The semantics of 'Heh, heh!'

[occam]

In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".

Context:
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."

[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]

The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.

* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)

* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").

* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.

The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

OK, but my interest was stimulated by this:

'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together
in a time of crisis."'

I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need
the European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/11/2021 10:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

I thought you folks ruled the waves.

bill

[Janet]

Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

No change there. Last time we needed to defend our borders, it was
without assistance from Europe.

Janet

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Janet

Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

No change there. Last time we needed to defend our borders, it was
without assistance from Europe.

You Brits greatly enjoyed the experience, it would seem.
Hence your hard-fought campaign to 'take back control'.
It was a great success, so go ahead, and do control,
without asking those Frenchies to do it for you,

Jan

[occam]

Post by ***@shaw.ca
I thought you folks ruled the waves.

These days, to the contrary, it's only the prime minister attempting to
waive the rules (one more time).

<smile>

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,

Jan


[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
The brilliant intervention of your Boris have been quite succesful:
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home. Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

There were no 'you EU members' involved, until now.
The problem so far was that the French thought
that they could go their einzelgang,
or whatever they call it.

Post by Paul Wolff
We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home.

Yes, and why don't 'you Brits' do the same
with your (much smaller) refugee population?

Post by Paul Wolff
Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?

Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

There were no 'you EU members' involved, until now.
The problem so far was that the French thought
that they could go their einzelgang,
or whatever they call it.

Post by Paul Wolff
We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home.

Yes, and why don't 'you Brits' do the same
with your (much smaller) refugee population?

All right, you can't answer my point. No wonder we are frustrated with
you guys.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff
Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?

Where else should they camp?

That's a classic case of begging the question. Why should they have to
camp at all, in a civilised country?

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

That is a dishonourable remark. Which century are you still living in?

Today's issue is this: the EU, but particularly France, isn't looking
after those people - who we used to call DPs, or displaced persons, in
the aftermath of WWII. And while France is the main problem for Britain,
it becomes an EU problem because you lack internal borders. Which is why
I said it was sensible to keep la Patel out of it while you talked among
yourselves for a while, to try some clear thinking without hostilities.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work
together in a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't
need the European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the
problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

There were no 'you EU members' involved, until now.
The problem so far was that the French thought
that they could go their einzelgang,
or whatever they call it.

Post by Paul Wolff
We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home.

Yes, and why don't 'you Brits' do the same
with your (much smaller) refugee population?

All right, you can't answer my point. No wonder we are frustrated with
you guys.

Don't you understand that this is rather mutual?
The permanent British hostility towards the EU
and their failure to keep any agreement at all
does have effects.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff
Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?

Where else should they camp?

That's a classic case of begging the question. Why should they have to
camp at all, in a civilised country?

You think that forcing them to go 'underground' as illegals,
and using them as cheap labour, (as in Britain) is more civilised?

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

That is a dishonourable remark.

Not my invention. Just an example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities>
You were effectively proposing that France should do something similar.
Without walls and barbed wire they won't stay in the Auvergne,
or wherever you might want them to stay,
because that is not where they want to be.

Post by Paul Wolff
Which century are you still living in?

Not the 19th, when the British invented such facilities.
But summarising: you have no answers either.

Post by Paul Wolff
Today's issue is this: the EU, but particularly France, isn't looking
after those people - who we used to call DPs, or displaced persons, in
the aftermath of WWII. And while France is the main problem for Britain,
it becomes an EU problem because you lack internal borders.

You are trying to redefine your British problem as an EU problem.
Whatever the internal borders, it isn't an EU problem
because the EU is not where they want to be.
The real problem is that Britain is unwilling
to take a reasonable share of those 'displaced persons'.

Post by Paul Wolff
Which is why I said it was sensible to keep la Patel out of it while you
talked among yourselves for a while, to try some clear thinking without
hostilities.

There you go again:
you are trying to redefine your problem away as somebody elses problem,
while blaming them for a lack of good sense
for failing to agree with your position.
Why should the EU listen at all to this kind of argument?

