List
I added a bunch to this page from the years of collecting myself. Marasasa (^_^)
- snap, crackle, pop
- splash
- bang
- boom
- click
- fizz
- tinkle
- chickadee
- pop
- ping pong
- burp
- belch
- barf
- puke
- whisper
- tick-tock
- cuckoo
- whizz
- plop
- sizzle
- oompa
- clang
- zoom'
Plus 'slush', half-melted snow. From the sound it is reminiscent of.
- splat
- zing
- smack
- thud
- oomph
- groan
- moan
- murmur
- blab
- clap
- boo hoo
- choo-choo
- blurt
- blare
- bump
- clatter
- beep
- honk
- squeak
- squeal
- squelch
- whistle
- clash
- roar
- whine
- whiff
- whirr
- sniff
- brouhaha
- hubub
- uproar
- bustle
- bell
- bong
- rustle
- achoo
- hiccup
- thump
- swish
- snick
- snicker
- click
- bam
- pow
- zap
- whoop
- wow
- snip
- crunch
- scrunch
- yap
- whop
- bow-wow
- purr
- growl
- tweet
- moo
- bleat
- shoosh
- flummox
- kazoo
- tuba
- titters
- tintinnabulation
- kerplunk
- mumble
- hush
- gush
Is "brouhaha" really considered an onomatopoeia? The pronunciation of the word does not sound similar to any noise I've ever heard emitted by humans, except when they are saying the word. Brouhaha 28:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neither is "blab," it's never used as such. "Blah blah blah" maybe.
- "Brouhaha" is not a direct imitation of a sound, unlike "moo" for example, but the sound of the word is clearly (to me) represents the kind of confused but indignant noises made during a heated discussion. That would make it onomatapoeia of a sort.
- "Blab" is very interesting, is the sound respresenting the sound of someone speaking, or the feeling of someone losing control over what they are saying? The first is a kind of onomatapoeia, the second would be more like a phenomime, at least that's what the Japanese equivalent is called. English phenomimes aren't discussed very much... Kappa 17:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Penis" is one of the most fun words. You can't really tell it is a form of onomatopoeia unless you say it really loudly. Shout 'PENIS' as loud as you can in a public place and impress everyone with your knowledge of onomatopoeia.
- Just as "vagina"?
If onomatopoeia are supposed to represent actual sounds, as in in the context of attempting to do so, then those words are not.
- According to dictionary.com, brouhaha a french onomatopoeia meant to imitate the sound of a crowd.--Sketchee 22:21, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Have you ever heard portly (particularly British) men laugh? It's positively identical to brouhaha. I fail to see how being cuckoo for cocoa puffs is anything but a play on words. cuckoo has nothing to do with insanity, does it? the bird itself is an onomatopoeia, but the food doesn't relate to it.
Interjections?
Would onomatopoeia be linguistically/grammatically classified as interjections?
- Only if they were used as such, e.g. "He was crossing on a plank and--snap!--it broke." Most of the words in the list I think are more commonly verbs or nouns, or both. You can get attention with a snap, or snap wood in two. "Boo hoo" and "wow" are usually interjections (though I'm not sure how the latter is onomatopoeia). Still, it depends on usage: if you don't wow an audience, they boo! Davilla 19:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Would "bling" be an example of non-auditory onomatopoeia? Yes, as confirmed in Wiktionary. Adding to page. Davilla 01:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Kodak
I read a long time ago that the Kodak camera company are so named because of the clicking sounds of pressing the button. Anyone know if that's true? violet/riga (t) 19:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The similarity between the word /kodæk/ and the click sound of pressing the button doesn't strike me as compelling. Personal opinions aside, the online etymology dictionary tells us that it is an "arbitrary coinage by U.S. inventor George Eastman (1854-1932), U.S. trademark reg. Sept. 4, 1888". — mark ✎ 21:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll trust that site, being dedicated to etymologies, though other sites I Googled hint it may be true - perhaps it's an urban myth. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Human sounds
There are a lot of articles, like ho ho ho that are claimed to be onomatopetic. To me it doesn't feel as if they belong. Does anyone else feel that textual renditions of human laughter are just plain interjections and nothing else?
Peter Isotalo 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Same with "zzz", the sound of sleeping. -Arctic.gnome 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Common Words Derived from Onomatopoeia
This article mainly deals with words that are directly seen as onomatopoeia, but what of words of such common usage that their onomatopoeic roots are not as evident? I am reminded of words such as "whisper", "murmer", and "delicate"; should these words be included in the scope of this article? Bobryuu 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Ouch" is NOT Onomatopoeia
I get redirected to this page from the entry "ouch." It is even the only article linked to if you type "define:ouch" into google.
