Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Hello. I uploaded this video to the internet today so that I could refer to it in a conversation here on Wikipedia. I don't intend to keep it up permanently since it presumably breaches the copyright of each clip that makes it up. I just created it for my personal use.

But anyway, while it's up, I have a question, which is whether the words spoken in Russian at approx. 2 minutes in actually match the translation in the subtitle to the same clip? AndyJones (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's so brief, it would take a native speaker (which I am not) to really catch it.

FYI, it's from Hamlet (1964 film), a Soviet production starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky. The script was based on a translation by Boris Pasternak but the director (like all makers of Hamlet films except perhaps Kenneth Branagh) took massive liberties with what Shakespeare wrote, by cutting out vast sections, reordering some of the remaining scenes, and rewriting much of the script. Then there's whoever did the subtitles: did they return to Shakespeare's original, or did they translate it themselves ab initio? So, given all that, the chances that what the actor is saying and what the subtitles say he's saying actually match ... anyone's guess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how some writers think they can improve on Shakespeare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not improvement, as much as abbreviation and modernization. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree with all of that! But none of it answers my original question... AndyJones (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated by Jack of Oz, his snippet is taken from a scene of the Russian film Гамлет (1964), whose script was based on a translation by Boris Pasternak. The scene is the famous soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1, which can be viewed here on YouTube. (The snippet is the section from 2:17–2:20.) The Russian subtitles render the spoken text as чем бегством к незнакомому стремиться. In the First Folio, this is "Then flye to others that we know not of", or in modern spelling "Than fly to others that we know not of?",^[1] so this is a match.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you! AndyJones (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the original Star Trek, a group of people who left the Enterprise to go down to a planet, for whatever reason, were called by terms like "landing party", or no special term was used for them. When Star Trek: The Next Generation began, they began to be called an "away team", a team which has continued in use in subsequent shows.

Where did they get the phrase "away team" from? Did it originate as naval or other military terminology, was it invented by the show's writers, or what? In the OED Online the only use of the phrase is to refer to the "visiting" team in sports. --~2026-31658-34 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The same question was asked 12 years ago in this Reddit post; On the etymology of "Away Team". The only relevant answer was from a respondant who says that his grandpa used the phrase in the WWII US Navy (without any backup). Google AI (about as much use as an opiniated bloke down the pub) says that the phrase in a naval context was coined by Ray Mabus, the United States secretary of the Navy from 2009 to 2017, but this postdates the Star Trek series by several years. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in Australian sporting contexts where a team (the away team) travels from another part of the state, or the country, to play against a team that's based where the match is held (the home team). In the Australian Football League, the longest part of the season consists of the series of matches between opposing teams to determine who qualifies for the finals (that's called the "home and away season"), followed by the finals, and ultimately the grand final. I'm sure this terminology has its counterparts in other sports, and other countries. (The title of the soap opera Home and Away has nothing to do with this, btw.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is that not said in other countries? JordyGrey _talk🧸 11:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram Viewer finds a small blip of usages from 1800, another in 1836–49, and continuous usage from 1856 onwards with a fairly steep rise after 1986 (perhaps driven by Star Trek). In my experience, the term has long been routinely used in UK sports writing and conversation in all sports where it would be relevant.

Perhaps someone can find out where it first appears in Star Trek canon (which, let us remember, also includes many original novels, comics, etc., in addition to TV and films and the printed works based on them). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about Star Trek usage, not sports usage, where the phrase is familiar but unrelated in meaning. --~2026-31927-22 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory Alpha article you link to states: "The type of team tasked with performing away missions was, during preproduction of Star Trek: The Next Generation, to be called an "away-mission team," before this was simplified to become "away team." (Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Continuing Mission 1st ed., p. 17) The latter term entered common use at the beginning of The Next Generation, and continued its usage throughout the subsequent television series, up to and including the prequel Star Trek: Enterprise." That suggests that the writers invented the term, and that the fact that it is the same phrase as the sporting term is a coincidence. Proteus (Talk) 09:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I didn't read that far down. So I guess that's it. (Original poster) --~2026-31927-22 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right desk but the others aren't so great either. There's a scene in Amadeus where Emperor Franz Josef asks Salieri whether to commission Mozart to write an opera in German. Salieri intuits that the Emperor is really trying to troll the Archbishop (Hieronymus von Colloredo I guess) and starts to say so. Timestamped YT link: [2]. The Emperor interjects something like "you are cateevo, court composer", i.e. I can't understand what he says. The automatic caption is useless too. Can anyone else make it out? Thanks. ~2026-30934-27 (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's "cattivo", which is Italian for "bad". --Viennese Waltz 06:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific context, "naughty" is a better translation.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, it was arguably rather Mozart that was cattivo, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never would have figured that out, and I'd expect similar for other of movie's viewers. ~2026-30934-27 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. What is the diffrence between á and à? ~2026-22534-68 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In what language? -- ~2026-32288-60 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are relatively few languages I can think of that use both of them over an a vowel. An example is Portuguese. In Pinyin, the acute marks the 2nd tone and the grave the 4th. -- Jungleman33 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant why are both on Google keyboard? ~2026-22534-68 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian uses á and Italian uses à, for example, I think. Google Keyboard presumably wants to support both languages. ~2026-30934-27 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish and and Portuguese – a much larger market – also use ⟨á⟩, as seen in Spanish and Portuguese abacá, while Catalan and Italian use abacà. And ⟨à⟩ is also used in French.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it àin't. It's not in the French alphabet.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste error, now corrected.  ​‑‑Lámbiàm 07:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If only we had articles about á and à. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

