What is the linguistic origin of “huh,” the sound I make to punctuate a question or express surprise? Is a truncated version of another word, or just something that we can’t assign a definite origin to?
“Huh” is an imitative word - a formalization of the type of non-verbal communication we call a “grunt.” It has appeared in print in that form since the beginning of the 17th century.
You may compare other imitative words such as “ha,” “wah,” and “brr,” which likewise have no etymological antecedants, and are merely a linguistic approximation of pure non-verbal animal communication.
Huh. I learned something.
I would not be sure about any of the above, esp. the bolded portion, w/out a cite.
-FrL-
Fair enough, although I would have thought that all of these words were fairly obviously imitative words with no etymological precursors.
Brr (PDF)
One of those cites gives an indication of a fact that actually makes me suspicious of the claim that there’s no etymology to these things other than their imitative value. In the second cite it mentions that “Ha” is found in “Most Indo-European languages.” Exactly: It’s not found (I suspected and now I more strongly suspect) in non-Indo-European languages. This fact is evidence that there is an etymological story to give about these terms, or at least about “ha.” (In this context, by “an etymological story” I mean "an explanation involving facts about how a word has been transmitted from language to language.)
You’re basically saying these words constitute a kind of onomatopoeaia, but as is well know, what other languages “say” a dog sounds like (for example) is very different than what English “says” a dog sounds like. I bet you can trace these “soundalike” words in their respective languages etymologically, and I’m suprised if this isn’t true of at least some of the words you mentioned as well.
-FrL-
I’m confused by what you are trying to say.
Since there is no sound that has the same meaning in every language, doesn’t your comment just eliminate onomatopoeia from ever being used?
If an imitative word enters a language at an early stage, it is not unreasonable to find that word continued into descendents of that language. Nor is it unreasonable that different cultures will transliterate that sound differently.
Which leaves me puzzled by your objection. Could you clarify it?
My friend, for some inexplicable reason, spells it “hua”. It bugs the hell out of me.
Fan of Al Pacino, perhaps?
If “ha” is distributed amongst most indo-european languages, this only means that it was a probable feature of PIE, and does not in any way imply that that there must be a non-imitative, information-bearing root somewhere.
Non-indo-european languages have equivalent words - for example the Chinese use the interjection “Ai ya!” in precisely the same way that we might use “Ha!” There is no etymological connection between these two interjections; they are independent autochthons - and yet they share a remarkable similarity in their both their form and function, because they are both derived from natural expression.
I hope we’re not talking past each other. Saying that a word with its origins in natural expression has no etymological antecedents is not the same thing as saying it has no history - only that it’s not derived from an earlier form, and has no semiotic content apart from its association with the natural expression.
Words like “ow,” “duh,” “oops,” “hey,” etc. - they are formalized versions of natural expressions; this is how they entered the language, it is their only etymology. They cannot be broken down into discrete elements that carry meaning or have their origins in other words.
My girlfriend spells it “euh.” (She’s Quebécoise. They all write it that way. It’s like they have a different word for everything.)
We may be talking past each other here.
I am saying that our word, for example, “ha,” is descended from a similar word from a different language. I took you (I now think incorrectly) to be saying something incompatible with this.
When you said “no etymological antecedents” I took you to mean the word has no etymological history–that it did not come from any other language/dialect than the one under discussion, to wit, standard English.
-FrL-
Does my previous post (number 11) clarify?
-FrL-
Ah.
Hey!