Recent Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » Linguistic Geography, World

Is “Huh?” a Universal Word?—And Why Is It Important?

Submitted by on November 18, 2013 – 10:12 am 22 Comments |  
Last week I was contacted by the producers of the AirTalk radio based in Los Angeles and asked to discuss the article on the universality of “Huh?” recently published by Mark Dingemanse, Francisco Torreira, and Nick J. Enfield in PLOS One. I was specifically told that the producers were looking for “someone to support the work”. However, I was not prepared to join the seemingly unanimously chorus of support found in media reports and expert opinions, which includes those of Mark Pagel, whose paper on “ultraconserved words” was critiqued in an earlier GeoCurrents post; Tanya Stivers, a UCLA sociologist; and my Stanford colleague from the psychology department Herbert Clark. I made it clear to the producers that I could explain the research and indicate some of the pitfalls, but I was promptly turned down, and UCLA linguist Tim Stowell was interviewed instead. His assessment of this work, however, was not as laudatory as the producers probably expected: the only evaluation he provides in the seven-minute interview is that the paper is “mildly interesting”. In this GeoCurrents post I will do what the AirTalk producers did not want me to do: explain the article and indicate what I see as problems with this research. I will also overview some of the media reports that mushroomed after the PLOS publication came out.


According to the authors of the PLOS article, the starting point for their research on the universality of “huh?” was an observation made when something else was studied: “that almost all spoken languages provide two basic ways of signaling communicative trouble: an interjection like ‘huh?’ and a question word like ‘what?’.” However, while the words for ‘what’ vary widely across languages (e.g. que in Spanish, čto in Russian, etc.), the interjections “looked suspiciously similar across languages”. To investigate this seeming consistency more fully, the authors examined 196 tokens of ‘huh?’ (in relevant contexts) in ten languages: Cha’palaa, Dutch, Icelandic, Italian, Lao, Mandarin Chinese, Murriny Patha, Russian, Siwu, and Spanish. Moreover, the research also found examples of this interjection in 21 additional languages, including English. All 31 languages are shown on the map reproduced on the left.

Dingemanse and his colleagues make three key claims about “huh?”: (1) that it is a “universal word”, (2) that it is not innate, (3) that it is likely shaped by convergent evolution. Let’s consider each claim in turn. First, what makes “huh?” unique is that it seems to crop up in language after language, with the same meaning (or function), which the researchers call “other-initiated repair” (OIR): when speaker A said something that speaker B could not hear or did not understand, speaker B (“other”) initiates a repair by signaling that there is a problem in communication but without specifying what that problem is. The actual repair then follows in the form of simple repetition, sometimes with slight modification. A model of such a conversation is given below:

A: It’s not too bad.

B: Huh?

A: ‘S not too bad.

The claim about the universality of “huh?” comes from the fact that similar sounding interjections are used for “other-initiated repair” in a variety of languages. Just how representative the list of languages with “huh?” is remains to be seen. Although the authors’ claims apply only to the specific set of languages studied, media reports greatly overexaggerated the findings. The host of the AirTalk show said that this word is found “in virtually every human language”, “in any number of languages”, and “in almost any language”. The headline of The New York Times article by Jennifer Schuessler states that it is “the syllable everyone recognizers”; the article itself states that this word is “universally understood, across all countries and cultures”. The author of the NPR article, Alva Noë, says that this word is “native to all languages”; the headline goes so far as to ask whether this one word could “unite the world”. The headline in The Atlantic states that “Huh Means the Same Thing in Every Language”, and the article itself, written by Olga Khazan, calls this expression “practically universal”. Yet, relatively solid data are available only for ten languages, which constitute about 0.1% of the world’s currently spoken tongues. The sample, moreover, is hardly representative, despite the authors’ claims, as it includes two closely related Germanic languages (Icelandic and Dutch), two closely related Romance languages (Italian and Spanish), and half of the languages considered belong to just one language family: Indo-European (and more specifically, to its “European” branches). The Americas, Africa, Australia, East Asya, and Southeast Asia are represented by one language each. No language from South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, or North America is included in the small sample.