bá =aunt in Vietnamese

bà =grandma in Vietnamese

ba =father in Vietnamese

bà =father in Chinese

Some like that Alms bowling (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge and OALD shows flap T:

• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infinitive

• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/infinitive

But not flap D:

• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/leader

• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/leader

~2026-32447-12 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm an ignoranimous, pray tell me what a "flap T" and a "flap D" would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Flapping. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Next question: How do those 4 links posted by the OP have anything to do with the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can see that the first two pages show flap T /t̬/, but the last two don't show flap D (they use ordinary /d/) ~2026-32492-47 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary shows flapped t/d's, representing them by the IPA letter [ɾ]: water → [ˈwɔ.ɾɚ]; leader → [ˈli.ɾɚ].  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. For example, Cambridge and OALD show flap T for the word 'infinitive', but Wiktionary does no such thing: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infinitive ~2026-32492-47 (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That page for infinitive only shows a phonemic transcription, in slashes. The flaps only show up in phonetic transcriptions, as indicated by our editor above using square brackets. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference. A reader doesn't know whether the word 'infinitive' should be pronounced with a flap or not because that page doesn't indicate it in any way ~2026-32596-63 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the humanity! Wiktionary doesn't give phonetic transcriptions of every English word in every English dialect! It's incomplete! PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, 'infinitive' isn't some rare uncommon word (2 occurrences per million words according to OED).

Secondly, the problem isn't only incompleteness but also unusefulness; Cambridge and OALD also don't provide every English word, but at least they are useful for a reader: /t/ means [t] while /t̬/ means [ɾ]. Wiktionary's /t/ can mean both [t] and [ɾ] (and much more considering that anyone can edit it) ~2026-32666-49 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the footnote next to /t/ at Help:IPA/English. (Dia)phonemes don't need to show the exact pronunciation, and regarding the flap as a phoneme in AmE as those other dictionaries do is not exactly accurate. Flapping is a realization of the /t/ and /d/ phonemes.

While they don't use IPA but instead their own system, take a look at Merriam-Webster's transcriptions for later and infinitive, then listen to the audios they provide. You'll notice both are transcribed with \t\, yet the consonant sounds completely different, because they are the same phoneme but different realizations. They also expect you to read their pronunciation guide and not just the transcriptions (they explain the same situation of flapping at \t\ in said guide as we do for our own here). ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly aware of all those things, but you need to think about an average reader/learner. They wish to learn how they should pronounce a word. It's unhelpful to use /t/ for both [t] and [ɾ] and not provide allophonic/narrow transcription because the reader/learner has not clue how to actually pronounce the word. Cambridge and OALD avoid that problem. Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary don't ~2026-32711-16 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one way to actually pronounce the word. M-W and Wikt avoid over-specificity and dialectal preference by listing the phonemes, expecting readers to consult a pronunciation guide per-accent; as I mentioned below, infinitive can be pronounced by AmE speakers with an aspirated stop or with a flap, among other possible realizations. It is therefore more useful to write the phoneme rather than privileging a particular allophone.

Meanwhile, Cambridge and Oxford use phonemes inconsistently, taking accent- and even speaker-specific approaches, treating the flap allophone as if it were a phoneme. This improperly blurs phonemic and phonetic transcription, and is a disservice to the average reader.

Learners should understand the conventions used by a given dictionary rather than assume perfect concordance with phonetic realization. Expecting such precise transcriptions as allophones for a general-purpose dictionary is impractical and would quickly become unwieldy if made exhaustive, considering how fluid pronunciation is.