As for the hostilities: this round was started by your Boris.
He is angering the French to a point where they may
put an end to the Le Touquet agreement. (see above)

What is Britain going to do when the French say something like:
you keep your money, we are no longer going to be
border guard and bully for you.

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work
together in a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't
need the European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the
problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

There were no 'you EU members' involved, until now.
The problem so far was that the French thought
that they could go their einzelgang,
or whatever they call it.

Post by Paul Wolff
We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home.

Yes, and why don't 'you Brits' do the same
with your (much smaller) refugee population?

All right, you can't answer my point. No wonder we are frustrated with
you guys.

Don't you understand that this is rather mutual?
The permanent British hostility towards the EU
and their failure to keep any agreement at all
does have effects.

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul Wolff
Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?

Where else should they camp?

That's a classic case of begging the question. Why should they have to
camp at all, in a civilised country?

You think that forcing them to go 'underground' as illegals,
and using them as cheap labour, (as in Britain) is more civilised?

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

That is a dishonourable remark.

Not my invention. Just an example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities>
You were effectively proposing that France should do something similar.
Without walls and barbed wire they won't stay in the Auvergne,
or wherever you might want them to stay,
because that is not where they want to be.

Post by Paul Wolff
Which century are you still living in?

Not the 19th, when the British invented such facilities.
But summarising: you have no answers either.

Post by Paul Wolff
Today's issue is this: the EU, but particularly France, isn't looking
after those people - who we used to call DPs, or displaced persons, in
the aftermath of WWII. And while France is the main problem for Britain,
it becomes an EU problem because you lack internal borders.

You are trying to redefine your British problem as an EU problem.
Whatever the internal borders, it isn't an EU problem
because the EU is not where they want to be.
The real problem is that Britain is unwilling
to take a reasonable share of those 'displaced persons'.

Post by Paul Wolff
Which is why I said it was sensible to keep la Patel out of it while you
talked among yourselves for a while, to try some clear thinking without
hostilities.

you are trying to redefine your problem away as somebody elses problem,
while blaming them for a lack of good sense
for failing to agree with your position.
Why should the EU listen at all to this kind of argument?
As for the hostilities: this round was started by your Boris.
He is angering the French to a point where they may
put an end to the Le Touquet agreement. (see above)
you keep your money, we are no longer going to be
border guard and bully for you.

Let us say no more on this subject here in a.u.e.

[Lewis]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
as part of his contrarian persona.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison, yes,
but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that as part
of his contrarian persona.

It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
sir, a trifle disappointed in you.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
as part of his contrarian persona.

It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
sir, a trifle disappointed in you.

Sorry to disappoint you, even a trifle.

Un petit soupçon, is all.

I just point out that I didn't call anyone a fascist.

Indeed you did not. If it was not your intent for "I wasn't conscious
of that before this thread" to read as implicit agreement with Lewis's
wayward labelling, I may have read too much into your words, and will
willingly retract and apologise.

I said too much. I was surprised by Paul's brexitude, which I hadn't
realized. I should have disowned the "rah-rah fascist" part.

I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber". He
and I go back a long way, as we took the same course in the same
university at more or less the same time.

[occam]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?
Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison, yes,
but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that as part
of his contrarian persona.
It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
sir, a trifle disappointed in you.
Sorry to disappoint you, even a trifle.
Un petit soupçon, is all.
I just point out that I didn't call anyone a fascist.
Indeed you did not. If it was not your intent for "I wasn't conscious of
that before this thread" to read as implicit agreement with Lewis's
wayward labelling, I may have read too much into your words, and will
willingly retract and apologise.
I said too much. I was surprised by Paul's brexitude, which I hadn't
realized. I should have disowned the "rah-rah fascist" part.

You should also disown his being a brexiteer. That post by Lewis is, as
usual, unsubstantiated guff typical of the man.