The solidity the data from the ten languages studied can also be questioned. The authors claim to have at least ten (and on average twenty) videotaped recordings of conversations that illustrate the use of the interjection in each of the ten languages. The video posted on their website, however, contains only the recordings of the interjection itself, as it is pronounced in each of the ten languages, not the full repair-initiation dialogs (allegedly for privacy reasons). The claim that Russian uses “a?”, a supposed variant of “huh?”, for OIR, however, does not ring true to me, as a native speaker and a trained linguist. Not only have I worked on Russian syntax for over 15 years, but several of my research projects have examined conversational, colloquial constructions in Russian, including the so-called subextraction (e.g. the Russian analog of ‘Expensive he bought car’, which is ungrammatical in English but extremely common in colloquial Russian), on-the-spot lexical borrowing (e.g. perepostanut’ ‘to repost [on Facebook]’) and nominative topic constructions (e.g. kniga… ja pročital ‘Book I read’). In order to examine these phenomena, I spent months crawling through transcripts and video recordings of naturally occurring conversations, looking at structures other than those described in prescriptive grammars of the language. Yet, I found no instances of OIR “a?” in any of those records—and it seems very foreign to me. To test whether I have simply been “deaf” to this expression, I conducted a little—and admittedly not very scientific—experiment: over the past week, I have been mumbling to my unsuspecting family and friends, eliciting the OIR response. All of them came back with Čto? ‘what?’, not A?. But the latter is more commonly used in Russian in other discourse functions, as mentioned by Barbara Partee in one of her comments in the LanguageLog. For example, A? can be used in Russian to elicit a response from the second speaker (in parallel to the French n’est-ce pas? or the dialectal English init? and eh? tags) or to elicit an elaboration from the first speaker:

Eliciting a response from speaker B:

A: Ty ne znaeš kuda ja ix položila, a? (‘Do you know where I put them, eh?’)

B: V škaf, navernoe. (‘Into the closet, probably.’)

Eliciting an elaboration from speaker A:

A: Ja položila ix v škaf. (‘I put them in the closet’)

B: A? (‘And so?’)

A: No tam ix net. (‘But they are not there.’)

While this common use of the interjection does not prove conclusively that A? is not used in the OIR function in Russian, it certainly casts doubt on the commonality of its use and therefore on one of the researchers’ claims: that this sound template is so advantageous in fulfilling an essential conversational function that it has been arrived at by various languages independently, as the best possible solution to a common problem of miscommunication.


The Russian example also leads one to question how similar is the pronunciation of the “huh?” interjection in various languages. Dingemanse and his colleagues crucially stress that the interjection is not pronounced exactly the same in different languages. Quite the opposite: its phonological shape is in line with the phonetic inventory and prosodic (i.e. intonational) patterns of each given language. What the various versions of “huh?” in different languages have in common is a “template”: one syllable, containing at the most an unrounded lax vowel from the low-front quadrant of the vowel space (that is, some version of [a], [E], or [Ã]), and maximally a glottal stop [/] or a glottal fricative [h] as the onset. Moreover, the vowel is typically somewhat nasalized, and the intonation contour corresponds to the interrogative contour used for questions in the language. In most languages, it is a rising intonation, but in Icelandic and Cha’palaa the falling intonation is used for both questions and OIR interjection.* The authors explain this common template by recourse to the concept of “minimal effort”: this pattern is the easiest to pronounce as it involves all articulators—the tongue, the lips, the velum—being in their resting position. What is crucial is what the articulators do not do: the tongue does not raise to the high position and does not retract to the back position, the lips do not round, and the velum does not raise to produce a purely oral (i.e. non-nasal) sound. The principle of minimal effort, however, does not seem to apply to the vocal cords: their resting position is open, which is what we do when we simply breathe out without saying anything. This position produces [h] but not the glottal stop, for which the vocal cords must be closed shut—a arrangement opposite to the “minimal effort” position. In addition, the “minimal effort” theory does not explain why there should be an onset in some languages, as all languages allow onset-less syllables. In other words, why is “huh?” rather than “uh?” used for the OIR in English?

