# You/it sound(s) well.



## Ivan_I

I want to take a closer look at "You/it sound(s) well." Reading through some respective threads I noticed that many people don't like this combination while others accept it. As of now I have found the following meanings. Tell me if you find them correct.

1 It sounds well. - (The quality of the sound is well)
(It sounds good. - is more about the content of the sound)

2 You sound well. (They way you speak indicates that you are feeling well)


----------



## tunaafi

1 It sounds well. - (The quality of the sound is well)   


2 You sound well. (They way you speak indicates that you are feeling well)


----------



## Ivan_I

Here are two examples approved of by natives from the threads. 

The piano sounds well.
The chimes sound well.
You sound your vowels well.

I think there must be a difference between. The piano sounds well / The piano sounds good.


----------



## Linguisticks

"Well" can carry the unusual (and perhaps antiquated) meaning of proper, fitting, or appropriate, as in the sentence: "It is well that you are here." "The piano sounds well" seems to be another example of this usage. "You sound your vowels well" is using "well" in the more common sense of "good".


----------



## Ivan_I

Linguisticks said:


> "Well" can carry the unusual (and perhaps antiquated) meaning of proper, fitting, or appropriate, as in the sentence: "It is well that you are here." "The piano sounds well" seems to be another example of this usage. "You sound your vowels well" is using "well" in the more common sense of "good".



It is well that you are here. - Your being here is proper. (OK)
The piano sounds well. The way the piano sounds is a proper way to sound???? (I am a bit confused)


----------



## Linguisticks

Yes, to me "the piano sounds well" is using "well" in that sense of proper or fitting. If it wasn't, we'd just say "the piano sounds good". But perhaps others have a different perspective here.


----------



## tunaafi

_The piano sounds well_ sounds (!) unnatural to me.


----------



## Linguisticks

But isn't that because we're talking about that antiquated use of "well" that we've been discussing? It would sound unnatural to most English speakers these days, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.


----------



## tunaafi

It sounds so unnatural that I would mark it as incorrect if a learner produced it.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> The piano/chimes sounds well.


  I don't like that very much. I would not say it. To sound is intransitive and takes an adjective as a complement [and may take an indirect object/adjunct = to give out or produce a sound. "The piano sounds good/loud/off key [to me]."


Ivan_I said:


> You sound your vowels well.


To sound is transitive - to pronounce; to create the sound of [something]. An adverb is appropriate.


----------



## Linguisticks

Perhaps I could post again this quote from US president Theodore Roosevelt, from a speech he made in 1907. I posted this extract in another thread that dealt with this same use of "well": "It is well that you should celebrate your Arbor Day thoughtfully, for within your lifetime the Nation's need of trees will become serious". In the light of that usage, perhaps you could look again at these examples?


----------



## tunaafi

Many things that were perfectly appropriate  112 years ago sound unnatural today. 'It is well that' is one of those things.


----------



## Linguisticks

Yes, but that's not the point! The point is that we're talking about an antiquated usage. Of course it sounds unnatural today!


----------



## PaulQ

Linguisticks said:


> I posted this extract in another thread that dealt with this same use of "well"


I don't think that is the same use of *well*.


Linguisticks said:


> The point is that we're talking about an antiquated usage.


Who are "we"? The OP is not.


----------



## Linguisticks

Oh. Well, I do.


----------



## Ivan_I

If I say:

The sentence sounds good! (Would it mean that the meaning of the sentence is good?)
or if I say
The sentence sounds well! (Would it mean that the way it is pronounced is good?)


----------



## Linguisticks

I wouldn't recommend trying to revive archaic usages, Ivan. It will only cause confusion.


----------



## kentix

Ivan_I said:


> The sentence sounds good! (Would it mean that the meaning of the sentence is good?)
> or if I say
> The sentence sounds well! (Would it mean that the way it is pronounced is good?)


"The sentence sounds good!" - the sentence is grammatically correct and written in a way that sounds natural to a native speaker. The topic and specific content of the sentence is irrelevant.

"The sentence sounds well!"


