Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2022 February 7

= February 7 =

G in the NATO phonetic alphabet
Is it pronounced Golf or Gulf?? The sport is pronounced Golf, but the NATO phonetic alphabet article says that the code word for G is pronounced Gulf despite being spelled Golf. Georgia guy (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look again. It's golf, not gulf. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Golf, the use of ʌ instead of ɔ in the IPA is presumed to be a mistranscription (albeit without corroboration, of course). See also Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet/Archive 1 and Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet/Archive 2. -- Kinu t/c 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for us Londoners, the two words are homophones. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They never have been for this (former) Londoner. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This source, Folia Anglistica, Issue 1 (1997) p. 17 lists gulf/golf homonymy as a trait of Estuary English along with pull/pool and sorts/salts (guilty as charged m'Lud). Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just another reminder that there are many different dialects of London English, even by native residents (people who were born and raised and still live there). -- Jayron 32 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those Esturians must have spread far and wide. During the Gulf Wars reporters from various countries were constantly bombarding us with news about (what sounded like) the Golf Wars. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They were confused by all the sand traps. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In Melbourne (Australia), for some speakers 'gulf' and 'golf' are homophones, [gɔʊf]: there is rounding syllable finally (resulting in [ɔʊ] instead of [ʌl].
 * Introduction to English Phonetics (Sect. 6.4.3)
 * Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also a "Sand Bewt" of gowf courses in Malbourne. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is L-vocalization, also a trait of London dialects; Cockney, Estuary English and Multicultural London English. Our Australian English article states that:
 * The dialects of South East England, including most notably the traditional Cockney dialect of London, were particularly influential on the development of the new variety and constituted 'the major input of the various sounds that went into constructing' Australian English. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a load of transpontine snobbery goin' on 'ere. Anyway, it's pronounced 'gofe' on the links, don'tcha know. MinorProphet (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Only by men named Ralph who pronounce their name Rafe. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall an English joke
There is an old joke (as early as of a few centuries ago) in Hebrew, which I suspect can't be translated well into English, but I can make up an analogous (up to date) one in English, which may go like this: ''Two drunk guys in a bar, are watching a TV report about an upcoming protest lead by the Black Lives Matter movement, but the report does not mention the name of the movement. One of the guys is asking: "I forgot their exact name. Is it, Back Knives Shatter, or Back Knives Chatter?" The other fellow is responding: "Um.. I think you are wrong. Actually it is: Slack Wives Natter"''.

