Talk:Ough (orthography)

Examples needed

If there really are "over ten" pronunciations, can we please have examples of them all? — sjorford++ 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I got:

enough (rough, tough) cough (trough) bough through thorough (borough) dough (though) nought (bought, wrought, sought, ought) lough hiccough

But various pages on internet report it as being pronounceable in between 12 and 14 ways. The following is from http://home.planet.nl/~blade068/languagefun/pronunciation.htm.

The combination ough can be pronounced in fourteen different ways:
1. awe: thought, bought, fought, brought, ought, sought, nought, wrought
2. uff: enough, rough, tough, slough, Clough, chough
3. ooh: through, slough
4. oh: though, although, dough, doughnut, broughm, Ough, furlough, Greenough, thorough
5. off: cough, trough
6. ow: bough, plough, sough
7. ou: drought, doughty, Stoughton
8. uh: Scarborough, borough, thorough (alt), thoroughbred, Macdonough, Poughkeepsie
9. up: hiccoughed
10. oth: trough (alt)
11. ock: lough, hough
12. oc[h] (aspirated): lough
13. ahf: Gough
14. og: Coughlin (also #5)
The following sentence contains them all:
Rough-coated(2), dough-faced(4), thoughtful(1) ploughman(6) John Gough(13) strode through(3) the streets of Loughborough(2+8); after falling into a slough(2) on Coughlin(14) road near the lough(12) (dry due to drought)(7), he coughed(5) and hiccoughed(9), then checked his horse's houghs(11)and washed up in a trough(10).

Why are there examples from Scots, which is a different language from English? One could just as well start including examples of the [uɣ] or [ouɡ] sort - I'm sure you could find languages that do just that. But the real point here is the unpredictability of this tetragraph's pronunciation in present-day English. (That renders "hough" a bit pointless too.) --Tropylium 14:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, your (6) and (7) are the same, /aʊ/. You might also want to note that (5) and (13) are both /ɒf/ in British English. 91.105.17.245 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, at least, (6) and (7) are different, as (6) last slightly, but noticeably, longer, while (7) goes directly into the subsequent /t/. To clarify, this may be a regionalism, and likely not everyone pronounces it the same. A Dozenalist (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Original of this tetragraph

Can we say something about the origin of such tetragraph? I heard that "ou" was originally the closed /o/ and /gh/ was the glottal stop. Is it true? --Tomchiukc 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Gh (digraph) and Ou (digraph) .--Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 14:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In English, "gh" historically represented /x/ (the voiceless velar fricative). In modern English, "gh" is either silent or pronounced /f/ (see ough).

English ou originally represented [uː], as in French, but its pronunciation has changed as part of the Great Vowel Shift.

--Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 14:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What's so special about "-omb"?

Is it really relevant to the article?

The letter combination "ea" seems to have even more possible sounds: ei (great, steak); ee (steal, deal); e (stealth, dealt); i-e (real); i-ae (reality, reaction); i-ei (create); ei-a (seance, real); and even more as part of combination "ear": eer (hear, teardrop); air (bear, wear); er (search, heard) --My another account 07:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Woughton, Loughton and Broughton

The article says that "ough" is pronounced differently in each of these place names, but does not give the pronunciations. I think it's a little unfair to tantalise the reader in this way. Note that the pronunciations are not currently given in the articles for the towns themselves. — Paul G 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciations have now been added to the articles for Woughton and Loughton: apparently, they're 'wufton' and 'lowton' (same pronounciation as in Slough). We're still in the dark about Broughton, but I'd guess that it's probably pronounced like the English word 'brought'. Terraxos (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as in "bought a book and brought it home". Broughton, Milton Keynes gives the pronunciation (/ˈbrɔːtən/, BRAW-tən). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted

In March 2023, LaundryPizza03 deleted the section mentioned, per WP:TRIVIA. So for the benefit of future readers who need to understand the discussion above, the text read:

Among the smaller villages and hamlets in Milton Keynes (England) are three – Broughton, Loughton and Woughton on the Green – that are of note in that their names each use a different pronunciation of the 'ough' letter sequence.