Post by J. J. Lodder
I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber".

Amen to that.

He and

Post by J. J. Lodder
I go back a long way, as we took the same course in the same university
at more or less the same time.

[Richard Heathfield]

[I have no idea why Athel's reply has not appeared on my feed, so I am
glad to be able to piggy-back onto occam's follow-up.]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?
Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison, yes,
but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that as part
of his contrarian persona.
It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
sir, a trifle disappointed in you.
Sorry to disappoint you, even a trifle.
Un petit soupçon, is all.
I just point out that I didn't call anyone a fascist.
Indeed you did not. If it was not your intent for "I wasn't conscious of
that before this thread" to read as implicit agreement with Lewis's
wayward labelling, I may have read too much into your words, and will
willingly retract and apologise.
I said too much.

A very gracious withdrawal. You may consider yourself unsoupçonned.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I was surprised by Paul's brexitude, which I hadn't

Post by J. J. Lodder
realized.

I'm given to understand that Paul's brexitude is a figbox of Lewis's
somewhat puerile imagination.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I should have disowned the "rah-rah fascist" part.

Indeed. We might also consider that it is perfectly possible not to wish
to be part of an overseas economic and political union without actually
being a fascist. Otherwise one labels 17+ million ordinary British
voters as fascists, and the word loses all meaning. It's the kind of
nonsense dreamed up by the kind of people who belong in a thinking man's
killfile.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
You should also disown his being a brexiteer. That post by Lewis is, as
usual, unsubstantiated guff typical of the man.

Quite so.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber".

Amen to that.

It's always good to end on a positive note. E above middle C, for
example (with just a touch of vibrato).

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Richard Heathfield
It's always good to end on a positive note. E above middle C, for
example (with just a touch of vibrato).

I like the buzz.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
as part of his contrarian persona.

Fact checking: searching last years archives of aue on 'fascist'
I find that only Lewis uses the word 'fascist' to refer to others.
(others turn up in the search, but only in quoted text)

To my surprise I found myself in that search,
but on looking I find that I had used 'anti-fascist'
as a description of some organisation,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer?

...

Of course not. I don't agree with all his political opinions (on questions
that I know anything about, unlike this one), but he's obviously not a
fascist.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer?

Certainly not, as far as I can see.

Post by Lewis
If so, he is surely in favor of concentration camps
as long as they are not called that.

I doubt that very much,
Jan

Well, well. Thank you for speaking up, Sir.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.

That statement can be taken two ways: Wolff is not a rah-rah fascist
Brexiteer, or Wolff is not a fascist Brexiteer. I prefer to agree
with the latter.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.

This is hard to answer simply.
I am absolutely not a Brexiteer, absolutely not a fascist. Where on
earth did Lewis pick that idea up from? I am international by family,
liberal if not libertarian by inclination, a seeker after truth, an
opponent of humbug.
I lost many of my family to murder both in concentration camps and
outside them, so let's get that one out of the way right now.
My debate with Jan was in part a response to his piling blame on Britain
over the refugee issues that beset us all. I wanted to challenge him on
that, despite our appalling political representatives. And I acknowledge
that it is in the nature of man to prefer his own ancestral social order
over that of others who appear to want to move in and change it - which
is a large part of the immigration problem.

I tried to make you see that the consequences of what you would want
are not what you would want.
You blame the French for allowing 'them'
to sleep in tents near the coast. (and not offering them housing)
But the French have also done just that,
with the result that 'they' didn't stay there.
(because that is not where they want to be)

The only way to keep 'them' away from near the coast
is to drag them off to some area with guards and barbed wire around it,
and to prevent them by force from leaving the place for another try.

We have already agreed not to argue about the words that may be used
to describe such a place,

Jan

[occam]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Eh? Not Paul. I don't know where you got that notion. It could not be
further from the truth.

[Lewis]

Post by Lewis

Post by J. J. Lodder
Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.

