 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Quick straw poll: wharves or wharfs?
I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is hearing "wharfs". Burchfield (_New Fowler's_) and Collins list both forms, with no comment as to acceptability, frequency or pondial preference. Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, or illiterate?  SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote on 06 Jan 2004: > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, > precious, or illiterate? AHD4 also lists both forms but prefers "wharves", as you can see from the **3 definition of the transitive verb "to wharf" quoted below. I would probably use "wharfs" because they aren't things that I've read, talked, or thought much about, so "wharves" seems a bit strange and perhaps archaic to me. The OED2CDv3 shows: "Pl. wharfs, wharves". It seems to prefer "wharfs". Also, it lists this from _Antony & Cleopatra_: "1606 I Ant. & Cl. ii. ii. 218 From the Barge A strange inuisible perfume, hits the sense Of the adiacent Wharfes." I wonder what people in the sea-going navy (I was in naval air and never went to sea) or merchant marine, or dockworkers would use. I wouldn't use "hoofs" or "roofs" or, except as a 3rd-person singular present-tense verb form, "wolfs". [quote] wharf (hwôrf, wôrf) n. pl. wharves (hwôrvz, wôrvz) or wharfs 1. A landing place or pier where ships may tie up and load or unload. 2. Obsolete A shore or riverbank. v. wharfed, wharf·ing, wharfs v. tr. 1. To moor (a vessel) at a wharf. 2. To take to or store (cargo) on a wharf. **3. To furnish, equip, or protect with wharves or a wharf.** v. intr. To berth at a wharf. [Middle English, from Old English hwearf.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. [/quote] SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote on 06 Jan 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > read, talked, or thought much about, so "wharves" seems a bit strange > and perhaps archaic to me. [...] I'm for "wharves"; and "hooves"; but "roofs". Mike. > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, > or illiterate? I would use "dwarfs". I mean "wharfs". I'm still upset about that dwar-fish sword. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which would you use? wharves > Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, > or illiterate? "Wharfs" seems a little odd to me, but apparently it's okay. Adrian In article <Xns946899F04C914whhvans@62.253.162.115>, Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> posted: > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, > or illiterate? Wharfs. *---===== English is Munglish =====---* Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > *---===== English is Munglish =====---* If you'd prefer to take your advice from a bunch of lexicographers rather than someone who thinks English has no rules, run "wharves" through onelook.com and check the results. I think you'll find that "wharves" is the preferable form. "Dr. Maharaj" has many opinions concerning the English language. Occasionally he's right. SignatureBob Lieblich Who's giving "Herr Fuckwit" a rest pending new provocation In article <3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>, "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> posted: > > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > *---===== English is Munglish =====---* "Wharfs" sounds good. Eng . . . er . . . Munglish is about usage, not some Net nazi's rules. Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti > > > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > > > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "Wharfs" sounds good. Not to me. > Eng . . . er . . . Munglish is about usage, not some Net nazi's rules. Lexicographers report usage. Since every online dictionary I was able to check gives "wharves" as either the only plural or the first listed, I take that as evidence of preferred usage. If my choice is between your view of what sounds good and the consensus of lexicographers on actual usage -- and that's the situation here -- I'll go with them, not you. Freedom is not license. One more "Net nazi" and you're Herr J. Fuckwit again. SignatureBob Lieblich You can't be nice to some people If it's in dialogue, I'd use "wharves" because it's easier to say for an English speaker. If it's in action or description, I'd use "wharfs" simply because it looks better. Joseph Andorfer+ "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 07 Jan 2004: > If it's in dialogue, I'd use "wharves" because it's easier to say > for an English speaker. If that's true, then why do so many people say "hoofs", "dwarfs", and "roofs" instead of "hooves". "dwarfs", and "rooves"? Don't people naturally tend to say things that are easier? Is there any kind of phonlogical evidence to support your claim? > If it's in action or description, I'd use "wharfs" simply because > it looks better. That's a matter of taste, isn't it? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. There are regional, educational and ethnic differences, but the majority of American-born, highschool-educated speakers of American English as a first language who have normal dentition, tongue and palate formation say "hooves" and "dwarves," in spontaneous and unprompted speech. They may or may not also say "rooves," (which I don't believe is correct) but the more common pronunciation is "roofs." If they pronounce the words "hoofs" and "dwarfs" they likely also have difficulty with the "v" sound in the initial position. If you want to shade your characters to suggest or reinforce differences in regional, educational or ethnic background, or speech pathology, you can and should have them pronounce words any way that seems most effective to the character. As far as I know, there are no rules for character speech, anyway. The object is to make the character distinctive and consistent. Joseph Andorfer, Ph.D. > "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 07 Jan 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor. "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 08 Jan 2004: >> "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 07 Jan 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> That's a matter of taste, isn't it? > There are regional, educational and ethnic differences, but the > majority of American-born, highschool-educated speakers of > American English as a first language who have normal dentition, > tongue and palate formation say "hooves" and "dwarves," in > spontaneous and unprompted speech. Another claim of fact, not personal opinion, but no source. > They may or may not also say > "rooves," (which I don't believe is correct) Any reason you don't believe this is correct? W3NID says: "Inflected Form:plural roofs \-fs\ ; also rooves \*r*vz\", which gives "rooves" the status of an acceptable variant. Collins Cobuild gives only "roofs". The OED2CDv3 says this about the plural of "roof" unders "spellings": [quote] Forms: a. 1 hrof, 3 rhof; 1–5 rof, 4–6 roff, rofe, 5 roffe; 4– roof, 4–7 roofe, 6 rooff(e; 5–6 rouf, 6 rouffe, roughe, rowff(e, 6–7 rowfe, roufe. b. 3–6 roue, 4–6 rove; pl. 4–5 roaues (5 -ys), 5, 20 rooves, - is. c. Sc. 5–6 ruf, rufe (north. ruffe), 6 pl. ruvis, 6, 8–9 ruif (7 ruiff), 9 reef. [OE. hróf, = OFris. rhoof (Fris. roef), MDu. roof, rouf, roef (Du. roef, cabin, coffin-lid), MLG. and LG. rôf, OIcel. hróf boat-shed; the stem does not appear to be otherwise represented. English alone has retained the word in a general sense, for which the other languages use forms corresponding to OE. þæc thatch.] [/quote] You will notice at the end of the 3rd line that "rooves" appears, but that "roofs" is nowhere to be found. Under the rubric "Date Chart": [quote] 1903 Dialect Notes II. 352 Roof, n. pl. rooves. Common plural in Mass. [/quote] The verb "to roof" is "He/She/It roofs . . .", though. > but the more common pronunciation is "roofs." If they > pronounce the words "hoofs" and "dwarfs" they likely also > have difficulty with the "v" sound in the initial position. More fact-like claims without documentation. > If you want to shade your characters to suggest or reinforce > differences in regional, educational or ethnic background, or > speech pathology, you can and should have them pronounce words any > way that seems most effective to the character. I don't follow. Is this advice to fiction writers about how to write effective dialogue in dialect? > As far as I know, there are no rules for character speech, anyway. > The object is to make the character distinctive and consistent. I thought the issue here was fact and not fiction. > Joseph Andorfer, Ph.D. Aha! "Ph. D." I suppose this means that you don't need to cite references to support your claims. For the record, and because you introduced it, what is your PhD in? Surely not Linguistics? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 07 Jan 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If that's true, then why do so many people say "hoofs", "dwarfs", and > "roofs" instead of "hooves". "dwarfs", and "rooves"? Many of us do. "Hooves" are more problematic, as it depends on whether you pronounce "hoof" with a long or short vowel. The shorties are more likely to opt for "hoofs". Does anyone pronounce "roof" with a short vowel? I think I may have heard it. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 08 Jan 2004: >> "Joseph Andorfer" <josephandorfer@cnsp.com> wrote on 07 Jan 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shorties are more likely to opt for "hoofs". Does anyone pronounce > "roof" with a short vowel? I think I may have heard it. I use the short vowel for "hoof" and the long one for "hooves" and the long vowel for both "roof" and "rooves". SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 08 Jan 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I use the short vowel for "hoof" and the long one for "hooves" and the > long vowel for both "roof" and "rooves". I use the short vowel for "hoof" and I think I use the long one for "hooves", though the short one sounds correct also. I use the long vowel for "roof" and "roofs" and I don't say "rooves". The short vowel in "roof" is far from unknown, but I don't offhand know if it's associated with a particular geographical area. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote on 11 Jan 2004: >> Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 08 Jan 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > short vowel in "roof" is far from unknown, but I don't offhand > know if it's associated with a particular geographical area. I think my mother says "roof" the way you do, and we were both born and raised in the same general area of northeastern New Jersey. She also says "bottle" with a glottal stop, but most other people I know from NJ say it with a flap-d. It might be regional in the US, but there is also a lot of individual variation within regions. Just look at the way New Yorkers pronounce things. In NYC, a "regional dialect" is often found in a region as small as a few square blocks. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > "Hooves" are more problematic, as it depends on whether you pronounce > "hoof" with a long or short vowel. The shorties are more likely to opt > for "hoofs". Does anyone pronounce "roof" with a short vowel? I think I > may have heard it. It's common in the northern Midwest, I believe, like in Chicago. Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. > > "Hooves" are more problematic, as it depends on whether you pronounce > > "hoof" with a long or short vowel. The shorties are more likely to opt > > for "hoofs". Does anyone pronounce "roof" with a short vowel? I think I > > may have heard it. > > It's common in the northern Midwest, I believe, like in Chicago. I say root, roof, book with what I would call the short "o" vowel. Occasionally, if I have the need for a verb "root, as what the pig does with his snoot", I will do the "soup, boot" sound, but the below-ground part of a plant is a root as in book. Hard for me to call this oo (soup, boot) a long vowel, since I reserve that description for the "owe, tow, slow" sound of the "o". > > "Hooves" are more problematic, as it depends on whether you > > pronounce "hoof" with a long or short vowel. The shorties are more > > likely to opt for "hoofs". Does anyone pronounce "roof" with a > > short vowel? I think I may have heard it. > > It's common in the northern Midwest, I believe, like in Chicago. /rUf/ and /ruf/ were both common in Chicago when I was growing up, as were /rUt/ and /rut/ (except for the verb meaning "cheer", which was always /rut/). There appeared to be no geographic or ethnographic pattern to it, and it was a variation that was noticed and discussed even among schoolchildren. I'd say it was probably in something like free variation for most speakers (myself included), although each had a form that predominated. (For me, it's /rUf/.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support |opportunities. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Johnny Judas Jay "the bonehead jyotishit jacakss" Maharaj wrote: > In article <3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>, > "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> posted: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "Wharfs" sounds good. Eng . . . er . . . Munglish is about usage, not > some Net nazi's rules. Who's the Nazi, Johnny boya? Someone who points out your insufficient understanding of the English language, or someone like you who brooks no opposition to your views, hounds and harasses his opponents, drives an agenda that fans hatred and communalism and contributes to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people caught up in the politics of power funded by misguided NRIs? You should face a firing squad for your treason! > > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "Dr. Maharaj" has many opinions concerning the English language. > Occasionally he's right. The Port of Los Angeles bureaucrats, who know plenty about wharfs or wharves but just enough English to be dangerous, often succeed in using both forms in the same document. I'm for "wharfs", but both are widespread. SignatureChris Green >> > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use >> > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >I'm for "wharfs", but both are widespread. I'll go with wharfs. Probably regional variations. First 25 years in Texas, past 35 in Boston, MA. As far as I can tell, I still pronounce things about the way I did in Texas, though I've lost most of the accent. Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ > >> > > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > >> > > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > carterj98@mindspring.com > http://carterj.homestead.com/ What about "dwarfs" versus "dwarves"? >> >Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message >news:<3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >What about "dwarfs" versus "dwarves"? Dwarves are much shorter than wharves. It's piers that are the shortest when you tell someone to take a long walk on a short one. In article <sd2nvv8ij5308vprb9llv4r13krseidqc7@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> posted: > >> >Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message > >news:<3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >> > >What