Hope you don't mind if I ask a question that has bothered me for some time. When did elementary schools stop teaching the vowels as "a,e,i,o,u and sometimes y and w." My children (16,15,and 7) have just learned "a,e,i,o,u and sometimes y."
I hadn't thought of it before but maybe not all elemetary schools in the 70's taught the W as mine did.

Wow! Is that a word made up of solely vowels?

Hello wyolib, and welcome to LibraryThing.
Couldn't help but notice that you joined just today (and haven't added any books to your catalog -- in time I suppose). And yet you found this group (of which I, also, am not a member).

I was born in the early 50's, attended a private school K-8, and started public high school in 1966. I don't recall "W" being mentioned as a vowel, EVER. It seems to be a terrible President as well.

Please stop by the Green Dragon sometime. We have cheese and ale, and good conversation.

No W for me as a kid--public schools, Midwest, late 60s-70s.

I've never heard of w as a vowel and I went to elementary school in the late 60's in a suburb of LA.

No W for me either, NYC late 50s/early 60s.

And thank goodness no W after January 20.

Message edited by its author, Jun 26, 2008, 6:00pm.

So the deterioration of American public schooling began, apparently, in the late 50's to early 60's. I started school, if I calculate correctly, in 1949 in Springfield, Massachusetts, and I remember first studying the alphabet in kindergarten. Along the way I learned that the vowels were a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y and w. I never understood the inclusion of w, but it was there for us.

It induced in me and many of my classmates lip rounding. We distinguish who from hoo. In linguistics, in graduate school, we learned about glides, and a w like thing can be a vocalic glide. Perhaps in grade school we were taught an underinformed mash up of orthography and linguistics.

Robert

Message edited by its author, Jun 26, 2008, 6:13pm.

But I was taught the alphabet by my father, who was born in 1909 and went to elementary school in NYC in the 1910s, so maybe this was something local to your area. By the way, I am not an expert on linguistics in any way; I just watch this group because I love language.

Distinguishing who from hoo is purely a dialectal issue that has nothing to do with the deterioration of American schooling. As for vowels, I would say that l, r, and d are frequently syllabic and hence in a sense vowels in English. I'm not sure what the point of trying to assign phonetic values to the English alphabet is--any solution is going to be a large step from reality--but I'll assume that the slightly arbitrary distinction of vowel and consonant properties is useful; it fails to follow, however, that the inclusion or exclusion of w is a matter of much significance.

The Wikipedia article on vowels gives gym as an example of y as a vowel and cwm as an example for w. If cwm is the best that they could come up with then I guess it's no wonder they dropped the w is sometimes a vowel thing.

ETA: How do you pronounce ku:m?

Message edited by its author, Jun 26, 2008, 7:36pm.

Maybe the existence in English of Welsh loan word cwm was what the instigator of the "w is sometimes a vowel" theory had in mind. It's a perfectly valid statement for Welsh, but not (as far as I can see) for English, except in this rather unusual instance.

cwm /ku:m/ rhymes with tomb /tu:m/, zoom /zu:m/.

Vindicated at last! I remember "sometimes ...w" but have found very, very few others that don't think I just wasn't paying attention in class...

I went to public school in NC in the '60s and we also had "sometimes y and w". I consulted my best friend, who I went through school with, and she remembers it as well.

Edited for a grammatical error that is a reflection on my haste and not my vowel confusion.

Message edited by its author, Jun 30, 2008, 8:56pm.

Wow, this is a first for me. I've never heard of "sometimes w." I attended primary school in upstate NY. This is a new turn for me. I think I'll check with my other half & find out what his experience was in Florida, Tennesseee & Arizona.

Public school in 50's and 60's and no W in set of vowels for me.
Try reading David Crystal's "The stories of English" for a vowel background. You'll come away wondering how anyone ever came to decide on just which letters should be vowels. LOL

Hum, as someone who went to NY public schools starting in 1989, I only learned that w could be a vowel when I studied Welsh in college. I suppose because in modern American English there are no words -- that I can think of -- that have w as the sole vowel, whereas there are words where that is the case for y.

I started kindergarten in '89, and I can remember sometime during early elementary hearing rumors, just whispers, of w being a vowel. Maybe one teacher threw it out there one time, just as an interesting fact. Anyway, no one ever taught words that might use w as a vowel, or required us to add w to the aeiouy list. But I definitely knew.

