saying "Sknch" is a word? Cause the guy who added it was also the guy who revamped the list design.

I feel like this is not a word. TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)