September 18

I plan on using my laptop to record speech for spectrogram analysis, but my laptop's built-in microphone is horrible for this. What should I look for when buying an external microphone to generate clean spectrograms? Can any fellow phoneticians recommend something? My plan is to plug it into my laptop and record in Praat. I'm assuming that's enough for good sound sampling and all I'm lacking is a suitable microphone. Not sure if Wikipedia's the best place to ask this, but I figured I'd give it a try Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a phonetician so I don't know a ton about this, but you might want to check what is used in relevant articles related to what you're doing. For example, the facilities in my department have an ElectroVoice 767 microphone (among others; this is the only one I know off the top of my head). The only thing is, I imagine those sorts of microphones are quite expensive.

If you don't need a top-of-the-line microphone I think you can get by with just about any average one. For the intro phonetics class we teach, students have to do a project where they record themselves and do some spectral analysis, and we just let them use the regular microphones in a regular computer lab on campus; it's not the nicest ever, but it's certainly good enough to get a clean spectogram. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to ask this question over at the science desk too, and I bet you will get a ton of answers and opinions. Textorus (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers so far. I've made notice of this question on the science desk. The ElectroVoice microphone looks great, albeit expensive as Rjanag points out. A short perusal of decent microphones sold online brought up a few options ~$20, mostly microphones intended for music, which make me a bit weary, at least those with "noise-canceling" features that make me wonder whether they'll filter out any meaningful frequencies of human speech, or have the potential of accidentally altering the speech signal. Is there some code-word I should look for in the product description that will tell me the microphone doesn't filter any of the signal, or certain descriptions of a microphone that would make it a good candidate for phonetic applications (I see this word dynamic a lot)? Also, I know a good amount of phonologists who have bought expensive portable recorders to plug the microphone into. I'm not sure if that's necessary--I just use a laptop, which I would think would be able to sample sound better than a higher-end portable device.... Plus for phonetic work, I'd be collecting data sitting down in a quiet room, so even a bulkier laptop isn't a problem. Are these portable samplers really any better?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for noise-cancelling, you definitely want to make sure it doesn't record or save stuff in mp3 or mp4 format; those are the ones that filter out some frequencies. Generally you're save if you use .wav format. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My husband does quite a bit of digital voice recording for work, directly onto a laptop using Audacity software. He uses a Shure SM58 microphone, which has been pretty much an industry standard for stage vocalists for many years, and tells me it's the best thing for the job for various technical reasons I don't understand, although I believe it tends not to pick up background noise, for one thing. There are some issues around cheap fake SM58s from unauthorised sources (see here) that any prospective buyer needs to know. Karenjc 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aprel: just in case you're wondering, Audacity is also free and is useful for sound recording (especially for stuff like cutting and splicing files), although if you're doing spectral analysis you're probably better off sticking with Praat, since Audacity can't do any of that sort of stuff (as far as I know) and Praat is just as good as audacity when it comes to the pretty basic editing stuff (Audacity is better for more advanced stuff). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dissent from all the above, doubtless excellent, advice, but do not linguists in their published scientific papers specify the equipment and software they have used? If you have in mind extending the research on a particular area covered by particular previous papers (which you may well be citing) it might be good practice to duplicate, if possible, the more commonly used equipment and software to maintain maximal comparability. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(They do, that's why the very first bit of advice I gave was "you might want to check what is used in relevant articles related to what you're doing.") rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic microphones are described on the Microphone page--albeit not in detail, nor very well. If you want to record really clean sound, your best bet would probably be some kind of condenser microphone. I've used Shure SM58 microphone a lot, and while they are great workhorses, they are no where near as clean and clear as a good condenser microphone. I have a nice AKG and the difference between the AKG condenser and the Shure dynamic is very obvious. But then, you want to spend less than $20 or so? And you want to plug the microphone into your laptop without any extra hardware, like preamps? I dunno, good luck. Even Shure SM58s are the like cost closer to $80 or $100 new, as far as I know. You'd also want to make sure you can plug it into a laptop. The Shure microphones I've dealt with (and most microphones in general) use XLR connectors. Laptops don't have XLR. If you really want to go cheap and not deal with XLR and/or additional hardware, perhaps you should forget Shures and look instead for microphones specifically designed for use with laptops. I don't know much about that topic, but there must be USB or similar microphones out there for cheap, which while not great would be an improvement over whatever junk the laptop has built in. (Btw, I've played around with Praat, it's yet another amazing piece of freeware made by a Dutch genius) Pfly (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, throwing a spanner into the works just for the sake of a little comedy (?) relief here. My question is: Do British movie houses provide barf bags for the audience when they run films with American actors playing historical British characters - or even (gasp) an American cast doing Shakespeare?

