THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 TAG: 9610290008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A19 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: OPINION
SOURCE: George Hebert
LENGTH: 56 lines
We don't always express ourselves in words that have standard, accepted spellings. Some of the vocal devices we use just aren't words to start with. More like mutterings, in fact.
And the problem comes when someone tries to use letters of the alphabet to put certain of these expressions down in writing. That is, of course, in a way that readers will readily recognize and understand.
Take that little throat-clearing noise which people have long used - and almost without thinking - to break into a conversation or, in a quieter situation, to announce that they want attention and want to speak. We see this interjecting noise, in print, most often as ``ahem.'' And this is a pretty good illustration of the tricky problem of putting this type of non-word into readable form.
For nobody ever really says ``ahem.'' That spelling is only a vague approximation of the sound we use.
In this same category is ``pshaw.'' Ever hear a real person say ``Pshaw!'' in brushing aside something or other? Maybe that was actually said in the olden days, but I'd be surprised if that were the case. Seems more likely that a passel of traditional writers settled on ``pshaw'' as a handy approximation of the lip-pursing hiss with which some people scoff at things.
In both these instances, granted, the difference between the actual utterances and the way they have usually been spelled out doesn't matter very much.
However, there are two other conversational non-words which I, for one, consider fairly serious problems - from the standpoint of totally clear understanding.
Just the other day, I was reading some dialogue that contained ``uh-huh.'' From the context, the speaker was saying ``yes'' and the ``uh-huh'' was obviously a variation of the ``ahuh'' many other writers use.
And that ``ahuh'' (or ``uh-huh'') underlines a sound-translating difficulty that has been with us, unresolved, for a long time.
Neither one of the above translations is close enough to the ``yes'' sound we produce deep in our throats and/or nasal passages in real life. There is a breathy vibration and an emphasis that letters just can't convey.
And as for the opposite guttural, the negative response, the one we grunt out to say ``no'' - I don't think spellings of this have appeared very often on the printed page. There may have been some attempts - perhaps a half-baked ``unh-uh'' somewhere or other - but I think the tactic has usually been to fall back on ``oh-no.''
How strange that, for all our literary ingenuity and technological smarts, we have such poor results in putting down on paper the nasal buzzes we use for ``yes'' and ``no'' - sounds we utter so often and with rarely a misunderstanding in vocal communication.
It's something to ponder (with no spelling problem this time):
``Hmmm.'' MEMO: Mr. Hebert, a former editor, lives in Norfolk. by CNB