"Go" as a nonhuman "speech" marker

[Xephyr]

I recently noticed that, in English, the verb "to go" is used in place of "to say"/"to do"/etc. when quoting nonhuman sounds, as in:

- The cow goes [cow noise]
- The bird went *whistle whistle* all morning
- The bear went rrwwaaaaauuung!! at me

I can't think of any other verb that can be used in lieu of "go" in these cases. I don't know what you would call this sort of thing. It isn't quite ideophony, because the complement of "go" always imitates the sound being made. It isn't quite onomatopoeia, because you're not adapting the sound into the language's phonology. Also, you can't use "go" like this without a complement:

- ** The bird went all morning.
- ** The bear went.

In at least a couple other languages, you use the word referring to the type of sound being made as the speech verb:

Finnish (thanks miekko!):
kargu karjui rrwwaaaaauuung!!
bear-nom roar-pst rrwwaaaaaauuuung

Which you can't do in English:

- ** the bear roared rrwwaaaaauuuung!!

Nor can you use "to say", even though you're essentially quoting it, without it sounding oddly anthropomorphic:

- ** the bear said "Rrwwwaaaaauuuunng!!"


"To go" seems pretty restricted to the use of introducing an imitation of the sound made by an animal, and vice versa. Sure, in English, "to go" can also be used for quoted speech of human agents... but this use is basilectual and there are people who wouldn't use it that way but who wouldn't think of using any other verb for sentences like "The bird went *whistle whiste*". So I don't think the two uses are precisely the same-- likely the quoted human speech use is an extension of the other use.

So... is this a Thing? What do other languages use for this?

[Bob Johnson]

and so I went "nah that's not right"

[Xephyr]

Congratulations on reading the whole post to the end. Gold star.

[Xephyr]

Also, there's the issue that with human quoted speech you can use verbs describing the manner of speech:

- The man whispered "X..."
- The woman yelled "X..."
- The child enunciated "X..."
etc

Which are all ambitransitive and can be used to introduce speech. There are several verbs to describe the manner of vocalization of a dog, but none can be used to introduce "speech":

**- The dog howled woooo..
**- The dog yelped [yelping noise]
**- The dog growled grrrrrr...
**- The dog whined heew heew heew

Clearly something else is going on here.

[WeepingElf]

German uses machen in this function, as in Eine Kuh macht Muh 'A cow goes moo'.

[Xephyr]

German uses machen in this function, as in Eine Kuh macht Muh 'A cow goes moo'.

I want to make sure we're not just talking about words that derive from nonhuman sounds. Can you use machen that for words that aren't lexicallized onomatopoeia? Can you say "Das Auto macht eeerrkkkkkKKKK POOSH!!"?

[Ars Lande]

French uses 'faire' (la vache fait meuh, etc.) and the usage is very similar.
I think both 'go' and 'faire' are really used to introduce onomatopeia:

Scientific progress goes boink.
Ca a fait shbonk là-dedans.

'Faire' can be used as a substitute for 'dire', but this use is literary, and a little old-fashioned.
— Diable ! fit Ned.

[WeepingElf]

German uses machen in this function, as in Eine Kuh macht Muh 'A cow goes moo'.

I want to make sure we're not just talking about words that derive from nonhuman sounds. Can you use machen that for words that aren't lexicallized onomatopoeia? Can you say "Das Auto macht eeerrkkkkkKKKK POOSH!!"?

Yes.

[hwhatting]

German uses machen in this function, as in Eine Kuh macht Muh 'A cow goes moo'.

I want to make sure we're not just talking about words that derive from nonhuman sounds. Can you use machen that for words that aren't lexicallized onomatopoeia? Can you say "Das Auto macht eeerrkkkkkKKKK POOSH!!"?

Yes.

Russian also uses делать "make" in this function.

[Ulrike Meinhof]

Colloquial Swedish would use bara 'just, only' in examples like "the car goes/went KBROINK" ('bilen bara KBROINK'). But I'm unsure about how to express it more formally without it sounding all too stilted, like "the car made a noise that sounded KBROINK".

EDIT: Actually, låta 'sound' might be a good option: fågeln lät pipipiipip 'the bird went pipipiipip', etc.

[Thry]

Spanish would use hace "does/makes" over dice "says".

[ol bofosh]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

[Thry]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in Spanish ? "ponerse".

[ol bofosh]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in Spanish ? "ponerse".

"And then he's like 'No way!'" and I'm like 'Yes way!'." = "Y entonces él se pone '¡Qué no!' y yo me pongo '¡Qué sí!'"?

Something like that?

The "be like" seems more American to me, or "brought up on American TV".