As I've pointed out, I've just made it up, but the idea is the same in both languages. However, I'm almost sure there is a known existent English joke, which expresses the same, but I can't recall it. Can anybody recall such a joke? If not in English, then in another language, but I prefer the English one. 185.24.76.177 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure that your example helps very much. Maybe explain what the relevant humorous technique is, or show us the original Hebrew? AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew joke refers to the biblical verse in Leviticus 2 6. In Hebrew, the verse states (in IPA scripts): "Patot Otah Pittim, Weyasˤaqta ʕaleha ʃamen, Minha Hi".
 * The Hebrew joke goes: Two young pupils are studying Bible and coming across the verse mentioned above. One of them is reading aloud: "Tapop Otah Tippim, Weyaqasˤta ʕaleha Maʃen, Nimha Hi". The other pupil is responding: "Wait, is it Nimha or Himna?" 185.24.76.177 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The explanation is very confusing, although it might possibly help if I'd know Hebrew. Anyway, I came to think of spoonerism, although that might not be what you're referring to. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I wonder what's the difference between, spoonerism, and mondegreen mentioned by Dolphin51. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Is the verse from Leviticus one that a (sober) typical Israeli, not particularly trained in reading biblical verses, can be expected to read without obvious difficulties? The joke is faintly reminiscent of a German joke. The context is an exam, where the candidate, having German as a second language, is probed on his knowledge of anatomy. Professor: „Herr Kandidat, wollen Sie mir sagen, was das ist!” — Kandidat: „Das Lebber.” — Professor: „Erstens ist es nicht das Lebber, sondern die Lebber; zweitens ist es nicht die Lebber, sondern die Leber; drittens ist es nich die Leber, sondern das Herz.” It does not fully admit translation to English, which has no grammatical gender, but here is an attempt: Professor: "Mr. Candidate, could you tell me what this is?" — Candidate: "That libber." — Professor: “First of all, it's not that libber, but the libber; second, it's not the libber, but the liver; third, it's not the liver, but the heart." It shares the notion of applying futile corrections to something that is totally off. Unlike the Hebrew joke, though, it builds up to a climax.  --Lambiam 00:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As to your introductory question: To "read" it without difficulties? Yes (in an Isreali accent, though, which is a bit different from the Biblical Hebrew one). but I'm not sure if they may also understand the full meaning of the very joke because most of them (like most people on earth) are not familiar with most of the biblical verses, and that's why I had preferred to make up an analogous English joke, without having phrased the Hebrew one, before AnonMoos asked me to display also the Hebrew one. As to the German joke: Yes, I admit it has a better climax, but also the Hebrew joke (like its English analogue I had made up) has its own climax - albeit a weaker one. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * See Mondegreen. There’s even a section on Hebrew. Dolphin ( t ) 02:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I wonder what's the difference between, mondegreen, and spoonerism mentioned by Wakuran. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The difference is explained in the relevant articles.--Shantavira|feed me 09:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's not. For example, what's the big difference between - confusing "There's a bathroom on the right" with "There's a bad moon on the rise" - which is an example given in our article Mondegreen, versus - confusing "The Lord is a shoving leopard" with "The Lord is a loving shepherd" - which is an example given in our article spoonerism. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've already been directed to the two relevant articles. Each gives a definition in the first sentence:
 * A mondegreen is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase in a way that gives it a new meaning.
 * A spoonerism is an error in speech in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched between two words in a phrase.
 * The first is accidental mis-hearing; the second accidental or deliberate mis-speaking. Bazza (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx. So it seems that the mistake referred to in the introductory joke (about the drunk guys) is both a Modegren and a spoonerism. I guess this may be the case in many other similar errors. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, the difference in those examples is that "There's a bad moon on the rise" does actually sound like "There's a bathroom on the right" (in the song, it does - John Fogerty, for all his talent, is far from being the most easily understood singer in the world). But "shoving leopard" and "loving shepherd" cannot be mistaken one for the other. They have the beginning sounds of each word swapped, but one would not hear the one for the other, but a speaker might accidentally speak the one for the other. There's a legend that the city of Calistoga in California got its name that way. It was allegedly to be named Saratoga, but the man publicly declaring the new town at its dedication was drunk and he proclaimed the city "Calistoga, Sarafornia!" 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E887:A72C:A630:19A6 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The man...was drunk" ? Interesting, so it's like in the English joke I had made up. Anyways, thanks for this info. It seems that every Mondegreen is a spoonerism, but unnecessarily vice versa. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A Mondegreen reflects a problem in hearing; whereas a Spoonerism reflects a problem in remembering. Dolphin ( t ) 11:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should change the indent, because you're probably responding to the previous editor I responded to. Please notice that my response to them took their statements as our new assumptions, without trying to judge whether those assumptions are really valid. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dolphin51 obviously disagreed with your statement that every Mondegreen is a spoonerism, and for good reasons. I cannot think of a single Mondegreen that is also a spoonerism. In a spoonerism, phonemes get permuted (usually swapped) within a phrase; the spoonerized phrase consists of the same phonemes as the original, but presented in a different order. In almost all Mondegreens, phonemes are replaced by similar but different phonemes, but still in the same order as before. In a few Mondegreens, however, the difference is not in the phonemes themselves, but in how they are parsed up into words (Gladly the cross I'd bear versus Gladly, the cross-eyed bear). --Lambiam 12:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't read my recent response to Dolphin51. They thought I thought every Mondegreen was a spoonerism, but I didn't think so. As I have explained to Dophin51 in my recent response to them, I only thought - that taking the third editor's statements as our new assumptions (without trying to judge whether those assumptions were really valid) - I concluded that every Mondegreen was a spoonerism. But when I first displayed this conclusion, I didn't have to phrase it as a conclusion - which assumed the third editor's statements, because it was only displayed in my response to the third editor, rather than to Dolphin51. Only after Dolphin51 expressed their disagreement, I explained to them that their disagreement should not be with me but rather with the third editor, because the claim Dolphin51 disagreed with was only my conclusion inferred from the third editor's statements I had taken as assumptions (without trying to judge whether those assumptions were really valid). 185.24.77.169 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That Hebrew joke appears to be a spoonerism to me, although I don't understand it. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think, it's really wonderful to be able to say something smart (as you do) - about a joke phrased in a foreign language your don't understand at all. But actually you don't have to understand in it more than what you understanbd in the English joke displayed in the first paragraph of this thread. Both jokes are analogous to each other, from the viewpoint of the common general idea they express, which has nothing to do with the very meaning of the new wrong words mistakenly replacing the original ones. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the English one does not quite reach the ROFL level. Truth be told, it is not funny at all. I cannot judge the hilariousness of the נמחה–חמנה joke is. --Lambiam 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have never claimed the climax of these jokes is really funny. I have only claimed both of them are analogous to each other, and that's why I called the English one "a joke": Simply because its Hebrew analogue is considered (by the people who tell it) to be "a joke" as well. Anyway, my question was not about how funny those "jokes" are, but rather about a known existent English "joke" analogous to those "jokes". But I admit the climax of the German one is really nice. 185.24.77.169 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From Yaffa Eliach, There once was a world, (Boston, Mass., 1999, ISBN 0-316-23239-4, page 122):

A very prominent maggid arrived in Eishyshok one day and, to his astonishment, was directed to the New Beth Midrash. Highly insulted, not to mention mystified as to the reason for such an insult, he refused to deliver his sermon. Only later was the mystery unraveled. It turned out that a very conservative member of the kahal had misread the announcement, in which the maggid was touted as "excellent". In Hebrew, the words excellent and from Zion are spelled similarly, the only difference being in pronunciation. As a staunch opponent of the Enlightenment and of Zionism, but not much of a Hebraist, the kahal member had concluded that the maggid was a Zionist and therefore not suitable for an Old Beth Midrash audience.


 * This reminds me of the joke I can't find anything but the punchline for: And St Peter lays his crosier back on the Pearly Gates, scratches his head, and says "Sure beats me - I wouldn't have a clue what forms to fill out. You see, you're the first ever lawyer we had up here. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew joke reminds me of the poem "Chester" by Shel Silverstein. --Amble (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)