When my mom went to a Catholic school in the '60s, she was taught "sometimes y and w," but when she went to public school the next year she was corrected for considering "w" to be a vowel. (She attended Massachusetts schools, though, so I don't know if that changes the regional theory or not.)

Personally, I was never taught that, but I'm from ambushedbyasnail's generation.

Does 'sometimes y' mean that /y/ in /yes/ should be considered a consonant, while it's a vowel in /anything/? I had never thought about it. Be that as it may, in France, we include /y/ in the vowel list, without any restriction. And NEVER /w/.

A funny thing is that there is a swap of /w/ and /y/ beween the English /vowel/ and the French /voyelle/...

We were taught "sometimes y and w" in my school, Texas--mid to late 80s.

I learned "sometimes y and w" in Iowa in the 1950s and 60s. And since "w" is two "U"s, I have often wondered why we don't spell the word "vacuum" as "vacwm". Then it would be clear that "w" can be a vowel. But other than words from Welsh, I've never seen a "w" vowel. Unless, of course, it is a vowel in the word "vowel."

I occasionally heard "sometimes y & w" but the reasoning given to me was that w was a vowel in the mixed vowel sounds, such as "ou" & "ow" (& stuff like "oa" "ie" "ei" "au" "ay" "oy", etcetera)

I'm sure there are other combination vowel sounds that may use consonants... and I think there is one more consonant that is also considered a "sometimes" vowel.

My understanding was that "sometimes w" (which I've heard, but wasn't explicitly taught in school) was a reference to the use of "w" in various diphthongs ("ow", "aw", "ew").

"diphthong"!!!!

That's the word I couldn't remember!!

(my brain cells are leaking out much too fast)

This really brings me back. At my public elementary school in Southern California, this actually became a schoolyard argument. The "sometimes 'y' and 'w'" view was being taught by one (probably only one) of the teachers there, whose students vigorously defended it against those of us taught merely the "sometimes 'y'" version to whom the notion of 'w' as a vowel was patently ridiculous. Some details are fuzzy but I do remember clearly the word "cwm" eventually presented as the example; I don't think diphthongs were ever at issue. A close friend of mine with a fierce passion for language even then reported that he was able to dig up the word in an old dictionary, where the entry did indicate it to be of Welsh origin. Since this word, nor any other with 'w' as a vowel, was not to be found in any newer dictionary, his conclusion as I recall was that case for 'w' as a vowel in (our) English was very weak. This may seem implausibly sophisticated for a grammar schooler, but know that my friend, unsurprisingly, went on to become an academic linguist. It is to him I owe my fascination, avocational only, with language. It remained cause for comment throughout our school years whenever he was able to produce a word or phrase from some other language spelled without canonical vowels.

So the letter "w" in a word like 'crowd' functions like a vowel, just like adding a "t" to the word 'leap' changes the sound of the long "ea" to a short "e". So, is "t" somewhat like a vowel also?

re #24: you argued about diphthongs in elementary school?!?!?!?
We argued about whether The Hulk could beat up The Bionic Man, or which Angel was foxy-est...

I remember being taught that "y" was sometimes a vowel, when I went to school on Long Island in the 50s and 60s, but "w" was never identified as a vowel.

I found it interesting what the lexicographers, Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster, and the grammarian, Goold Brown, had to say about w being a vowel.

In Grammar of the English Tongue, which is prefixed to his Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) wrote:
"Of w, which in diphthongs is often an undoubted vowel, some grammarians have doubted whether it ever be a consonant; and not rather as it is called a double u, or ou, as water may be resolved into ouater; but letters of the same sound are always reckoned consonants in other alphabets: and it may be observed, that w follows a vowel without any hiatus or difficulty of utterance, as frosty winter. Yet I am of opinion that both w and y are always vowels, because they cannot after a vowel be used with the sound which is supposed to make them consonants."
Note: The last sentence is omitted in the 1785 6th edition and later editions of the Dictionary.

In his 1828 edition of his American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1758-1843) wrote:
"W is properly a vowel, a simple sound, formed by opening the mouth with a close circular configuration of the lips. it is precisely the ou of the French, and the u of the Spaniards, Italians and Germans. With the h vowels it forms diphthongs, which are of easy pronunciation; as in well, want, will, dwell; pronouced ooell, ooant, ooill, dooell. In English, it is always followed by another vowel, except when followed by h, as is when; but this case is an exception only in writing, and not in pronunciation, for h precedes w in utterance; when being pronounced hooen. In Welsh, w, which is sounded as in English is used without another vowel, as in fwl, a fool; dwn, dun; dwb, mortar; gwn, a gun, and a gown.

Ih his 1823 book, The First Lines of Grammar, Goold Brown (1791-1857) wrote:
"W or Y is called a consonant when it precedes a vowel heard in the same syllable, as in wine, twine, whine, ye, yet, youth; in all other cases, these letters are vowels, as in newly, dewy, eyebrow."

#27: I am SO cutting-and-pasting that. Saving as w.txt. Cherishing forever.

Thanks for bringing this up - my husband and I have tussled over this very question.

I was taught sometimes Y and W during the 60's-70's in WA state.

He was taught sometimes Y during the 60's-70's in CA.

#27 - Great! Let me add the opinion of the Demonic lexicographer himself, Ambrose Bierce:

W (double U) has, of all the letters in our alphabet, the only cumbrous name, the names of the others being monosyllabic. This advantage of the Roman alphabet over the Grecian is the more valued after audibly spelling out some simple Greek word, like επιξοριαμβικοσ. Still, it is now thought by the learned that other agencies than the difference of the two alphabets may have been concerned in the decline of "the glory that was Greece" and the rise of "the grandeur that was Rome." There can be no doubt, however, that by simplifying the name of W (calling it "wow," for example) our civilization could be, if not promoted, at least better endured.

But W in France is called "double V", so, for me, it's a double consonant... ;-)

On the lighter side -Re #26: As I said, diphthongs never came up. Truth be told - my friend the future linguist excepted - we likely did not know the word, although certainly we understood that the sound of a vowel could be altered by placing it in combination with another letter. At this distance, I cannot quote quotes or name names, but in the spirit of "truthiness" I offer the following reconstruction:

"What, 'w' is a vowel?! No way! That's dumb!"
"It's true!"
"Prove it! Name a word where 'w' is a vowel."
"I forget, but there are some. Mr. Brown said so and he knows everything!"
"Yeah? Well, Mrs. Smith never said anything about 'w' and she knows tons more than Mr. Brown!"
"She does not."
"Does too!...and the Fantastic Four could smash the X-Men any day of the week!"

Re #29: This was in CA; maybe our "Mr. Brown" was from WA - he certainly wasn't Welsh.

More seriously, with thanks to moibibliomaniac (#27): can anyone tell me the current opinion on status of ‘w’ as a vowel? Maybe the whole question is now considered passé or just a pedagogical matter. There are many aspects of context in the written word that may change the value of a vowel symbol and some might be quite complex. Does the fact that in some cases, this context boils down to a single phonetic symbol make that symbol a vowel – especially if it, as in the case of ‘w’ (unlike ‘y’) in American English anyway, it seems to possess no value as a vowel in isolation?

I remember hearing about dipthongs in the 7th grade. But I did not hear about w making the preceding letter into a dipthong (don - down).

What I remember was that the proper pronunciation of the word "I" was as the dipthong Ah-ee, and not as AH. I was in a school in north Florida at the type.

Well, _I_ learned y and w, but I was born in 1934. . .

As for W being a terrible president, I would have to agree loudly 8-)

w is certainly a vowel in Wales. Try to pronounce the name of a town so that a local will recognize it some time!

1970s public and private schools here. I was taught "y and w." Examples I remember from back then of "y" as vowel: thy, try, sly, wry, why, cry, fly, my. "W" as a vowel was always combined with another vowel, as in "now, new, law."

I never got an example for "w" being a stand-alone vowel until I started playing competitive Scrabble, when I learned of "cwm" and "crwth." Both of which are, of course, properly classed as Welsh words, not English.

I think it probably has to do with the English vowel shift, that the dipthongs wound up becoming long vowels, and the ws were less emphasized. The example I keep wanting to see here is "Snow". The W, acting as a vowel, lengthens the O. This is why it is not pronounced like the O in clog or fog. Of course, the O in "no" is caught in the vowel shift, itself, and you can see little stragglers in variants like "nah."

Well, educated in the 1970-80's down under...W as a vowel just didn't make it to the southern hemisphere!

How can "e" and "o" be diphthongs?

"e" and "o" are letters of the alphabet. In English they can sometimes be used to SPELL diphthongs, just as some 2-letter spellings can represent a monophthong, as in "hoot".

