Please, pronounce it "wert"!

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dgallo said:
Nowā€¦ how do you pronounce ā€œkviekā€ā€¦ I donā€™t think I know two people who say it the same lol
Click to expand...

My understanding based on podcasts:

Quike.

Like quake or quick or quack, but with a hard "eye". Or somewhere in between "quike" and "quake". Most people get this wrong. I probably get it wrong too. So don't take my word for it. Ask somebody from Norway.
 
dmtaylor said:
My understanding based on podcasts:

Quike.

Like quake or quick or quack, but with a hard "eye". Or somewhere in between "quike" and "quake". Most people get this wrong. I probably get it wrong too. So don't take my word for it. Ask somebody from Norway.
Click to expand...
Ive heard the same, which I believe is true. But Ive heard keevic, Kaveekā€¦ and so many others lol
 
slayer021175666 said:
See! This is why we can't have anything nice!
šŸ¤ŖšŸ¤£
Click to expand...

WelcomeToHBT.jpg
 
OK saw this thread pop up sooo many times today I thought Id actually open it up and good gosh! We got hilarious banter here along with serious scholarly banter and now animals sticking tongues at others! Honestly, Im not sure if I got smarter or dumber reading this thread but pretty entertaining nevertheless. Now I need a beer for sure lol.
 
Hey! I didn't even noticed they were both sticking their tounges out! The one on the right, steals the show! What a Ham, he is!šŸ˜
 
Drewch said:
The only constant in language is change.

You can try to fight it, but don't expect to win.
Click to expand...
Yup. I've pretty much accepted the fact now that how a language is used is how it should be used. Not how some book or person says it should be used.

Craiginthecorn said:
Webster's has decided that whatever is on common use is correct. Like they think it's okay to pronounce turmeric "too mur ik", conveniently ignoring the first R.
Click to expand...
Yup, because how a word is used/pronounced in common use is what defines the language. Dictionaries document how words are used, not how they shall be used. If dictionaries aren't updated to match current usage then they are history books, not dictionaries. :)

Now, pardon me while I go yeet some clothes into a bag for an upcoming trip. :D
 
McMullan said:
. Most English words actually have Latin roots. Of course, there are some similarities among Germanic languages, but they actually evolved as separate languages barring the odd invasion.
The main Germanic influence in Britain appears to be from the Belgae, the first Germanic tribe to colonise the British Isles. Then there were the Saxons. Then Norse refugees fleeing Vikings.
Click to expand...
From approx AD 800 to about AD 1000 part of what today is England was referred to as "Danelaw" and under the influence of various Scandinavian factions.
The Danish had the word "urt" and in Swedish it was called "vort", could that be the origin of the word "wort"
 
A while ago it was asked of several people who should know, but nobdody could agree and was not settled.

How do you pronounce the wonder hop spelled SAAZ?
 
RufusBrewer said:
A while ago it was asked of several people who should know, but nobdody could agree and was not settled.

How do you pronounce the wonder hop spelled SAAZ?
Click to expand...

IIRC, it's derived from the German name of the Czech city Zatec. In German, it should be pronounced like "zahts." But I often hear it pronounced "sots."
 
Die ass it uhl.

I'm sorry folks, but anything else is just dumb. (Kidding)

What other hobby has such foreign and interesting vocabulary? Probably one with horses.
 
An interesting English language footnote, as long as we're tossing worts around: In 1066 the Normans (French speaking people) invaded England and took over the high positions in society. They relegated the natives (Saxons) to the menial labor. The Saxons raised Sheep, Pigs, Cows, etc. But when they showed up on the ruling Norman's tables, they were mutton, pork, beef, etc. Lots of other food and job related words have different meanings according the station of the people using/performing them, but I've had too many homebrews to remember any of them at the moment. Thanks for listening.
 
My great grandma always, for a long as I knew her, referred to cupcakes as cookies. She forgot more about good cooking than I'll ever know, but I've never heard anyone else use the word cookie that way. Maybe she was insane. I just don't know.
 
@TheMadKing
I am indeed anxious to learn from you how you've uncovered this true history which throws down the combine scholarship of the world's leading experts and refutes beyond a doubt the written historical record of the time, the archeological record, the linguistic analyses, and the genetic record which have been accepted as historical fact by every reputable institution in the world. I'm dying to know!
Click to expand...
Well, I lived there for most of my life and took a keen interest in its history then discovered how historians just make **** up mainly. You're a believer, I'm not. I don't share your world view, however 'big' they make their fake institutions. I'm one of those annoying people who insist on verifiable evidence, not cheap talk. The abrupt end of the Viking era and the shallow graves periodically uncovered by archeologists and road works give away tantalising clues. As do the unembellished Icelandic sagas. The Vikings were worse than Norse pirates, they were orcs. Read Beowulf. There were always brutal consequences waiting for their pillaging. Linguistics is a rough social 'science' with linguists ranked alongside historians. Both rely on believers. The genetic record? According to DNA genealogists like '23andMe'? Again, you need to be a believer. Most genetic diversity in Europe's human populations was already there 40 000 years ago. It's been so mixed up - with language - over the course of time academic attempts to superimpose biased beliefs to engineer artificial patterns to confirm the beliefs is almost as funny as stand up. Certainly a form of entertainment. Popularising history, that is. Especially when there's a lack of evidence. Hollywood's made a fortune out of it. You've been sold fairytales mainly. Beliefs. And they're far too crude to be called 'facts'. How you interpret them is your business.
 
