nly appr? ximat? ly) as [? ]. This was, as? arly as th? mid-fift ?? nth c? ntury, r? pr? s? nt? d as tush, and s? m? what lat? r l? ss r? alistically as twish. Twish b? cam? archaic as a writt? n f? rm, but [t? ?] Surviv? s as a sp? k? n int? rpr? tati? n? f tush.and pshaw lik? wis? r? pr? s? nt natural? m? ti? nal utt? ranc? s? f disdain, c? nt? mpt, impati? nc? , Irritati? N, and th? lik? , But hav? b? c? m? c? nv? nti? naliz? d, as sh? wn by th? citati? n in W? bst? r s Third f? r pish: pish? d and pshaw? d a littl? at what had happ? n? d. B? Th b? gan as s? m? thing lik? [p?]. W. S. Gilb? rt c? mbin? d tw? such utt? ranc? s t? f? rm th? nam? ? f a n? bl? l? rd, Pish-Tush, in Th? Mikad ?, with tw? similarly? xpr? ssiv? ? n? s, P ?? h-Bah, f? r th? ? v? rw ?? ningly arist? cratic
L? rd High? v? rything? ls?. Yum-Yum, th? nam? ? f th? d? lightful h? r? in? ? f th? sam? ? p? ra, is similarly a c? nv? nti? naliz? d r? pr? s? ntati? n? f s? unds supp? s? dly mad? as a sign? f pl? asur? in? ating. Fr? M th? int? rj? cti? n yum-yum c? m? s th? adj? ctiv? yummy, still childish in its ass? ciati? ns-but giv? it tim?. ? w? r pugh is imitativ? ? f th? disdainful sniff with which many p? rs? ns r? act t? a bad sm? ll, r? s? mbling a vig? r? usly articulat? d [p]. But, as with th? pr? vi? us? xampl? s, it has b ?? n c? nv? nti? naliz? d int? a w? rd pr? n? unc? d [pyu]? r pr? l? ng? dly as [? pi? yu]. P ?? h (s? M? Tim? S with r? Duplicati? N as p ?? hp ?? h) is a variant, with s? M? what mild? r implicati? ns. Th? r? duplicat? d f? rm may b? us? d as a v? rb, as in H? p ?? h-p ?? h? d my sugg? sti? n. Fi? , Us? d f? r much th? sam? purp? s? s as p? w, is n? w archaic; it lik? wis? r? pr? s? nts an att? mpt at imitati? n. Faugh is pr? Bably a variant? F fi? ; s ?, d? ubtl? ss, is ph? w. Ugh, fr? M a t? nsing? f th? st? mach muscl? s f? ll? w? d by a gl? ttal st? p, has b ?? n c? nv? nti? naliz? d as an? xclamati? n? f disgust? rh? rr? r? r as a grunt attribut? d, in pr?-? thnic-s? nsitiv? days, t? Am? rican Indians.palatal click, articulat? d by placing th? t? ngu? against th? palat? and th? n withdrawing it, sucking in th? br? ath, is an? xpr? ssi? n? f impati? nc? ? r c? nt? mpt. It is als? s? m? tim? s us? d in r? duplicat? df? rm (th? r? may in fact b? thr ??? rm? r? such clicks) in sc? lding childr? n, as if t? ? xpr? ss sh? ck and r? gr? t at s? m? antis? cial act. A writt? n f? rm is tut (-tut), which has b? c? m? a w? rd in its? wn right, pr? n? unc? d n? t as a click but acc? rding t? th? sp? lling. H? W? v? r, tsk-tsk, which is int? nd? d t? r? pr? s? nt th? sam? click, is als? us? d with th? pr? nunciati? n [? t? sk? t? sk]. ? ld? r writt? n f? rms ar? tchick and tck (with? r with? ut r? duplicati? n). Tut (-tut) has l? Ng b ?? n us? d as a v? rb, as in Bulw? r-Lytt? ns pishing and tutting (1849) and Hall Cain? s H? laugh? d and tut-tutt? d (1894), b? th cit? d by th? ?? D.s? Und w? fr? qu? ntly mak? t? signify agr ?? m? nt may b? r? pr? s? nt? d appr? ximat? ly as [? m? hm]. This is writt? n as uh-huh, and th? writt? n f? rm is r? sp? nsibl? f? r th? pr? nunciati? n [??? h?]. Th? p? f y? p and n? p? was pr? bably int? nd? d t? r? pr? s? nt th? gl? ttal st? p fr? qu? ntly h? ard in th? pr? nunciati? n? f y? s (with? ut -s) and n ?, but? n? als? fr? qu? ntly h? ars [y? p] and [n? p], pr? nunciati? ns d? ubtl? ss bas? d? n th? writt? n f? rms. ? f? rm brack? r braak is s? m? tim? s us? d t? r? pr? s? nt th? s? -call? d Br? nx ch ?? r. ? ric Partridg? (Shak? Sp? Ar? S Bawdy) has sugg? st? d, h? w? v? r, that Haml? t s Buz, buz! sp? k? n impati? ntly t? P? L? Nius, is int? nd? d t? r? pr? s? nt th? vulgar n? is? als? kn? wn as th? raspb? rry. (Raspb? Rry in this s? Ns? C? M? S fr? M th? C? Ckn? Y rhyming slang phras? Raspb? Rry tart f? R fart.) All th? s? cas? s, s? m? n? nlinguistic s? und? ff? ct cam? first-a cry? f pain, a giggl? , A sn ?? z? ,? R what? v? r. S? M? ? n? tri? d t? r? pr? s? nt it in writing, always inad? quat? ly by a s? qu? nc? ? f l? tt? rs, which w? r? th? n pr? n? unc? d as a n? w w? rd in th? languag?. And s? th? v? cabulary? f? jaculati? ns gr? w.W? RDS T? N? W US? S
? n? Part? F Sp ?? ch t? An? Th? rv? ry pr? lific s? urc? ? f n? w w? rds is th? facility? f M? d? rn? nglish, b? caus? ? f its paucity? f infl? cti? n, f? r c? nv? rting w? rds fr? m? n? grammatical functi? n t? an? th? r with n? chang? in f? rm, a pr? c? ss kn? wn as functi? nal shift. Thus, th? nam? ? f practically? v? ry part? f th? b? dy has b ?? n c? nv? rt? d t? us? as a v? rb -...
