Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 February 16

= February 16 =

'W' dropping in UK place names
Greenwich (grenich) or Norwich (norich) are just two shocking examples. Is there a general rule that says drop 'w' from place names, or, at least transform 'wich' in 'ich'? What has causes this, that is, is that some Celtic influence or whatever? --Doroletho (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Shocking"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a process specific to [w]ich, just part of the general elision of place names that takes place over the centuries (according to A. D. Mills' Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names ". . . most [English] placenames are a thousand years old or more"), in that same way that (in your two examples) "Green" is pronounced "gren" (rhymes with wren) and what was "North" has become "Nor" (rhymes with the first syllable of corridor). See also Toponymy of England for some related processes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.1.40 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's also a Northwich, in which (!) the W is pronounced. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And of course Ipswich (which is not too far from Norwich).
 * And Middlewich too (a long way from Norwich though).
 * And sometimes, a W appears where it shouldn't; Whipps Cross was "Phip's Cross" in 1400, the change being 'a product of the local Essex dialect at that time, in which "F" sounds were pronounced as "W"' Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whore, who, whom are other examples. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are examples of an original "hw" sound becoming plain "h" before a rounded vowel (i.e. labial dissimilation). That doesn't have much in common with the simplifications in unstressed syllables responsible for the pronunciations of the -wich words.  By the way, Dionne Warwick's original name was "Warrick", and she became "Warwick" due to an album-cover typo... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]]  AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The irony is that Warwick is traditionally pronounced "worrick", yet her name became like "war-wick", presumably because many people didn't know the pronunciation of Warwick. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My favourite example of the anarchy of English place-name pronunciation is Mildenhall, Suffolk, which is pronounced "MIL-den-hall" as you'd expect, whereas Mildenhall, Wiltshire is pronounced "MY-nal". Now work out a rule for that! Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There probably isn't one.  Wymondham, which used to (and may still) be the first station on the railway line from Norwich to Cambridge is pronounced "Windham", and Costessey (a suburb which I believe is to the south of the city) is pronounced "Cossey".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7939:B000:CC82:B53:7331:A530 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Cholmondeley, Cheshire is pronounced Chumlee. Akld guy (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Besides W-dropping, there are also other English place-name conventions which occur frequently (though not universally):
 * -cester is often pronounced "ster" or "stuh" (depending on whether or not your dialect is rhotic), i.e. Worcester, Gloucester, Leicester.
 * -ham and -herst are pronounced "em" and "urst" respectively, and probably other examples of H-dropping, i.e. Birmingham, Tottenham, Amherst
 * -bury is sometimes prounounced "bree", as in Bibury, Sudbury. Some dialects may sneak a very brief schwa in there, but usually it's illusory, and just sounds like 'bree'.
 * This video has a pretty good synopsis of places like that. -- Jayron 32 13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree on the schwa bit - it might be short, or optional, but it's not illusory . And the video said nothing useful. Bazza (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody would pronounces "Tottenham" as "Totten-ham", but "Am'erst" is decidedly Cockney .  For some reason the relevant street names are Amhurst Road and Amhurst Park. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:890F:6145:E7B2:A97D (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When the Argentinian footballers Osvaldo "Ossie" Ardiles and Ricardo "Ricky" Villa, fresh from the Argentina national football team's World Cup victory, joined Tottenham Hotspurs in 1978, they participated in a Spurs team song released as a single, in which one or the other of them had a solo line referring to "Totting-HAM"". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.1.40 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:890F:6145:E7B2:A97D -- I assume it's because the "-herst" syllable has a secondary stress (at least the Massachusetts Amherst does), and so unstressed syllable reductions don't apply. Something of the same thing can be found in non-placename words: "vehicle" usually doesn't have a pronounced [h], but "vehicular" usually does (due to the stress position)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Being born and lived nearly all my life in East London, I would say "AM-hurst" with the same vowel as "hurt". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Amhurst or Amherst seem to be English surnames rather than an actual place. Also Sudbury has three syllables (at least to the people who live there), although admittedly the middle on is very weak. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations.--Shantavira|feed me 08:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a word...
