Why is the pronunciation of the O in "move" different from in "bone"?

Question

I have read about the silent "e" rule. So, in the word "bone", it seems to work with "o" having its letter sound. But, we say "move" as in "moov". Why this difference? Is it historical or due to some rule?

Answer 1

I think it's safe to say that there's no rule (like the silent E is a rule).

I recommend thinking of move as being some sort of exception.

Answer 2

One of the curious exceptions to the "silent e" rule is essentially a matter of syntax. In general, English words do not end with the letter "v" or "u", and the presence of the "e" is merely a reconciliation of that fact without affecting the pronunciation of the intervening vowel.

Answer 3

English spelling is rarely based upon true phonetics, but rather upon word roots and etymology. The disjointed pronunciation and spelling of the word "move" in comparison to its similarly suffixed counterparts is likely due to such factors.

The online etymology dictionary suggests a French influence for the word, with possible provenance reaching as far back as Indo-European roots, which both have spelling construction that hint at the modern pronunciation in English, whereas the Latin root of the French word informs its current English orthography. It is notable that the French root from which English inherits its spelling has been modified in Modern French and provides better phonetic guidance to today's French reader, unlike English.

late 13c., from Anglo-French mover, Old French movoir "to move, get moving, set out; set in motion; introduce" (Modern French mouvoir), from Latin movere "move, set in motion; remove; disturb" (past participle motus, frequentative motare), from PIE root *meue- "to push away" (cognates: Sanskrit kama-muta "moved by love" and probably mivati "pushes, moves;" Lithuanian mauti "push on;" Greek ameusasthai "to surpass," amyno "push away").

Answer 4

It is due to the Great Vowel Shift between 1350-1700's. Many of the words we commonly use have changed pronunciation while keeping the spelling.

SPELLING The spelling of "move" was of course based on the Latin movere: mov(e) - movie, movable etc. The "e" is there because English words don't end in v (or u).

PRONUNCIATION (using IPA and simple diacritic) So many words were changed in pronunciation during the Great Vowel Shift (see PHY117 - The Great Vowel Shift by Prof. Jürgen Handke 6:32). In stage 2 of the Shift [o:] changed to to [u:]. He uses the example of "food" previously pronounced [fo:d] or /fŏd/ (or a sound between /ŏ/ and /ä/) and shifted to [fu:d] or /food/.

So - "move" would have been pronounced by its spelling [mo:v] then shifted to [mu:v] ( /mŏv/ to /moov/ ).

Other explanations of pronunciation is the spelling indicated the pronunciation differently to today - "blood" for example has double 'o' to indicate a long o /ō/ instead of the "magic e" - /b-l-ō-d/ NOT /b-l-oo-d/. Then the Great Vowel Shift changed many of the pronunciations from /ō/ to /ŭ/. (as opposed to "flood" which derived from the German Flut /floot/, which changed pronunciation possibly due to the same reason for how it was spelled - from /oo/ to be read as /ō/ and then had the same change from /ō/ to /ŭ/). So it's almost like they found a middle ground for the sound.

Remember that the pronunciation of vowels can be changed significantly due to the letters that come before and after as they distort the sound, especially using a schwa due to lesser significance in a sentence. So even if you think you pronounce a pure vowel sound, it may actually sound like another in the area of the mouth too, and not lose meaning within the sentence. It could even be due to class - if an English person from say South London says "move" they may actually be saying /mōv/ and be correct due to accent, while if a North American or Australian said it that way, it would be mispronunciation.