And a follow-up question, are there any American actors that British audiences perceive as doing a truly believable British/Scottish/Welsh/etc. accent, and why? The vowels, the consonants, the rhythm, the elision . . . ? Just wondering. Textorus (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After you've seen John Wayne play Genghis Khan, nothing else matters. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing. In The Greatest Story Ever Told he played a 1st century Roman centurion who, having witnessed the Crucifixion, uttered the immortal line, in true JW style, "Truly this was the Son o' Gaad". Unforgettable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people never complain about the other way around? British people sometimes have laughable American accents. (Although I always thought Gary Oldman was American...and presumably most people don't know Hugh Laurie is British...but still! Still!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how much Hugh Laurie's American accent has improved over the years. In his Fry & Laurie days, he was pretty shaky. LANTZY^TALK 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(You should hear James Marsters' imitation American accent in Buffy the Vampire Slayer [I think the episode is Goodbye Iowa]...mostly over-exaggerated rhoticization...wonderful stuff.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, he was an American actor doing a believable British accent (as far as I am aware), doing a bad American accent as his British character. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for an American with a believable British accent, I'd suggest Gillian Anderson. I even recall an episode of QI where Alan Davies insisted vociferously that she was English, even though she was born in Chicago. (Of course, she did spend some of her childhood in London.) As an American, I found that especially satisfying. I think British audiences have basically decided, for whatever mystical reason, that Americans are physiologically incapable of putting on a convincing British accent, so it's become a death sport for an American actor to attempt such a feat. No one wants to be the next Dick van Dyke. And it's not as though there aren't plenty of affordable Australians lining up to play British characters, so what's the point? LANTZY^TALK 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with Dick Van Dyke? "Chim-chim-cheree" didn't go over well in Britain? Textorus (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked, there was a nice little explanation in our article Dick Van Dyke. His accent was so bad, it became the widely-derided example of an American doing a bad cockney accent, in Britain. It is taken as 'common wisdom' that the only British accents in American media are 'Hugh Grant' and 'Dick Van Dyke': exceptions to this are usually noticed and praised, often with some passing reference to Mary Poppins, but oddly not remembered next time the paper wants to write an article on accents in film and on TV. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen Mary Poppins in years, but come to think of it, I guess Bert does have a strong American accent in that picture. Please tell me Meryl Streep makes up for any offense caused. Textorus (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another American with a passable British accent is James Urbaniak, if his work on The Venture Bros is anything to go by. He even played a British character doing a bad American accent. LANTZY^TALK 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the converse, a British actor who can't play American, the alpha and omega is Cary Elwes. LANTZY^TALK 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, LANTZY. Ah you saying Australians are cheap? !! (No offence take.) Australians know that it's extremely rare for any non-Australian to do our accent at all well. As for Hugh Laurie, I only knew him as British. Is not knowing that an American thing? I wonder how many here are familiaar with Simon Baker in the Mentalist? DO Americans think his accent is OK (for an Aussie pretending to be American)? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, HiLo, I'm saying Americans are overpaid! Generally speaking, I'm impressed by the job Australians do with any non-Australian accent, but especially with American accents. LANTZY^TALK 03:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the Mentalist, but the Australian guy in True Blood sounds completely American to me. (The British guy, too). And Anna Paquin is not American either, is she? But she always sounds like one. Maybe that's because southern American accents always sound fake, even when they are real... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. The ratio of phony to genuine southern American accents on film is probably something like ten to one. And it's always Mississippian or Texan. You never hear Virginian or Carolinian accents. LANTZY^TALK 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing grates on my ears worse than a Yankee actor pretending to tawk Suthun. They just don't get it. Ought to be against the law. And Lantzy is right; nobody in Hollywood ever seems to realize there is not one Southern accent, but many. Textorus (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a Trace has 3 non-Americans playing Americans: Anthony LaPaglia and Poppy Montgomery (Australians) and Marianne Jean-Baptiste (British). Are they generally believable to American ears? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea Anthony La Paglia wasn't American; I associate him with So I Married an Axe Murderer, where he sounds perfectly American to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. On the other side of the ledger, we had Meryl Streep trying valiantly to do a New Zealand-influenced Australian accent as Lindy Chamberlain in A Cry in the Dark aka Evil Angels. Much as I love and admire her work, Meryl just didn't get it right. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. The critic for the Washington Post called it a "perfect accent" - but maybe the critic wasn't from Down Under, ya think? Textorus (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think. There've been a succession of American actors (and British too) trying, and mainly failing, to do a good Australian accent. They all seem to think it's a close cousin to Cockney. I can hear a vague resemblance, that's all. But who am I to talk? I've lived here all my life and I'm a natural mimic, but try as I may I cannot make the sounds that a lot of younger Australian people make when they say "through", "grew", and similar words. They swallow the vowel yet somehow simultaneously make it sound very aggressive and accusatory, no matter what the context is. A very ugly and disturbing development. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What about John Lithgow and the other Americans trying to do a New Zealand accent in Mesmerized? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let a Kiwi answer that; I've never seen that movie anyway. I'll just say that comparisons between Australian and New Zealand English should not assume any huge similarity based on mere geographic proximity. There are times when New Zealanders sound like Martians to Aussies; and I'm sure the opposite applies as well. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting Kiwi accent was created by Anthony Hopkins in The World's Fastest Indian. He got a lot of it remarkably right, but some slipups were glaring. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually can't tell NZ and Australian accents apart...and anyway, we almost never hear anyone from New Zealand over here. The only recent exposure is the guys from Flight of the Conchords. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, on that note, the accent of your new PM sounds to my admittedly untrained ears, rather . . . um, how shall I say; would "informal" be neutral enough? ("Barmaid," I'm afraid, would definitely give offense, when I really don't mean to offend.) Noticeably different even to an American ear from the "Toy me kangaroo down" accent I've always thought of as typically Australian. Where does that come from? (And should we start a new thread on this, grin?)Textorus (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has her detractors here. Me, I don't care because she speaks very clearly and deliberately and I can understand every single syllable she ever utters, which is something I could not say about her predecessor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect meant, no doubt she will do a fine job. In the one short clip I've seen of her, I thought she seemed a Down Under version of Reba McEntire, one of my favorite country & western singers, who is from just up the road here. I can't quite imagine Reba in the White House, though; but hell, who knows, we've certainly got a lot of entertainers in high places these days, in all parts of the country. Intentional or not. Textorus (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, while born in Wales (yes, we let foreigners do the job), spent her earliest schooldays in a less salubrious corner of Adelaide, which was typical for many British migrants of that time.I think it's those first years of school that set your style of speech, especially in a new country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains the unexpected accent. Which I suppose I could have figured out from her WP article if I'd had good sense. (Now I'll be up all night wondering if Reba has Welsh ancestry.) Thanks for the tip.Textorus (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Paquin was born in Canada but grew in new Zealand from the age of four. Does s good job. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a British actor with a terrible American accent (or perhaps deliberately portraying an Englishman with Hollywood pretensions badly failing to use a convincing American accent), see the BBC's As Time Goes By (TV series). As someone born in London, I was at first taken aback by the accents of my fellow Shakespearean actors in Northern California, but in fact their accents were probably no further from Shakespeare's than those of Southeastern Englishmen and women in this century. Many "Americanisms" like "gotten" and "fall" for autumn are just common 17th-century English that has survived in America while dying in metropolitan Britain. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how often I've pointed that out to British friends. And Americans, for that matter. It never sinks in. As far as most people are concerned, all Shakespearean characters (and all Romans) should sound like Oxbridge alums. LANTZY^TALK 07:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. In fact, it pains me to read that Received Pronunciation is practically obsolete now. Pity. I saw in a documentary of some kind a while back, I think it was a member of the Royal Family, saying "okay" and otherwise chatting on like an American. I shuddered a little. Us colonials like the nobility and such to talk real good English, ya know? Otherwise, what would we have to joke about? Grin. Textorus (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the middle classes that invented snooty pronunciation. The aristocrats were, at least until recently, always lazy in their manner of speech. Studiedly lazy, in fact: "Ain't we goin' fox-huntin'?" Presumably in order to distinguish themselves from the belabored snobbery of the upstarts. LANTZY^TALK 10:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ain't we goin' huntin'?" is still good English here in Texas. I tell you what. Textorus (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Texicans, like British noblemen, are also studiedly lazy in their speech. Or so say my Oklahoman relations. LANTZY^TALK 10:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texican is a term of offense here to large numbers of my compatriots. I advise not using it if you ever come south of the Red River. And laziness is an old canard about Southern speech in general, as Colin points out below.Textorus (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with laziness: its just fashion (in the sense of "the way that this group behaves"). Despite the spelling, there is nothing omitted in "huntin'", it's the substitution of one sound (/n/) for another (/ŋ/) not obviously more difficult to pronounce. But it is true that the English aristocracy and working class share a number of ways of behaving that sets the middle class apart: see Watching the English by Kate Fox, passim. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actors in This is Spinal Tap. Saw it when I was at college when it first came out, and didn't realise for over two years that they weren't actually British. Karenjc 19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote for best English accent by an American goes to Renée Zellweger and of course, hilariously the worst, Dick van Dyke as the Cockney sweep in Mary Poppins (film). Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone could think Hugh Laurie was an American. I'm glad I usually watch House dubbed into German so I don't have to laugh out loud at his pitiful attempt at an American accent. Honestly, if they wanted Hugh Laurie, why not just make the character English? Then there's Christian Bale, who couldn't be bothered to turn off his phony American accent even for his profanity-laced tirade on the set of Terminator Salvation. I suppose speaking in his own accent would have broken his concentration too. —Angr (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit strong. Laurie's current American accent, while obviously a put-on, isn't what I'd call pitiful. Christian Bale is another matter. Both of them occasionally give off that "Bicycle Repair Man" vibe, but they blow Cary Elwes out of the water. LANTZY^TALK 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does Anthony LaPaglia slip up all the itme, I thought Marianne Jean-Baptiste's accent was wonderful. Not that she did a middle-of-the-road American accent, but it sounded like an accent that a person of her character's background would have. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for information, not a request that anything WP does should change. But, I started off a mini-spat at Talk:Main Page over the use on the main page of the word "hometown" to describe Karachi, the home city of a Pakistani politician. To me, the use of that word in that way seems derogatory - Karachi is a major city and (to me) cannot be described in any sense as a "town", or indeed as a "hometown". But others (apparently, everyone else in that discussion) disagree with my interpretation, saying that the word "hometown" is a common neutral description of the place someone comes from, regardless of size. That definition is not one I have ever used - I know it is used in that sense, but I had thought it was used only in a self-deprecating way by someone describing their own place of origin, not as a neutral term which could be used by anyone about someone else's place of origin. I'm struggling to understand how my understanding of the word is so much at variance with that of others. Can anyone shed any light on this - or is it, in fact, just me with an attitude problem? I would add as background that I'm over 50, in the UK, with a long professional career as an urban planner behind me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a US American and in my 30s. I've never heard "hometown" used in a derogatory way, whether the "town" actually is a town or a city. Yes, people make discouraging remarks about towns, cities, etc. For instance, many Chicagoans speak negatively of Berwyn. But someone would say "Oh, so Berwyn is your hometown!" and being using hometown to implicate anything about the city itself or the person from there. I regularly say that my hometown is Chicago (though I'm not from the city but it's easier to say that than some suburb that the questioner has never heard of) and Chicago is a major city. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Melbourne, Australia is my home town. I do separate it into two words, but I don't feel in any way negative about telling you that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to pin this down further. In the UK, it's normal to use the word "city" for a large urban area and "town" for a smaller area. There are exceptions, of smaller places with historic city charters, but they are exceptions to the general rule. In the US (correct me if I'm wrong), the term is often (usually?) used for a particular type of administration, almost regardless of size. And, in the UK (in my view) the usual way to describe someone's place of origin would be "home town" if they originated from a home town, or "home city" if they originated from a larger urban area. In neither case would a single word be used, but two - "home town". In the US, the single word "hometown" is used (never "home city"), and that usage has now spread more widely so that it is a more common usage than before in the UK and elsewhere. Is that a fair assessment? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of a city or town or village etc. in the US varies from state to state. See City#United States. And I've never heard the term "homecity" ever. My spell check doesn't like it either. Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't exist as a single word (and I've never suggested it does). But I would use the two word term "home city". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the norm in the U.S., Ghmyrtle, to differentiate "cities" and "towns" on the basis of size, just as you said. However, "hometown" is a metaphorical word, if you will: residents of New York City as well as those of Podunk, Texas (population 300), would both use the word without any hesitation, and do. There is nothing whatsoever derogatory about the word; on the contrary, the unspoken assumption would be that the speaker would feel a certain loyalty to or affection for his or her "hometown," unless explicitly denied.