The reason the letter o can be a dipthong is in its pronunciation. For, instance when one pronounces the long o sound (the o in bone), ones mouth slightly begins to close. So the sound kind of begins like the ou of bought and kind of ends up like the oo of tool. This all happens in a mini-second. A dipthong is really two sounds glided together, and, as erilarlo said, they can be spelled as one letter or two.

The single letter "e" can even represent a triphthong, as in the word "yes" in certain regions of the southern US :-)

(IPA jei@s)

>37
I can't think of a single English word which ends in a short "o", so I can't see how the "w" in snow is lengthening the vowel. If it was spelt "sno", surely it would still be pronounced the same way.
Monosyllabic words ending in "-o" have a long vowel, though it is not always the same one (diphthong in fro, go, no, so; but pure long vowel in do, to, who).

I learned "sometimes 'y' and sometimes 'w'" in rural central Ohio, early 1990s. Though, my parents never believed me, and they went through the same school system a couple decades earlier.

I think there is a w in snow for etymological detritus reasons. Proto-Germanic is *snaiwaz.

#45: gesundheit.

(could you translate what you just said, please?)

Things hang on from earlier versions of a language. Proto-Germanic is WAY further back than Old English--which is a Germanic language. German is full of such things--all those umlauts are the result of similar processes.

English spelling is obviously not all based on sounds. Unneeded letters are left in (hint, the detritus) to point to a word's heritage. English isn't like Finnish or Norwegian which have formal orthographical changes from time to time to keep up with sound changes in words.

Thank you both very much....

in other words, language evolves.... with things left over from former need.

And shards of English words have archeological value.

I went to school in the Bay area in the early 60's and I was taught "sometimes Y and W" and my mother was surprised to learn this as she was never taught this and had no idea that I was....I cant recall now what word or words satisfied the "w as vowel" exception but I know at that time we were taught some (or one)....

I'm a senior in high school right now, and I was taught "sometimes y and w" when I was in elementary in the late 90s- early 00s. My teacher never explained why, though, and even some of my friends who went to the same school don't remember learning that. Clearly, the teaching of the vowels is very inconsistent!

The w in words like when and what can be held just as long as an a, e, i or u. So can the y in you, for instance. They can also be expressed phonetically like vowels. It's one of our many spelling oddities.

Well, the letter m can be held for a long time, as in the archetypal mantra -- om (or aum).

Oh, m, n, ng, l, and many others can be held, too 8-) It's hardly the only test! But it is something true of vowels that could let y and w sneak into the edge of the group.

W?? As a vowel??
Say what?
I have never heard of this.
Weird.

Some of my friends from the South add "w" to the end of that rhyme about vowel letters. It makes sense when you think about the letter "w" being used to help spell the vowel sounds: /ow/ as in "cow" or /o-e/ as in "snow" because you can even hear/feel the /w/ on the release of those vowel sounds. But when it comes to the spelling of English words, the letter "w" can't really be put in the same category as the letter "y" which can stand alone to spell a vowel sound (as in my, gym, or funny).

I teach my students to look at the "w" as consonant letter that acts as part of a team to spell vowel sounds (just as "r" helps to spell the vowel sounds /or/, /ar/, and /er/) but also have them notice that in both cases the vowel letter always has to come first.

Well, there is cwm.

Not an English word! The letters "j" or "g" spell vowel sounds in other languages, but that doesn't mean that we call those vowel letters in English.

This may be of interest
from reference.dictionary.com :

semivowel   

–noun Phonetics. a speech sound of vowel quality used as a consonant, as (w) in wet or (y) in yet.
----------------------------------------...
Origin:
1520–30; semi- + vowel; r. semivocal < L sēmivocālis half vowel

Yes, you're right. Both /w/ and /y/ are part of the release of other vowel sounds (/w/ at the end of /oo/ and /y/ at the end of /ee/) but you can't say either sound for a long time (a key characteristic of a vowel sound along with vibration of the vocal cords). I'm talking about vowel letters, not vowel sounds. The letter "w" is called a consonant letter in English but it does help to spell various vowel sounds. It just doesn't spell any vowel sound in the English language by itself, while the letter "y" does.

@61
The point is w's status as a semivocal, not a pure consonant. As the German Wikipedia IPA table puts it, the English w amounts to a /u/-sound functioning as a consonant. "Wish" could be rendered as /u/-ish. Cooperate contains no consonants between the o's, yet the sound represented by one ('w') can clearly be heard when the word is pronounced, just as onion contains the sound usually represented by y. The distinction between vowel & consonant is not always clear cut.

