10 ms·

Surprised it didn't mention the word or rather not word, "uhhh" or "umm" when we don't know what to say and need to fill silence. I know other languages and cu

Surprised it didn't mention the word or rather not word, "uhhh" or "umm" when we don't know what to say and need to fill silence. I know other languages and cultures have slight variations but the ending sound as far as I have seen is the same.

philipov 3y ago
I don't think that's a word. It's an utterance, but not a lexical one. It's not onomatopoeia, either: 'bark' is onomatopoeia, but actually barking isn't.
- overlordalex 3y ago
  They're considered fillers that mark a continuance on part of the speaker so that the other participants know that they will continue speaking. Different languages not only use different sounds, but in many cases continuation markers can also be "normal" words from the language. In English some examples would be "well", or "yes" which can be pure filler words to bridge to the next utterance. That being said, what is a word anyways? You could argue that they're well understood units of language that convey meaning, which I would argue is pretty much a word
  - philipov 3y ago
    You make a good point. I looked it up and it's in MW and even scrabble recognizes it as an interjection. I think to be a word, at a minimum an utterance would have to conform to the phonemic structure of a language, but that's a low bar, and 'uh' passes. I guess it's a word!
    - eru 3y ago
      > [...] would have to conform to the phonemic structure of a language [...] I don't think that's a good criterion, because it would exclude a lot of loanwords.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        It won't exclude anything. Loanwords can only be expressed in the phonemic structure of the language, because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else.
        eru 3y ago
        > [...], because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else. Huh? Japanese people have the same vocal tracts as Germans who have the same vocal tracts as Egyptians. Just because someone's native languages don't have a particular sound or sound combination doesn't mean they can't learn. That's especially true for sound combinations: a Turkish speaker might find a word that doesn't follow Turkish vowel harmony a bit weird, but would have no trouble pronouncing it even without any training. And even if a particular speaker can't produce a certain word, they can still recognise it as a word when someone else uses it in the context of their language. As an example, most English speakers I know can't pronounce 'kn' like in Germany 'Knie' or 'Knecht'. But I can say "Knie is German for knee." and that is a sentence of five words. Or "The Knesset is the unicameral legislature of Israel." (Just to be clear, English has words like knee or knight that are spelled with kn, but the k is silent. If you ask English speaker to pronounce "Knie" the German way, they tend to introduce something like a Schwa between the k and the n sounds.) See https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/151054/why-is-the-k-silent-in-know-and-knotty-etc https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/151054/why-is-the-k-...
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility. The fact that someone is theoretically capable, after years of study, of learning to pronounce a foreign word, is not relevant in any way.
        eru 3y ago
        > All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility. That's not true at all. Have a look at eg how Turkish borrows from English. Turkish borrows eg the word 'computer' wholesale without modification. Despite that word violating Turkish vowel harmony. (Unless you want to tell me that vowel harmony is not part of Turkish 'phonemic structure'?) Similarly lots of German borrowings from English in recent decades don't adjust to German 'phonemic structure'. Eg German typically pronounces st at the beginning of a word like sht, but that only happens in the borrowing 'Stress' for some speakers. (See the IPA on https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Stress https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Stress for evidence.)
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  But it is a lexical utterance. The form of the filler is specific to the language you're speaking. I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what about it you think isn't lexicalized.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
asyx 3y ago
Fillers are cultural. Japanese speakers use ano.
- crdrost 3y ago
  Famously a common Mandarin “uh/um” filler, pinyin “nà gè,” is pronounced in ways that often confuse Americans into thinking that they have heard a racial slur.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
stevekemp 3y ago
Finnish would use "no niin", as seen in this standup (subtitles are required, sadly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EWMlCusxjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EWMlCusxjQ

philipov 3y ago

I don't think that's a word. It's an utterance, but not a lexical one. It's not onomatopoeia, either: 'bark' is onomatopoeia, but actually barking isn't.

overlordalex 3y ago
They're considered fillers that mark a continuance on part of the speaker so that the other participants know that they will continue speaking. Different languages not only use different sounds, but in many cases continuation markers can also be "normal" words from the language. In English some examples would be "well", or "yes" which can be pure filler words to bridge to the next utterance. That being said, what is a word anyways? You could argue that they're well understood units of language that convey meaning, which I would argue is pretty much a word
- philipov 3y ago
  You make a good point. I looked it up and it's in MW and even scrabble recognizes it as an interjection. I think to be a word, at a minimum an utterance would have to conform to the phonemic structure of a language, but that's a low bar, and 'uh' passes. I guess it's a word!
  - eru 3y ago
    > [...] would have to conform to the phonemic structure of a language [...] I don't think that's a good criterion, because it would exclude a lot of loanwords.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      It won't exclude anything. Loanwords can only be expressed in the phonemic structure of the language, because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else.
      - eru 3y ago
        > [...], because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else. Huh? Japanese people have the same vocal tracts as Germans who have the same vocal tracts as Egyptians. Just because someone's native languages don't have a particular sound or sound combination doesn't mean they can't learn. That's especially true for sound combinations: a Turkish speaker might find a word that doesn't follow Turkish vowel harmony a bit weird, but would have no trouble pronouncing it even without any training. And even if a particular speaker can't produce a certain word, they can still recognise it as a word when someone else uses it in the context of their language. As an example, most English speakers I know can't pronounce 'kn' like in Germany 'Knie' or 'Knecht'. But I can say "Knie is German for knee." and that is a sentence of five words. Or "The Knesset is the unicameral legislature of Israel." (Just to be clear, English has words like knee or knight that are spelled with kn, but the k is silent. If you ask English speaker to pronounce "Knie" the German way, they tend to introduce something like a Schwa between the k and the n sounds.) See https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/151054/why-is-the-k-silent-in-know-and-knotty-etc https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/151054/why-is-the-k-...
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility. The fact that someone is theoretically capable, after years of study, of learning to pronounce a foreign word, is not relevant in any way.
        eru 3y ago
        > All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility. That's not true at all. Have a look at eg how Turkish borrows from English. Turkish borrows eg the word 'computer' wholesale without modification. Despite that word violating Turkish vowel harmony. (Unless you want to tell me that vowel harmony is not part of Turkish 'phonemic structure'?) Similarly lots of German borrowings from English in recent decades don't adjust to German 'phonemic structure'. Eg German typically pronounces st at the beginning of a word like sht, but that only happens in the borrowing 'Stress' for some speakers. (See the IPA on https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Stress https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Stress for evidence.)
thaumasiotes 3y ago
But it is a lexical utterance. The form of the filler is specific to the language you're speaking. I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine what about it you think isn't lexicalized.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

asyx 3y ago

Fillers are cultural. Japanese speakers use ano.

crdrost 3y ago
Famously a common Mandarin “uh/um” filler, pinyin “nà gè,” is pronounced in ways that often confuse Americans into thinking that they have heard a racial slur.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

stevekemp 3y ago

Finnish would use "no niin", as seen in this standup (subtitles are required, sadly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EWMlCusxjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EWMlCusxjQ