"Town" as referring to a particular type of administration - no, not really. Probably you are thinking of township, a historical form of local government in New England but unknown in most of the rest of the U.S. "Cities" of course would have much bigger, more complex administrative structures than small towns would, but the main difference again has to do with the size of the place.

"Home city," whether one word or two, is an unknown phrase here, unless perhaps referring to a corporate headquarters or something like that; not used for a person's place of origin. Textorus (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Frank Sinatra....

     On State Street, that great street, I just want to say
     They do things that they never do on Broadway -- say
     They have the time, the time of their life
     I saw a man and he danced with his wife
     In Chicago, Chicago, Chicago -- that's my HOME TOWN

HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at least, "town" is frequently used to refer affectionately to any municipality of any size, be it a village or a metropolis. New York City is a town; so is East Jesus, Alabama. In fact, you'd be more likely to use "town" to describe a large city than to describe a small village. However, it isn't as though it's a synonym of "city". It's used to refer to specific places, not to urban environments in general (except in archaic fossilized phrases like "town and country"). So you wouldn't say, for instance, "Rap music originated in towns." But you could say, "Los Angeles is a crazy town." And, at least in the United States, "hometown" is the standard term for one's native community, whatever its size or population. It's not slang. It's not in the least bit derogatory or even particularly informal. LANTZY^TALK 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The standard term." Exactly. Not slang, not folksy, just standard.

Although, strictly speaking, one's hometown might not be the same as one's "native city"; the latter literally means the place where you were born, but as in my case, my parents moved when I was a toddler so I grew up for the next 20+ years in another city, which if anyone asked I would call my "hometown." Textorus (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go so far as to say that the American usage of "hometown" has more or less broken free of the confines of the word "town", so that the term is now somewhat metaphorical. If "hometown" had a synonym, it would be something like "cradle" - a connotation of nativity, early and intimate acquaintance, and persistent loyalty, a concept entirely independent of geographical size, form of government, size of population, etc. Hell, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear someone say, "This island is my hometown." It's become a single, indivisible semantic unit. LANTZY^TALK 10:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinatra song actually begins, Chicago, Chicago, that toddling town. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the UK, and to me "hometown" (one word) sounds American and a bit folksy and parochial. To me, it does not seem appropriate to decribe Karachi as a politician's "hometown" in an encycopedia. 86.173.172.12 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

UK, late 30s here, and I agree that 'hometown' is too folksy American to appear in an encyclopedia. One would expect Karachi to be full of hot dog stalls and rodeo shows and friends shooting each other for bets. I would go with 'place of birth'. To more directly answer the OP's question, however, I can say that I am from Liverpool - a major city - and I have no trouble calling Liverpool my home town (or hometown). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting each other for bets? Guffaw. What bizarre programme have you been watching on the telly? Textorus (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring theme on NewsOfTheWeird, mate. Of course, the above is purposefully exaggerated. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, bud. Textorus (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner, that I love London town[1]" Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my own UK perspective it would always be "home town", two words. "Hometown" (one word) sounds to my ears like an adjectival form: "The place seemed instantly familiar: there was a real hometown feel about it". Compare it with: "She came from a small town" and "Just a small-town girl / Living in a lonely world". If it's hyphenated or two words run into one, my radar would see it as descriptive. Karenjc 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So - am I right in concluding that most Americans use "hometown" (one word) to describe their place of origin regardless of size, and that most Brits do not - though they may use the two word phrase "home town", in an informal way, to convey the same meaning? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be the consensus emerging here. FYI, notice this definition from the (American) Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

hometown: the city or town where one was born or grew up; also the place of one's principal residence

Example: She returned to her hometown to stay after college.

First Known Use: 1912

We find it very useful to have a single word that conveys all that might be meant by the definition, as shown. Which, as you see, potentially might apply to two or more towns or cities in the course of a person's life: where you are from now, or where you were from originally, etc. Textorus (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've led a sort of wandering, peripatetic, rootless, nomadic life. When I meet new people in my latest place, they'll typically ask, not where my home town is, but "Where are you from?". And I never know how to answer that. I haven't lived in my place of birth since I was 10 years old, so there's little point giving that as the answer. I've lived in six other places between then and where I live now, so just mentioning the most recent one seems a bit pointless too. I almost wish the standard question was "Where's your home town?" - then I could just answer it exactly, but qualify it by saying it's not my most recent place of abode. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate. It took me some time to figure out that when people ask, "Where are you from?" they don't really want to hear the story of your life. So now my answer is simply "I grew up in . . ." without further elaboration, which satisfies the questioner in most social situations. Usually it's a question asked when strangers can't think of anything else to talk about, after "nice weather isn't it" and before "are you married?" Textorus (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the theme song of New York's National League baseball team titled Meet the Mets: "... East side, West side, everybody's coming down, To meet the M-E-T-S Mets, of New York town. — Michael J 23:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it rhymes. I can think of non-too-flattering words that rhyme with 'city', however.... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that song comes from the lyrics to the song Sidewalks of New York. which goes:

East side, west side, all around the town.Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pretty much over but I'd also like to point out how common it is in American English to ask someone about their "hometown team" which carries no population/city size implications of any kind whatsoever. It literally simply means "the pro-sports team followed by those from the place where you grew up" ... The Masked Booby (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just recently became aware of this discussion but I'd like to point out the claim hometown is only used in the US is incorrect. The term is used in Malaysian English quite a bit because of the balik kampung common among Malays and Chinese people during Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Chinese New Year holidays respectively [2]. The usage isn't quite the same and often one's hometown (or one's parents' hometown/s which may be more relevant if your grandparents are still alive and sometimes people may call their parents' hometown their hometown even if they didn't grow up there and finally some may call where their parents or grandparents live now their hometown even if in reality no one grew up there) won't be a city but it's hardly uncommon that Kuala Lumpur may be someone's hometown [3] and there's nothing degrogatory about it. It's unlikely someone will use home city or homecity Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, from searches it's clear some people in India "home+town"+-buffet+-pantaloon+-complaints&hl=en&safe=off "home+town"+-buffet+-pantaloon+-complaints&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=ctr:countryIN&cr=countryIN "home+town"+-complaints+-pantaloon+site%3Ain and Pakistan [4] [5] [6] "home+town"+site%3Apk [7] "home+town"&hl=en&safe=off "home+town"&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=ctr:countryPK&cr=countryPK (Pakistan obviously being particularly relevant) do use the term hometown/home town, and as with people elsewhere, they use it even if that place happens to be a city. You may have noticed that in India there's actual a store [8] called HomeTown which somewhat complicates the search. But more importantly, that there are dispensions in the civil service in India for travel to one's hometown [9] when you are posted elsewhere (although in this case it may not always refer to the place you grew up).