[linguoboy]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in Spanish ? "ponerse".

The usage is different. Go introduces a direct quote whereas be like can signal a quote, a paraphrase, or just someone's thoughts, e.g. "Then I'm like, fuck this, and I go, 'Whatever, later days.' And he was all like, whatever, and he says nothing."

[Thry]

@linguoboy: well ponerse can only be used in quoting then.

"And then he's like 'No way!'" and I'm like 'Yes way!'." = "Y entonces él se pone '¡Qué no!' y yo me pongo '¡Qué sí!'"?

Something like that?

Perfect, only that it's a bit awkward to see something so colloquial well punctuated xD.
It's more common in the third person.

The "be like" seems more American to me, or "brought up on American TV".

yea, that's the variety of English I attempt to speak.

y se pone, pos eso es americano, y me pongo, ave pos que quieres que te diga si eso es lo que hablo yo jajajaja

[zompist]

There are several verbs to describe the manner of vocalization of a dog, but none can be used to introduce "speech":

**- The dog howled woooo..
**- The dog yelped [yelping noise]
**- The dog growled grrrrrr...
**- The dog whined heew heew heew

I don't think those are ungrammatical. I could see them occuring in speech, or a children's book. In ordinary writing they're just redundant— "the dog growled" tells you all you need to know, nothing is added by trying to represent the growl. (In an oral story you can imitate the dog's sound.)

[finlay]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in Spanish ? "ponerse".

"And then he's like 'No way!'" and I'm like 'Yes way!'." = "Y entonces él se pone '¡Qué no!' y yo me pongo '¡Qué sí!'"?

Something like that?

The "be like" seems more American to me, or "brought up on American TV".

It has an air of being imported, but no, it's very common in the uk too. As linguoboy says, it can also be used for thoughts, and some older speakers exclusively use it this way, as far as I know.

[Ser]

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in SPANIARD Spanish ? "ponerse".

I'm completely unfamiliar with this use of ponerse introducing quotes. Seriously, what?

In El Salvador we just use a good ol' decir. Though also venir y decir(le). Y ella me dice, "¡que no!". Y yo vengo y le digo, "¡que sí!". (This use of venir is quite semantically washed, and doesn't refer to movement at all.)

Some interesting regionalism: if you want to introduce a nuance of complete stubborn-ness, like, quoting another person for saying something without any intention of changing their opinion, you can use estar como que: Y ella estaba como que, "¡no, vamos a visitarlos mañana y punto!". Y ni modo, ai tuvimos que ir.

[ol bofosh]

It has an air of being imported, but no, it's very common in the uk too. As linguoboy says, it can also be used for thoughts, and some older speakers exclusively use it this way, as far as I know.

Oh, okay. It is very common in Britain, but when I've heard it it always sounds a bit "American" (air of being imported). Although, maybe I do use it (I'm having doubts both ways).

[Gulliver]

**- The dog howled woooo..
**- The dog yelped [yelping noise]
**- The dog growled grrrrrr...
**- The dog whined heew heew heew[/quote]

But...
The (talking) dog howled "I didn't mean to eat all your toilet paper, forgive meeeee"
The dog yelped "Jinkies!"
The dog growled "that's my whiskey, madam".
The dog whined "But I really need to go outside riiiight nooooow..."

I agree with Zomp about redundancy being an issue with cases like "The cow mooed moo." (The moo-moo mooed moo?), but "Moo," mooed the cow, demonstratively feels grammatical and meaningful.

[Thry]

SERAFING READ ITS NOT EVEN IN ALL OF SPAIN:

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in SPANIARD Spanish ? "ponerse".

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in SPANIARD Spanish ? "ponerse".

I'm completely unfamiliar with this use of ponerse introducing quotes. Seriously, what?

In El Salvador we just use a good ol' decir. Though also venir y decir(le). Y ella me dice, "¡que no!". Y yo vengo y le digo, "¡que sí!". (This use of venir is quite semantically washed, and doesn't refer to movement at all.)

Some interesting regionalism: if you want to introduce a nuance of complete stubborn-ness, like, quoting another person for saying something without any intention of changing their opinion, you can use estar como que: Y ella estaba como que, "¡no, vamos a visitarlos mañana y punto!". Y ni modo, ai tuvimos que ir.

I'd say "y voy y le digo" rather than "y vengo y le digo" (also semantically washed).
Also that regionalism could be a calque from English with later semantic restrictions, right?

[Ser]

SERAFING READ ITS NOT EVEN IN ALL OF SPAIN

Oh, oh, xO

Also that regionalism could be a calque from English with later semantic restrictions, right?