Last edited:
McMullan said:
@TheMadKing

Well, I lived there for most of my life and took a keen interest in its history then discovered how historians just make **** up mainly. You're a believer, I'm not. I don't share your world view, however 'big' they make their fake institutions. I'm one of those annoying people who insist on verifiable evidence, not cheap talk. The abrupt end of the Viking era and the shallow graves periodically uncovered by archeologists and road works give away tantalising clues. As do the unembellished Icelandic sagas. The Vikings were worse than Norse pirates, they were orcs. Read Beowulf. There were always brutal consequences waiting for their pillaging. Linguistics is a rough social 'science' with linguists ranked alongside historians. Both rely on believers. The genetic record? According to DNA genealogists like '23andMe'? Again, you need to be a believer. Most genetic diversity in Europe's human populations was already there 40 000 years ago. It's been so mixed up - with language - over the course of time academic attempts to superimpose biased beliefs to engineer artificial patterns to confirm the beliefs is almost as funny as stand up. Certainly a form of entertainment. Popularising history, that is. Especially when there's a lack of evidence. Hollywood's made a fortune out of it. You've been sold fairytales mainly. Beliefs. And they're far too crude to be called 'facts'. How you interpret them is your business.
Click to expand...

Ah how silly of me. You lived there with interest, of course! Osmosis works wonders for historical knowledge šŸ˜‚

Btw, Icelandic sagas were recorded in about 1100-1400, long after the Viking era from 793-1066 or so.

Beowolf was written down sometime between 700-1000 and is about Scandinavians (hrothgar is king of the Danes) and was written in old English translated by linguists and I've read it many times.

Linguistics is very much a science based on statistical modeling and evidence and can be proven by the fact that we can read ancient languages, which were lost and then recovered via Linguistics.

Can you please help me understand the criteria by which you decide what you accept as verifiable evidence? Since you have rejected archeology, genetics, primary sources (that means written at the time it actually happened, I.e. The anglo saxon chronical and other written texts).

I'm also still waiting for your evidence that you keep mentioning.
 
TheMadKing said:
Ah how silly of me. You lived there with interest, of course! Osmosis works wonders for historical knowledge šŸ˜‚

Btw, Icelandic sagas were recorded in about 1100-1400, long after the Viking era from 793-1066 or so.

Beowolf was written down sometime between 700-1000 and is about Scandinavians (hrothgar is king of the Danes) and was written in old English translated by linguists and I've read it many times.

Linguistics is very much a science based on statistical modeling and evidence and can be proven by the fact that we can read ancient languages, which were lost and then recovered via Linguistics.

Can you please help me understand the criteria by which you decide what you accept as verifiable evidence? Since you have rejected archeology, genetics, primary sources (that means written at the time it actually happened, I.e. The anglo saxon chronical and other written texts).

I'm also still waiting for your evidence that you keep mentioning.
Click to expand...
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?
 
pc_trott said:
An interesting English language footnote, as long as we're tossing worts around: In 1066 the Normans (French speaking people) invaded England and took over the high positions in society. They relegated the natives (Saxons) to the menial labor. The Saxons raised Sheep, Pigs, Cows, etc. But when they showed up on the ruling Norman's tables, they were mutton, pork, beef, etc. Lots of other food and job related words have different meanings according the station of the people using/performing them, but I've had too many homebrews to remember any of them at the moment. Thanks for listening.
Click to expand...

I heard one expert claim that when you see a movie or TV show about America during and before the American revolution, and people walking around with posh British accents, using thee and thou and pronounce things like wah-tah for water is BS.

The American english accent at the time and the British English accent were both pretty close to the American accent of today. It is the British that went and mutated English the most from back 250-350 years ago.
 
McMullan said:
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?
Click to expand...

You can't interpret a claim. You interpret evidence to make a claim.

Again I ask, you have repeatedly mentioned that you have seen evidence that Vikings never invaded England, will you please let me see it? I would like to make my own interpretation.

The native Americans, about 30,000 years ago. Or did you mean Europeans?

It's now widely accepted that Norse explorers reached the shore of newfoundland around the year 1000. The evidence for that is primarily iron smelting slag and square patterns in the soil which have been interpreted as possible long houses.
 
McMullan said:
I didn't offer you any evidence. Just my interpretation of what's claimed. And noted it was your business how you interpret what you want to believe. Like your belief linguistics is a science. Who discovered America?
Click to expand...