While it's possible this is American influence, I doubt it. The term is used because it's a simple term that conveys the meaning resonably okay (well the meaning does vary somewhat from country to country). Of course some people may be in a less clear situation and so an actual explaination may be better (I moved around a lot etc). Terms like 'native city' or 'home city' anything else which attempts to distinguish between cities and towns are somewhat missing the point. Whether your hometown is a city or town isn't relevant. Things like 'where I was born' also don't really convey the same meaning at least to me, as I would take the term literally. If you were born in Kuala Lumpur, perhaps your parents were visiting and you mother went in to premature labour or whatever but you grew up in Ipoh, Ipoh is your hometown but Kuala Lumpur is the place you were born. Even if for example you were born and spent the first 4 years of your life in KL, you still probably wouldn't consider it your hometown if you spent your next 20 years in Ipoh.

It's probably true that in a number of countries, people may be less likely to talk about their 'hometown' if they were born in a large city but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be offended if you call the city they grew up in their home town nor that they will say they don't have a hometown since it's a city. In parts of Asia, Malaysia being the obvious example but I would guess also India and Pakistan (as well as China) for cultural, social and development reasons, one's hometown is generally more significant then say in UK, so it's not surprising that the term is probably used more there.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nil Einne, that's interesting and informative. If only you'd been at Talk:Main Page a couple of days ago, you would have been able to help avert a lot of time wasted in fruitless argument! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think it would be very helpful if the content of your contribution here, with refs, could be edited down and added to the article on Hometown. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP in Koblenz has just added this sentence to the Guido Westerwelle article:

He is the first Homofuerst (german word for openly gay person) to hold either of those positions.

I see that fuerst or fürst means "prince" but I don't speak German. Can someone who sprechens sie Deutch tell me if this is a truly complimentary, or at least non-judgmental word in German? Or is somebody trying to insert a little homophobic joke into this English article? My tracking sensors lit up when I saw this, just wondering. Textorus (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich spreche nicht viel Deutsch, but based on this and the obvious derivational relationship to English gaylord (as well as the fact that Google Translate translates Er ist ein Homofürst as He is a gaylord), I think it would be safe to guess that this probably isn't a 'complimentary or non-judgmental word'. Lexicografía (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just obvious vandalism? LANTZY^TALK 22:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I wouldn't trust Google Translate for colloquial usage, Urban Dictionary is fun but a lot of it is stuff made up in school one day. We need a speaker of modern, idiomatic German. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it weren't a schoolyard taunt inserted by an anonymous IP, why on earth would we need a German word to express such a simple concept? It's as if the Michelle Bachelet article contained the line, "She is the first mujer (Spanish word for female person) to hold the office of president". LANTZY^TALK 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) A word from a native speaker of German: this is indeed clear, obvious and childish vandalism. I've reverted it as such -- Ferkelparade π 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schoen. Textorus (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now somebody from Mainz has just undone the "vandalism" committed by Ferkelparade, and the Homofuerst sentence is back. Hmm, what to do, what to do? Textorus (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a German native speaker. The german article de:Gaylord says Homofürst corresponds to Gaylord (inded, it is the literal translation), which is an insulting word, no expression of gay proud. Hans Urian (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, Hans. The vandalism has been repeated about 4 times already. Textorus (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the IP editor to stop doing it, but only on the basis that we don't need to use a German noun in the English Wikipedia to denote such a simple concept - I hadn't seen this discussion at the time. I have the article watched now too, so we should be able to deal with it easily enough - we can get it semi-protected for a short while if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. Textorus (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]