Language desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

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.

January 29[edit]

Is there a word for...?[edit]

GBS famously said fish could be spelled ghoti (enough, women, station); is there a word for these letters/combinations with more than one sound? I've been using heteroglyph (along the lines of homophone and homonymn), but i'm not sure it's accurate ~ in fact, given that a search brings up no uses, only a query as to whether i meant hieroglyph, i'm sure that it's not. So, is there a word for it that i'm either ignorant of or forgetful enough to not be able to use? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the "ea" in "read"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation respelling seems related. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-relevant anecdote: aged 5, I was momentarily confused when learning to read using a textbook titled The Road to Reading whilst living on the outskirts of Reading. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allography#Orthography seems to use allographs to denote both multiple graphemes that represent the same sound and single graphemes that can represent multiple sounds—the latter being what you're asking about. (Note that it refers to the ghoti example.) I don't really know whether that corresponds to standard usage of the term. Deor (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "ghoti" example is extremely stupid, since it's "ugh" (not "gh") which is sometimes equivalent to [f], but only after a vowel letter, while "ti" can only represent [ʃ] before a vowel letter representing an unstressed vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little over the top, don't you think. GBS was just making a point, and millions of people have been getting his point ever since, long after his death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wit and humour be damned, we must be scrupulously correct and above reproach before we are funny or interesting! --Jayron32 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sor-REE! :) :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled "Well, exCUUUUUSE MEEEEeeee". HTH. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Well, sor-REE! :) :) :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

If it's an honest attempt at satirical exaggeration of English spelling difficulties than it might raise a slight faint smile when encountered for the first time -- but unfortunately, in a number of cases it seems to have been used to attempt to persuade linguistically-unsophisticated people (who might take it literally) of the allegedly dire and urgent need for English spelling reform. If you have to lie in order to convince people to support spelling reform, then that might be an indication that the need for spelling reform isn't that great after all... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen it as anything but a satirical exaggeration, the other explanation had literally never crossed my mind, so i have to confess i also was a bit shocked at AnonMoos's comment. Since GBS wasn't above using humour, particularly satire, elsewhere, can't we grant him that here?

As far as my actual question goes, thank you for the answers. I have to say i read allographs to be the different expressions of the same sound more than the same expressions of different sounds. I think i'll continue with heteroglyphs until and unless i come across something else. Thanks again for the help. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have looked at Ghoti (where it's said that Shaw didn't actually use it), or at Talk:Ghoti (where the archive page contains a number of assertions of the validity of ghoti=fish... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not glyphs, though. 'Heterograph' would be better. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]