Given the situation, I expect you're the same logged-out user that's been going on this flap /t/+/d/ crusade for a few weeks. I'm not sure what your end goal is, but it is starting to feel like an intentional abuse of editors' time. You are asking why systems are arranged the way that they are, we are explaining them to you, and then you are refuting that those systems are wrong. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually only one most common way to pronounce the word. And that's exactly what an average learner looks for. Cambridge and OALD are far more useful in this regard than Wiktionary.

My end goal is to find a source/dictionary that marks flap D in a similar way as Cambridge and OALD marks flap T. It's written in the title of my question. The goal of the question isn't to discuss the pronunciation of the word 'infinitive' or to discuss allophonic/phonemic transcription. It wasn't me who started to discuss it, so don't blame for wasted time.

That being said, I have good news for you: I'm not going to talk about it more. Only one reply here actually tried (though failed) to answer my question while other people are mostly focused on explaining me that 'infinitive' isn't pronounced with a flap or why Wiktionary is so great because it uses a phonemic transcription (which is useless for learners in this case if it doesn't provide an allophonic transcription, BTW). I don't see a point in spending more time with people who are more focused upon explaning me why I'm wrong than upon the question itself. Bye ~2026-32792-42 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do Americans pronounce it "infinidive"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1900 at least: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/infinitive_adj ~2026-32543-04 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. See flapdoodle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What with it? What's your point? ~2026-32596-63 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That the notion that Americans pronounce it "infinidive" is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Both OED and Cambridge and OALD disagree with you ~2026-32655-44 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And they're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're not wrong, but they're oversimplifying. I've heard both [-tʰɪv] and [-ɾɪv] from AmE speakers; the former when the final syllable is (secondarily) stressed, the latter when it isn't. To regard only one pronunciation in either direction is the inaccuracy here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is on point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are rarely "wrong", in the sense I think you mean. Despite what is popularly supposed, dictionaries do not dictate how words are to be spelled, how they're to be pronounced, or what they mean. They simply record that such spellings, pronunciations and meanings have actually been encountered in the real world, in sufficient numbers to be considered significant for a record of them to be published. Any reader is free to disagree with anything they read, but framing it as right/wrong is missing the point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to what to believe? The opinion of some anonymous Brit? Or my own ears? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what is popularly supposed, dictionaries do not dictate how words are to be spelled, how they're to be pronounced, or what they mean. They simply record that such spellings, pronunciations and meanings have actually been encountered in the real world, in sufficient numbers to be considered significant for a record of them to be published.

That's not true. There are prescriptive dictionaries which indeed 'dictate how words are to be spelled, how they're to be pronounced, or what they mean'. Some examples:

• A Dictionary of the English Language
• Wielki słownik poprawnej polszczyzny PWN
• Dictionnaire de l'Académie française

There are also mainly descriptive dictionaries, which contain prescriptive usage notes. Some examples from modern English dictionaries:

• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/i_1?q=I
• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/less_1?q=less
• https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/less
• Offensive words in Longman Dictionary and The Britannica Dictionary

~2026-32927-96 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those diktats ring hollow to me. Lexicostrophists and grammatologists can prescribe all they like, but precisely zero people are forced to comply, by virtue of the dictionary itself. Such forces do exist, but they are social, cultural or educational in their nature. Teachers and other kinds of authority figures may well correct or exercise some influence over the speech and writings of others, using dictionaries etc as their ultimate source of Truth. Others are more guided by what their grandmothers taught them, and are just as convinced of those Truths, and if there's ever a mismatch, they consider the dictionary makers have it all wrong. Any honest lexicographer will admit they're always way behind the 8-ball, because it takes time to record and publish usages that come to their attention. In other words, they are recording language change after it has already happened out there in the RW. Once something gets into the dictionary it gets a cachet of authority, but by that time it's changed again, in a thousand ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are some differences between the article 'Agreement (linguistics)' [3] and the article 'Agreement in the English language' [4]. They are mostly discribed in the discussion page of the former. Could you perhaps look at those two articles and say what isn't factually correct? ~2026-32653-88 (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article Agreement (linguistics) is incorrect in that it's examples are not proper American English though they are probably good British English. See American and British English grammatical differences#Subject–verb agreement. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am trying to trace the recent semantic shift and ultimate origin of the slang phrase "let him cook" (and the related adjectival use, "is cooking"), meaning to allow someone to freely perform a task they excel at, or to recognize someone's brilliant execution.

I have checked standard crowdsourced repositories like Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme, which point heavily toward 2010s hip-hop culture (specifically the rapper Lil B) and subsequent popularization via NBA and NFL internet subcultures. However, these sources are light on the precise transition from the literal or metaphorical culinary sense to its current abstract meaning of creative freedom or momentum.

