Talk:Ough (orthography)

message: If there really are "over ten" pronunciations, can we please have examples of them all? — sjorford++ 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are there examples from Scots, which is a different language from English? One could just as well start including examples of the  or  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)
replies: text: Also, your (6) and (7) are the same, . You might also want to note that (5) and (13) are both  in British English. 91.105.17.245 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's so special about "-omb"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lougheed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slough 

message: >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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: <I>Naught</I> is definitely not archaic, though it isn't used as commonly anymore.  I can't speak for England, but in America, Merriam Webster lists <I>nought</i> as a variant of <I>naught</I>, 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 <I>nought which mean that, and not</I> replaces more archaic uses such as " . . . nought but one of them." 207.58.207.138 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nought 

message: 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" (). -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Seuss

message: The article says the spelling <I>plow</I> 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 <I>plough</I> even existed.  Look it up on Merriam-Webster.com, where <I>Plough</i> is described as a "chiefly British variant of PLOW."  207.58.207.138 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plow 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Remarkability of ough

message: 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)
thread_title:  I take it you already know 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What variation is 'the norm'? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transcriptions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Murrough 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 , which is paywalled, but that is allowed under WP policy. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  interjection: ough 

message: 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)
thread_title:  symbols 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ough's Road