This is hard to answer simply.
I am absolutely not a Brexiteer, absolutely not a fascist. Where on
earth did Lewis pick that idea up from? I am international by family,
liberal if not libertarian by inclination, a seeker after truth, an
opponent of humbug.

I must have confused you with someone else.

[occam]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3  'heh!')

'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

Heh heh! Some issues cannot be solved alone, and the UK Government knew
this all along. Global warming, Interpol, cross-border financial
transactions, air traffic control, just to mention a few...

[[e-mail]]

Post by occam

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
a time of crisis."'
I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

Heh heh! Some issues cannot be solved alone, and the UK Government knew
this all along. Global warming, Interpol, cross-border financial
transactions, air traffic control, just to mention a few...

Cross-channel illegal migration is down by a half on pre-Brexit levels.
Hiding in lorries no longer works, so people are taking to the sea.

Both figures are negligible (in UK terms) compared with the number of
people who simply outstay their visas, and disappear into the UK "black
economy" - building trades, kitchen staff and so on.

Why don't the Polish let the Belarus refugees through? They aren't
interested in staying in Poland, so anyone offered (say) an entry if they
have a 1,000 Euro bus-ticket to Germany, could make it a win-win situation
for everyone.

Apart from the residents of Calais who have surely experienced enough.

[bruce bowser]

The whole idea of laughing and smiling has such different meanings, like in France compared to the United States.

[Ross Clark]

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')
It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.
* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)
* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").
* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.
The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

Once there lived a linguist who (it seems) had the same wonder:

Schenkein, James N. (1972): Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation
and the Sense of Heheh. Semiotica 6: 344-377.

No, I haven't read it. There's a dusty old photocopy in one of my file
drawers. Doesn't look as though he comes up with a single brilliant
answer, but you might find his type of conversational analysis congenial.

[occam]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3  'heh!')
It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.
* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)
* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").
* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.
The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

Schenkein, James N. (1972): Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation
and the Sense of Heheh. Semiotica 6: 344-377.
No, I haven't read it. There's a dusty old photocopy in one of my file
drawers. Doesn't look as though he comes up with a single brilliant
answer, but you might find his type of conversational analysis congenial.

Thanks for the pointer Ross. I read the preview. The full .pdf costs
$64.64, so I will have to do without his conclusions. But I am chuffed
that a linguist thought of 'heheh' as a worthy topic of investigation
as far back as 1968.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')
It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.
* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)
* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").
* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.
The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

Schenkein, James N. (1972): Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation
and the Sense of Heheh. Semiotica 6: 344-377.
No, I haven't read it. There's a dusty old photocopy in one of my file
drawers. Doesn't look as though he comes up with a single brilliant
answer, but you might find his type of conversational analysis congenial.

Thanks for the pointer Ross. I read the preview. The full .pdf costs
$64.64, so I will have to do without his conclusions. But I am chuffed
that a linguist thought of 'heheh' as a worthy topic of investigation
as far back as 1968.

A semiotician -- at least in this case, at any rate. The expression "class
of utterables" in the abstract suggests non-linguist-hood. Oh, and I
could buy it for $42. (Or I could go through the university library for
free, but I don't want to.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3  'heh!')
It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.
* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)
* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").
* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.
The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

Schenkein, James N. (1972): Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation
and the Sense of Heheh. Semiotica 6: 344-377.
No, I haven't read it. There's a dusty old photocopy in one of my file
drawers. Doesn't look as though he comes up with a single brilliant
answer, but you might find his type of conversational analysis congenial.

Thanks for the pointer Ross. I read the preview. The full .pdf costs
$64.64, so I will have to do without his conclusions. But I am chuffed
that a linguist thought of 'heheh' as a worthy topic of investigation
as far back as 1968.

<***@nowhere.nix> probably won't work, but if you send me an address
that does work (check my home page) I'll send it to you.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.
Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.

Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.

Post by Peter Moylan

Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."

[Tak To]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.

Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.

