etymology - Silent "e" at the end of words


Back in 2009, a job interviewer sent me a link to a web service that would help me make a free telephone call via the internet... Skype. As a native speaker, I knew "instinctively" to pronounce this "sky p," not "sky pee."


Fast forward to now and it is very common in my classroom to hear students pronounce this "Sky pee." Same with "you tu bee" (YouTube). My usual answer to why the ‘e’ is not pronounced is not satisfying to me, maybe students accept it because "English makes no sense," but I cannot accept that.


Just a quick look through The First Folio shows that many English words used to have an ‘e’ at the end, words that now don't. I cannot say whether those words were pronounced differently because of the ‘e’. My guess, based on the little I know about original pronunciation, is that they weren't pronounced differently, in the sense of "ee" sound added to the end, as in "tree."


If I had to guess about the ‘e’ I would say that some of the words picked up the ‘e’ because they have a German root in which the ‘e’ is pronounced. However, I have seen "tell" spelled "telle" and "show" spelled "showe."


Various answers I have come across: 1. Printers were paid extra for extra letters so they added ‘e’ to get paid more. 2. That's English, so get over it. 3. No one knows, same as no one really knows who shot JFK and if they say they know they're liars. 4. The old days of English spelling were the "Wild West" and anything went until Sheriff Webster brought law and order to the untamed frontier, etc.


Silent ‘e’ is such a big thing that most native speakers are familiar with the term and learn it in school or on Sesame Street.


Why was ‘e’ added to the end of so many words, if it wasn't going to be pronounced?


NOTE: I understand that ‘e’ changes the pronunciation and that English has many exceptions and variations. But, at one time it wasn't haphazard; "show" and "old" were written with an ‘e’. Why if it wasn't pronounced? Old is pronounced "old." The ‘e’ isn't necessary to change the vowels. How else would it be pronounced? What about "have"? Was the ‘e’ swept along with all of "Olde Englishe" other spellings?


These are just a few words that used to have ‘e’ at the end: learne, stuffe, sadnesse, mee, selfe, minde, flye, grasse, harme, winde, quicke, alwayes, worke, lordshippe, booke (but foot often did not have the ‘e’ added) etc., etc.


NOTE 2: I am not interested in an answer or comment that points me to a website containing rules and observations about silent ‘e’. I don't want an answer that tells me that silent ‘e’ changes can into cane; a long sound, I already know that. Ermanam's answer is a step in the right direction, however there are so many words that used to have an ‘e’ tacked on to the end and don't seem to follow any reasoning that I can see. Why an ‘e’ and not an ‘i’ or some symbol that wasn't a letter? What about the word "sadnesse"? What's the ‘e’ there for?



Answer



TL;DR


The "e" was pronounced (until it wasn't). There are many different reasons it appeared at the ends of words--including no reason at all. Generally, our spelling system has kept it when it made a difference to the pronunciation of the rest of the word.


Was today's silent "e" ever pronounced in the past?


Yes, it often was.


One piece of evidence is the spelling of Old English words. As ermanen's answer states, Old English spelling didn't have silent letters, so if they spelled a word with an "e", they pronounced it with an "e".1 Thus, words like line2, sun (OE sunne)3, and eye (OE ege or eage)4 were once pronounced with two syllables apiece.


Further evidence that final "e" was pronounced, even into the Middle English period, comes from poetry. Consider the following line from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:



The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne



In modern spelling, that's "The tender crops, and the young sun." But this section of poetry is written in iambic pentameter, and so this line ought to have more than eight syllables. The only way for it to scan correctly is to pronounce all the "e"s:


 /   ×   /    ×   /    ×   /   ×   /  ×   /
The ten-dre crop-pes, and the yon-ge son-ne

Was final "e" always pronounced?


In Old English, yes. In Middle English, not always. Take another line from Chaucer:



Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne



Here we must pronounce some of the "e"s, but not all of them!


 /   ×  /  ×    /   ×    /   ×    /  ×   /
Ful of-te tyme he hadde the bord bi-gon-ne

The introduction to my edition of Chaucer5 says that final "e" is often elided (i.e. not pronounced) if the next word begins with a vowel or "h". That explains why "tyme" is one syllable. "Hadde" doesn't fit that criterion, and therefore illustrates the other possibility: "Before initial consonants -e is ordinarily sounded, though there are cases on almost every page where it must have been either slurred or entirely apocopated" (my emphasis). In other words, in Middle-English poetry (and probably also in casual speech), you could leave the "e" unpronounced if you wanted to.


Why did they stop pronouncing the "e"?


Besides the convenience of poets, there was a much bigger reason why people wouldn't pronounce the "e": they didn't have to. Language frequently "wears down" over time; pronunciations get more efficient by eliminating sounds. Over time "boatswain" becomes "bo's'n." This reduction happens especially often with unstressed vowels--like final "e", which in the Middle English period was pronounced as a schwa. Why pronounce "name" as "nahm-uh" when you can just say "nahm"?


Note: we do still pronounce some final "e"s--when they are surrounded by certain consonants. For example, consider "cooked" vs. "booted." The "e"s in both words used to be pronounced ("cook-ed" and "boot-ed"). But today, the "e" in "cooked" is unpronounced, as if the word were "cookt," while the "e" in "booted" is still pronounced as a short, unstressed vowel. The "e" in "booted" can't be removed without making the "t" of the stem blend in with the "d" of the ending. It still has a reason to be there, so it gets to stay.