The similar yet not precisely the same pronunciation of “huh” across languages is important for two reasons. First, it serves to show that “huh” is a word rather than a biological sound, such as those made by sneezing, laughing, crying, or grunting, all of which sound exactly the same across languages and cultures. According to Dingemanse et al.’s definition, being “integrated into each linguistic system” is what makes “huh” a word. This does depart from conventional definitions of “word”, particularly from the classical definition of Ferdinand de Saussure that takes a word to be an arbitrary relationship between meaning and sound. In the case of “huh?”, the connection between its meaning and its sound is not arbitrary. Instead, the authors claim that diverse languages zeroed in on this particular sound template because it best fulfills the conversational function as “a simple, minimal, quick-to-produce” way to indicate a possible miscommunication about to happen.

Let’s now consider the second key claim of the PLOS article: that “huh” is not innate. Dingemanse et al.’s argument for non-innateness of “huh” comes from two sources. First, as mentioned above, the exact pronunciation of the interjection differs from language to language and therefore must be learned, and second, the authors claim on their website that indeed “huh” is learned: “babies don’t use it, infants don’t use it perfectly, but children from about 5 have mastered it perfectly, along with the main structures of their grammar”. It is not clear, however, if the researchers have actually examined the acquisition of “huh” or what evidence they may have to support the above claim. Moreover, the age of 5 seems to be quite early for the acquisition of discourse markers, as most previous research points out that such markers are acquired rather late. For instance, Champaud and Bassano (1994) claimed that French children acquire a mastery of discourse markers like mais (‘but’) and pourtant (‘nevertheless’) between the ages of 8 and 10. In the same vein, Scott (1984) claims that conjunct use typically emerges between the ages of 6 and 12. If children acquire the proper use of “huh?” later than the age of five, it does not contradict the authors’ main contention that it needs to be learned. Still, one wants to see some evidence for empirical claims such as that “huh” is indeed learned.

The third key claim, that “huh” is “likely shaped by convergent evolution”, in parallel to biological cases such as sharks and dolphins developing the same body shape despite coming from very different lineages, is not the only plausible explanation for the similarities found. The authors do not seem to consider an alternative theory: that the similarity (and in some cases, identity) of “huh” across languages is due to language contact. For example, is it really a coincidence that Spanish and Tzotzil (one of the 21 additional languages considered in the study) share an identical form of “huh”, /e/? After all, Tzotzil is spoken in Mexico and had been under Spanish influence for centuries. Such similarities could also stem from language-external factors, which have been called upon to explain the otherwise surprising similarity of sound-meaning pairs across languages in two additional cases: the “mama” words and onomatopoeic words. As it turns out, many of the world’s languages have words for ‘mother’ (or ‘father’, ‘grandma’, ‘grandpa’, and the like) that sound like “mamma” or “babba”. The similarity is not accidental and can be explained by the fact that such sound sequences—which can hardly be called words—are the first to be pronounced by babies when they begin to vocalize, or babble. Pronouncing sequences of open syllables with a voiced labial consonant ([m] or [b]) followed by a low mid vowel [a] is a way babies master control over their vocal apparatus; they do not mean anything. Yet parents the world over think that the child is naming the key caretaker, typically the mother. Similarly, the source of similarity among onomatopoeic words, such as the ones representing animal sounds across languages, is obvious, as they are trying to imitate non-linguistic sounds that are the same across languages or cultures. There is only so much variation in how members of different linguistic groups “hear” such animal sounds, and certain “templates” can be distinguished for various onomatopoeic words (for example, the words for cat mewing start with [m] and contain a lowering diphthong [ja], etc.).

This brings me to my biggest reservation about the PLOS article: so what? While the claims, to the extent that they are substantiated, are “mildly interesting”, as Tim Stowell put it, one may question whether all the globe-trotting and data analysis were justified by the scope of the findings: yet another sound template that is used for a certain meaning/function across languages because of language-external factors. The authors of the paper do not draw any major conclusions from their findings, although they do call for “closer attention to the infrastructure for social interaction that underlies language in use, and its possible influence on language structure”. Some journalists reporting on the article, most notably NPR’s Alva Noë, likewise refrained from passing judgment or making far-fetched implications. Yet others, particularly, Jennifer Schuessler from The New York Times, could not abstain from pushing a larger anti-Chomskian agenda. Citing an interview with Nick Enfield, one of the article’s authors, Schuessler claims that “the study… is part of a broader effort to challenge the dominant view that language is primarily a matter of inborn grammatical structure, as Noam Chomsky has argued”. However, it is not clear how the similarity of sound of the OIR interjection across ten languages challenges the view that language is primarily a cognitive computational capacity or that elements of grammatical structure—crucially not words!—are innate. Much more than one piece of evidence that social interaction can shape vocabulary needs to be proven in order to challenge the Chomskian paradigm.