It's impossible to make the sound represented in English by 'w' (as consonant) without making the /u/ or the /ʊ/ sound, just as it's impossible to make the sound represented by 'y' (as consonant) without making the /i/ sound. Even when y and w are used to represent consonants, their vocal nature is clearly present.

I agree with your statement that w "doesn't spell any vowel sound in the English language by itself," (with the exception of words borrowed from Welsh, etc) but at the same time I'd suggest that 'w' by itself doesn't spell any sound at all.

Message edited by its author, Feb 16, 2009, 3:20pm.

>62

"I'd suggest that 'w' by itself doesn't spell any sound at all."

Well, it has to spell some sound or we wouldn't be able to hear and differentiate that particular sound from other sounds--but we do! You can recognize the difference between "wed" and "ed," right? And we recognize the kids who have speech problems when they continue to say /wed/ for /red/ long after their peers.

But, I understand what you're saying about the sound /w/ being a semivowel. It is, after all, the tail end/release of /oo/ (which means it also plays a part in the sounds /ow/ and /o_e/) so I'm agreeing with you on that. I even have a vague memory of the letter "w" used originally to spell a vowel sound--maybe /oo/?

Do I think it is "impossible" to produce the sound /w/ without the /oo/ before /w/? No. I think the opposite is more true, that it's almost impossible to end a word with the three vowel sounds above without getting some /w/ at the end (e.g., pow, toe, boo). Just as it's to difficult to say "tree" without that release and the resulting /y/ at the end.

Looking back, maybe I'm misunderstanding when you're talking about a sound or a letter? I'm trying to make the distinction between sounds versus letters. For example, the sounds /er/, /or/, and /ar/ are considered true vowel sounds by many linguists. And I agree, as they fit the criteria of being both "loud" (vocal cords vibrating) and "long" (you can stretch each one of these sounds out for as long as you have breath). But the letter "r" is not considered a vowel letter.

Some people stretch out the beginning of the consonant sound /r/ (which should be a quick tongue curl and release, closer to /ruh/ without the /uh/) by adding /er/. Yes, you can get to /r/ that way and when you do it fast, people will recognize it as the consonant sound (e.g., errred). But when they do that, they are adding a separate and distinguishable vowel sound to the beginning of a consonant sound that doesn't need/have to be there. Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should! :-) These are two separate sounds. The first is a vowel sound, the second a consonant sound.

Message edited by its author, Feb 17, 2009, 4:23am.

What I meant about 'w' not spelling a sound by itself is this: I don't think there is an /oo/ "before" the w without which the w couldn't be pronounced. I'm saying the /oo/ is the 'w' sound and what we're hearing as w is actually the byproduct of moving from one vowel sound to another...

The difference between "ed" and "wed" is the the "u" sound at the beginning of "wed" (/u/-ed) vs. "ed" without the u-sound at the beginning. The w-sound is the direct byproduct of, in the case of "wed," the unrounding of the lips associated with moving from u to e. If you were to say, "Oooh, ED!" fast you'd have "wed." The reason 'w' doesn't spell a sound by itself is this: If you try to pronounce it in isolation, you're either just pronouncing /u/ or you're forced to add a second vowel sound to create the sound we think of as the consonant w. We can say "we, wa, wo," but how do we say "w?"

W is a symbol. It represents a vowel sound that serves in the role of a consonant. As a letter, it would be easy to do without in the English language. Its sound is present in many words where the letter itself fails. Langwage.

Edited to add: I once knew a German who, when saying the word "world" used the German 'w' sound: "Vorld." But after I asked him to say "oui" in French, then had him take the "ou" sound from "oui" and place it in front of "orld" he was able to pronounce "world" as it's said in English. I don't believe (though I could be wrong) that either o or u is considered a consonant in French, but the shift from the /u/ sound to the /i/ sound creates the sound of a w in-between.

Your points regarding R are good ones...R does often sound like it includes at least a schwa sound in front of it. The difference is that 'w' (like 'y') is naturally produced on the way from one vowel sound to another. R you have to go out of your way to say...

Message edited by its author, Feb 17, 2009, 9:48am.

w can have a sound, usually as part of a diphthong, both initial and final. It IS possible to hold either sound longer than a stop, of course, but this is hardly the only "test" for a vowel, as m, n, ng, l, r can all be held as long as one pleases and use vibration of the vocal cords as well.