This is wrong. "Ouch" is NOT an example of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeia refers to words based on sounds, like crunch or ring or grrr. Human expression of pain isn't a sound; it varies from one language to the next. "Ouch" or "ow" is what English speakers say when they're in pain; speakers of other languages use other words that sound a little different. (This is as opposed to things like laughter or crying, where the representation of these sounds may vary from one language to the next, but the sounds themselves are pretty much the same among all human beings regardless of what language they speak. Ha ha and waaa are examples of onomatopoeia; ouch is not.)
Still, how do I go about editing the page to remove "ouch" from the list of words that get redirected to this article? marbeh raglaim 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree and removed the redirect by reverting to a version with just the wiktionary link. To edit a redirect page you can just click on the "redirected from ..." link at the top of the page you get redirected to. Then you'll see the redirect and can edit it as a normal page. See also Wikipedia:Redirect for everything you'd ever want to know about redirects on wikipedia. Shanes 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Photo of a ball going "whack"?
I move that the image be deleted from the article. The illustration really doesn't add anything to it; it seems pure foofaraw. Matt Gies 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- In what way does the image not add anything to the article? It illustrates the concept. Admittedly the image could be improved, but that doesn't merit obliteration. One flaw is that it isn't clear what she doing (bowling?).—jiy (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll be accused of having a dirty mind, but I have to ask this question: what is that flesh colored thing between the woman's legs... they appear strikingly like testicles and when I was redirected to this page I was extremely shocked. This should not be so. That picture should be removed for the sake of decency.Said picture has been edited. However, it's still pointless and should be flat out removed. It is for those who say somthing does have a purpose to say what that purpose is.- Thanatosimii 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it doesn't help the article much. As for the earlier version, that was vandalism by Dragon Sand (talk · contribs) which was reverted by Pixeltoo; I've removed the vandalised picture. — mark ✎ 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Introduction
I removed the following:
- "Onomatopoeia, from the Greek word meaning "name-making", for the sounds literally make the meaning in such words as buzz, crash, whirr, clang, hiss, purr, squeak, mumble, hush, boom."
As it is not a complete sentence. Hyacinth 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Forigen language onomatopoeia
Here is a list of Japanese onomatopoeia: here.
Okay, any idea where the randomly censored words came from? -Unnatural20 --198.138.132.2 08:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Eek vs. Eep
How is "eep" not onomatopieaic but "eek" is? According to dictionary.com: onomatopoeia is "the formation or use of words such as buzz or murmur that imitate the sounds associated with the objects or actions they refer to". "Eek" is an expression. So is "eep". Both are sounds produced by the human mouth. Both are associated with objects or actions (in this case, reactions to objects: mouse for "eek", and anything for "eep"). "Eep" has made it into the vernacular as a valid expression, as any Google search will show... -Eep² 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I've deleted "eek" from the list (I already noted in the edit summary of my last pruning attempt that I was sure I missed a lot). On your reasoning, note that "reactions to objects" are quite different from "objects". This is why, in scholarly literature on the subject, interjections like 'eep' and 'eek' aren't considered onomatopoeic. And that is also the reason I recently removed a lot of non-onomatopoeic words from the article here. As I further noted in my edit summary: if words like that are going to be called onomatopoeic, this article is utterly pointless.
- You might try interjection instead, but if you ask me, your crusade for the inclusion of Eep in Wikipedia is without merit in the end. — mark ✎ 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- What "scholarly" papers? The definition is "associated with the objects or actions they refer to". "Eek" is associated with the reaction (doing an action over again) to the object of a mouse, for example. "Eep" is associated with the reaction to the object of whatever it is one is reacting to ("Eep, you scared me!"). How aren't these onomatopieaic?
- My "crusade" has plenty of merit since I believe in it! Sheesh! You act like the Wikipedia is some end-all be-all tome of universal knowledge, or something. Or, perhaps, you'd rather it be some stuffy collection of so-called "proper, scholarly" articles only people with an advanced literature degree (in BS) could understand. That's not the Net...and it's not Wikipedia so it would be nice if people like you would loosen up and learn to accept knowledge in ALL its forms and mediums.
- Anyway, thanks for the interjection lead; Eep falls under that classification too. -Eep² 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)