I was listening to the radio this morning and heard a group of people, who'd voted for a local candidate who lost, respond to the results with a loud "Booooooo!"

That made me wonder two things:

1). Do people in many other countries say "Boo" when they are expressing disapproval?

and

2). Where on earth did "Boo" -- for this purpose or any other -- come from?

Thanks!

AHD says "Origin unknown". My wild guess would be that it started as oooo's. But why boo and not coo, goo, or soo I have no idea.

Where on earth did "Boo" ... come from?

On Hallowe'en, it comes from goblins.

The "Boo" of goblin lore preceded the "Boo" of disapproving audiences.

Goblins used to say "Boo" to scare people away. After a while, people lost their fear of goblins so they started saying "Boo" to scare the goblins away.

"Boos" seldom scare anyone away anymore, especially politicians.

Perhaps you're right, Jackie. Thanks for at least trying to guess. :-)

I've noticed that, in countries other than the U.S., people whistle when in crowds when they are displeased instead of booing. Here they usually whistle when they are pleased, but I think the whistles sound a bit different.

I'm really curious about "Boo!" in the context of displeasure. Boo is not in my book of etymology at any rate.

Well, I'm certainly glad that mystery is cleared up now. Thanks grapho.

In my university it became the fashion to hiss instead of booing. YOu could recognize fellow students at bad movies etc. Never caught on elsewhere in town.

In my university it became the fashion to hiss instead of booing.

A "hiss" [imitative of the sound of a snake] is more of a warning than a "Boo", isn't it?

I guess it depends on what your "hissss" sounded like.

Is "hiss" the basis of "hissy fit", I wonder?

YOu could recognize fellow students at bad movies etc.

You could alway recognize fellow students in my college town by how drunk they were.

BTW, forgive my ignorance, but do crowds boo or whistle (or both) to express displeasure in Canada?

I don't know about everywhere is in Canada, but in Québec, both French and English people show their displeasure at a show by booing.

Whistling is to show appreciation.

Gosh, that reminds me of something my mother would say: "I confronted the politician and asked him if he had broken the law and he didn't say 'Boo.'" Which meant that he didn't respond at all.

I wonder if others know or use this expression. I can't remember saying it myself.

>>and he didn't say boo<<

I've heard it, but never (before) used it.

Re politician's response: "he didn't say 'Boo.'"

He didn't say "Boo!", TEdRem, because he was too scared to say anything at all.

A politician really only has 2 choices when responding to a question in public.

He can supply the predictable, politically correct answer or he can pretend he didn't hear you in which case you go away saying "He didn't say Boo."

When a politician "doesn't say Boo", he is actually agreeing with you, but he doesn't want to be quoted on it. [Actually, you only think he is agreeing with you, which is precisely the genius of the "doesn't say Boo" answer.]

It is not generally understood that there are more "didn't say Boo" answers supplied on the hustings than there are politically correct answers.

That's the way most of the "undecided" votes get decided.

Most people think that politics is the art of "spinning doctoring". But, actually, spin doctoring is over-rated. It's mostly the art of ducking the question.

The only thing "undecided" voters have in common is the fact that they have virtually nothing in common at all. In fact, they can't agree on anything. The "doesn't say Boo" answer is tailor-made for them.

Most elections turn on the "undecided" vote. "Doesn't say Boo" answers usually turn the tide.

he didn't say 'Boo.'" Which meant that he didn't respond at all.

My grandmother used Boo that way. I've heard several people in the Midwest say that sort of thing, actually.

I just remembered. Wasn't there a character in To Kill a Mockingbird named Boo?

why boo and not coo, goo, or soo I think it is a question of the least effort on forming an "attack consonant" at the beginning of a sound utterance. The other consonants require more complex shaping of the mouth. I could also imagine that the contemptful labial originated from spitting..

> Wasn't there a character in To Kill a Mockingbird named Boo?

Yes, Boo Radley. And there was a character in Monsters, Inc. named Boo also.