----------



## kentix

The piano sounds well. - the piano had the flu last week but it's better now after some bed rest

You sound your vowels well. - this is different. "Sound" is an active verb meaning pronounce. "You pronounce your vowels well." You could do that act of pronunciation poorly or well.


----------



## Linguisticks

kentix said:


> The piano sounds well. - the piano had the flu last week but it's better now after some bed rest


Yes, that's what it might seem to mean to anyone without the awareness of the older usage. A century ago it would have meant that the piano is sounding out its notes in a fitting way - it's correctly tuned and performing appropriately.


----------



## Linguisticks

Perhaps this quote from "The Great Gatsby" (1925) will add further clarity to this discussion: '"The house looks well, doesn't it?" he [Gatsby] demanded. "See how the whole front of it catches the light."' Why didn't he just say "the house looks good"? Because it's that same special, and now rather archaic, use of "well".


----------



## Ivan_I

Maybe it's asking too much but I'd like to invite your opinions on an obvious thing in theory, however,  which wants unraveling  in practice. I think you would agree that "well" is an adverb and adverbs modify verbs. Don't you find it a bit abnormal that "sound well" doesn't seem to be the case? It's simply that I am unable to come up with any sound explanation of why "well" can't be used with "sound" in modern English. 

Yes, "You sound your vowels well." and "You sound well" work because *sound *is transitive here. But when it's intransitive "well" is not used. Any reason why?


----------



## tunaafi

In_ You sound well,_ 'sound' is intransitive, a copular verb, and 'well', in he sense of 'healthy' is an adjective.


----------



## Ivan_I

If I am talking to a person on the phone and can hardly hear them, do I say?

a You sound quiet!
or 
b You sound quietly! 

It must be *a*, right?


----------



## DonnyB

Ivan_I said:


> If I am talking to a person on the phone and can hardly hear them, do I say?
> 
> a You sound quiet!
> or
> b You sound quietly!
> 
> It must be *a*, right?


No: in BE I think we'd probably say "You sound *faint*".


----------



## Ivan_I

Faint? Doesn't it say about the state of health? I meant the level of sound (volume).


----------



## tunaafi

*Faint*
adj. 

lacking brightness, vividness, clearness, loudness, strength, etc.:
a faint light;
a faint color;
a faint sound.
faint - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


----------



## Ivan_I

OK. But I hope you are not saying that "You sound quiet" is wrong grammatically.


----------



## tunaafi

Nobody has suggested that. It;s just not a natural thing for a native speaker to say in your context.


----------



## Edinburgher

The point is that in the phone conversation, you need an adjective, not an adverb, after "you sound". As tunaafi pointed out in #23, "sound" is copular here (it is a linking verb).  It's broadly equivalent to "You are quiet/faint".


----------



## kentix

Normally, you just say "I can't hear you" / "I can barely hear you".


----------



## Ivan_I

kentix said:


> Normally, you just say "I can't hear you" / "I can barely hear you".


Yeah, but in that case there is a chance that there is some shortcoming with the hearing as you can't hear someone. When I say "You sound quiet/faint" I imply that my hearing is OK and the problem is on the other end.


----------



## tunaafi

Ivan_I said:


> Yeah, but in that case there is a chance that there is some shortcoming with the hearing as you can't hear someone.


That is extremely unlikely. If you have hearing difficulties, you are more likely to say "You'll have to speak up; I am deaf/hard of hearing".


----------



## kentix

Ivan_I said:


> , but in that case there is a chance that there is some shortcoming with the hearing as you can't hear someone.


It doesn't imply that with a telephone. It implies something is wrong with the connection or how the the other person is holding the phone.


----------



## Ivan_I

I was told by a native speaker that this is correct. Do you agree?
The whistle sounded shrilly.


----------



## DonnyB

Ivan_I said:


> I was told by a native speaker that this is correct. Do you agree?
> The whistle sounded shrilly.


I would say it is, but to me, that as it stands corresponds to definition #1 of the verb *'sound'* at Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries):  _Emit or cause to emit sound._ [no object] _‘a loud buzzer sounded’._

In other words I would interpret it as meaning that a whistle was blown, emitting a sound which was shrill.


