naturalplastic wrote:
Why is the letter "W" called a "double U" when its obviously a double V?
On top of that we still have the English horn (which is niether English nor a horn), and the Holy Roman Empire (which wasnt Holy, wasnt Roman, and wasnt an Empire) to worry about!
The Holy Roman Empire is well explained in the lit. And if it was dedicated to God and endorsed by the church it was holy enough for anybody.
You should be able to find documentation on the English horn, Canadian bacon, the French disease, African violets and the turkey fowl.
But W is in my bailywick. The differentiation of u / v and i / j is pretty recent, expanding the Roman version of the Italic version of the Greek adaptation of the Phoenician version of the West Semitic alphabet. There had already een expansion, turning waw > Greek digamma into f while working with the v shape handling Latin u and the semivowel we write with w. Older docs just use the v shape.
In fact we now have FOUR waw derivatives - y [the shape the Greeks put in for the VOWEL equivalent, brough into Latin in Greek words] v [the prime Latin shape for vowel and semivowel], u [variant shape brought in for disambiguation, and w [innovation originall v + v] added after the v STOPPED being pronounced like w].
Are you up on Yiddish orthography?
We COULD have gone "double v" like in Spanish -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_v - But the pronunciation - a high back rounded semivowel - is closer to the pronunciation of [u] - the high back rounded vowel.
It may also be considered that "double v" involves a bit more effort to say.