Language desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 29

Spelling of /ʔɔ̃.ʔɔ̃/

There is a — word, I guess you'd say? — meaning roughly "no", and pronounced /ʔɔ̃.ʔɔ̃/, or perhaps /ʔɒ̃.ʔɒ̃/. How do you spell it? I sometimes see it rendered as unh-unh, but that looks like it should be pronounced /ʔʌ̃.ʔʌ̃/ or something, which is not how I say it. The best I can come up with is onh-onh, but I don't recall seeing that much in print. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify the language, which I therefore guess is English. But when you add ⟨n⟩, are you perhaps thinking how it might be written in French? Putting aside your spelling, I think I recognize /ʔʌ̃.ʔʌ̃/ (or the same thing with nasalized schwa, which I'm too lazy to type, or some other vowel near the centre of the regular vowel diagram). I'd write it "uh-uh", I suppose. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not French specifically, no, just trying to indicate the nasal vowel somehow. For me it's definitely not a nasalized [ʌ], but clearly more [ɔ̃] or [ɒ̃] (which I'm not super-sure of the distinction between). I'm also not sure what you mean in distinguishing [ʌ] from schwa; a lot of people seem to render /ʌ/ as /ə/ when writing it (which seems wrong to me because I'm more likely to render the schwa as a reduced [ʊ] when speaking it, though not in all word positions). --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a useful discussion of this slang term which means no, comparing it to "uh huh" which means yes. I am not competent with IPA or formal linguistics, but there is a very subtle and muted n or nasal sound that is not conveyed by "uh uh", which comes off as brief stuttering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nasal in the word I'm talking about is not subtle at all; it's very pronounced. --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC) By the way your link won't connect for me. --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct link. --Lambiam 06:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives the spellings uh-uh, huh-uh and uhuh, the pronunciation [ˈ(ʔ)ʌ̃˧.ʔʌ̃˩], and an audio (US female speaker). --Lambiam 06:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That audio file sounds correct to this Californian. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we say the same in North Italy, especially Piedmont. By the way this special sound is in my ears a clear Piedmontese nasalized N followed by A, while in both following Trovatore's examples I seem to hear an aspirated H, or it is just me? 2003:F5:6F0B:CD00:CC4B:78F5:1101:CC61 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Sound files, with variant stress: . --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those files sound way overdone to me, almost as of the speaker is suffering from a severe head cold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a "reference" form as our dear departed Medeis would have said. I was trying to make the sounds super-clear. --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sounds like you're admonishing your cat, while in the second it's your dog. --Lambiam 01:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspite or In spite?

I have recently been correcting articles with the word "inspite" however, I was wondering if inspite is an actual word (excluding regional varieties) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Saffron (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In British English the phrase is in spite of; "inspite" is not a word. Bazza (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:inspite says "Generally an error made by non-native speakers. Usually an error for despite or in spite of. Common in Pakistan.". Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a word, although not from standard English. In fact, "in spite of" is not a word (it's a phrase consisting of 3 words). ;–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, "in spite of" is not a phrase. ("In spite of her denial" or "in spite of those unsalted peanuts" is a phrase.) It's not an orthographic word; but orthography aside, it's unalterable (you can't for example say "in obvious spite of") and thus very close to a word. See The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pages 618–620. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I was using the word ("phrase") in the amateur sense (not having the inclination to look up the proper terminology!). But thanks for the enlightenment. Bazza (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"in spite of" is definitely a phrase. If you click on Bazza's link, you can clearly see that it is classified so even in that dictionary (compare, for example, with just "spite", which is listed as noun and verb). My point was basically that some people misuse linguistic terms instead of providing clear explainations; "is not a word" is a blatant example. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikhail Ryazanov: I did say that "inspite" is not a word in British English, and provided a link to demonstrate this [1]. I don't dispute that it may be a word in other English variants. Bazza (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it is "a word in British English", just like Archibald, airbnb, borogoves, kek, nonautological, stereoneutrinographically, perfluoropentanol, and so on. The correct statement would be that in British English the word "inspite" is not considered correct to denote "in spite of". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikhail Ryazanov: Ignoring the other words you've given, how about a link to a reliable source which says that "inspite" is a British English word? That would help everyone agree, including me. Bazza (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you several links to reliable sources defining the linguistic term "word". A sequence of letters doesn't need to be listed in any reliable source to be considered a word. Misspelled and nonsensical words, spoonerisms and other such things are still words. I totally agree that the word "inspite" should not be used as it was, but I'm just saying that "not a word" ≠ "not a correct word". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How many words are there in British English? Answer: ℵ₀, of which only a negligible fraction are correct, fewer than words that are also words in Hungarian. --Lambiam 18:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say "in obvious spite of" if I jolly well feel like it! —Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in spite, however, of this being to the obvious spite of grammarians, who may feel damn ill because of your jollity. --Lambiam 09:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]