Jump to content

Menu

Help me find a word


regentrude
 Share

Recommended Posts

Help me find an English verb that describes a sound. It is the sound of wind in trees or a waterfall/river that is in some distance. It is a monotonous sound, no internal structure can be discerned (not rustle, burble, babble). It is of medium intensity (not roar). 

Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, but none of these is quite it.

susurrus is too quiet; murmur/mutter/burble/prattle has internal structure where you can discern sub-sounds. whiz is fast.

I am looking for the English equivalent to the German word "rauschen" if that helps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes there isn't a direct translation.  When I hear rauschen, the closest English word I think of is rustle.  Rustle to me does not have any kind if rhythm or structure,  although I think of it more for something like wind in tree branches or small animal noises (movement,  not vocalization), it doesn't also work for river noises like rauschen does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In English I'm pretty sure we'd need to use two or three words to describe the sound (although susurrus is just gorgeous and also I think very apt and I'm impressed that Tanaqui thought of it - but if you want connotations of louder than that, there's no direct word that I know of).

 

Maybe a very dull roar?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jdahlquist said:

swoooosh?

that's probably the best. Is it actually a real word? And what's the difference between swoosh and whoosh? To me, whoosh sounds more airy and swoosh more watery, but can the native speakers help me out here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

that's probably the best. Is it actually a real word? And what's the difference between swoosh and whoosh? To me, whoosh sounds more airy and swoosh more watery, but can the native speakers help me out here?

 

Swoosh is a word. It's more recognizable in pop culture referring to the Nike swoosh, obviously, but I think its actual definition fits what you're looking for?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tibbie Dunbar said:

Murmuration is a flock of starlings, but it's also the action of murmuring. I've also got thrum, whir....what about "rustling thrum"? for the trees, or "rushing drone" for waterfall..? 

From the definition I have seen "thrum" indicates a rhythmic noise. Is that true? If so, not the word...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Isn't "rustling" a sound only dry things make? Like dry leaves, or silken petticoats?

 

The leaves wouldn't have to be dry; I'm listening to my leaves rustling before a storm right now (midwestern USA). Deciduous bur oak and apple trees that are being blown around vigorously; definitely sounds like rustling . Again, I wouldn't it use it for the water; then I would use 'rushing.' Now that I think of it, "rushing drone" is pretty good for a waterfall...

Good luck! I think it would be very frustrating to know that there's a word out there for exactly what you want...Bess Streeter Aldrich (Nebraska prairie author, sort of a minor Willa Cather) would just salt her stories with German and let it be the reader's problem to look it up if they wanted to know. She would always provide context, of course - describing what was going on and then employing her word or phrase. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swoosh is the name of the Nike logo.  I would think of whoosh as more airy sounding and swoosh as to items brushing against each other,  I think of swoosh and whoosh both having some speed associated with them (hence the Nike logo), but that would maybe depend on context. 

Shwoosh is sometimes used.  I don't think it is an official English dictionary word (and couldn't be used in scrabble).  In English there are a number of "comic book sound words" that are used by themselves.  They could be used in informal writing.  I am not sure that we have as many verb sounds in English; perhaps we use more adverbs in those instances  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, moonflower said:

I have never heard anyone use it in real life but have read it.  I read it in my head as sof (like soft without the final T sound).  


I have also never heard it pronounced, so now you had me curious and I looked it up... there are two possible pronunciations, either rhyming with tough (not cough) or sow as in female pig, not the spreading of seed in fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Danae said:

I don't think there is one. There's a reason English Bible translations have to go with "a sound like a mighty rushing wind" for Pentecost.

 

This.  I really don't think there's a word.  A small brook burbles or babbles, a huge river roars, but something in the middle?  There's just no word, you'd have to say "the sound of the rushing river," which is not very poetic.

I think of the verb 'schweigen' in German.  There is no verb in English that directly describes the act of being silent or saying nothing.  "Hush" doesn't work because that implies you were previously making some kind of sound. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, klmama said:

Regentrude, is this for your poetry?  Does it have to be a real word?  Could you just write the sound, like "shhhh" or "whhhh" or something else representative?  I do think "sough" is too archaic.

 

Sough is rather archaic but if it is for poetry it may work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Shakespeare coined thousands of words to get the exact ones he wanted!!

 

He did not. With increasing research, most of his citations have now been shown not to be the earliest. Of those that remain, most are obviously pre-existing words that simply had never appeared in print before or simply new uses of old words - using "gleam" as a verb instead of a noun, for example. And then there's a small number of words made up of common roots.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

 

He did not. With increasing research, most of his citations have now been shown not to be the earliest. Of those that remain, most are obviously pre-existing words that simply had never appeared in print before or simply new uses of old words - using "gleam" as a verb instead of a noun, for example. And then there's a small number of words made up of common roots.

That is interesting, thanks!  I guess he just know of lot of words and made some of the less common ones more common.  The word frequency and use comparison of the number of words in his works verses other works is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...