*The description of the intonational patterns used in Icelandic interrogatives is actually more complex than that (for a detailed discussion see Árnason 2011: 317).



Árnason, Kristján (2011) The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.

Champaud, Christian, and Dominique Bassano (1994) French concessive connectives and argumentation: in experimental study in eight- to ten-year-old children. Journal of Child Language 21: 415-438.

Scott, Cheryl M. (1982) Adverbial connectivity in conversations of children 6 to 12. Journal of Child Language 11: 423-452.

Previous Post
Next Post

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • M. Dingemanse

    Thanks for this contribution, Asya. Although we have been happy about the positive reception of our study by colleagues and science journalists alike, it is definitely true that some media picked up the ball and ran with it (“huh? is the only universal word”, “huh? is the first human word”, yada yada).

    Your readers may be interested to know that we’ve also done our part to tone down some of the more outrageous claims by adding a page with Frequently Asked Questions to our mini-website:

    I may be able to return to this page later to see the debate unfold, but let me state for the record that readers might want to refer to the paper itself to find the actual key claims it makes. They are two: that ‘huh?’ is a word, and that it is universal (both in a carefully qualified sense). The idea that ‘huh?’ is not innate is not one of the key claims — in fact readers will find that we do not rule out the innateness of this item entirely, although we do provide empirical evidence that militates against it, and although we do describe a mechanism (convergent cultural evolution) that we think offers a more general and more parsimonious explanation.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Dear Mark,
      Thank you for your detailed response and the link to the FAQ page. I did include a link to your actual paper as well as your website in the post, so hopefully interested readers can read your paper for themselves.
      Also, please feel free to come here and to check out the discussion (if hopefully it ensues!). In the meantime, I got a question regarding your findings from our FB reader that perhaps you can enlighten us on:
      Thanks again and I am looking forward to listening to those Russian “a?” conversations.

      • Mark

        I have now shared some of the Russian data with you privately, and I hope you’ll be updating the above GeoCurrents story to reflect any new insights you get from that.

        For now I’ll just reiterate that the objections alluded to in this story are all dealt with in our handy FAQ:

        • Asya Pereltsvaig

          Thank you for sending me the files, Mark. I hope to be able to work on them soon. If I have any comments, I will respond here.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Dear Mark,
      Thank you for sharing the Russian sound files from your dataset. (Note to readers: because of privacy issues, the files cannot be made public.) Having listened to them carefully I have to admit that two of them have “a?” in the OIR function, although another one has something more like “mm?”, which is quite different from the phonetic template described in the paper. (The quality of yet another recording on my end did not allow me to discern any sounds at all…) So I must concede that “a?” is indeed used in the OIR function in Russian. However, my bigger point stands: if it’s such “ideal” sound (template) for this function, why are other items like “mm?” and “chto?” are used in this function as well? I can’t tell the relative frequency of different OIR elements, as a much more careful study is needed for that), but the availability of other elements, which are not easy/quick to pronounce sheds some doubt on the validity of your claim (or conclusion, or hypothesis) that languages independently zeroed in on the best candidate for this function. If it is the best candidate, why didn’t it drive other alternatives out, language-internally? (at least in Russian, but I suspect in other languages as well, judging by some reader comments).

      • M. Dingemanse

        Dear Asya, thanks for listening to the sound files and for conceding that this shows that Russian ‘a?’ is indeed used for initiating repair. I think our exchange nicely demonstrates the solidity of our data and the benefit of working with actual recordings from a representative corpus of everyday language use.

        In what I sent you I included an ‘m?’ version on purpose — if you reread the relevant paragraphs in our paper (as well as the Supporting Information) you’ll find that “closed-mouth variants of the OIR interjection … were observed in most of the languages … but it was not the most common form in any of the languages” (RS). We observe that these forms are used when speakers are in close proximity and we note that there are good articulatory phonetic reasons to analyse them as underarticulated versions.

        You say that “my bigger point stands: if it’s such “ideal” sound (template) for this function, why are other items like “mm?” and “chto?” are used in this function as well?”. I like the term template — it foregrounds that it is a form-function mapping of which the particulars are filled in by the local language. You will note, if you reread the ‘huh?’ paper, that we describe the existence of ‘m?’ and ‘chto?’ ourselves — so in a sense it’s not your point but ours. You’ll be glad to know that we have an in press article in Studies in Language where we develop a larger pragmatic typology of formats for other-initiation of repair and try to explain why thing-interrogatives like chto are also well-fitted in some ways for this function.

        You seem to argue that if one well-fitted form exists it should of necessity drive out all other forms. That is a way of thinking that is at odds with how cultural evolutionary processes in language work. Such processes are opportunistic not deterministic. There are many forces that shape systems of language use. We have described those that figure prominently in shaping one particular item used most commonly (in the languages in our sample) for the function of open OIR. Nowhere do we exclude the possibility of other forms that serve partly overlapping functions. We did find, however (in Enfield, Dingemanse et al. 2013), that, while there are languages which do not have a question-word based form for open OIR (like chto), there appear to be no languages that do not have the interjection — and that is one of the observations that motivated the present study of why that form, as opposed to others, is found everywhere we looked.

        In closing, I’d like to note that all of the other points raised in the GeoCurrents story are addressed at length in our FAQ (see link above), with handy pointers to relevant sections of the paper.

  • Ygor Coelho Soares

    I don’t know how “huh”-like words function in other languages, but at least in my native language, Portuguese, our own OIR “hã?” is also used in the Russian sense of “a?” you affirm is the most frequent one. Portuguese also has other two very common versions, slightly different in the “mood” they convey, “hum?” and “hein?”. IMO “hum” implies a little more doubt or even lack of trust than simply “hã”, while “hein” in general sounds less polite and patient than “hã”. It’d be interesting to know if there are these subtle differences between such similar interjections (in shape and meaning) in other languages.

    The example you used for Russian could be perfectly translated into Portuguese as “Você sabe onde eu os coloquei, hã/hein/hum?” (“Do you know where I put them, eh?”). “Hein?” probably will be more used in this case than the others. Nevertheless, the same interjections could be used as a repair when the “other” didn’t understand what the speaker had said.

    “Hã”, but most probably “hum” (maybe with an emphatic gesture, as well, lol!), but probably not “hein”, would also be used to elicit and elaboration from the other speaker, as in:
    - Eu os coloquei no guarda-roupa…
    - Hum? -
    - Mas eles não estão lá. (using the other Russian example talking you wrote).

    This is mere speculation, but couldn’t “a” have narrowed its meaning in Russian in colloquial modern speech so that it now basically lost its former OIR sense while its more complex, broader sense is retained in other IE languages? To elicit a response or an elaboration from a speaker seems to me a quite probable derivation from the general meaning the “huh” intends to convey, which is “give me the information, communicate to me what you really want to say”.

    * While the spelling includes the “h”, Portuguese as well as the other Romance languages don’t pronounce it, so the mentioned interjections are [ɐ̃] [ẽj̃] and [ũ], all of them nasalized.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks for sharing these thoughts about Portuguese, Ygor. Fascinating nuiances among the different interjections—definitely “more research is needed” :)

      • Teo

        In most varieties of Portuguese spoken in southern Brazil (not sure about other dialects – I believe Ygor is from the Northeast?), that “hum” is actually pronounced as a long syllabic bilabial nasal [m:] and is used more often as a slightly rude request for clarification (“What the hell did you just say [or are trying to say]?!”), almost always accompanied by a frowning expression by the speaker.

        Interestingly, syllabic resonants are otherwise not allowed in any position, so if this is indeed a word, it is at least completely isolated in the system, unlike the examples mentioned in the paper. In fact, I suspect that, if asked, most speakers would not even consider it a full-fledged “word”, but rather something “in-between” a grunt and a word.

        I wonder if this “hum” emerged as a reduced form of the other two (hã/hein), which are unarguably “real words” and well integrated in the native phonology, or as a (semi-?)linguistic extension of some “biological sound”.

        • Asya Pereltsvaig

          Thanks for sharing those thoughts, Teo.

        • Ygor Coelho Soares

          Good point, Teo. I am from the Northeast, indeed, and here “hum” is also mostly pronounced, in colloquial speech, as a long syllabic [m:], however I don’t think it necessarily sounds rude to most people here, but certainly implies more doubt, incredulity and total ignorance of what was said than a simple “hã”. An “hein?”, I’d say, often sounds more straightforward, more impatient than “hum?”, and will probably be the preferred interjection if the speaker also wants a better explanation of what was said.

  • Toni Keskitalo

    Finnish has “hä” or “häh”, (/hæ/, /hæh/) for an OIR. They fit rather well to the claimed “universal word” but the vowel certainly is not nasalised. The intonation is, as usually in Finnish, level or falling. We also use “mitä” ‘what’.

    For me, “hä” and especially “häh” often imply doubt or incredulity towards the other speaker, somewhat like Ygor Coelho Soares mentioned Portuguese “hum”. And both are, of course, highly colloquial.

    As to your example for Russian “A?” (“Eliciting a response from speaker B”), I think some people use “mitä”; another possibility is to use the clitic “-s”: “Tiedätkös minne panin ne?” (“tiedät” ‘you know’, “-kö” is interrogative clitic and “-s” is the clitic in question).

    For the second example, “eliciting an elaboration from speaker A”, some possible interjections are “ai?”, “aijaa?”, “jaa?” and perhaps “niin?”. The last one may be a little impolite.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks for sharing this, Toni!

  • Chris

    Great response! I agree with you that their data set is simply not robust enough to support their broad conclusions. I think you particularly nailed it on the acquisition & historical issues.

    Without wanting to salvage their argument, I did have one quick question regarding you point about minimal effort failing to explain both effort required for “h”/glottal stop & lack of onsetless “uh”, might a slight addition of percepibility solve that problem? Minimal effort plus minimally perceptible? Again, this does not salvage their tattered arguments at all, it just occured to me as a possible variation that might account for the phonetic similarity.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you, Chris! An interesting point about “minimal perceptibility”, I do wonder, however, how it would help in their overall argument, which, if I understand it correctly, is that “huh” developed as the easiest/quickest way to signal miscomprehension. Clearly, in English both “huh” and “uh” (with final “h” not pronounced in both cases) are both possible “words” (and in fact, both exist). Given the ease/quickness argument, the “uh” should have been the one used, and in fact, in every language an onset-less version should have been used as all languages allow onset-less syllables. But English uses “uh” for something else. So we need some sort of blocking theory—short of one that would make sense, the whole ease/quickness argument fades away.

    • M. Dingemanse

      @Chris, great thinking. Did you know that in saying that ‘a slight addition of perceptibility’ could solve the problem, you’ve just replicated the very argument we make in our paper? Tattered or not, it seems to make sense then.

  • Julia

    I wanted to point out that the Russian National Corpus has now a multimedia subcorpus where this search can be done in seconds:
    It shows that most frequently “a?” in Russian is used in request for an answer.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks, Julia! Russian National Corpus is a great resource, for sure. I am glad to see that they’ve made more improvements recently.

  • Christina B

    Dear Asya,

    It is good to read a critical evaluation of the overblown media attention given to a scientific paper. Whether one should fault researchers for the media frenzy is an interesting question that deserves careful discussion.

    Now given your talent for critical evaluation of what you consider to be unscientific claims, i would like to encourage you to exercise same and write something [maybe in the same forum] about the claims made about language evolution in the work reviewed here: You won’t get distracted too much by media-attention can focus on evaluating the scientific content of the claims made by the author and his editor. It seems some readers would greatly profit from such evaluation, especially if it is done by someone as skillful as you…

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you for your kind words, Christina, and for the pointer to your work. I might write a response at some point later!

  • Pingback: Is “Huh?” a Universal Word?—And Why Is It Important? | Betteridge’s Law

  • Staufen

    OIR exists in my south-German dialect, Swabian:
    it’s /hɒ/ with the vowel being slightly nasalized.
    High-German speakers will regard it as impolite and uncouth.
    It corresponds in meaning to “Wie bitte?” in High-German.

    • Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks for sharing this, Staufen!