Please can you explain to me why ...

[newname0601]

the word was is pronounced how it is pronounced and not how you would say it if sounded out phonetically?

DD would like to know and I've not got a clue other than to tell her just because it is and just learn the word!

When a short 'o' sound follows a 'w', it is usually made with an 'a':

e.g. wash, wand, swan, swat, etc.

because words in english came from a variety of differnt sources - latinate, germanic, norse, old english etc etc
each of which had own pronunciation of sounds.

That's why we have so many words that mean the same - small, tiny, minute, miniscile, litle etc

Feenie thank you.

But that doesn't explain all the words that start 'wa' and don't have a short 'o' sound as you say.

e.g. wall, wait, wave, wake, does it?

I think my post explains that bit evolucy
in germanic a "wa" could be as in walk, in norse it could be "wa" as in wake

Yes we cross posted, thanks.

Because the rule only refers to the short 'o' sound following a w (or a qu, actually). So it isn't necessary for it ti explain wall, wait, etc.

'all' is easy to teach and usually makes the same sound - all, wall, fall, ball. No ambiguity there.

'ai' is another common phoneme which is easy to teach and is another way of making an 'ay' sound, as is the 'a_e' in wave and wake.

evolucy7

Feenie is doing it the other way round.

Listen to the sound first - wo
The wo sound is generally made my using wa

Those you mention:

wave/wake - differet rule used. the end vowel changes the sound of the other vowel that precedes the constant. In my days Magic E changes the the other vowel so you use it's name not its sound.

wait/wail - ai makes the ai/ay sound. Two vowels together generally creates a new sound rather than the a and i making individual sounds

Oh yes I know that, but for some reason I had assumed maybe wrongly then, that we were talking more along the lines of teaching children to read, and therefore they wouldn't necessarily know the sound first, they would be trying to work that out by reading the letters. And 'was' in particular doesn't follow the rules. Maybe the OP DD is older, but there has been so much talk about early reading here recently that I was just in that mode.

Children would be taught that 'ai' makes an 'ay' sound, and that 'a' can make a short 'o' sound. A Reception class taught well make short work of concepts like this which seem cumbersome or clumsy to adults.

Yes they would, but you said

'When a short 'o' sound follows a 'w', it is usually made with an 'a':

e.g. wash, wand, swan, swat, etc.'

Reception year children would not know before the learning to read the words that you have written that those words had a short 'o' sound. They may know this if you said the word to them, but how would they know that if they could not yet read the word and were trying to work it out?

Reception children would be used to terms like short and long vowel sounds by term 3. They would also know that 'a' sometimes makes an 'o' sound and would be confident in trying both when trying to work out a word

Really? Do you honestly believe that, judging by a lot of the comments on here I am not convinced that that would be the norm.

I have a child in Reception and he is already picking this up. My eldest (year 4 now) just soaked it up and still does.

Hmm... Judging by a lot of the comments made on MN I think that a great many children are getting very poor phonics teaching, or, that mothers think they know best

I think Feenie is right - children who have been well taught from the start make far less heavy weather of phonics than do their elders; who are highly unlikely to have been taught to read with phonics themselves and who find it all a bit puzzling..

I agree children who are taught well from the start will make lighter work of it. I am questioning whether some of these ideas are really the norm in reception.
Ranty - which bits is it that your 4 year old is picking up?

DD's reception class have been doing various digraphs in phonics recently.

Well, it's the norm for teachers on MN, which is encouraging. A recent Ofsted report found that,phonics is taught well in schools. There are problems, but they are likely be somewhat magnified on MN - threads are unlikely to be started with titles like 'My child's phonics teaching is top notch'!

ooo spooky... I was only thinking about the short o in was etc last night wondering if there was a rule and whether I knew where to look it up. thanks feenie! Thanks OP!

I should KNOW that, but them I was educted in the look and say method, and teacher training was seriously lacking in proper teaching of how to teach reading thank God for in service training!

As it's February, it is Term 2 of reception...

My Reception son is academically average and knows the ai sound but wouldn't know that "a" can sound like "o".

He will very soon - 'was' is a tricky word in Phase 3 of Letters and Sounds. 'What', 'want' and 'was' are all easily taught once it is understood that 'a' can also make a short 'o' sound.

This is helping me understand things a lot more, thank you. My dd is reception and knows nearly all of the phonic sounds now but she's clearly not covered that "a" can be a short "o" yet. She must be close to covering that though because she seems to know the majority of the blends. She questioned why the "a" in was wasn't "a" and I couldn't explain at all. Completly stumped by a 4 year old!

Just say that sometimes 'a' can sometimes make an 'o' sound, and try it! You could mention that it often does this after a 'w' if she's interested.

My ds is also in Reception and is just at this phase now.

He is on the a can sound like an o sound and is quite happy to accept it. I think at this age they can absorb more information than us oldies :)