Language desk
< January 31	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 2 >

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.

February 1[edit]

What rhymes with "just" /dʒʊst/ ?[edit]

I just finished watching Wheel of Fortune, where one of the answers was "JUST MAKING CONVERSATION". That prompted me to ask my parents (who reside in South Jersey, and come from Philadelphia, what rhymes with "just", which I pronounced /dʒʊst/--using the same vowel as book in standard American and southern (Recieved Pronunciation) English. They both insisted the word was not pronounced that way, that it rhymes with must /dʒʌst/, using the vowel of cup. I agreed the adjective, like "a just verdict" is pronounced this way. But I have always pronounced the adverb /dʒʊst/, making the two words a minimal pair.

I looked at wiktionary, which gives only the cup vowel pronunciation. Merriam Webster on line does show variation in the adverb, vs the adjective. But its transcription, /jəst/ vs /jüst/ is unclear. Can anyone say whether /jüst/ is supposed to agree with /dʒʊst/ ? Looking lower in the entry it doesn't repeat the umalauted spelling, but gives /jest/ and /jist/ which sound Southern or Western (hillbilly, not to be offensive) to me. Also, does this split between the adjectival and adverbial meanings exist in other dialects? And do other dialects use the same contrast I do, or different vowels. (I expect Northern English has only the book vowel, with no contrast in forms?) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main American alternative pronunciation to [dʒʌst] is actually [dʒɨst], which is a re-stressing of an unstressed pronunciation with unstressed reduced vowel. Sometimes [ɨ] and [ʊ] are confused in some contexts, or partially conditionally merge in American English (especially before r), but I would be quite surprised to hear a pronunciation [dʒʊst] with real rounded vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might (I do) say [dʒɨst] as a reduced form of /dʒʊst/. But I am quite clear on the difference, and /dʒʊst/ (with the vowel of book) is my citation form. People from the Delaware Valley also say /wʊɾr̩/ "wooter" for water. This may be related. In any case, I can't figure out what MW thinks they mean by /jüst/. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking around at a few other entries, it looks like MW's /ü/ corresponds to IPA /u/. Note that /jüst/ is restricted to an archaic spelling of joust. I'm from Iowa and never, as far as I could tell, heard a distinction made between different uses of "just". Lsfreak (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's also not something you're likely to pick up on without being aware of it in the first place, so it's not surprising I've never noticed it, even if I have heard it. Lsfreak (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to where they explicitly say the jüst vowel rhymes with juiced? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lsfreak -- "Stress pairs" (to coin a term) can actually include some quite common words, but English orthography doesn't represent them at all. So "just" as adjective is always [dʒʌst], but "just" as adverb or particle is very frequently [dʒɨst]. "That" as demonstrative is always [ðæt], but "that" as conjunction is very frequently [ðət]. In many English dialects, the [dʒʌst] pronunciation of the adverb and the [ðæt] pronunciation of the conjunction would very rarely be heard except in rather stilted and unnatural pronunciations, or when words are pronounced in isolation. If someone were to write a grammar of such dialects based on the spoken language only, then [dʒʌst] and [dʒɨst] or [ðæt] and [ðət] could easily be considered quite separate words... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know that and should have been more precise in my wording. What I meant was, I've never heard a differentiation between the adverb and adjective when it came to whether it was /dʒʊst/ or /dʒʌst/ - they are both pronounced [dʒəst] for me, as best as I can tell both stressed and reduced. Also Medeis, just look up juiced - they used /ü/ for juice, food, cute, Jew, etc. It pretty clearly matches with IPA /u/. The use with just, like I said, was only for an archaic (at a guess pre-Great Vowel Shift) spelling of joust. Lsfreak (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a side issue, I pronounce demonstrative and pronominal that as [ðæt] but the relative pronoun as [ðɛt] or even [ðɨt], but never [ðət]. None of this seems to address who actually does say /dʒʊst/, or whether other dialects such as British one vary between the adjective and adverb. I take it AnonMoos is British. Do British dialects distinguish between these forms in any cases? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard the u in "just" to rhyme with the oo in "book" when spoken by Brits. In the Midwest, and most other American places I can think of, "just" rhymes with adjust (duh!), bust, cussed, dust, fussed, gust, lust, must, rust, etc. As noted above, I would say southerners often say "jist", at least when speaking slangily, to rhyme with cyst, dissed, list, mist, wrist, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- I'm American (as I've stated before). Most British dialects don't have [ɨ] as a prominent sound (while it seems to be gaining in many types of American English). AnonMoos (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant! Don't be surprised if I make the mistake again--but I'll try not to. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THanks, but neither of those suggests the book vowel as an alternative. I find it hard to believe we have no one else here who uses or has heard that form. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I heard someone saying it the way you say you do, I would assume they were from the North of England or at least somewhere in Britain. I've never heard any American talk like that, and the other responses here seem to bear that out. As is so many other ways, Medeis, you're simply unique in this. Maybe it's time to recognise just how special you really are. The Medeis Touch, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain particularities of my dialect that other Americans see as British, including fronting of the long o diphtong so that I say [gɛw hɛwm] (like Judy Dench) instead of [gow howm]. I have actually had people ask me if I have an English accent, which strikes me as odd. But no, the joost pronunciation of just is common locally. I was surprised to hear otherwise, which is why I am looking for sources that reference it. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British here - I think the word is pronounced to rhyme with "dust" or "bust" in the South of England and particularly in RP. It moves towards the front of the mouth as you move further north. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, /dʒʌst/ in the south of England and RP. It might get slightly more fronted somewhere in the Midlands, but it graduates towards /dʒʊst/ (BB must have heard northerners) or even /dʒust/ in some northern dialects (more close, not more front). There is no distinction between adverb and adjective. Dbfirs 13:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of (Paul or John, whoever it was) singing "In Penny Lane, the barber shaves another coostomer..." in which the "oo" rhymes with the way I would say "book". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "oo" of book (/bʊk/) in RP (short vowel) is the same as the "oo" of /cʊstəmə/ in Scouse, but the word "book" sounds quite different in Scouse, with a much longer vowel (perhaps /bʉːk/? but I'm not sure which is the correct IPA vowel). Dbfirs 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the Northern English pronunciation I mentioned in my original question, and it does rhyme with how I say just. The only other plausible rhyme I could think of an American speaker using would be if you made a verb out of puss, such as in to pussy foot. "He pussed about in the back room looking through my papers until I threatened to bean him." That's quite a stretch though. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wussed" as in "wussed out"? It's not a word I particularly like, but the way I hear it pronounced does rhyme with your pronunciation of "just". --Amble (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that matches exactly, and I think it's more likely to be heard than my invention. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interview with Lizbeth Scott who has an underlying Scranton accent, which is very close to mine. You can hear her fronting her long o's and hear her say just several times. The first instance is a clear cup vowel (rhymes with must). Then at 4:20 and a few times thereafter she says it with the book vowel. A lot of her speech is affected from her stage work, but these examples aren't learned. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Word... from its definition.[edit]