Maybe. No idea.

[Melteor]

So I don't think the two uses are precisely the same-- likely the quoted human speech use is an extension of the other use.

I think that's putting it backwards. Likely it's deprecated for human speech (haha periphrasis) because humans speak and animals don't. When people act otherwise (conflating onomatopoeia with speech) it sounds childish.

It's not really basilectal, just it's not a mark of sophisticated story-telling, let's say. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't understand it, I mean; it's just very contextual.

Occasionally (or perhaps more than that) I use it to describe what someone said:
"And then he goes 'I don't like that, I think I'll get another.'"

The usual way is "be like", right? Do you know what's he way for that IMD in Spanish ? "ponerse".

The usage is different. Go introduces a direct quote whereas be like can signal a quote, a paraphrase, or just someone's thoughts, e.g. "Then I'm like, fuck this, and I go, 'Whatever, later days.' And he was all like, whatever, and he says nothing."

This. If you don't know how to put your thoughts in a clearer way, you can just say what you were thinking to yourself. In a way, it almost marks soliloquy at least when it comes to things you yourself might have wanted to say. Usually though it's kind of pretend reported soliloquy, people flip if you swear under your breath or talk to yourself all the time...Unless you use the tag/phrase "[...]I wonder[...]"

There are several verbs to describe the manner of vocalization of a dog, but none can be used to introduce "speech":

**- The dog howled woooo..
**- The dog yelped [yelping noise]
**- The dog growled grrrrrr...
**- The dog whined heew heew heew

I don't think those are ungrammatical. I could see them occuring in speech, or a children's book. In ordinary writing they're just redundant— "the dog growled" tells you all you need to know, nothing is added by trying to represent the growl. (In an oral story you can imitate the dog's sound.)

Yeah, I agree. I think I would say those 2 possible ways, with the 1st being as separate sentences. "The X Yed. [sound]" Then it doesn't feel so redundant.

And I don't feel the same way about "The dog howled, "A-whoooo!"" though, because it's a little atypical. I don't think I've ever heard someone try to imitate a yelp. The whine is still funny whenever someone tries it.

...

But...
The (talking) dog howled "I didn't mean to eat all your toilet paper, forgive meeeee"
The dog yelped "Jinkies!"
The dog growled "that's my whiskey, madam".
The dog whined "But I really need to go outside riiiight nooooow..."

Yeah, but (to both of you) these are fiction. And the thing is Gulliver, you're personifying an animal. So it's like how writers try to give information on how people say things, we're using animal sounds and treating them like emotional/attitudinal cues for the speech that follows. Not the same thing at all, but still given in the same format as a child's narrative, and it has the appeal of a magic trick. Note: Unlike the other examples with onomatopoeia I can't break these into two separate sentences.

I agree with Zomp about redundancy being an issue with cases like "The cow mooed moo." (The moo-moo mooed moo?), but "Moo," mooed the cow, demonstratively feels grammatical and meaningful.

You know the verb for a cow mooing is 'to low' right? This is a great example of how English absorbs words, we have a new verb 'moo' which is more common than the proper verb. Same with cats' meow.

But really this example is rhetorical; it sounds humorous. The onomatopoeia coming first sets up anticipation for what follows--like, "Why is this person mooing?" Still, if this is out of context, you might think the person were schizophrenic, like he's saying he's a cow or something. In a story you might open a scene and introduce a cat or a cow this way; it tells the person there's a cow, so that you can refer to the cow right away as 'the cow'. As to, "The cow mooed moo," this is funny for the same reason as the other examples you gave with animals talking, Gulliver. Maybe it's funny because we have a stereotype of cows being so stupid, that in the animal world they're the only ones who can't talk? I don't know, it seems like a particularly example because people are so familiar with the noise that cows make that it doesn't have a stigma attached? As I pointed out, "The cow mooed" is not the same as, "The cow lowed." (Something a Victorian might've said?)

I can think of one example where a human acts like an animal, and that's here:

The woman yelled "X..."

How would you feel about, "The wo/man yelled"? Or, "A woman screamed" vs. "The woman screamed, "NOOOO!"" There's even the case of, "The woman screamed at me," in which we expect she probably was not frightened and was just really really angry and probably used words...The other example is "to cry" which is really messed up, it can mean crying or yelling something i.e. "crying out" in the case of the latter. And would you believe it, we use 'to cry' just like an intransitive of "to go X" for both animals and people e.g. "The dog cried out as if stuck with something sharp." I think "to mewl" is another cross-species verb e.g. "She made mewling sounds all through the night"<--Can't tell if human or not.