My point was that there are different chuckles (chortles,
sniggers, crackles, giggles, tee-hee's, ...) from the *same
person* that signify varying degrees of amusement and/or
disapproval. From the written description, I cannot tell
what the speaker's intention was.

<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."

While I am at it, I might as well as for audio sample of a
"tee-hee".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tak To

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.

Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.

My point was that there are different chuckles (chortles,
sniggers, crackles, giggles, tee-hee's, ...) from the *same
person* that signify varying degrees of amusement and/or
disapproval. From the written description, I cannot tell
what the speaker's intention was.
<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.

I have never seen a single episode. It was on cable, and I wasn't
about to pay for a box of DVDs without knowing what I was in for.

Clips of one of them going "heh-heh-heh," presumably a snigger,
were ubiquitous.

[Cf., e.g., *Dexter*. CBS broadcast (expurgated) the first season,
and that showed me I'd like the DVDs. Followed the whole series
as they came out. (The reboot looks a bit iffy.)]

Post by Tak To
I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."

While I am at it, I might as well as for audio sample of a
"tee-hee".

The paradigm case would be what the "Three little maids from school
are we," from Mikado, do at the end of each stanza -- one or two hands
over mouth, ladylike, high-pitched giggle. (On the classic Martyn Green
recording. I don't know any of the more recent ones, in part because they
include all the spoken dialogue.)

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Tak To
<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
I have never watched it myself.  I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

OnTopic: My non-native ear finds "of" an odd choice of preposition.
I'd have said "aversion to" or possibly "aversion against".
Comments?

++to;

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tak To
<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

OnTopic: My non-native ear finds "of" an odd choice of preposition.
I'd have said "aversion to" or possibly "aversion against".
Comments?

TT isn't a native speaker. That shows up very occasionally in his writing.

("to," not "against"; put them with "averse")

[Lewis]

Post by Tak To
<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

OnTopic: My non-native ear finds "of" an odd choice of preposition.
I'd have said "aversion to" or possibly "aversion against".

"aversion of" has a certain clang to it, yes. "Aversion to" is what I
would use.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.
Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

Now you have me wondering if 'tsk' and 'tut' are actually identical.
I pronounce (well, make the sound) of 'tsk' by placing my tongue on the
front of my palate, just aft of my incisors, creating a vacuum in my
mouth, then pulling my tongue away from the palate.

When I have read the word 'tut', I have always pronounced it as written,
with a short 'u'.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:05:24 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.
Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the same sound
as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different sounds.
"tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u vowel sound
instead of i, a or o.
tsk, int.
Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick n.,
tck int.
tut, int. (and n.3)
Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.
Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a different
sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used for addressing
horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

The alleged pronunciations not visible above are spelling-pronunciations.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:05:24 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.
Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the same sound
as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different sounds.
"tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u vowel sound
instead of i, a or o.
tsk, int.
Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick n.,
tck int.
tut, int. (and n.3)
Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.
Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a different
sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used for addressing
horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at the front of
the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the sound come from behind
my incisors. But the sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling
back one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue against my
soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then
comes from behind my molars

Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The alleged pronunciations not visible above are spelling-pronunciations.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:05:24 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
chuckling sounds.
Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the same sound
as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different sounds.
"tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u vowel sound
instead of i, a or o.
tsk, int.
Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick n.,
tck int.
tut, int. (and n.3)
Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.
Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a different
sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used for addressing
horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at the front of
the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the sound come from behind
my incisors. But the sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling
back one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue against my
soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then
comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard palate, behind
the incisors, is the alveolar ridge

You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The alleged pronunciations not visible above are spelling-pronunciations.

[CDB]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when
asked who was missing from the conference table,
responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!". Context: "Ms Patel
was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>] The current story
aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds
like on the radio. Is there a recording? There are really a
lot of different chuckling sounds. Transcription of
onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then anything
else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember
how I found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in
AUE.

