Is /ju/ in words like "mute" one phoneme or two?

Is /ju/ in words like "mute" one phoneme or two?


Arguments for it being one phoneme

English can have /ju/ after a consonanant but we can't have for instannce a word */mj{t/ */mjIt/, */mjEt/, */mjUt/, */mjoIt/.

It is usually indicated by a diagraph "ew", "eu", or "ue" or by a "u" followed by a single consonatn followed by a vowel.

Arguments for it being two phonemes.

We use "a" rahter than "an" before words starting with /ju/, e.g. "a ewe" not *"an ewe".

"ewe" and "too" are perceived by people as a valid rhyme.

It is sometimes indicated in spelling by "y" followed by some otherr vowel for insance "yule", and words like "yep", "yoke" etc. certainly stthe /j/ is a phoneme.phonem.

My computer funcitioning badly so the wiritng here may lok funny.

they are two separate phonemes

/j/ as a consonant/vowel glide + /u/

compare 'w' for /j/

mute /mjut/

some speakers of Western US dialects may have a slight gliding /j/ (followed by the front u): dude /d(j)ud/, new /n(j)u/, Vancouver /-k(j)u-/

Then could you explain why we can have a word /mjut/ but not say a word */mjEt/, */mjIt/, */mjUt/ etc. Why does the phoneme /j/, when it occurs after consonants at the start of a word only ever followed by the /u/ phoneme if the /j/ and the /u/ are truly separate? With [w] after a consonant, however, doesn't have restrictions on the vowels that can follow: E.g. we have "sweep" /swi:p/, "swim" /swIm/, "quote" /kw7Ut/, "sweat" /swEt/, "quack" /kw{k/, "swoop" /swu:p/ etc.

<<Why does the phoneme /j/, when it occurs after consonants at the start of a word only ever followed by the /u/ phoneme if the /j/ and the /u/ are truly separate?>>

The origin of this phenomenom in English is due to French influence, where Middle English 'u' was an ill-attempt to pronounce French 'u' /y/ and it ended up being mispronounced as /ju/ instead. (cf. Modern English speakers will often substitute German ü, as in Müller, with /ju/, like Myooler)

This is the same reason why the name of the letter "U" has the /j/ glide as well. We don't call it an /u/, but a /ju/.

Where the glide was difficult to pronounce, like in "rude", it was dropped. Otherwise, it was retained, as in "mute", "schedule", etc.

hope this answers your question

Rick: That is a good question, and I've thought about this problem myself. The fact that /ju/ can occur postconsonantally, where other combinations of /j/+vowel are impermissible, would seem to strongly indicate that /ju/ is a single phoneme; but then there's the fact that pairs like "few" and "too" are considered rhymes, and how can words rhyme with each other if they use different vowel phonemes? And then there's the question of how we should analyze words like "you" and "ewe": if we consider /ju/ to be a single phoneme, then should we analyze these words as /ju/ or as /j/ + /u/? (And it would be preposterous to claim that "you" and "ewe" are phonemically different just from the spelling, while being phonetically identical.) Or to put it in other words, cases like "yolk", "yield", "yard", etc. indicate that any combination of /j/ + vowel should be allowable, including /j/ + /u/, so if we consider /ju/ to be a separate phoneme, how do we separate the cases of monophonemic /ju/ from the cases of /j/ + /u/?

I used to favor considering /ju/ a separate phoneme, but problems above have caused me now to lean toward considering it just a sequence of /j/ + /u/. In this case, there would just be a phonological rule that /j/ can do things with /u/ that it can't do with other vowels. (Not the most elegant solution.)

<<I used to favor considering /ju/ a separate phoneme, but problems above have caused me now to lean toward considering it just a sequence of /j/ + /u/. In this case, there would just be a phonological rule that /j/ can do things with /u/ that it can't do with other vowels. (Not the most elegant solution.)>>

Well, here's another problem with considering /ju/ as a single phoneme. What about /j3`/ "pure" and /j@/ "calculator"? Are they single phonemes too? Would they be any less single phonemes than /ju/?

<<Well, here's another problem with considering /ju/ as a single phoneme. What about /j3`/ "pure" and /j@/ "calculator"? Are they single phonemes too? Would they be any less single phonemes than /ju/? >>

I would consider them alterations originally derived from /ju/ that have undergone change due to difference in stress, influence from surrounding phonemes, etc.

I'd have to go with two phonemes. Consider minimal pairs like:

mute/moot
butte/boot
cute/coot (as in 'ya old coot')
puter/ (yeah, I know)

<<What about /j3`/ "pure" and /j@/ "calculator"? Are they single phonemes too? Would they be any less single phonemes than /ju/?>>

Well, if I were to consider /ju/ a single phoneme (which I don't), then I would consider /jU@`/ (or /j3`/) to be its stressed rhotic variant, just as /E@`/ could be considered the rhotic variant of /e:/, and I would consider /j@/ to be its unstressed variant (and /j@`/ to be its unstressed rhotic variant, to be comprehensive).

<<Consider minimal pairs like:>>

Well that's neither here nor there. But the fact that those pairs *rhyme* would be an argument against /ju/ being one phoneme.

butte and boot is no different a rhyme scheme than seat and street
or two and true

think about it

I would say that /ju(ː)/ and its rhotic and reduced reflexes, in most English dialects today, a phoneme pair, which explains its behavior with respect to "a"/"an" and its ability to rhyme with /u(ː)/. However, though, I would say that at one in the not-too-distant past it was a distinct phoneme in more English dialects, as shown by its use with "an". Likewise, there are still English dialects today which retain a distinct phoneme /iu/ as a reflex of it, such as some northern English English, Welsh English, and southern NAE dialects.

That should be "are a phoneme pair, which explains their behavior with respect to 'a'/'an' and their ability to rhyme with /u(ː)/" above.

Heh, that should likewise be "are phoneme pairs" above.

<<butte and boot is no different a rhyme scheme than seat and street
or two and true

think about it>>

That's why I'm saying it's two phonemes.