But if the "e"s were unnecessary, why were they there in the first place?


Because they used to carry meaning. In earlier forms of the language, the ending -e formed several different grammatical inflections. For instance, ermanen's quote from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language mentions that hus is the Old English word for "house," but huse is the form when the word in the dative case. Some other sources of final "e":6



  • Some Old English nouns ended in -e even in the nominative case (e.g. ende)

  • Some Old English nouns ended in some other vowel, which came to be pronounced as a schwa in Middle English and was therefore respelled as -e (e.g. OE nama -> ME name)

  • Some words were borrowed from French, which also hadn't stopped pronouncing its final "e"s yet (e.g. corage "heart")

  • Some adjectives took an -e ending in certain grammatical constructions (e.g. the word for "young" is yong, but when it is preceded by the definite article, it becomes yonge: "the yonge sonne"7)

  • One way to make an adjective into an adverb was to add -e (e.g. bright -> brighte; this pattern was eventually replaced by the modern adverb suffix -ly)

  • Several inflections of verbs had an -e ending (e.g., the first person singular: "he singeth, I singe"8)


And, yes, there are some words that add an -e without any etymological or grammatical basis at all. My Works of Chaucer introduction calls this an "unhistoric" -e. Googling the phrase "unhistoric final e" turned up several books that talk about the phenomenon, but the usual explanation seems to be, "Who knows?" Sometimes language just changes and there isn't an obvious rationale.9


One quasi-explanation is the process of analogy. If most words in a particular category end in -e, then the few words that don't may start adding -e to fit in. One source10 says this happened with grammatically feminine nouns: since many Old English feminine nouns ended in -e (at least in some forms), other feminine nouns with different endings in Old English started adding -e in Middle English. It just seemed like the right ending for a feminine noun to have.11


The results


In any case, the fact is that a lot of words came to have an "e" on the end, and also that most of those "e"s were dropped from the pronunciation.


Some "e"s, before they disappeared, affected the pronunciation of preceding vowels and consonants (e.g. rid vs. ride, rag vs. rage). They were kept in the spelling because they could still indicate those changes.


The new coinage Skype is patterned after words in this category. The "y" needs to be a long vowel to sound like sky, so the word's creators tacked an "e" on the end to make sure it would rhyme with type and not with tip. I, too, have known non-native English speakers who pronounced it as "Skypee." But it is following a standard English spelling pattern, even if it's a somewhat baroque one.


Some "e"s didn't affect pronunciation at all (e.g. ende, blisse). They were kept in the spelling because spelling tends to be conservative, continuing to represent pronunciations that nobody uses anymore (knight, for example). But eventually, we got rid of most of them.


Stores, shopping centers, and neighborhoods--at least in the U.S.--have lately begun adding these superfluous "e"s to their names right and left, in an effort to seem "olde-fashioned." My grandmother got me into the habit of mocking this trend by pronouncing the "e"s like your students do: "Oldee Townee" and so forth. What can I say? We've got a weird spelling system--we might as well have some fun with it.



1 The pronunciation was probably /e/--more like a Spanish "e" than the modern English "e".
2 "Line," etymonline.com
3 "Sun," etymonline.com
4 "Eye," etymonline.com
5 The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, New Cambridge Edition, 2nd edition, edited by F. N. Robinson.
6 Ibid.
7 These distinctions were the remnants of the Old English system of "strong" and "weak" adjective declension. To get a feel for how it worked, check out the similar usage patterns of German adjectives.
8 Pronounced "sing-guh," not "sinj." This ending is the same in Old English and, incidentally, also in modern German: "Ich singe." It's also the source of the "e" in have (OE hæbbe).
9 I find the explanation about printers being paid by the letter particularly unconvincing. This extra "e" phenomenon was widespread in the writings of Chaucer, who died forty years before the printing press was invented.
10 The Prologue to the Canterbury Tales: The Knightes Tale, the Nonnes Prestes Tale, edited by Mark H. Liddell: "Elements of Middle English Grammar: Inflection," p. xxxviii
11 Of course, Liddell goes on in a footnote to mention some masculine and neuter nouns that also added -e, and once again we're back to, "Who knows?"


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

I often see English notation about time using the " and ' symbols. I have always mistaken about the two, and even their meaning. I'm more used to "01:05:56", for example. How do you represent the hour, minutes, and seconds using the apostrophe and quotes punctuations? Which is for the hour, which is for minutes, and which is for seconds? Is it the common way to write duration of time elapsed? Do they have a special pronunciation? Answer It's not particularly common for expressions of time. It's similar to degrees-minutes-seconds: instead of decimal degrees (38.897212°,-77.036519°) you write (38° 53′ 49.9632″, -77° 2′ 11.4678″). Both are derived from a sexagesimal counting system such as that devised in Ancient Babylon: the single prime represents the first sexagesimal division and the second the next, and so on. 17th-century astronomers used a third division of 1/60th of a second. The advantage of using minute and second symbols for time is that it o
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number
Read more