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the
same sound as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different
sounds. "tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u
vowel sound instead of i, a or o.
tsk, int.
Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick
n., tck int.
tut, int. (and n.3) Pronunciation: Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.
Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the
click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a
different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used
for addressing horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't
seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at the
front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the sound
come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for addressing
horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth, pressing the
rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating a vacuum, then
releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard palate,
behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the
palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call
"retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The alleged pronunciations not visible above are
spelling-pronunciations.

[Quinn C]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when
asked who was missing from the conference table,
responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!". Context: "Ms Patel
was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>] The current story
aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds
like on the radio. Is there a recording? There are really a
lot of different chuckling sounds. Transcription of
onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then anything
else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember
how I found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in
AUE.

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the
same sound as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different
sounds. "tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u
vowel sound instead of i, a or o.
tsk, int.
Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick
n., tck int.
tut, int. (and n.3) Pronunciation: Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.
Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the
click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a
different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used
for addressing horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't
seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at the
front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the sound
come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for addressing
horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth, pressing the
rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating a vacuum, then
releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard palate,
behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the
palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call
"retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy;
Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O. Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes represents
the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck
int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click"
is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE
it's used for addressing horses; I don't read horse
literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at
the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the
sound come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for
addressing horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth,
pressing the rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating
a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from
behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard
palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a horse
to move.

In Stellenbosch once my host's daughter demonstrated three Xhosa
clicks. I suppose with a lot of effort I could reproduce them in
isolation, but sticking any of them in a regular sentence would be
another matter.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy;
Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O. Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes represents
the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck
int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click"
is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE
it's used for addressing horses; I don't read horse
literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at
the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the
sound come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for
addressing horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth,
pressing the rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating
a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from
behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard
palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x"
or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a horse
to move.

In Stellenbosch once my host's daughter demonstrated three Xhosa
clicks. I suppose with a lot of effort I could reproduce them in
isolation, but sticking any of them in a regular sentence would be
another matter.

Yet they proved surprisingly easy to borrow. The three Xhosa clicks
came into the language with words borrowed from "Khoisan"" (which
is no longer considered to be a legitimate genetic grouping; there are
simply two families that have click phonemes), but the source language
didn't have any other detectible influence on the Bantu languages that
got clicks (Xhosa, Zulu, and several others whose names are less familiar).

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, CDB declared ...

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy;
Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O. Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes represents
the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck
int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click"
is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE
it's used for addressing horses; I don't read horse
literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at
the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the
sound come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for
addressing horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth,
pressing the rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating
a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from
behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard
palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a horse
to move.

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not the
side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse wave.
The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

/dps

[Snidely]

Post by Snidely
On Friday or thereabouts, CDB declared ...

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy;
Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O. Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes represents
the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck
int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click"
is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE
it's used for addressing horses; I don't read horse
literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at
the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the
sound come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for
addressing horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth,
pressing the rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating
a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from
behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard
palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a horse
to move.

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not the side.
The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse wave. The trainer
is training me as much as training the horse.

/dps "kiss for the walk, cluck for the trot"

[CDB]

Post by Snidely
CDB declared ...

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy; Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O.
Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut
sometimes represents the palatal click (also spelt
tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for
the click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal
click" is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk>
-- in AmE it's used for addressing horses; I don't read
horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk,
at the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think),
making the sound come from behind my incisors. But the
sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling back
one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue
against my soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing
the tongue. The sound then comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the
hard palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on
the palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and
others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a
horse to move.

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Snidely
CDB declared ...

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy; Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O.
Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut
sometimes represents the palatal click (also spelt
tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for
the click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal
click" is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk>
-- in AmE it's used for addressing horses; I don't read
horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk,
at the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think),
making the sound come from behind my incisors. But the
sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling back
one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue
against my soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing
the tongue. The sound then comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the
hard palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on
the palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and
others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it
"x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a
horse to move.

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.

Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.