I am trying to find a word, if one exists, that means "a hunger for attention".

If there is a more appropriate way of answering this type of question, please tell me, I am not that computer savvy.

184.19.29.243 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Histrionic Personality Disorder? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needy. It's not perfect, but it's probably in the right ball park. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although "needy" is an adjective, whereas the question asked for a noun. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? The question did not specify that the word need be a noun. Asking about "a hunger for attention" implicitly asks about "hungry for attention". Responding with a noun or an adjective is splitting hairs and is a matter of semantics. Also, many of the other replies (from other editors) are indeed adjectives. And, furthermore, every adjective pretty much has a noun counterpart, as you saw below with "needy" and "neediness". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neediness?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just could not think of that word, only "need". 86.160.223.11 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention seeking? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"High maintenance" might also apply, although it's less specific. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facebooker? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to "attention whore". -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prima donna? Prima_donna#Modern_usage_outside_opera 196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear as to whether OP found what he/she was looking for, but it all depends on what sense of "attention" he/she is asking about. If indeed the "attention" is closer to "affection" then "neediness" seems appropriate. If, on the other hand, "attention" is the attention of many or of generic others, "histrionic" might be more appropriate (which exists without "personality disorder" to describe the overblown and possibly insincere quality of someone's emotional expressions). So "melodramatic" and the above "attention whore," while a bit blunt, is very similar. "Ostentatious" is less about attention to one's emotions: obvious, even pretentious, intent to attract attention in the sense closer to "showiness." Anyway, some options :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good word or phrase to describe this situation[edit]

What would be a good word or phrase to describe the following situation or feeling? I hear a joke on TV or I read a comic in the newspaper. I just don't "get it". I don't understand what is funny or what is supposed to be funny. I feel somewhat embarrassed or silly, because I think that I should know it or that I should get it; after all, everyone else must get it. The humor escapes me or "goes over my head". Also, after someone explains it to me, it is (typically) something that I should have been able to get on my own, without any help. But, for whatever reason, I didn't make the connection. What is a good word or phrase to describe that person or that situation? I have considered the following already, but they don't seem quite right: clueless, oblivious, not comprehending. Any better options? Thanks in advance. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obtuse? Slow on the ~~pick-up~~ uptake?