I guess it still deserves mention, at least here. Whether it deserved to be deleted is a different question that maybe should be debated. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the only room in this article, based on current contents, is in the table of the different pronunciations of the orthography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see this text under the table:

The two occurrences of ⟨ough⟩ in the English place name Loughborough are pronounced differently, resulting in /ˈlʌfbərə/. Additionally, three parishes of Milton Keynes—Woughton /ˈwʊftən/, Loughton /ˈlaʊtən/ and Broughton /ˈbrɔːtən/—all have different pronunciations of the combination.

That seems to me to cover the point adequately and nothing further needs be said. I'll recycle the citations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Lougheed

This one seems to be missing, isn't it? Here the "gh" makes an /h/ sound. /loʊhid/. At least that's how it's pronounced in the Vancouver area of BC, Canada, where a highway and some nearby neighbourhoods use the name.24.84.165.190 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Slough

In the note below the list about the different pronunciations of "slough", this example: "sloo" (as in, "a whole slough of problems") is not correct -- "slough" is a variant of "slew" and is pronounced the same way, but it is a different meaning of "slew". It means a muddy bog, not a large number -- see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slough (definition 1) and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slew (definition 4). It doesn't really lend itself to a handy phrase like "a whole slew of problems" though ("slogging through a slough"?), but maybe a smarter person than I could come up with something!

70.18.91.97 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nought

>Already standard

   * "hiccup" instead of folk etymology "hiccough"
   * "not" or "naught" instead of archaic "nought"
   * "hock" instead of "hough"

How is 'nought' archaic? I was under the impression that it was a common, everyday word referring to the mathematical concept 0. Or has the place-value numerical system been replaced with Roman numerals or the like since I last looked? 212.137.63.86 (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just what I came in here to say. This must mean in the sense of "All for nought", and have completely disregarded the synonym of "zero". But I think it's wrong anyway: did this ever mean "not" and is "naught" any less archaic? Didn't they just mean "nothing", at least most recently? There hasn't really been a spelling change, therefore. Salopian (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There. I've been bold. I checked dictionary.com and it seems that naught is an American spelling. Oh, and I've fixed you up there too. 212.137.63.86 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Naught is definitely not archaic, though it isn't used as commonly anymore. I can't speak for England, but in America, Merriam Webster lists nought as a variant of naught, which it does not consider archaic, and which means "nothing" as a pronoun, or "nothingness, nonexistance" or "the mathematical symbol 0" as a noun. I assume this would replace uses of nought which mean that, and not replaces more archaic uses such as " . . . nought but one of them." 207.58.207.138 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nought and naught are not synonymous. Nought is the numeric value, zero, while naught is 'nothing' in the sense of 'I have nothing': . It is quite archaic now, and may be specific to British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.94.133 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Dr. Seuss

Dr. Seuss once wrote an illustrated humorous piece about the dire effects of "ough" spellings entitled "Ough! Ough! Or Why I Believe in Simplified Spelling", reprinted on page 57 of "The Tough Coughs as he Ploughs the Dough" (ISBN 0-688-06548-1). -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Plow

The article says the spelling plow is "uncommon but accepted in Canada," which is completely untrue, as it is the accepted spelling in America, and in fact, I never knew the spelling plough even existed. Look it up on Merriam-Webster.com, where Plough is described as a "chiefly British variant of PLOW." 207.58.207.138 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Remarkability of ough

The gh is pronounced predictably and only two ways (excluding archaic and foreign words and proper nouns) /f/ and silent. The /f/ follows checked vowels (vowels which cannot occur--except in interjections (yeah, uh) and foreign words--without a following consonant) and the null pronunciation "follows" open vowels (vowels which can occur with or without a following consonant). The irregularity isn't gh's but the digraph ou's which is irregular with or without gh (moustache, loud, soul).Jackessler (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many possible analyses. For example I prefer one where there is no 'gh' digraph at all, but 'h' as silent or /f/, and vowel di/trigraphs ending in 'g' (given that some of these kind of digraphs also occur in other conditions, such as sign, feign, impugn etc.) Yet it seems the tri/tetragraph analysis is the prevailing one. It would be nice to find sorces for these kind of alt. analyses… but without that, they don't belong in.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you already know

Link is dead, but there are other hits, such as http://international.ouc.bc.ca/pronunciation/poem01.html --82.18.79.50 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What variation is 'the norm'?