...for when someone has frequent strong cravings to be touched by someone of the opposite sex (not necessarily in a sexual way, but any kind of pleasant touch)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:DD98:2DB1:2850:1E54 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "love-starved"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haptemania, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:903C:FE68:B96F:B580 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Skin hunger" is a term I've heard. We don't have an article about it but there are a lot of web search hits, maybe enough to support an article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukkot
The first clause of Sukkot says the following:"Sukkot (סוכות or סֻכּוֹת, sukkōt), commonly translated as Festival of Tabernacles, traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation Sukkos or Succos"What's the difference between "Sukkos" and "Succos"? Obviously there's a spelling difference in the Latin alphabet, but it says "pronunciation" not "spelling", and traditionally the Ashkenazi Jews would have been writing in the Hebrew alphabet, which doesn't have a pair of letters capable of producing this sound, unlike Latin. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point! Now fixed --46.116.222.238 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed? As far as I can see, it's identical.  Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should write "Sukkos/Succos", as in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * x2 Why was the article changed?  It previously explained that there is a difference in the Ashkenazi pronunciation but now all reference to pronunciation has been removed.   The word is also spelled succoth.   We also see this variation for example in the transliterations sabbath and shabbos.   In both cases the final Hebrew letter is the consonant tav, which may be a voiceless dental fricative, a voiceless dental plosive, or a voiceless alveolar sibilant. 2A00:23C2:2400:9600:CF:2F03:10E8:B42F (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But in what way is "sukkos" pronounced differently from "succos"? The terminal consonant isn't the issue; it's the intermediate consonants that I'm wondering about.  Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * x2 There are a million different spellings of Hanukkah for instance. (We just happen to choose the Adam Sandler spelling.) It is a matter of judgement what we include or omit. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One spelling that isn't included is Chanucah.  I think that it should be, even at the expense of some of the others.   There's no redirect, either. 2A00:23C2:2400:9600:CF:2F03:10E8:B42F (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * High their, a native Hebrew speaker is here. The difference between Sukkos and Succos has nothing to do with any difference in pronunciation, but rather with a difference between two traditions of spelling in English (rather than in Hebrew), for Ashkenazi Jews who (for some reason) choose to write the word in English. The same is true for other Hebrew words, sometimes written in English, e.g. Cohen vs. Kohen. Yes, Chanukka vs. Chanucca is another example. 185.46.78.9 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be "Hi there", not "High their". I hope you don't mind me correcting you. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me reminding you, this is not my first time to make that double "mistake" - on purpose. Yes, I'd been kidding. Last time I added a smiley, but today I forgot. 185.46.78.9 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. I wonder if the passage were written by someone who confused "spelling" and "pronunciation".  I figured it wasn't a transliteration issue, since ק is normally rendered Q (as far as I've always seen) and also doesn't appear in the spelling given above, and aside from כ there's no other letter with a similar sound anyway.  Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, סוכות is never spelled with a ק, but rather always with a כ, which is traditionally rendered k (or c in some cases, e.g. in the surname "cohen").
 * When the editor wrote: "traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation Sukkos or Succos", I guess they meant the Ashkenazi pronunciation is different from the Sephardi one, in pronouncing the last consonant of סוכות as an /s/ rather than as a /t/. Anyway, I would rephrase it as follows: "traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation /'sukkos/ or /'sukkəs/, traditionally spelled (when spelled in English) Sukkos or Succos". 185.46.78.9 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do we transliterate the word with a double-c or double-k when there is only one consonant in that position (ק) in Hebrew? Wouldn't "Sukot" be sufficient?  Also, since the consonant "c" in English can be pronounced as /k/ or /s/, why use the letter "c" to represent the pronunciation at all when "k" is unambiguous? Thomprod (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As opposed to what you wrote, the Hebrew letter is "כ" rather than "ק".
 * The English letter c could have been ambiguous, hadn't we known whether it's followed by "i/e", but we do know it's followed by another letter, so there's no ambiguity.
 * There are two reasons for transcribing it with a double letter (whether k or c). First off, the double (English) letter prevents us from pronouncing the first vowel (in the English transliteration) as "you". Second, the middle consonant of the original (Biblical) Hebrew word has traditionally been pronounced as a double consonant, so that the whole word has traditionally been pronounced: "sook-caught" (as one word without any pause, though). That's why the Hebrew letter has a dot inside.... 185.46.78.15 (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Some traditional transliteration of Hebrew is very inaccurate and actually becomes something else altogether. It's certainly not very scholarly, especially when it comes to names. Balaam, for example, is unfathomably far from Bilam, Jerusalem-Yerushalayim. Isaac-Yitzchak. One which is good, Naomi is pronounced Naymi or Nayomi, when phonetically read it's pretty spot on. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Dweller -- Hebrew Bible names have often come into English by long circuitous routes. Often from the Greek Septuagint version of Hebrew names, which were then borrowed through Latin into medieval French, then English.  In the "Balaam" the double "A" was originally a Greek convention which signalled the presence of the guttural consonant ע in בלעם (the double "A" serves the same purpose on "Isaac").  The first syllable of בלעם may have had a different vowel in the pronunciation tradition available to the translators of the Septuagint than it does in the later masoretic tradition available to us.  Also, the "e" of "Jerusalem" is more historically accurate than the "ayi" of Yerushalayim -- the Hebrew form was changed at a fairly late date to have the appearance of a dual-inflected noun, but originally this word was not a dual... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)