Note: "won" and "one" may have the same diphthong, but "what, why, when", etc., do not have homonyms without the w.

64> I don't think it's possible to pronounce the letter T without putting some vowel behind it, but it's still a consonant.

The difference is that the t-sound is an actual sound that's independent of any vowels that may come before or after it whereas the 'w' requires two vowel sounds to be heard...The 'u' as consonant and the sound following it. You can make a t-sound without a vowel sound following it unless you count the expulsion of air associated with its production as a "vowel sound" or you feel the need to use your vocal chords in the process, but since 't' is voiceless that shouldn't be necessary.

The only point I'm trying to make regarding 'w'--but using far too many words to do it--is that it definitely belongs with 'y' in the half-vowel category, even if saying "and sometimes w" may be taking it a little too far. Saying "it's a consonant" and leaving it at that doesn't tell the whole story.

Message edited by its author, Feb 17, 2009, 1:56pm.

If you add vocal cords to a voiceless stop like "t" it becomes "d".

And of course you're not pronouncing a letter. A letter is a written symbol for a sound, and which sound a letter represents varies with language spoken.

You're pronouncing a sound the letter represents, and as long as two speakers agree on the sound values represented by the letters, a discussion is possible. No one's claiming the letter itself makes a sound,

Of course the sounds of some of them vary within languages too. The 't' is a good example, since some people speaking English pronounce it as a glottal instead of as a dental stop.

You're right. It does become d if you voice it...No, wait. It becomes the sound a "d" represents.

Message edited by its author, Feb 17, 2009, 5:51pm.

I think the English language t is more alveolar than dental. Pronouncing the t as a glottal stop (usually in words like bottle) is mostly done in some British dialects. It's fairly rare in the U.S.

One neat trick that the English language does to help people differentiate similar one syllable words is to pronounce the vowel slightly longer if it is followed by a voiced consonant. So, the a in pad is held a millisecond longer than the a in pat. Both a's are pronounced with what is sometimes called a short a, (although some dialects have what is called a broader sounding a). Note, what is called a long a in English is really a long version of the short e followed by a short version of the long e. (I had to put this in to confuse everybody).

I am blown away by this conversation. I especially appreciate >27 from moibibliomaniac. Many of the comments are beyond my ken, such as all that stuff about glottal stops etc., but I am so glad I joined this group. Thank you all.
P.s. I went to grammar school in the Bronx, NYC, back in the '40's, and I was taught "sometimes y" but I never heard of "sometimes w" till now.

I started school in 1979 and learned the "sometimes w and y" rule. However my wife, who is only 1 year younger than I am, did not. Our schools were in the same county and only about 45-60 miles away from one another.

Our kids did not learn this rule either.

A few years ago at the dinner table my preschool aged daughter was reciting her vowels and said "and sometimes y". I applauded her for having done such a good job, but asked if it wasn't "sometimes w and y" anymore only to receive bewildered looks from my wife, son and daughter.

Its certainly not taught in schools anymore and has apparently been in the process of being phased out for decades.

Only an extremely small amount of words use "w" as a vowel and most of those seem to be Welsh in origin.

Message edited by its author, Feb 24, 2009, 3:11am.

While manning an information table at Arizona State University this weekend (my table devoted to genital integrity), I entered into a rather lively conversation with four young fellows, two of whom were dressed rather colourfully ... or, shall we say they were dressed with style, but darkly and drably? One of them, the tall one, wore a black cutaway with a top hat, while the other fellow wore a black T-shirt with black trousers.

Printed across the front of his black T-shirt was a white cross followed by an apparent acronym: "PWNED".

During a lull in our conversation a third fellow asked the signification of the letters "PWNED". It seemed a logical questions, but to our surprise,the fellow declined at first to answer, saying that we wouldn't want to know. Of course that only intrigued us the more. After a bit of hemming and hawing, he finally admitted that the letters had a religious meaning, but he refused to say more.

A bit exasperated by this, I insisted that if it was possible for me to openly advertise and discuss male genitals in a public setting, surely he could reveal the religious significance of a simple acronym.

At that challenge, he finally did give a rather esoteric, new-wave, crypto-religious import to the letters, which turn out to be not an acronym at all, but a word: "PWNED", pronounced poned, whose meaning only has import to a very, very select few. Don't ask, and I won't tell.

>73
Sounds like you got pwned yourself.

;)

73> It's a typo.

> 73 : Urban Dictionary - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...