----------



## Ivan_I

DonnyB said:


> I would say it is, but to me, that as it stands corresponds to definition #1 of the verb *'sound'* at Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries):  _Emit or cause to emit sound._ [no object] _‘a loud buzzer sounded’._
> 
> In other words I would interpret it as meaning that a whistle was blown, emitting a sound which was shrill.


It's incredible to me to have a concept which separates the piano and the whistle in the sense that a whistle can sound (emit sound) but a piano can't sound (emit sound). Can you shed some light on it?


----------



## Loob

Ivan_I said:


> It's incredible to me to have a concept which separates the piano and the whistle in the sense that a whistle can sound (emit sound) but a piano can't sound (emit sound).


It's incredible to me too - because it's not true.
You can use that meaning of _sound _for trumpets, foghorns, fire alarms - and notes on a piano.


----------



## Ivan_I

Loob said:


> It's incredible to me too - because it's not true.
> You can use that meaning of _sound _for trumpets, foghorns, fire alarms - and notes on a piano.


Well, if it's not true, then, what is the factor which allows "trumpets, foghorns, fire alarm" to sound shrilly and doesn't allow the piano to sound shrilly or well etc (only shrill/good)?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Maybe something to do with it being possible to use all those things intransitively, or in middle voice.
The trumpets, sirens, and so on, 'sounded' as if they make the noise by themselves, but we don't say 'the piano sounded'.


----------



## Edinburgher

Ivan_I said:


> what is the factor


It's just what's idiomatic.  We can also say that a whistle or trumpet _sounds shrill_ (it doesn't have to be _shrilly_).  That's a different meaning of the verb "sound".  When you use it with the adverb "shrilly", the verb means "make a sound" (see #36); when you use it with the adjective "shrill", it means the sound that it makes is shrill.

If you have an idea and tell me about it, and I think it's a good idea, I would say "That sounds good", not "That sounds well".

When a piano emits a sound, we simply tend not to describe it as "sounding".  We would say that it is playing (or being played).
But we can describe its sound quality, and say that it's sounding a bit muffled in the bass and shrill at the top, and generally out of tune in the middle.


----------



## Ivan_I

Hermione Golightly said:


> Maybe something to do with it being possible to use all those things intransitively, or in middle voice.
> The trumpets, sirens, and so on, 'sounded' as if they make the noise by themselves, but we don't say 'the piano sounded'.


I think you said the same as I said but in different words. That's what I meant. The trumpets, sirens make the noise (however, it's not a noise but a specific sound) whereas the piano, as it turns out, doesn't make the noise that is makes sound. That's how I see it for now.


----------



## PaulQ

Ivan_I said:


> Well, if it's not true, then, what is the factor which allows "trumpets, foghorns, fire alarm" to sound shrilly and doesn't allow the piano to sound shrilly or well etc (only shrill/good)?


There are several meanings to "sound", as has been explained.

1. The bells of the church *sounded (intr.) *[out] across the fields - to cause a sound to emanate [from the subject] (across the fields)
2. The bells of the church *sounded (intr.) *the alarm - to give audible notice *of something "the alarm" is a complement, not an object.*
3a. The man *sounded (intr.) *as if he were drunk - (i) to make noises or to speak. (ii) to appear to be in a certain state by virtue of a report or observation
3b A: "John was in hospital last month but I saw him yesterday: he was jogging quite quickly."
B: "He *sounds (intr.) *well." = - to appear to be in a certain state by virtue of a report or observation = It appears from what you have said that he is well (healthy).


----------



## DonnyB

Ivan_I said:


> It's incredible to me to have a concept which separates the piano and the whistle in the sense that a whistle can sound (emit sound) but a piano can't sound (emit sound). Can you shed some light on it?


Well yes, a piano clearly emits sound, but only when somebody plays it.   It's describing a piano as sounding "shrill/shrilly" or "good" which I personally don't think really works. I hove no objection at all to saying something like "That piano *sounds* out of key" if it needs re-tuning.


----------