You seem like an entertaining person to get a pint with in a pub. I would love to hear your opinions on some diverse topics such as Atlantis, bigfoot, crop circles, human evolution, the vatican, freemasons, modern politics, medical science, etc. I would imagine your antiestablishmentarian beliefs have contrived some incredibly amusing narratives on all of these topics. Cheers and thanks for the entertaining debate!
 
RufusBrewer said:
I heard one expert claim that when you see a movie or TV show about America during and before the American revolution, and people walking around with posh British accents, using thee and thou and pronounce things like wah-tah for water is BS.

The American english accent at the time and the British English accent were both pretty close to the American accent of today. It is the British that went and mutated English the most from back 250-350 years ago.
Click to expand...

And this just showed up in my Firefox interesting tidbit bin today
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...heir-british-accents?utm_source=pocket-newtab
 
TheMadKing said:
You can't interpret a claim. You interpret evidence to make a claim.

Again I ask, you have repeatedly mentioned that you have seen evidence that Vikings never invaded England, will you please let me see it? I would like to make my own interpretation.

The native Americans, about 30,000 years ago. Or did you mean Europeans?

It's now widely accepted that Norse explorers reached the shore of newfoundland around the year 1000. The evidence for that is primarily iron smelting slag and square patterns in the soil which have been interpreted as possible long houses.
Click to expand...
Now you're just playing semantics and deciding what you want words to mean to suit your beliefs. Of course I can interpret claims for myself. Do you imagine there is something magical about so-called scholars? Let me inform you, as in any human endeavour, there are the good, the bad, and the ugly. You don't suspect what little was documented in writing way back then wasn't even slightly biased or incomplete? That Cnut was one of England's fiercest, most successful warrior kings? Blah! Blah! Blah! He might have been a complete dickhead for all we know. It's not as if there was ever a general consensus documented at the time, is it?

Did I type Vikings didn't invade England? I typed they didn't make much headway inland, because they didn't. Sure, they pillaged undefended coastal communities, usually under the cover of night, creeping up behind their victims then stabbing them in the back. Pirates. Sure they won some battles and they lost some battles, but the Norse influence in England, which is now part of English heritage, was down to Norse refugees settling not Vikings invading. These Norse refugees fled Norway in droves to get away from Vikings. That's how Iceland was founded, too, by Norse refugees (and Irish slaves) fleeing orcs.

Anyway, Cnut wasn't so respected as a warrior among the Vikings. He had to bribe them with an awful lot English coinage to stop pillaging England. It was more cost effective to take the newly organised resistance to the next level. Serfdom propped up by memes of heroes laying down their lives for king and country. In short, the very reason we've had mainly dickheads in government ever since.

I'm glad your answer was native Americans, but you couldn't resist mentioning 'Europeans'. That's part of the problem. A Eurocentric or western-centric wold view. That's what depends on us believing in poorly documented fairytales. It's more like a religion. And it might well have been Norse refugees who turned up on American shores 1000 years ago. The latest claim is they were actually Icelandic explorers?
 
Last edited:
TheMadKing said:
You seem like an entertaining person to get a pint with in a pub. I would love to hear your opinions on some diverse topics such as Atlantis, bigfoot, crop circles, human evolution, the vatican, freemasons, modern politics, medical science, etc. I would imagine your antiestablishmentarian beliefs have contrived some incredibly amusing narratives on all of these topics. Cheers and thanks for the entertaining debate!
Click to expand...

As a scientist I could only entertain you on most of those subjects. Ironically, it's not me who accepts narratives, is it?

Cheers! Enjoy your weekend and do try not to fantasise too much about Cnut. He probably was a dickhead.
 
TheMadKing said:
d'ya like dags?
Click to expand...
I have a friend in Boston. It was a trip how we pronounce words differently.
How FA is da KA from da BA? It got so I didn't notice.
My Toronto relatives would tease about my Midwest accent. Apparently, they didn't know anyone from Boston.
I did experience native folks from Ireland and I couldn't understand much of anything. That would have taken a bit of time to get my ear tuned.
 
bruce_the_loon said:
It's not pronounced wert, wort or vort, it's pronounced "raw beer juice". Just like krausen is pronounced "yeast poop foam" and trub is pronounced "beer mud"
Click to expand...
Well then*, let's just conclude this thread with the 'fact' that the often 'mumbled' phrase wort is potentially a load of bollocks.

*
 

Similar threads

Daves Hopfenstube
Servus from Germany!
Replies
4
Views
139
ncbrewer
N
Yesfan
US-05 Feedback and Some Other Questions/Suggestions
Replies
20
Views
2K
day_trippr
day_trippr
JaggersBrewingCo
Jaggers Brewing Co Content - YouTube - Podcast - Spotify - Second Channel - Videos and Links
Replies
28
Views
2K
JaggersBrewingCo
JaggersBrewingCo
mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
939
Red over White
Red over White
wepeeler
SS Brewtech 7 Gal Unitank 1.0
Replies
1
Views
802
wepeeler
wepeeler
CornyKegs 300

Latest posts

Back
Top