Play the sound is closer. However, it only works if you are 'doing' the sound, ie I could play you the Pathetique on the piano, but it doesn't always substitue.
If I took you to a Rothko gallery last Saturday, I showed you some Rothko piantings.
If I took you to a Waits concert last Sunday, I (?) you some Waits.
Is that clearer?
I hope I'm not nit picking, as a phonophile I find I often get left back-tracking and trying to reconstruct entire paragraphs, or substituing with the cumbersome phrase: auditorily demonstrated.
An 'aural showing' perhaps? Well, perhaps not. In your example, the only possibility I could think of was '.. I introduced you to Waits', but I guess that doesn't help much. When someone wants you to listen to something on the piano, they just say 'Here, I'll show you'. Anyway, don't worry about the peeves and nit picking, we have a Language Nitpicker's Club here, or should I say Nitpickers', or Nit-Pickers',... oh, sod it.
If I took you to a Waits concert last Sunday, I (?) you some Waits.
waits?? as in *tom* waits? he is my absolute favorite. [swoon-e]. hi c
as for your query, it does seem strange that there's no auditory equivalent for "show", however whenever "play" isn't appropriate, i would simply substitute "show", eg "i showed the technician the sound that my engine was making".
there's an old Scottish word that might work for this: kithe - to make known by action, appearance, etc.; to manifest, show, prove, demonstrate, indicate.
Welcome, wideyed: Hmm - a bit of a problem. As a lecturer, I "present" lectures which are often mainly an auditory experience (I do use visual aids at times, but not always!) I also commission other lecturers to present lectures, so I use the term not only in an auto-descriptionary (!) fashion.
How would you feel if you were to tell me you were going to "present" Wait, or any other sound, to me? I guess you would have to make it clear, contexturally, that I was not about to have a personal meeting with a person.
Firstly, sorry to tsuwm for the mis-attribution of my thanks for kithe . (I shan't withdraw my thanks from maverick as I'm sure you'll prove your mettle)
RC, thank you for providing a more elegant alternative, but d'you not think there is a void worth plugging? Maybe I'm just lazy, but I think (in my humble wumble opinion) sound is worthy of it's own 'show' word .
'Present' also infers ownership/control which may not be applicable.
NB Call me thick, but I didn't realise till now that audit meant audience/hearing once upon a time. Ho hum.
wideyedd'you not think there is a void worth plugging? ---- I think ---- sound is worthy of it's own 'show' word .
OK, so it's invention time.
You show me the sights of London, wideyed, and I'll list you the sounds of Lancaster? Or maybe I could asound you the melodies of the birds at dawn? (Nah! I'd have to get up to early)
Or maybe I could [a]asound you the melodies of the birds at dawn?
Perhaps that's just it, RC.... you can sound something for someone. atomica provides:
1.To cause to give forth or produce a sound: sounded the gong. 2.To summon, announce, or signal by a sound: sound a warning. 3.Linguistics. To articulate; pronounce: sound a vowel. 4.To make known; celebrate: “Nations unborn your mighty names shall sound” (Alexander Pope). 5.To examine (a body organ or part) by causing to emit sound; auscultate.i'll thank those prone toward ribaldry to leave this one alone
OTOH, 'sounding' must, by definition, contain an element of causation, so i don't suppose one could sound birdsong, except in imitation. hmm, well it sounded reasonable as i started this post.....[trailing off e]
Thanks B96-- i had forgotten about definition 5 5.To examine (a body organ or part) by causing to emit sound; auscultate. i'll thank those prone toward ribaldry to leave this one alone
I am sure Dr. Bill knows it-- and I know i have been "sounded"-- it is done when you have pneumonia-- a doctor will tap on your back -- and see if your lungs sound hollow (good) or not (bad--filled with fluid)– the opposite is true if done to your head–hollow (empty is bad)- dull thud – full is good
i wonder if the term for the same process when baking bread-- you know when its done by the sound of the loaf-- a hollow sound is done.
and its done (or was done) to barrels.. And boats.. The sound that returned indicates something–hollow is bad for a barrel but good for a hold on a boat.
The teacher demonstrated Bach's use acciaccaturas for me.
This works for me, but only if the teacher is actually performing the music herself. It also has a didactic connotation for me -- I wouldn't say, "The Boston Pops demonstrated The William Tell Overture very well last night."
I think a coining is the only thing to plug the hole, but it's easier to just walk around it: "You should really listen to the new Poe CD. Let me play it for you."
Thanks everybody for help . I'm off for a long, hopefully nice weekend - and nothing that interesting
I think I agree with you flatlander that it's easier to walk round holes, but I guess I'm lazy/clumsy at walking around holes (see point 4), and this hole tends to be on a major road for me.
I've had four things sorted out:
1. There isn't a show word for sound.
2. There are other words to circumvent the problem, ie 'kithe' (tsuwm), 'evinced' (belleyouth) and 'sound' (B96) inter alia.
3. There are some potential hole fillers, ie 'list' (RC) and 'asound' (RC).
4. I should be concerned that my cranial barrel has ullaged and my pulmonary hull has flooded, 'though it does explain a thing or two...
Have a nice weekend all!!
PS what exactly are the sounds of Lancaster RC, and are they worth an 'ear?
-- and just to make the waters even muddier-- you can, of course, smell a sound (as in the fresh salt water smell of Long Island sound-- or Puget Sound-- (this is a YART-- there are other sounds that are less aromatic!
One way around the "hole" has not been mentioned so far, and I find it nice enough: to share (the impression) with somebody (can also apply to smells and tastes).
>to share... (can also apply to smells and tastes)
unfortunately, the taste (and smell) of this has been ruined (at least for me) by the ubiquitous "let me share this with you" feel-good usage. -joe bfstlk
in japanese it's very easy to turn the verb back on its object. it's the difference between "do something" and "have someone do something". so, "yaru" (to do) "yaraseru" (to have someone do). most verbs go easily into this form. it just doesn't go easily into english in most cases - and "have someone do something" sounds like it's against their will. thinking about it in these terms (and looking at all the posts so far) it's plain there is no easy way in english to make this form, but "I'll get you to do something" can sound okay. it's kind of limited in use -only the "will" form sounds kind (and even then not necessarily): "he got me to listen to his cds" has connotations (the japanese equivalent wouldn't). "he played his cds for me" "he took me to the tom waits concert" are the ways we get around this lack. don't kids make this mistake all the time: "he listened me his cds"? just like the old "borrow/lend" confusion.
what can you do? it's language, and whatever we can't express easily we express with difficulty.
Okay, this is the area of linguistics that I'm really interested in without having any special expertise. So, captive audience, pay heed!
English, to me, is a forward looking and indicative language. We have lots of ways of making the present and the future work well and easily, more than most languages. We seem to have about the same number of past tense formations as most other European languages. Please bear with me, I haven't much time, certainly not enough to give examples of what I mean by that last statement.
We handle the future with aplomb. Look at the awkwardness of German's future tense formation, and Latinate languages generally only have one approach to future sentence and verb formation. Yes, there are exceptions, but not as many as in English. We can muck around in the future with a will.
But English does handle some things very awkwardly and the double genitive issue discussed in this thread is one of them. If we had case agreement, I guess it would be easier. As someone (NickW? tsuwm?) has pointed out, the use of the possessive apostrophe is uncertain and failing To say the formation "a friend of Molly's" is correct based on its existence and usage since the 14th century is actually begging the question. Technically, "a friend of Molly" must be correct, because the double genitive formation is logically wrong, even though it has an honoured history and is seen as grammatically correct. Not trying to buy a fight here, just pointing it out.
But we put up with this stuff because of the other freedoms that English sentence formation allows us. The orient/orientate argument could hardly exist in many other languages because of their more rigid syntactic structures.
But, hey, it's what makes English such an interesting critter!
Thanks everybody for help . I'm off for a long, hopefully nice weekend - - - PS what exactly are the sounds of Lancaster RC, and are they worth an 'ear?
I hope you had a good week end and that it is now getting stronger As to the sounds of Lancaster - they are the low and awful groan of a long-oppressed people, serfs, suffering under the heel of the capitalist overlords as they suffered under the feudal John o'Gaunt, who dream of the day when they will rise and conquer the whole world. No doubt to oppress it in their turn. (says he, cynically) Mostly, in fact, it is the sound of silence, except on a Saturday night, when it is the sound of breaking glass, obscene shouts, the depositing of pavement pizzas and the wail of police sirens. So they tell me!
You're right, of course, mav - I'm in a down mood today, my first back at work after a five day break. I could also have mentioned the sound of wind whistling through the rigging of our wondrous new Millenium Bridge, of cormorants drying their wings under Carlisle Bridge, the screaming of prisoners in the torture wing of Lancaster Castle - - -
Thanks bridget96, auscultate with its chest tapping meaning was in this weekend's UK Times Jumbo crossword. I would not have known it but for this post!
Rod
PS The Times letters page has been discussing mondegreens, and the word was aired.
A doctor's innkeeper father tapped his kegs of wine to tell how full the kegs were, by the difference in sound when tapping over air-filled part, compared to sound when tapping over liquid filled part. The doctor realized he could tap patient's chests to detect areas where air in lungs had been displaced by fluid, pneumonia, or tumor growth. This is called percussion and auscultation.
Well, not to sheltered a life if Palpation is part of your examination of a chest!
(just joking, i have been lucky, and never encountered a Doc who was less than professional-- the only slip i encountered, was while working in a Hospital, one of the interest i worked with was responsible for giving out flu shots-- to make life easy--he had "pre filled" most of the form (and photocopied it)--and he made everyone "age: 30-- i told him i'd take the flu shot if for no other reason that to restore my youth!)
A few moments ago on National Public Radio I heard our feckless leader, in discussing his hare-brained scheme for a national missile defense system, say, quite clearly, "nucular." (Note: although cleverly disguised as a political polemic, this was about words.)
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
)
. (I shan't withdraw my thanks from maverick as I'm sure you'll prove your mettle)