I don't see how the voiced bilabial stop, /b/, is any easier to pronounce than its velar /g/ or dental /d/ cousins. Phonæsthesia (sometimes sound symbolism) is problematic at best for me. It seems to be closely coupled with a particular language's phonology. Think of nasals in English, /m/ (written hmmm) is positive though it's also a bilabial. And not all nasals are positive: e.g., /N/ (the final consonant in sing) sounds slightly negative to my anglophone ear. Take the vowels in English: the lax back vowels /a/, /o/, /u/ sound positive, but their tense counterparts /O/, /U/. (The lax/tense contrast is sometimes called open/closed in European linguistics.) Compare front lax vowels: /i/ and /e/ versus their counterparts /I/, /E/, and perhaps /æ/. Diphthongs and triphthongs bring a whole 'nother dimension into the mix.

the /b/ or /m/ are in the default mouth position. All you've got to do to start the word is open your mouth and do the /oo/, the /m/ or, more likely, the /b/ (it's more plosive and thus more forceful) just happens as your mouth opens assuming you start the sound before you open your mouth, which I don't take to be much of a suppose.

... as well as the unvoiced /p/. I'm sure most of y'all know this already, but it bears repeating: babies' first sounds are generally those "defaults," and then (thus?) attached to their mama and papa.

Yes, the lips are closed for the bilabials (hence their name). The totally relaxed vocal tract produces an /a/ sound. Experiment: take a cardboard cylinder from a roll of paper handtowels. Blow a raspberry into one end. You get a good approximation of a neutral /a/ vowel. How is close one's lips any easier than closing one's velum? I just don't get it.

I think it boils down to sounds that I make normally in my language (i.e., my phonemic inventory) are by definition easier than sounds made by people who speak other languages.

Sorry, but I think that bilabials are easier for babies to reproduce because you can see the point and manner of articulation. I've often heard the bilabial-infant story, but I've never seen any cross-linguistic evidence or statistics to back it up. It'll be anecdotal for me until then.

They start out closed. What I said, it's the default position. You don't have to go anywhere to get there. The /oo/ sound is chosen for whatever reason but the /b/ is just default. If we were sitting around with our vela closed we'd maybe say "Gooooooooo!" when voicing disapproval, but we'd have to have a very different throat structure to permit breathing in this condition.

What I said is that the default position for the human vocal tract is mouth open and no closures anywhere, either at the lips of the velum. You can close your velum and still breathe through your nose.

This pdf is from the University of Sussex Linguistics and English Language Department.


http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/where_do_mama2.pdf

Good article. I still think the "ease" of certain sounds has more to do with the visibility of articulation. Moving back in the tract from lips to velum.

the default position for the human vocal tract is mouth open and no closures anywhere

Too often the default position is a fist delivered to an open mouth. It doesn't often provide closure either.

Too often the default position is a fist delivered to an open mouth.

I used to wonder what a truly alien language would be like. Imagining non-vocal tract sounds, or dual ones. I've always been impressed that some folks can use their fingers to shrillify their whistles. Sign language is very interesting from a linguistics POV. Some think it's just a code for an underlying language. Such opinions are frowned upon by signers.

Without being able to provide any references, I know that the grammar of ASL is very different from the grammar of English.

Edit: googling 'asl grammar' provides many sites that look, at first glance, to be quite informative.

ASL is not signed English. I've looked at it and spoken with both hearing and deaf signer before about it. There is something, taught in schools, called Exact Signed English, which is usually distained by ASLers. One example: you can mention folks, by signing their name, etc., and place them in 3D space before you (the signer). You can then refer (by pointing to the space) to that person. It's like having a bunch of extra third person pronouns. He-sub-1, thru she-sub-2. ASL also has a full and functional morphology which is quite different from English.

One of the googled sites had an interesting comment: until the late twentieth century many signers of ASL did not know that their language even had a grammar, yet it does, as nuncle says, possess a rich grammar all its own.

Not everybody realizes that all languages (and dialects) have grammars, i.e., languages are rules-based. When somebody says that language X doesn't have a grammar, they usually mean that it doesn't have inflections or has a grammar that is different from their language's grammar.

many signers of ASL did not know that their language even had a grammar, yet it does, as nuncle says, possess a rich grammar all its own

That's because once you learn the grammar, you can forget it.

It's like riding a bicycle. It's a breeze until you try to teach someone else.

I studied sign language years ago and still use the fragments that are left occasionally. ASL is quite different than signed English. It is faster, skipping a lot of the small words and suffixes and prefixes. eg "More fast, (throw out) small sign." Initially it can look like abbreviated English (or text messaging) until you start to understand a conversation you are watching. Each sign carries more meaning that the written word. There is a sign for park (a car) but when it is used that one sign can show you whether they parallel parked or spent 10 minutes backing in, or whether they hit the other car. There is a visual poetry and ability to pun based not on the sound of the word but on something I don't have a word for. For example signing the word vain with the left hand mirroring the right while you put a stuck up expression on your face. Or "Jaws", the movie. A friend signed it to me by spelling out the word, again with both hands simultaneously. The W's (index, middle and ring figers held up) snapped closed into the S's (fists) just like a shark biting.

gh, it could be that the sound is meant to mimic an animal noise something like the low of a cow, to covey derogation.

L bos (bovis), Gk bous, Skt gau.h, Old Irish bó, and English cow are all cognates. From PIE *gwou- 'cow'.

Faldage-- I sent email to a friend of mine who has a PhD in linguistics from UCLA (on extrinsic tongue muscles); he studied with Ladefoged in the late '60s. He taught for a decade at UCSD and elsewhere. I asked:

"What's your verdict on bilbabials are easier to pronounce because your mouth is in the default position? Also, how about those babies who learn bilabials first, along with their words for mama and papa? "

He replied:

"Don't know about that. I can't see, from a physiological/anatomical POV, why bilabials should be any easier to make than dental/alveolar stops or even velars. For example, from the cine-X-ray films I've seen (including the one of me), there is mandible movement involved in all stop+vowel sequences, including bilabials. You could even make a somewhat sophistic case that bilabials involve the coordination of more separate muscles than does a simple tongue touch to the alveolar ridge. (I wouldn't make that case.) In thinking about the muscles involved, I can't see how there's much of a difference. Of course bilabials might be easier for little Elmo to imitate from watching the parents."

I've forwarded the PDF link, and will get to you if he has anything interesting to say.

There was a retrospective here recently, of the documentaries of the French filmmaker, Niclolas Philibert. The film's subjects are communities somehow--if just--marginalized: the workers at the Louvre, from curators to floor sweepers (a fully automated machine); a small, rural psychiatric hospital, a one room school, and, simply, the deaf. "In the Land of the Deaf" profiles a number of individuals and their communities, and elegantly shows their struggles in a hearing world, their joys... I mention it here, because it is a wonderful opportunity to watch signing; most of the interviews are conducted in Sign. And among them, a signing teacher relates all sorts of things with tremendous humor which, with the help of sub-titles, is readily accessible to the non-signing viewer as sign. This teacher maintains that each country has its own sign language and that it takes a couple of days to get used to it, when traveling. However, after a couple of days they can sign like compatriots. He then goes on quite a roll about the difficulties hearing people have in the same situation -- even with dictionaries and phrase books. It's hilarious. ...

For those who don't know him (as I didn't) , Philibert is a wonderful filmmaker. I won't go on about why -- it may be difficult to find his work. I know that "To Be and To Have" (about the school) has been released on DVD in Canada. "In the Land of the Deaf" has been released on VHS.

In reply to:

---

something my mother would say: "I confronted the politician and asked him if he had broken the law and he didn't say 'Boo.'" Which meant that he didn't respond at all.

---

There is the expression "wouldn't say boo to a goose", meaning excessively timid, though given the nasty aggressive manner of those particular birds ....

Bingley