I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Snidely
I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.
I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

Well, that can be remedied.

Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Snidely
I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.
I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

Well, that can be remedied.
http://youtu.be/W6WO5XabD-s
Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

Several more examples are listed below it (incl. Makeba's song).
Including a couple of instructional videos for Zulu or Xhosa.

His clicks are more prominent than they are in Zulu -- his language
isn't identified, so we can't check whether it's one of the ones that
has three or four different articulations for each one (voiced, nasalized,
aspirated, plain).

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Snidely
I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.
I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

Well, that can be remedied.
http://youtu.be/W6WO5XabD-s
Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

Several more examples are listed below it (incl. Makeba's song).
Including a couple of instructional videos for Zulu or Xhosa.

Yes, Zulu ans Xhosa are easy to find. But to find the original click
langauges, I had to search for "Khoisan" or "Bushman", and the language
is not further identified. Here's another like that:

These are identified as "San", but that's probably still underspecified.

This language is given as "Tjwao", but the clicks in this speaker aren't
clear to me, probably due to her age.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Snidely
I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.
I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

Well, that can be remedied.
http://youtu.be/W6WO5XabD-s
Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

Several more examples are listed below it (incl. Makeba's song).
Including a couple of instructional videos for Zulu or Xhosa.

Yes, Zulu ans Xhosa are easy to find. But to find the original click
langauges, I had to search for "Khoisan" or "Bushman", and the language

Khoi were "Bushman," San was "Hottentot."

Post by Quinn C
http://youtu.be/JA4aV-tTLpQ
These are identified as "San", but that's probably still underspecified.

Many fewer San languages survive than Khoi ones. Several hae standard
Roman orthographies. Khoekhoe is a language of primary education in
Namibia.

Post by Quinn C
http://youtu.be/VFxe0I-a6lU
This language is given as "Tjwao", but the clicks in this speaker aren't
clear to me, probably due to her age.

As clear to me as in the other folks in the vid; some co-articulations
are even clearly perceptible.

Post by Quinn C
http://youtu.be/OhKU9nDRQhE

[CDB]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Snidely
I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth,
not the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of
the pulse wave. The trainer is training me as much as training
the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came
upon that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's
performance of "The Click Song".

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken
Zulu (or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.
I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan"
languages.

Well, that can be remedied.
http://youtu.be/W6WO5XabD-s
Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

Well, those were certainly pronounced.

[Snidely]

Post by CDB

Post by Snidely
CDB declared ...

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy; Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O.
Nash]

Post by Quinn C

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut
sometimes represents the palatal click (also spelt
tchick n., tck int.).

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for
the click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal
click" is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk>
-- in AmE it's used for addressing horses; I don't read
horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk,
at the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think),
making the sound come from behind my incisors. But the
sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling back
one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue
against my soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing
the tongue. The sound then comes from behind my molars
Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the
hard palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge
You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on
the palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and
others call "retroflex."

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a
horse to move.

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

There's some fluttering.

/dps

[Sam Plusnet]

Some others call it a "cluck".  I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

I was skimming through this thread & thought:

"Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before.
Athenian?"

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Some others call it a "cluck".  I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

"Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before.
Athenian?"

Depends - which are o-megas, and which are ommi-crons?

You may give a Laconic answer.

[Quinn C]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Some others call it a "cluck".  I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

"Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before.
Athenian?"

Depends ... is Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) the "Athens of the South"?

[CDB]

Post by CDB
Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

"Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before. Athenian?"

A Hittite refugee, remembered for training his pet chicken to wake him
up gently, and for his dictum "Troy it, you'll like it".

[CDB]

Post by occam
In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
Britain!".
Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')
It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.
* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)

Hey!

Post by occam
* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").

Not sure about the scornfulness. Heah, heah!

Post by occam
* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.

Chimpanzees reportedly say (or "go")"heh, heh, heh!" if you tickle them.

Post by occam
The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to
do justice to this versatile word.

If it's even a word.