Why Do Americans Say ‘Uh’ and ‘Um’ and British People Say ‘Er’ and ‘Erm’?

iStock
iStock

I’ve been reading the Harry Potter books with my daughter recently, and while most of the British terms in the series (git, nutter, prat, puckish, peaky, mental, chuffed, having a go, and so on) roll by without making me skip a beat, I keep getting hung up on those little pause words, er and erm. It feels wrong to say them that way, even in my dodgy approximation of a British voice.

The reason it feels wrong to say them that way, is because it is wrong to say them that way. British people do not read er and erm in the way that Americans would read those words, with a fully articulated r. Most British dialects are non-rhotic; the r is not pronounced in words like her or term. So how would a British person pronounce er and erm? Basically, as "uh" and "um," with perhaps a bit more tension in the vowel.

The identity of er and erm depends on pronouncing them like a native in your head, something we don’t have to do with other words (chuffed reads as British even if our internal pronunciation is American, and we can accept that Harry Potter will be pronounced differently by an English person even if we don’t actually pronounce it that way internally when we read). This fact, which on the surface seems so obvious, can escape even the most astute readers. Lynne Murphy of the blog Separated by a Common Language is a linguist who had been living in the UK for years when she finally realized the truth about er and erm. She was watching TV and noticed that the captions for American shows with American actors speaking with American accents used er and erm for uh and um. They were different ways of writing the same sounds. I completely identified with her reaction to this discovery: “Before any of you complain that I should not have been allowed to have a doctorate in Linguistics if it took me this long to figure out something this basic, let me tell you: I've thought the same thing myself. I think the technical term for this is: Duh!

Or should that be der? In fact, according to the OED der has been a British variant for duh since 1979.  Not sure if it shows up in the Harry Potter books this way, but I’ll be sure to notice it now if it does.

Are Any of the Scientific Instruments Left on the Moon By the Apollo Astronauts Still Functional?

Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Heritage Space/Heritage Images/Getty Images

C Stuart Hardwick:

The retroreflectors left as part of the Apollo Lunar Ranging Experiment are still fully functional, though their reflective efficiency has diminished over the years.

This deterioration is actually now delivering valuable data. The deterioration has multiple causes including micrometeorite impacts and dust deposition on the reflector surface, and chemical degradation of the mirror surface on the underside—among other things.

As technology has advanced, ground station sensitivity has been repeatedly upgraded faster than the reflectors have deteriorated. As a result, measurements have gotten better, not worse, and measurements of the degradation itself have, among other things, lent support to the idea that static electric charge gives the moon an ephemeral periodic near-surface pseudo-atmosphere of electrically levitating dust.

No other Apollo experiments on the moon remain functional. All the missions except the first included experiment packages powered by radiothermoelectric generators (RTGs), which operated until they were ordered to shut down on September 30, 1977. This was done to save money, but also because by then the RTGs could no longer power the transmitters or any instruments, and the control room used to maintain contact was needed for other purposes.

Because of fears that some problem might force Apollo 11 to abort back to orbit soon after landing, Apollo 11 deployed a simplified experiment package including a solar-powered seismometer which failed after 21 days.

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

What Makes a Hotel Breakfast 'Continental'?

Hotels often offer a complimentary pastry and fruit breakfast.
Hotels often offer a complimentary pastry and fruit breakfast.
tashka2000/iStock via Getty Images

The continental breakfast, which is typically made up of pastries, fruit, and coffee, is often advertised by hotels as a free perk for guests. But why is it called continental, and why don’t patrons get some eggs and bacon along with it?

The term dates back to 19th century Britain, where residents referred to mainland Europe as “the continent.” Breakfast in this region was usually something light, whereas an English or American breakfast incorporated meat, beans, and other “heavy” menu options.

American hotels that wanted to appeal to European travelers began advertising “continental breakfasts” as a kind of flashing neon sign to indicate guests wouldn’t be limited to American breakfast fare that they found unappealing. The strategy was ideal for hotels, which saved money by offering some muffins, fruit, and coffee and calling it a day.

That affordability as well as convenience—pastries and fruit are shelf-stable, requiring no heat or refrigeration to maintain food safety—is a big reason continental breakfasts have endured. It’s also a carryover from the hybrid model of hotel pricing, where American hotels typically folded the cost of meals into one bill and European hotels billed for food separately. By offering a continental breakfast, guests got the best of both worlds. And while Americans were initially aghast at the lack of sausages and pancakes on offer, they’ve since come around to the appeal of a muffin and some orange juice to get their travel day started.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER