Return to Answer

• 05.22 "It's quite an old fashioned idea thatchou do put out the red carpet - for the guest"
• 07.00 "You hope thachour going to get the, the ...
• 07.03 ... the answer thatchou want".
• 09.15 "You know. You know exactly whatchour going to be doing to months hence"
• 09.29 "You have to sort've work out in your mind the hard work, an then whatchou enjoy in retrospect ... "

• 05.22 "It's quite an old fashioned idea thatchou do put out the red carpet - for the guest"
• 07.00 "You hope thachour going to get the, the ...
• 07.03 ... the answer thatchou want".
• 09.15 "You know. You know exactly whatchour going to be doing two months hence"
• 09.29 "You have to sort've work out in your mind the hard work, an then whatchou enjoy in retrospect ... "

• /wɒt ju/ and /a:nt ju/ [British English] --> /wɒtʃu/ and /ɑ:ntʃu/
• /wət ju/ and /ɑrnt ju/ [General American] --> /wətʃu/ and /ɑrntʃu/

One might be tempted to think that the /wətʃu/ in American English comes from a co-articulation of "What are you ..." /wət ər ju/ where the /t/ in what and the /r/ in are join together to give a post-alveolar apico affricate - which is very similar in sound to /tʃ/ (see John Lawler's comments under the original question). However, this is definitely not the case. There are two straightforward pieces of evidence. Firstly, this pronunciation occurs in British English in all the same environments as it does in General American, but British English doesn't have an /r/ sound in the word are at all. Secondly the "ch" sound in /wətʃu/ doesn't occur in American English in phrases like "what are they ...". If it was the /t/ and the /r/ that were producing the "ch" sound, it would obviously occur here too - but it doesn't.

• /wɒt ju/ and /'a:nt ju/ [British English] --> /wɒtʃu/ and /'ɑ:ntʃu/
• /wʌt ju/ and /'ɑrnt ju/ [General American] --> /wʌtʃu/ and /'ɑrntʃu/

One might be tempted to think that the /wʌtʃu/ in American English comes from a co-articulation of "what are you ..." /wʌt ər ju/ where the /t/ in what and the /r/ in are join together to give a post-alveolar apico affricate - which is very similar in sound to /tʃ/ (see John Lawler's comments under the original question). However, this is definitely not the case. There are two straightforward pieces of evidence. Firstly, this pronunciation occurs in British English in all the same environments as it does in General American, but British English doesn't have an /r/ sound in the word are at all. Secondly the "ch" sound in /wʌtʃu/ doesn't occur in American English in phrases like "what are they ...". If it was the /t/ and the /r/ that were producing the "ch" sound, it would obviously occur here too - but it doesn't.

More significantly, yod coalescence, although it is often thought of as "not proper" is in fact widespread across all standard varieties of English. It doesn't only occur with "what you" and "aren't you", it commonly at any boundaries where we find /tj/ sequences.

To underline this point, linked at the bottom of this sectio here is a video of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II talking about her working life. If you forward to the following stages of the video you will hear the Queen doing various "watchu"-type articulations:

More significantly, yod coalescence, although it is often thought of as "not proper" is in fact widespread across all standard varieties of English. It doesn't only occur with "what you" and "aren't you", it occurs commonly at any boundaries where we find /tj/ sequences.

To underline this point, linked at the bottom of this section here is a video of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II talking about her working life. If you forward to the following stages of the video you will hear the Queen doing various "watchu"-type articulations: