Language desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

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

October 16

Was "know" or "knight" ever pronounced with a K?

I guess it was so what I really like to know: why did the English start pronouncing "knight" as "night"? There's more to be asked here (where did the "g" go for instance?), but not pronouncing a consonant like K seems quite a step to me. Joepnl (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that these were once pronounced with the initial consonants. In Geoffrey Chaucer's day, "knight" would have been pronounced something like [kniːçt] (or, very roughly, "k-nicht" or "kuh-nicht", where the "ch" here is the sound in German ich). There's no one simply answer to why sounds change, but the simplifying of consonant clusters by deleting one of the consonants is very common in languages around the world. As to the question about silent "gh", through Middle English it still represented a pronounced sound, essentially the same (probably) as the sound represented in German by "ch" (that is, a voiceless velar fricative, although it was (probably) also pronounced as a voiceless palatal fricative in some environments). The same answer basically applies here too: sounds just change, in every language, and one extremely common change is that a sound is lost or deleted (although in this case it actually came to be pronounced [f] in some words, like "laugh") --Miskwito (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tough coughs and hiccoughs as he ploughs through the dough. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a list of -ough words over there. The worst of them seems to be “slough”, a homograph whose pronunciation depends on the meaning. – b_jonas 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's covered in Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Not-knot merger. Nobody seems to be offering a reason why. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I was just bragging about Wikipedia being ably to solve this mystery, but having such a thorough answer within 10 minutes really is amazing! Joepnl (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC

(ec)Consider the word acknowledge. As for the simplification of kn, it is of a trend with the simplification of sonorant-second consonant clusters shuch as hn>n (nut) hl>l (lean) hr>r (ring) wr>r hw>w and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(minor correction: the relevant Wikipedia article to link to in this case is Sonorant, rather than "resonant") --Miskwito (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected, my bad. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's also why the the french have 'canif' for 'knife', a borrowing from the Norse at a time when the k was still pronounced. Mikenorton (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognates of modern English words in related languages may still keep the initial K. For example, the K in English "knife" is silent (pronounced nyfe), but the Swedish/Danish/Norwegian word "kniv" is pronounced k-neev in Swedish and Norwegian and roughly k-neewˀ in Danish. --Theurgist (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does knight in Dutch ("knecht"), same in German. I can imagine going from K-ni-CH-t (with the CH as in German ich) to K-ni-t. A CH (or G) is not a very "strong" sound. Loosing a K however? That an't be right, an it? Joepnl (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprecendented at all. Same thing happened to the "p" in psychology and the "m" in "mnemomic". And French has a lot of deleted strong sounds as well, as does Mandarin Chinese (which lost all plosive stop consonants at the end of a syllable). Simplification of consonant clusters is a common phenomenon over the course of a language. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a conditioned sound change. In this case a conditioned loss. Only /k/ before /n/ but not proceeded by a vowel in the same word (e.g., acknowledge) is lost--not all /k/'s in all contexts, which would be an unusual loss to occur in one step. Note that the word lean is related to the root -cline as in incline. The /k/ sound found in the Latin was weakened to an /h/ in Germanic and then /hl/ sequences were weakened to /l/ in late Old English. In this case, the /k/ has disappeared, but in separate steps over a broadly separated time period. If this interests you, get a copy (avail cheap) of Anthony Burgess's A Mouthful of Air. It is the perfect introduction. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I was trying to teach a Dutch Scout how to kayak. Unusually, his grasp of English wasn't very good and I couldn't explain that he had to keep his knees under the deck. Exasperated, I called over to their leader, "What's the Dutch for knee". "Knie" came the answer - it was only the silent English "k" that stood in our way. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Cnicht, a mountain in Wales; "The mountain gets its name from the old English word 'knight', the silent 'k' being pronounced at that time. It is said that the shape of the mountain bears a similarity with a knight's helmet." Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since edited to say "similarity to". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I wonder how long until people start saying "similar than." μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We can but wonder and wait. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I liked the way the French guard from Monty Python's Holy Grail pronounced "knight" as "k'nigget"! It has made me wonder ever since if the French get confused by that spelling. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but what the heck. Probably because whatever Python it was only vaguely remembered their Chaucer. (Caution: harsh American accent and monotone.) --Shirt58 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal language