My elder sister is internationally famous (within my family, that is) for being the only one not to get a joke told when we're all gathered together. Not at the time, anyway. But then, maybe an hour later, when we're now talking about something quite unrelated, she'll suddenly burst out "Oh, I just got that joke", and then proceed to explain it to the rest of us, for whom no explanation was ever necessary. This then becomes the real joke, and usually excites more mirth than the original joke ever could. It's weird, because she is a lot smarter in so many ways than I will ever be. Let's just say she has a special relationship with humour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humor disconnect? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a recent example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not have a specific example in mind; it was more of just a general question. But, here might be an example of what I am referring to. See this comic, here at this link: [3]. I might not get it and I would not think it to be funny. Then, later – or perhaps never – it might dawn on me that "Larson" is the name of the cartoonist and, hence, the comic is funny due to a play on words ("larceny"). If you never make that connection, the comic (or the joke) will never be funny. That's just an example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon assumes some prior knowledge, without which it doesn't make much sense. (I would say nearly every Dilbert strip is like that.) A similar example comes to mind. Or maybe two. Charles Schulz, the author of the Peanuts strip, only ever made one direct personal reference to himself. One year, Schulz was the Grand Marshall of the Pasadena Rose Parade. So the strip that day had Lucy watching the parade on TV. Linus comes up and asks, "Who's the Grand Marshall?" and Lucy says, "Nobody you ever heard of." Not terribly funny, just cute. I like better the B.C. strip (authored by Johnny Hart), had several of the guys together. One of them says, "I have discovered an organ that gives us life and purpose." (Or something like that.) Someone asks, "What is it?" The guy says, "I'm calling it a 'Hart'." Curls, the master of sarcastic wit, sneers at the guy, "Bootlicker!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you mention Dilbert, because that is exactly where this has happened with me several times. That cartoonist tends to use a lot of "engineering" or "computer geek" type of references. A lot of people wouldn't get them, if they are not "in the know" in those fields or if they do not run in those circles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any topical humor runs the risk of getting deer-in-the-headlights from anyone who doesn't know the back-story. A long-running strip like Blondie is probably a lot easier to "get", because they have always dealt with common family situations. And getting back to Gary Larson, no small quantity of his cartoons depended on prior knowledge. A simple example: A group of spiders driving down the street in a little car with a "Have a Nice Day" smiley bumper sticker containing 8 eyes instead of 2. Now, the average citizen might know that spiders typically have 8 eyes. But anyone who didn't know that would likely be confused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"slow" is the first word that came to my mind. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to L'esprit de l'escalier, but from the other side... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Slow on the uptake is good. You could also say that the penny hasn't dropped yet. - Karenjc (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the suggestions with "slow" might be applicable, if indeed I get the joke at a later time. But, there are also times in which the person never gets the joke. So, the "slow" variations would not apply there. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's where words like "dull", "dense", "thick" or my already-suggested "obtuse" might come into play. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Just because a person does not "get" a reference to, say, popular culture in a joke does not necessarily make that person dull, dense, or thick. Just as an example, consider different generations. Those who are older today (senior citizens) would have no clue about (for example) computer lingo, texting, or Justin Bieber. Kids in their teens and twenties would have no idea who Lawrence Welk is. Stuff like that. Not knowing the reference doesn't render the person dull, dense, or thick. I don't think. Maybe "sheltered", but even that's a stretch. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you put it that way, I entirely resonate with your misgivings. My kids and others of their generation are always communicating on FB etc, apparently quite successfully, using symbols that look like letters, grouped in sets that look like words, but which often have no meaning as far as this senescent citizen is concerned. And no, I don't consider myself any of those words I offered. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every generation has its cultural icons. The Beatles are still in the public consciousness. But how many of the youngest generation know about, or have even ever heard of, old-time entertainers such as Jack Benny... or for that matter, Johnny Carson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a party on Sat night, and talking to people who'd never even heard of Little Britain, let alone ever seen it. I'm still trying to wrap my brain round that one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it. When I look it up, I still doesn't look remotely familiar, and that the stars are people I've never heard of. As for the first question, I've a hunch that what was said to be funny actually was not. If people around you are laughing and you're in a good mood then you may find funny what at other times you wouldn't. Of course there can be ideological and similar problems, but these aren't the reason why (say) for most of the time I find Jon Stewart almost completely unfunny. He seems a good fellow, he has funny writers and is sharp enough to be good in interviews -- but all the mock surprise, face-pulling, shouting and other histrionics just leave me cold. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with show either, but it may never have been on US TV. As regards Jon Stewart, I suspect you're describing a different situation: That you do "get" the joke, you just don't find it funny. That's my reaction to Will Ferrell, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was on BBC America and the Little Britain USA was on HBO. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I don't have HBO and I don't think BBC America was on my cable system at the time. Is it still running anywhere in reruns? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you lot ever heard the expression "The only gay in the village"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What a repugnant, scabrous, fetid, wemful show! I am surprised you like it Jack. Kids in the Hall and The Catherine Tate Show are better by lightyears. The only redeeming thing about LB were the lush voiceovers by Tom Baker. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The smorgasbord of my various appetites would no doubt surprise many. Please form an orderly queue. Why not just say it didn't appeal to you, rather than all that judgemental claptrap? Comparisons are odious, particularly when half the world has been laughing itself sick for over a decade and one is very much a latecomer to the party. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words were to avoid being misunderstood, no judgment on you. Tate's and TKITH's gay sketches are much funnier as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not just say it didn't appeal to you ..."? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

But it doesn't just not appeal to me. Since this is the reference desk, I'll suggest you google "disgusting little britain" (the first hit I see is on how it's hateful, and not funny, and then look at this representative image. Feel free to hat this digression if you like.μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get tired of explaining that people who claim that something is "funny" or "not funny"; or that X is funnier than Y; are just wasting their breath, given the inherent subjectivity of humour. That's just school-level discourse, not fit for adult consumption. It is also possible to be both revolted and amused by something at the same time; they are not mutually exclusive responses, as you seem to be intimating. Hatting follows immediately. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for all of the feedback. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more: I've seen "Whoosh!" used in newsgroups meaning more or less "That joke flew right by him, didn't it?"; it has also been verbed, so people say "I'm whooshed" meaning "I don't get the joke". This is not in Wiktionary or any real dictionary that I've checked, but it is in the Urban Dictionary here. --50.100.193.107 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]