about "dwarfs" versus "dwarves"? > Dwarves are much shorter than wharves. It's piers that are the > shortest when you tell someone to take a long walk on a short one. Does the dwarve Lieblich barve on a wharve? *---===== English is Munglish =====---* *---===== Reverse singularificationization is in =====---* Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti >> >Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message >news:<3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >What about "dwarfs" versus "dwarves"? And roofs, rooves? I have a friend, of Scottish origin (I'm English), who habitually uses the "-fs" forms for the plural, and it sounds distinctly odd to me. SignatureDave OSOS#24 dswindell.gerbil@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one http://dswindell.members.beeb.net >>> >Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message >>news:<3FFB4336.ABAE205E@Verizon.net>... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >I have a friend, of Scottish origin (I'm English), who habitually uses >the "-fs" forms for the plural, and it sounds distinctly odd to me. I'd say dwarfs and roofs. When I was growing up, probably most of the people I knew were of Scots-Irish (we said Scotch-Irish) descent. Maybe that's where that pronunciation came from. I've heard the "ves" ending enough that it no longer sounds strange. Carter Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ > Which would you use? 'Wharves'. > Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, or illiterate? No. I was born in 1978 and have lived stateside all my life. Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. msh210@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted. > I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, > or illiterate? I still can't make my mind up about rooves and hooves! I lean towards wharves, but I might well come out with wharfs at any given moment. SignatureRob Bannister Wharves (hooves, roofs). Robert Bannister filted: >> I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use >> "wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I still can't make my mind up about rooves and hooves! I lean towards >wharves, but I might well come out with wharfs at any given moment. I live in a place where we seldom see even *one* wharf, let alone enough of them to require a plural.... At any rate, I'm not a good one to ask for advice on this question...I'd be happier if "chieves" were a preferred form....r > Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > At any rate, I'm not a good one to ask for advice on this question...I'd be > happier if "chieves" were a preferred form....r You slipped that last one in. I think I vary randomly between 'handkerchieves' and 'handkerchiefs'. (I had to stop sending to add a note: Netscape accepted both spellings.) SignatureRob Bannister >I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use >"wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Which would you use? "Wharves", but I prefer "wharfs". I can't bring myself to say "ofTen" either, but I probably should do. Tomaytoes, not tomahtoes, though; I'm resolute on that. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use > >"wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > either, but I probably should do. Tomaytoes, not tomahtoes, though; > I'm resolute on that. Before we call the whole thing off, is that "rezoloot" or "rezolyoot"? Mike. >> >I have to use the plural for wharf, and my gut reaction was to use >> >"wharves". Thinking of it, though, I realised that my mind's ear is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Before we call the whole thing off, is that "rezoloot" or "rezolyoot"? I wouldn't give a hoot for rezolyoot, assuming it was English I was speaking. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net [...] > >> "Wharves", but I prefer "wharfs". I can't bring myself to say "ofTen" > >> either, but I probably should do. Tomaytoes, not tomahtoes, though; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wouldn't give a hoot for rezolyoot, assuming it was English I was > speaking. Oh dear. But you can prezyoom that I shan't syoo, as my syoot's at the cleaner's. I have noticed the exclamation "Phoo!" in Victorian issyooz of *Punch*; but I think its mantle has now been assyoomed by "Phew!" Mike. Mike Lyle filted: >I have noticed the exclamation "Phoo!" in Victorian issyooz of >*Punch*; but I think its mantle has now been assyoomed by "Phew!" We took over the original in the 1940s, changed the spelling to "Foo!", and handed it to Smokey Stover.... Notary Sojac...1506 Nix Nix....r > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, precious, > or illiterate? Wharves, and no. -- Regards John On 06 Jan 2004, Harvey Van Sickle wrote Re: wharves vs wharfs > Which would you use? Is either form likely to seem archaic, > precious, or illiterate? Thanks for the responses. The vote went for "wharves", but I get the impression it'll disappear in due course. (For what it's worth, I opted to use "wharves", at least this time 'round.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.