is it ideal to CREATE a universal language? a question above says that each language has its own strenghts and weakness in terms of conveying information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question does not make any sense. I don't think you understand what the word "ideal" means. Can you clarify what you want to know? Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are looking for is artificial language or international auxiliary language. The answer is pretty much no, unless maybe as a hobby (Klingon language), form of artistic expression (Quenya), or religious movement (Modern Hebrew). The problem is that whatever their relative drawbacks, existing languages already have a large number of speakers and a large literature. If I learn Spanish, I have hundreds of thousands of songs, book, videos immediately at hand, and a huge number of speakers to interact with. In the case of conlangs that is hardly true. Even Esperanto the most widespread conlang has only one full length movie produced in it. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC) The best example of the success of an artificial language is that of Modern Hebrew. Technically it is a revived dead language, but its success shows you that a highly motivated group can establish a new language. But in the case of Hebrew you have extra-linguistic motivations of religion and nationality and a pre-existing norm and literature which was taken to be authoritative. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for learning Esperanto, which is a mongrel form Germano-Romance, you'd be better off studying any other major European language. If you know, say, German and learn Spanish, or you know English and learn latin, you can pretty much read any uncomplicated Esperanto with ease. But knowing German and spanish you will already have hundreds of millions of people to talk to, while learning Esperanto will only connect you to a few (at most tens of) thousands and won't open up Spanish or German to you at all. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you know, say, German and learn Spanish, or you know English and learn latin, you can pretty much read any uncomplicated Esperanto with ease." I don't really agree with that, regarding several other words as kaj ("and"). --KnightMove (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the disadvantage of taking for granted that you are not the only one who has studied Ancient Greek. The real problem with Esperanto for the educated reader is its little internally coined particles like tiel and sometimes, yes, more obscure choices like kai and guste rather than et and okei.μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic with the ideals of international auxiliary languages, but I don't think that any good one has been constructed yet... Esperanto certainly isn't, with it's mad choice of graphemes and phonemes, just to give two examples. --KnightMove (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KnightMove, please see http://www.esperanto.net/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've visited the site... so? --KnightMove (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, please see http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/. :-) ― A. di M. 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous attempts to create an "ideal" language from English by simplifying it, because of the need for everyone in the world to speak English right now. See for instance Globish (Gogate). Not something I believe will catch on, mind you. If this global anglicisation trend continues English will be changed by it, and there will have to be a new standard based on it, at least in addition to British, American and Australian if not superseding them. - filelake shoe 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate folly of the auxconlang project is that any conlang will immediately become a natlang and develop all sorts of eccentricities on its own. The human mind induces patterns where there are none. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original questioner had in mind more something resembling a "philosophical" or "a priori" language... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which you link has not a hint of reliable sources, merely mentioning, but not citing anything specific from Borges, the silvren fictitator. I doubt the OP had Loglan in mind.μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Wilkins' Real Character is quite famous in some circles... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems more like a taxonomy of substances than a language. μηδείς (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of i