Does anyone have access to digital media archives, early 2010s Usenet/Twitter corpora, or dialectology papers that record the earliest citations of this specific usage? Specifically, I'm curious if this was an independent innovation within African American Vernacular English (AAVE) that was later co-opted by sports fandoms, or if it evolved from an earlier, unrelated idiom. Thanks! ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly goes back a lot farther. Expressions like "now you're cookin'" go back to at least the 1930s, possibly with a jazz connection. I'm reminded of this segment of "Birdland" (Weather Report song): "Bird would cook, Max would look - where? Down in Birdland; Miles came through, 'Trane came too - there Down in Birdland; Basie blew, Blakey too - where? Down in Birdland; Cannonball played that hall - there Down in Birdland"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Bugs's link to the song. Deor (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) I might not understand how specific you are, but Etymonline states;

Phrase what's cooking? "what's up, what's going on" is attested by 1942.
To cook with gas "do well, act or think correctly" is 1930s jive talk.

I also found this Reddit discussion; [5]. Just seems like a minor semantic shift from decades-old slang to me. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That Reddit discussion there mentions the exact phrase "Let him cook!" used in a Breaking Bad episode, with a sequence that later became a meme, so it might be the direct source for the current popularity. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This link mentions the usage of "devising a plan", which I guess might be a shortening of "cook up". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakuran @Baseball Bugs @Deor When did it become mainstream? ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly by the early 1940s.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on which particular sense you are referring to. Many of them overlap, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be found in print literature or books? ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the EO link I posted a couple of lines above? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's cooking with gas used in 1939 in the promotion of gas cooking. Note that the phrase is in quotes, so we can infer that it's already a meme. Here's the metaphor "cooking with gas" ascribed to Bob Hope in 1941; in the Etymonline entry, he was also said to be among those using it on the radio in 1939. I found the phrase used daily in newspaper and magazines in a literal sense, for promotion of gas cooking, for thirty years or more, to such an extent that it was difficult to scroll through 1910. I didn't find evidence of 1930s jive talk, but I don't know where that would be documented. Here's a September 1940 show tune, Now you're cooking with gas, and "cooking with gas" as a metaphor, December 1940.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Daffy Duck uses the "cooking with gas" line at the end of the 1943 cartoon The Wise Quacking Duck. WB often incorporated already-well-known catchphrases in those cartoons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a city in Texas called Palestine, pronounced (as I understand it) /ˈpæləˌstin/ rhyming with mean unlike the place in the Middle East that's /ˈpæləˌstaɪn/ rhyming with wine. At least occasionally, e.g. here and here, I see the inhabitants of the Texas city referred to as Palestinians (in the same way that people from Ottawa are Ottawans, etc). Two questions:
1) Is Palestinian in reference to the inhabitants of the Texan city pronounced any differently than Palestinian in reference to the Middle Eastern people? For example, are Texan Palestinians pronounced /-stin.i.ən(z)/ rhyming with Armenian(s)?
2) Is Palestinian the usual demonym for people from Palestine, TX, or is some other term more common?
-sche (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I don't really know how I should pronounce English IPA symbols which are used in dictionaries. This is probably because they seem misleading. For example, I was shocked when I first heard that /iː/ in 'fleece' is actually pronounced as [ɪj] or that /uː/ in 'goose' is pronounced with [w].

Sadly, there's nothing in those characters that suggests such pronunciation, so I guess I need an explanation of those symbols designed for learners. I want more than just voice audios. Something like 'this symbol should be pronounced long even though it doesn't have /ː/' or 'when you say this sound, you also need to add [w]'.

For context, my first language is Polish, and I wish to learn RP. Note also that I'm not asking for an explanation why those characters are bad, what is phonemic transcription, how dictionaries work or for a new set of symbols. I'm asking for an explanation how I should pronounce English IPA symbols used in dictionaries ~2026-33268-60 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you want an explanation of English Allophones specially for Polish speakers, which takes into account any overlap with Polish allophones. Otherwise it would confuse you by giving details of sound distinctions that you can't even perceive, which would only be helpful to somebody from, say, Thailand.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is somebody hearing a "w" sound in "goose"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's after the vowel, I think. Like "gu-wuss" said quickly? wikt:goose has (Standard Southern British) /ɡʉ͡ws/. W is similar^{weasel words} to a fast oo sound, anyway, so this pronunciation adds a u sound (or a brief null vowel) after the oo. W is the semivocalic counterpart of a close back rounded vowel [u], whatever that means, but anyway I bet it gets mostly absorbed into the preceding vowel and just amounts to a barely perceptible grunt. So a minimalist diphthong instead of the US version with a single vowel.  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 18:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]