References to "American English" seem to indicate that British is so widely recognized as the norm that it doesn't have to be named. Thus we end up with sentences such as 'Tough, though, through, and thorough are formed by adding an additional letter each time, yet none of them rhymes with another', which is not true for millions of English speakers (since "though" and "thorough" rhyme for us). I suggest that either an indication be put in the lede that this article is based on British English (presumably a BBC standard) or that the article be rewritten in such a way as to indicate all variations by where it is spoken. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcriptions

If transcriptions are included, both main reference accents (i.e. RP and GA) should be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:8580:830:B96D:2A72:1A60:AF7B (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Murrough

I have heard the name Murrough with /ək/. It may be that the final /o/ is awkward when the person's last name also begins with /o/ as many Irish names do. Can't find audio clips or other information detailing how, e.g., Murrough O'Brien's first name should be pronounced, either in his life or today. —Soap— 14:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also Turlough. Both a given name and a common word. The placename seems to be derived from the common word. This word may have more than one pronunciation as well. —Soap— 06:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

interjection: ough

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ough. However, Longman Pronunciation Dictionary does not contain it; what's its pronunciation? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The OED (Third Edition, December 2004) gives Brit. /ʊ(x)/, /ʊf/, /uːx/, /uːf/, U.S. /u(x)/, /uf/, /ʊ(x)/, /ʊf/, but also characterizes it as "rare". --Macrakis (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: For references: https://oed.com/oed2/00165817 and https://oed.com/oed2/00165818. Here's the index I use: https://mega.nz/file/MhFmnIqS#XIo7arhrDzRIQvEkwRm0oH0zVfJX5Obulx-HlfqVv0k. If you need the cd-room, PM me. Thnx. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but the oed.com references don't include the pronunciation, which is the issue here. The mega.nz reference looks like a copyvio, which violates WP policy, and in any case is just an index to oed2. The correct reference to the full OED article is [1], which is paywalled, but that is allowed under WP policy. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: They usually do show phonetic info. (https://oed.com/oed2/0000005). I had come up with the index precisely to avoid copyvio... In wiktionary at least they have never considered it a copyvio --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

symbols

Page 1572 of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language reads:

Through contains three symbols: composite th + simple r + composite ough (corresponding to /θ/, /r/, and /u/ respectively).

--Backinstadiums (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ough's Road

Thanks, @Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, for adding the citenote to that entry. To provide a summary of what I was able to find on this: while it's easy to confirm that the road exists, information on it prior to its addition to this article is sparse, with almost all Google hits coming from Quora (which seems to be copying Wikipedia). There is this PDF of a By-Law of Port Hope, which at least attests that the road existed in 2015. But I haven't been able to find any information on the pronunciation. The user who added this was from a Toronto IP address, so it seems quite plausible to be true, though.

If anyone knows, assuming that no information on this currently exists in a reputable source, what would be the best way to verify this pronunciation (to the point of being citable)? And what should be done with the article in the meantime? Edderiofer (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

What should be done is removal of the unsourced material. The burden to demonstrate the pronunciation of the name lies with whoever wishes to reinstate it. Nardog (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

T. S. Watt citation

In your edit today Nardog you moved the specific date to the Source date field which in an article is its normal place but that results in "The Manchester Guardian. p. 3." which doesn't make much sense. Since the page number is important and should follow the date, as it normally would in a journal citation, perhaps an exception could be made in this case if there's no other way of a citation with The Manchester Guardian, 21 June 1954, page 3. I just tried to check if a Journal-type citation would be possible with the date in the Issue field but despite 3 being in the pages field (21 June 1954): 3. appeared in the draft citation. When entered p before 3 at first "p.p. 3" appeared and then "p.3. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): |page= has extra text (help)" {though "Empty citation (help):" appears here it didn't appear in the draft}. Mcljlm (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge this is not something that's done (|work= is for the name of the work), but you may consult WT:CS1 if you want to make sure what the best practice is when citing a newspaper article with a byline like this. Nardog (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is the relevant section nardog? Mcljlm (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

None that exists. I mean you can bring up your question there. Nardog (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)