Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

According to Etymonline,I can't help wondering whether there is any other example like this? Because E."emmet",which preserves the "m" intactly,is the cognate of E."ant",which "changed" the "m" to "n" and is "contracted"?

ant (n.) c.1500, from Middle English ampte (late 14c.), from O.E. æmette "ant," from W.Gmc. *amaitjo (cf. O.H.G. ameiza, Ger. Ameise) from a compound of bases *ai- "off, away" + *mai- "cut," from PIE *mai- "to cut" (cf. maim). Thus the insect's name is, etymologically, "the biter off." As þycke as ameten crepeþ in an amete hulle [chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, 1297] Emmet survived into 20c. as an alternative form. White ant "termite" is from 1729. To have ants in one's pants "be nervous and fidgety" is from 1934, made current by a popular song; antsy embodies the same notion.

emmet "ant," from O.E. æmete (see ant), surviving as a dialect word in parts of England; also, in Cornwall, a colloquial name for holiday tourists.

share|improve this question
Does it hapen always? I don't know. But the phenomenon is called 'assimilation'; 'm' is bilabial, 't' and 'n' are alveolar; the nasal before the 't' assimilated to the 't'. –  Mitch Aug 27 '12 at 11:22
For another example, a similar assimilation happened going from "am not" to "ain't" as well. –  Peter Shor Aug 27 '12 at 11:52
It may be regular or it may not (that sounds irregular). There is the opposing (less common) phenomenon called dissimilation where, in two nearby similar sounds, one changes away. e.g. 'purple' was 'purpure' in OE, the second 'r' moved to a different 'l' to be different from the first 'r'. –  Mitch Aug 27 '12 at 13:35

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The consonant change from emmet to ant is known as assimilation.

The consonant [m] is both bilabial and nasal and [t] is neither. This makes the consonant cluster [mt] difficult to pronounce because you have to change both features simultaneously (i.e. open your lips at exactly the same moment as you redirect the flow of air from your nose to your mouth). It is easier to change these features one at a time, resulting in the intrusion of a [p] (leading to [mpt]), or else drop the bilabial feature altogether (leading to [nt]). You can see from etymonline that both of these simplifications have happened at different places and times.

Here's John C. Wells in Accents of English (page 96):

A way of reducing the articulatory complexity of strings of consonsants is through assimilation, the process whereby a sound is made phonetically similar to the sounds constituting its phonetic environment. We know, for instance, that the word which is nowadays ant /ænt/ had an Old English form æ̅mete; regular vowel developments would give a present-day form *amt /æmt/ (compare traditional-dialect emmet). The change from [m] to [n] before following [t] is an assimilation which results from an obvious articulatory simplification, namely the elimination of a labial movement.

Some other words which have undergone assimilation include:

  • accurate, affirm, etc., from the Latin prefix ad–.
  • embody, embolden, etc., from the French prefix en–.
  • impossible, impartial, etc., from the Latin prefix in–.
  • comfortable, composition, etc., from the Latin prefix con–.
  • symphony, sympathy, etc., from the Greek prefix syn–.
share|improve this answer
It seems hard to find other examples of consonant assimilation from Old English. Perhaps adz (from O.E. adesa)? –  Gareth Rees Aug 27 '12 at 12:19
Quite useful to me and I think this process maybe not reversible,such as "n" to "m" or something alike.Sincerely thank you! –  archenoo Aug 27 '12 at 12:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.