Are there any rules in English to decide whether an i is pronounced as in live or as in life? (Once it was hard for me to buy a cinema ticket for The Sentinel, pronouncing the word wrongly.) --KnightMove (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some guidelines, but nothing that will give you 100% certainty. For example, live itself has a "short i" when it's a verb and "long i" when it's an adjective, and privacy has a "short i" in American English and a "long i" in British English. Angr (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of American and British pronunciation of "privacy" is reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any rules in English to decide whether [whatever] is pronounced...: No. --Belchman (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Usually, when a vowel is followed by a single consonant and a silent e, it is pronounced "long". So ride, imbibe, hike, dime, etc., are all pronounced with /aɪ/. The verb live is an exception, and I'm afraid you just have to learn those through practice. Note that the adjective live, however, is pronounced according to the normal rule: in "live music", "live animals", etc., it is pronounced /laɪv/. Lesgles (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... where can I find rules like that one? --KnightMove (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the best thing you can do is look up the exact pronunciation of each new word you encounter in the dialect of your choice with a dictionary and then and only then come up with your own "rules" if you need them. Non-general "rules" are completely useless and will make you learn incorrect pronunciations. --Belchman (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary by John C. Wells has some spelling-to-pronunciation rules at the beginning of each letter's section. It also has the pronunciation of thousands of English words in both RP and an Englishman's perception of General American. Angr (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are elementary spelling books that teach spelling by sets of rhyming words like the "cost, lost, frost, bossed" (short o) words versus the "most, host, toast, boast" words (long o). You have to check a book store for an elementary spelling book. If it is set up that way it should be quite helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See List of phonics programs.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many speakers of American English don't have the usual "short o" sound in cost, lost, frost, bossed but rather the "aw" sound of thought; those words then rhyme with sauced. Angr (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite make sense to me the way you put it, Angr. You are speaking of the cot-caught merger. My dialect keeps the sounds separate. My word cost has the same /ɔ/ vowel as German kosten, not the /a/ type vowel of hasst. I don't rhyme dawn and don. But all these words you give do rhyme with both thought and sauced in my dialect. The short "o" sound of standard broadcast North American is not the vowel of father or Vater but the vowel of cost and kosten. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "short o" refers to the vowel of lot, cot, and Don, which for most North Americans has merged with the vowel of father as a result of the father-bother merger. I would not call the vowel of thought, caught, and Dawn "short o" in dialects without the cot/caught merger. This is why I try to avoid elementary-school terms like "short o" in the first place. I much prefer Wells's lexical sets and saying that the verb live has the KIT vowel while the adjective live has the PRICE vowel, while cost, lost, and frost have the LOT vowel in RP but the THOUGHT vowel in non–cot-caught-merging American accents. The only reason I didn't use lexical sets in my answer to the OP was that I was afraid he wouldn't understand what I meant. Angr (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what through me off then was your describing the merger as being the "usual" state of affairs. It might be prevalent in certain areas, but no one ever suggests to an actor or broadcaster that he would sound less regional if he would merge his vowels, unless for comic effect in mocking the speech of Sarah Palin or the SNL Da Bearss sketch I posted before. μηδείς (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the original, we have the (Gen Am.) sets give, shiv, sieve, live versus jive, gyve, I've, live and grieve, peeve, 'Maldive and Yves. Doesn't wiktionary provide rhyming lists like these? μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It even has a dedicated Rhymes: namespace for them. See wikt:Rhymes:English:-ɪv, wikt:Rhymes:English:-aɪv, and wikt:Rhymes:English:-iːv. Angr (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angr. Yes, KnightMove will find all he needs at this index of rhymes right here at wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&from=Rhymes%3AEnglish&namespace=0%7C which looks like a pretty exhaustive, and, to me, fun list. For travel he can buy a rhyming dictionary at any but the tinier bookstores. μηδείς (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the informations! --KnightMove (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that you know, KnightMove, one doesn't say "informations" in English, just "information". It is like knowledge and advice, or furniture for that matter. They are not pluralized and one doesn not say "an information" or "a furniture", but perhaps a bit of information, or a piece of furniture, for example. People will understand "informations", and they will be too polite to correct you. But it sounds funny. See count noun and mass noun. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common mistake of German speakers, since in German Informationen in the plural is perfectly normal and grammatical. Conversely, when I speak German it's difficult for me to know when to say Informationen (or Infos) in the plural; I pretty much always say it in the singular, probably also when it's unidiomatic. Angr (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I never thought about this, but I think Informationen is always used when we talk about several distinct pieces of information. --KnightMove (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

origin

How did our language came to be? i am wondering why a tree is called a tree? how do we come up with sounds that make sense? and why does it make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to see our article on Origin of language. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as how the language we are all conversing in right now came to be, see History of the English language. --Jayron32 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buy or borrow the book A Mouthful of Air by Anthony Burgess. It is the best introduction to linguistics available for layman, and will answer your questions enough so that if you want to study more you will be able to study a standard college textbook like Fromkin and Rodman. μηδείς (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend the book "The Story of English" by David Crystal - in fact, most of Crystal's works are accessible to the layman. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]