Being an English gent somewhat au fait with the etymology I would suggest that it is 'harrumph!'
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 0:59,
archived)
There would be no etymology in the classical sense for a word such as humph, harrumph or whatever as it is merely a manifestation, in alphic terms, of a sound, therefore rendering it purely ephemeral. Innit blud.
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:04,
archived)
as an intransitive verb it has an etymology which is echoic?
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:08,
archived)
based in onomatapaeic resonance, however, that would of course render it purely subjective, and therefore very difficult to prove wrong. Ya get me rasclart? ;)
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:11,
archived)
it doesn't really matter what sound is made,
the facial expression and intonation is
just as important as the vocalisation,
in terms of meaning.
I think I'm agreeing with you.
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:16,
archived)
the facial expression and intonation is
just as important as the vocalisation,
in terms of meaning.
I think I'm agreeing with you.
It is the attempt to write such words that produces such issues :)
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:19,
archived)
when it can clearly be used as a verb and therefore not
onomatapaeic.
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:26,
archived)
onomatapaeic.
but you were the one who brought up the etymology of said word.
The verb would quite patently have derived from the noun. Therefore, your point is moot. ;)
(,
Sat 9 May 2009, 1:33,
archived)
The verb would quite patently have derived from the noun. Therefore, your point is moot. ;)