Talk:Onomatopoeia

• Archive 1 (old discussion)

Human sounds

There are a lot of articles, like ho ho ho that are claimed to be onomatopetic. To me it doesn't feel as if they belong. Does anyone else feel that textual renditions of human laughter are just plain interjections and nothing else?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Same with "zzz", the sound of sleeping. -Arctic.gnome 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Curious thing about "zzz"; it's not a British English term. On this side of the Atlantic we have no textual representation of the sound of snoring.--King Hildebrand 09:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, and I see it around. In The Beano, for example.Kombucha 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Common Words Derived from Onomatopoeia

This article mainly deals with words that are directly seen as onomatopoeia, but what of words of such common usage that their onomatopoeic roots are not as evident? I am reminded of words such as "whisper", "murmer", and "delicate"; should these words be included in the scope of this article? Bobryuu 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ouch" is NOT Onomatopoeia

I get redirected to this page from the entry "ouch." It is even the only article linked to if you type "define:ouch" into google.

This is wrong. "Ouch" is NOT an example of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeia refers to words based on sounds, like crunch or ring or grrr. Human expression of pain isn't a sound; it varies from one language to the next. "Ouch" or "ow" is what English speakers say when they're in pain; speakers of other languages use other words that sound a little different. (This is as opposed to things like laughter or crying, where the representation of these sounds may vary from one language to the next, but the sounds themselves are pretty much the same among all human beings regardless of what language they speak. Ha ha and waaa are examples of onomatopoeia; ouch is not.)

Still, how do I go about editing the page to remove "ouch" from the list of words that get redirected to this article? marbeh raglaim 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and removed the redirect by reverting to a version with just the wiktionary link. To edit a redirect page you can just click on the "redirected from ..." link at the top of the page you get redirected to. Then you'll see the redirect and can edit it as a normal page. See also Wikipedia:Redirect for everything you'd ever want to know about redirects on wikipedia. Shanes 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of a ball going "whack"?

I move that the image be deleted from the article. The illustration really doesn't add anything to it; it seems pure foofaraw. Matt Gies 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way does the image not add anything to the article? It illustrates the concept. Admittedly the image could be improved, but that doesn't merit obliteration. One flaw is that it isn't clear what she doing (bowling?).—jiy (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll be accused of having a dirty mind, but I have to ask this question: what is that flesh colored thing between the woman's legs... they appear strikingly like testicles and when I was redirected to this page I was extremely shocked. This should not be so. That picture should be removed for the sake of decency. Said picture has been edited. However, it's still pointless and should be flat out removed. It is for those who say somthing does have a purpose to say what that purpose is.

Thanatosimii 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't help the article much. As for the earlier version, that was vandalism by Dragon Sand (talk · contribs) which was reverted by Pixeltoo; I've removed the vandalised picture. — mark ✎ 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I removed the following:

• "Onomatopoeia, from the Greek word meaning "name-making", for the sounds literally make the meaning in such words as buzz, crash, whirr, clang, hiss, purr, squeak, mumble, hush, boom."

As it is not a complete sentence. Hyacinth 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Forigen language onomatopoeia

Here is a list of Japanese onomatopoeia: web.mit.edu/anime/www/onomatopoeia.html here.

Okay, any idea where the randomly censored words came from? -Unnatural20 --198.138.132.2 08:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Eek vs. Eep

How is "eep" not onomatopieaic but "eek" is? According to dictionary.reference.com/search?q=onomatopoeia dictionary.com: onomatopoeia is "the formation or use of words such as buzz or murmur that imitate the sounds associated with the objects or actions they refer to". "Eek" is an expression. So is "eep". Both are sounds produced by the human mouth. Both are associated with objects or actions (in this case, reactions to objects: mouse for "eek", and anything for "eep"). "Eep" has made it into the vernacular as a valid expression, as any Google search will show... -Eep² 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I've deleted "eek" from the list (I already noted in the edit summary of my last pruning attempt that I was sure I missed a lot). On your reasoning, note that "reactions to objects" are quite different from "objects". This is why, in scholarly literature on the subject, interjections like 'eep' and 'eek' aren't considered onomatopoeic. And that is also the reason I recently removed a lot of non-onomatopoeic words from the article here. As I further noted in my edit summary: if words like that are going to be called onomatopoeic, this article is utterly pointless.

You might try interjection instead, but if you ask me, your crusade for the inclusion of Eep in Wikipedia is without merit in the end. — mark ✎ 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What "scholarly" papers? The definition is "associated with the objects or actions they refer to". "Eek" is associated with the reaction (doing an action over again) to the object of a mouse, for example. "Eep" is associated with the reaction to the object of whatever it is one is reacting to ("Eep, you scared me!"). How aren't these onomatopieaic?

My "crusade" has plenty of merit since I believe in it! Sheesh! You act like the Wikipedia is some end-all be-all tome of universal knowledge, or something. Or, perhaps, you'd rather it be some stuffy collection of so-called "proper, scholarly" articles only people with an advanced literature degree (in BS) could understand. That's not the Net...and it's not Wikipedia so it would be nice if people like you would loosen up and learn to accept knowledge in ALL its forms and mediums.

Anyway, thanks for the interjection lead; Eep falls under that classification too. -Eep² 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The sound one makes in reaction to something is just that: a sound. The word 'eek' doesn't stand for the action of being scared; if anything does, it would in this context more likely be the words 'being scared'.

On your apparent contempt for "scholarly" sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

On 'knowledge in ALL its forms and mediums', see What Wikipedia is not. — mark ✎ 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said "eek" stood for the action of being scared; I said "eek" is associated with the reaction to the object of a mouse. In other words, again, "Eek! A mouse!" is a reaction that associates surprise/fright/fear of the object (mouse). From the en.wiktionary.org/wiki/onomatopoeia Wiktionary onomatopoeia entry: "Of a word, having the property that it sounds like what it represents." Obviously "eek" and "eep" meet this definition. "Eek!"/"eep!" represent one expressing surprise at something and sound exaxtly how they're spelled. Again, how aren't they onomatopieiaic? -Eep² 16:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain. Your use of 'being associated with' blurs the picture; it is only associated with that reaction in a causal way, not in a representational way. Now, we agree that 'eek' is the sound some people make when something like a mouse scares them. This is why 'eek' qualifies as an interjection. However, 'eek' does not represent 'one expressing surprise at something'; if it did, I could use 'eek' to refer to someone expressing surprise at something, and that is not how 'eek' is normally used. Or is it?

In other words, we do not use the word 'eek' when we are referring to the reaction to a mouse: 'eek' just is that reaction. That's why it might be called an interjection, and why it fails being onomatopoeic: onomatopoeia are words that resemble the thing they stand for. Again, 'eek' doesn't stand for, it doesn't represent, it just is the sound one makes in that situation.

According to your line of reasoning, I think 'help' (in the cry for help-sense) would also be an onomatopoeia: to mirror your words, it is 'associated with the reaction of one being in a problematic situation', it 'represents one expressing helplessness'. Isn't it? It's not onomatopoeic, however, because it actually doesn't represent that cry for help, it just is that cry. In the same way, 'eek' is clearly associated with being scared (I'd never dispute that); however, the fact that it is used by someone who is scared does not make it refer to one's being scared.

And that's the whole point about onomatopoeia: that they are words that somehow resemble the things they stand for (or 'refer to', or 'represent'). — mark ✎ 18:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pruning

I just finished my second round of pruning the list of examples, which had become unwieldy and erroneous (it still is!). I removed many 'words' that are in fact just transcribed sounds and not really conventionalized linguistic signs; the difference between those and real onomatopoeia is partly outlined in my posting above. It is a difference which probably should be outlined in the article. — mark ✎ 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Can anyone find a reference to support this more restrictive definition of the term? If I find one, I will present it here, and, if I have the time, revise the article to reflect it. - Torgo 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Virtually any good overview of semiotics will have something like that. I think Keller's A Theory of Semiotic Knowledge (1996) is a good one; I'll look it up. — mark ✎ 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

IPA

The Hindi example near the top of the article (and perhaps all other foreign words in this article, given the subject of the article) needs to be transcribed in IPA, to replace the non-standard pronunciation guide given. I know IPA, but I don't know Hindi... could someone who does, or the person who added these examples please do that? (pretty sure IPA is the wikipedia standard for pronunciation) Torgo 08:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Speech as onomatopoeia

Is speech considered onomatopoeia to written language? M2K e 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, since speech is not 'motivated' by written language the way the sound of an onomatopoeia is motivated by what it refers to. — mark ✎ 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, and new page

The list of "Everyday Sounds" has grown grotesquely large, so I have been bold and moved a large number of them to a new article titled List of Onomatopoeias. Maybe the list can be trimmed down even more. Anyways, I think an encyclopedia should have more of a definition and explanation than a full run down of the examples, save for a few... In fact, I think maybe the examples should be moved down a couple of sections...? Two-Bit Sprite 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"very common English-language examples"

Can these really be classed as "very common"? I, for one, have never come across them before.

Queef - moved to "list of..." already

Ding-Dong-Diddly-Poof

Boosh.

Is "hush" onomatopoeia at all? It is used to express an absence of sound, not a sound that sounds like hush. Perhaps it should be moved into non-auditory onomatopoeia, though the concept seems to me to be oxymoron.

I've re-spelled "cukoo" as "cuckoo". Maybe the former is the American spelling, in which case I apologise.

This list is inevitably going to be contentious. Why not move the whole thing to "list of..."?

King Hildebrand 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comics

Is anybody actually going to create articles entitled, "Whaam!", "Blam" or "Snikt"? If not (as seems probable) the links should be removed. --King Hildebrand 09:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Traditional, original spelling"

Why the insistance on the ligature? Shouldn't the most common spelling be used?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the Wikipedia naming convention requires that the most common form be used even if it is less offically correct. I recently lost a battle over "microcode" vs. "microprogram" over that. --Brouhaha 07:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. --Brouhaha 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Onomatopœia → Onomatopoeia – use most common spelling, required as per the Wikipedia naming convention

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - Wikipedia naming conventions require use of most common form, which clearly does NOT include a ligature. A redirect from the with-ligature spelling is sufficient. --Brouhaha 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, unless we're The New Yorker. --Dhartung | Talk 10:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I'm not sure there are any English words that are spelled more commmonly with ligatures. Recury 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There's nothing to vote on as far as I can tell. The move to onomatopœia was made without discussion or any attempt to seek consensus and the naming convention seem to be very clear about which spelling should be used.

I've gone ahead and moved the page.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arbitrary sounds?

Stating that onomatopoeia have "a very tenuous relationship with the object they describe" is an arbitrary and rather subjective description since they all are attempts to render the sound of an object or action within the somewhat confined borders of human language. Onomatopoeia in various languages are intended to imitate a specific sound and aren't just random concoctions of phonemes. The onomatopoeia representing a dog can't be be confused with "meow", "squeak" or "cock-a-doodle-doo" which proves rather well that there's some form of intent behind it. Comparing with the actual sound made by a dog is pointless since it can never be imitated with the standard phonology of any language. The fact that dogs sound different in French, German and Chinese doesn't make the words less imitative.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

All sounds have tenuous relationships with the objects they describe, except for onomatopoeia, where they are only slightly less tenous, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But also consider this: Japanese uses kirakira, Korean uses banjjakbanjjak, and English (according to the Simpsons) uses bling-bling to describe shiny stuff. Now that points out a very tenuous relationship between words and meanings, doesn't it? --Kjoonlee 13:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some edits by User:Twobitsprite. All sound-meaning relationships are tenuous; just look at dal, tsuki, moon, and lune. (Korean, Japanese, English, and French.)

About native speakers not being curious about sounds and sense: do you remember the first time you heard bling bling? Haven't you ever thought that bow wow was really lame compared to woof woof? --Kjoonlee 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion concerns onomatopoeia, not just random words in random languages. Neither of the words for "moon" are as far as I know onomatopoetic. The etymology of "moon" lies in an Indo-European root[1] with the meaning "to measure" and lune is from another IE root[2] meaning "light, brightness". I don't know the etymologies for the Korean and Japanese words, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also originated from words meaning "to measure" or "light". While I have no idea how the roots themselves got their phonetic structure, the reason for the words having their current form is anything but random.

I can't see that this is anything but your own personal interpretation, Kjoon. You're reverting both mine and Twobitsprite's attempts to render the statement neutral by simply repeating your arguments over and over and inserting the exact same subjective wording. In my case I think that most, if not all, onomatopoeia makes absolutely perfect sense unless you take up an overly critical stance. There are even entirely unrelated languages with very different phonologies that still have eerily similar renditions of animal sounds. Onomatopoeia are not random combinations of sounds or they would simply not be recognized by native speakers. How tenuous their relationship is to the object or action they imitate is obviously subjective.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems as if "the assertion that the previous description was not neutral" is seriously POV. That's why I've been reverting. And I don't see why my wording is any less objective. IMHO onomatopoeia is just as arbitrary as any other kinds of words, and adding bits about "native speakers never questioning" onomatopoeia to be like adding legs to a drawing of a snake, to quote Korean idiom. --Kjoonlee 12:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If onomatopoeia were entirely arbitrary then they could never be classified as onomatopoeia since no one would have a clue that they imitated sounds. And still it's quite obvious to native speakers and scholars alike that they are imitations. Phonology is also still not just the arbitrary grouping of clusters of sounds. The oldest origins might be unclear, but there are many historical changes and derivations of other words that follow quite predictable rules and formulas. Just the mere fact that Proto-Indo-European is a language that has been reconstructed through phonetic theory is reason enough to discard the idea that words are simply random creations.

If you feel that the current wording is too subjective, please amend it, but please try not to simply reinsert your own opinion once more. There is always the option of simply describing onomatopoeia of the same objects or actions in different languages as being highly varied, as I tried doing from the onset. This would be a completely neutral observation of a very obvious fact.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-auditory onomatopoeia

I think this section should be brought back. "There's no such thing as a black swan." Wrong. There are black swans in Australia, and non-auditory onomatopoeia exists in Korean and Japanese. --Kjoonlee 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is basically correct. I have no info on Korean specifically, but Japanese has a feature that according to David Crystal in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language is called "manner imitation" (擬態語 gitaigo). This refers to "feelings and figurative expressions about objects and natural surroundings, in which sounds play no part." It's also much more commonly used than is the case with most, if not all, European languages.

The examples of manner imitation given are:

• tobotobo; "plod"
• furafura; "roam"
• kirakira; "twinkle"
• betabeta; "stick to"
• dabudabu; "baggy, loose"

-Peter ^Isotalo 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The OED lists onomatopoeia imitating other senses as its second definition: "2. The use of echoic or suggestive language, esp. onomatopes, for rhetorical effect. Occas. in Music: the use of imitative or echoic instrumentation, rhythms, etc." One example is "2001 Church Times 1 June 30/2 Even the rhythms feel Brittenesque, and the punchy onomatopoeia of the last section..even more so." I think there is some justification for describing this additional sense of the word in the article —ptk✰fgs 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the proper article to describe this rather marginal definition of onomatopoeia, but you should certainly add the definition to the wiktionary article.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The very problem of this article is that it starts from an English-inspired definition of onomatopoeia (see also WP:LPOV), and from that perspective the phenomenon of non-auditory onomatopoeia definitely sounds somewhat exotic. It isn't that exotic at all however. Ideophone is what you guys are looking for. Many African languages also have words that, in Doke's wording, are something like a 'a vivid representation of an idea in sound'. The phenomenon seems indeed more common in a lot of non-European languages. For a good recent collection of papers on this issue, see the following reference:

• Voeltz, F.K. Erhard & Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds.) (2001). Ideophones. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

— mark ✎ 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring it back! I cite http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/005358.html> as justification. --Berck (who doesn't know how to work wikipedia talk pages correctly.)

203.59.221.18's contribution

User:203.59.221.18 added a text intended to illustrate onomatopoeia ("Running From……") . I reverted it the first time around, because IMO the contribution doesn't add anything significant to the article. The text has been added again. I wont revert this time but leave it up to other editors to decide. Even if it stays, it shouldn't be placed under the section "Onomatopoeic Names", and the line "Written by Charlotte Bennett, Year 6" definitely doesn't belong here either. ---Sluzzelin 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pruning (again)

I've again pruned the article and also tried to improve the flow of the text a bit. Let's abandon the lists, they attract bad and uninformed "Oh, I know one too"-edits which degrade the quality of the article. If you want a list, you can go to wikt:Category:Onomatopoeia (it may be a good idea to put a link to that category in the article). Let's focus on writing a real good article instead, based on reliable and preferably scholarly sources. — mark ✎ 08:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Add link if you want to

http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/new_literary_history/v027/27.3bredin.html

Hmm, one needs a subscription to read that article so for must readers it's inaccessible. — mark ✎ 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

--70.161.212.230 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I love you Alex dawe. Your my dawe baby.

Maori animals

"Some animals are named after the sounds they make, especially birds such as the cuckoo and chickadee. In Tamil, the word for crow is Kaakaa. This practice is especially common in certain languages such as Māori and therefore in names for birds borrowed from these languages."

"this practice" refers to naming animals after the sounds they make, not "especially birds", so I changed the last line to reflect that--"in names for animals borrowed from these languages." If in fact, bird names and not animal names in general are borrowed from languages high on onomatopoeic animal names, just revert me. TStein 10:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC) blah blah blah

Fap

'Onomatopoeia... is a word, or occasionally, a grouping of words, that imitates the sound it is describing, and thus suggests its source object, such as "bang", "boom" "click" or "fap".'

Is it really necessary to include "fap" as an example?Kombucha 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a schlick example... 惑乱 分からん 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Go Bears!!!

fap is also used sexually to refer to masturbation in venues such as anonymous porn uploading sites. Kombucha's expression of reluctance above may be an example of public discomfort mentioning this. it's one of those appropriate in an encyclopedia things. it should be ok, if worded properly. Nastajus 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually 'fap' was first used in the english translation of a comic called Heartbroken Angels. It was further popularized by the webcomic Sexy Losers. -Annon-3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.221.56 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Fap is used to represent a variety of sound effectes other than masturbation in Viz's translation of Strain.

Verbs as onomatopoeia

Shouldn't there be some paragraph about the use of verbs as onomatopoeia ? It is only mentionned for animals, but it can also be seen for human sounds like "yawn" or the above masturbation verb, or even in some comics where verbs such as "change", "pounce" or "explode" are being increasingly common... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.252.7.34 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Chinese

Of all the great choices for Chinese onomatopoeia, wangwang for dog barking? I don't think so...if anything, the word for dog, "gou" 狗, is an onomatopoeia. At the very least, that needs a citation. In the meantime, I'll put a different, more believable one in there. Also, here's a short list of other onomatopoeia:

• 喵, miao, the sound a cat makes
• 猫, mao, a cat
• 顶, ding, (archaic) to strike a bell
• 叮, ding, sound a struck bell makes
• 乎, hu, exhale
• 呼, hu, sound of exhaling
• 吸, xi, inhale / sound of inhaling
• (?) 屙, e, going to the bathroom (?)

.<spetz>.72.76.248.151 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

why is the word pronounced differntly then spelled, you ask?? well, thats because mrs.mergler said so.

Then again, if the Korean for a dog barking is mang mang, it's probable that the Chinese for it is wang wang.<spetz>.72.76.248.151 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)