# hear / listen



## Outsider

Does you language have different words for these concepts? The distinction in English is that hearing can be accidental or incidental, while listening implies attentiveness and a willingness to understand.

Portuguese has the two words

ouvir = to hear
escutar = to listen

However, it's my impression that (some purists notwithstanding) the Portuguese language is not as careful in distinguishing between the two ideas as English. In practice, the two words are frequently treated as interchangeable. For example, it's common to say _ouvir música_ rather than _escutar música_, for "listening to music".

What about other languages?

Thanks in advance for your replies.


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:
ακροώμαι (akro*o*me-to hear)
ακούω (ak*u*o-to listen)
ακροάζομαι (akro*a*zome-to listen with attention)
αφουγκράζομαι (afuŋgr*a*zome-to lend an attentive ear)
εισακούω (isak*u*o-to harken)
ακροώμαι means that I hear something I want to hear.
The doctor ακροάζεται (akro*a*zete) his patient by performing an ακρὀασις (akr*o*asis-auscultation) and seeks for ακροαστικά (akroastik*a*, _n._, _pl._-respiratory sounds).
ακούω means simply I listen to something. It's the norm to say ακούω μουσική (ak*u*o musik*i*-I listen to music).


----------



## Favara

Catalan:
_To hear: _Sentir / Oir <-"Oir" is almost extinct, and has been almost completely replaced by "sentir", meaning "to sense".
_To listen: _Escoltar

There's a similar dichotomy with the verbs "veure" and "mirar", but refering to the sense of sight.


----------



## rusita preciosa

Russian:
listen:  слyшaть [slushat]
hear: слышaть [slyshat]
 
French:
listen: écouter
hear: entendre


----------



## phosphore

Serbian:

to listen - slušati
to hear - čuti

The distinction is well maintained.


----------



## brian

Italian:

to hear - _sentire_
to listen - _ascoltare_

The distinction is maintained for the most part, though there are exceptions: _Senti questa canzone_, "Listen to this song" - which obviously implies attentiveness. However, even in English you can indeed say _Hey, come hear this song._

German:

to hear - _hören_

to listen (to something) - _(etwas) hören_ or _[sich_ (dat.)_]_ _(etwas) anhören_ or _(etwas) zuhören_
to listen (to someone) - _(jemandem) zuhören_*

The distinction is "lost" (I guess you could say) in cases like _Musik hören_ - "to listen to music", which implies attentiveness.

*_jemandem etwas anhören_ has a special meaning: "to hear something in someone('s voice)."


----------



## Mahaodeh

In Arabic there are three:

يسمع = yasma3 = hear
يصغي = yuSghi = to give your full attention when listening
ينصت = yunSit = to keep quite in order to listen

Generally, the second two are used interchangabely and the uses are very much similar to that in English, but that does not mean that the uses are identical to English. As an example, in English one would say "listen to your mother" (to mean "do as she says") in Arabic it's "hear your mother's speech".

This is the case in standard Arabic, in collequal most uses are for hear, very rarely does anyone use listen.


----------



## amikama

Hebrew:

to hear - לשמוע
to listen - להקשיב

No confusion between these verbs. They are not interchangeable.


----------



## RaLo18

לשמוע (_lishmo'a_) and להקשיב (_lehakshiv_) are indeed not interchangeable, but it isn't uncommon to hear לשמוע used as להקשיב. Children and teenagers tend to not distinguish between the concepts.


----------



## sakvaka

In *Finnish*:

to hear - _kuulla_
to listen - _kuunnella_ (can also be considered a frequentative form of _kuulla_)


----------



## Encolpius

*Hungarian*

hear = hall
listen = hallgat

I think all languages on Earth must have two words, of course the interchangeability is doubtful. If you are deaf you can listen to the music but cannot hear it.


----------



## la_machy

Español:


*Oir (to hear), *can be accidental or incidental.

*Escuchar (to listen)*, implies attentiveness and a willingness to understand.


Saludos


----------



## lantern

Encolpius said:


> *Hungarian*
> 
> hear = hall
> listen = hallgat
> 
> I think all languages on Earth must have two words, of course the interchangeability is doubtful. If you are deaf you can listen to the music but cannot hear it.


I disagree. You can't *listen *to music if you are completely deaf*. If you were partially deaf then you could *hear *it at least.

* = unless you do it inside your head.


----------



## Encolpius

lantern said:


> I disagree. You can't *listen *to music if you are completely deaf*. ..



Hearing-impaired people could be angry now.
And we mustn't forget e.g. Italians feel that and use 1 word for feel and hear.


----------



## franz rod

> And we mustn't forget e.g. Italians feel that and use 1 word for feel and hear.



It's not completly true.  The verb sentire means feel and hear but the verb udire means only hear.


----------



## lantern

Encolpius said:


> Hearing-impaired people could be angry now.
> And we mustn't forget e.g. Italians feel that and use 1 word for feel and hear.


Why would they be angry?  I don't know about in Italian, but in English it is not possible to listen to or hear music if you are completely deaf (unless you are imagining it in your head or hearing it in a dream).


----------



## lantern

Favara said:


> There's a similar dichotomy with the verbs "veure" and "mirar", but refering to the sense of sight.


And the same in English with "to see" and "to watch".


----------



## Flaminius

amikama said:


> Hebrew:
> 
> to hear - לשמוע
> to listen - להקשיב
> 
> No confusion between these verbs. They are not interchangeable.


Where does להאזין fit in?  I have seen it used to translate English "listen to music."

Japanese:
No distinction between a more-or-less active and passive use of the auditory sense; at least by one-verb constructions.


----------



## amikama

Flaminius said:


> Where does להאזין fit in?  I have seen it used to translate English "listen to music."


Thanks, I forgot this verb.  להאזין is very similar to להקשיב indeed, although they're not 100% interchangeable. (See this thread in the Hebrew forum.)


----------



## sakvaka

lantern said:


> Why would they be angry?  I don't know about in Italian, but in English it is not possible to listen to or hear music if you are completely deaf (unless you are imagining it in your head or hearing it in a dream).



I've seen photos of hearing-impaired people who've put their fingers (or other body parts) on an instrument and _felt_ the music resonate inside them. Of course they aren't able to _hear_ it, but they can still _listen_ to it. 

And just like Encolpius said, these verbs are the same in Italian. _Sentire _means both _to feel_ and _to hear_.


----------



## amikama

Let me add a (personal) side comment here:

As an almost-total deaf myself, I can tell you that most of the deaf persons do listen and hear (at least partially - 100% deafness is rare, AFAIK). When I *listen *to music, all I *hear *is random noises (because I can't tell the musical notes apart - they all are the same to my ears). If someone is speaking and I read his lips, pay attention to what he says and understand every word, I would find it quite absurd to say that I don't *listen *to him just because I can't *hear *him.

This is very interesting discussion, but maybe a bit off-topic here. So let's continue it in another place


----------



## brian

sakvaka said:
			
		

> And just like Encolpius said, these verbs are the same in Italian. _Sentire _means both _to feel_ and _to hear_.


Keep in mind that, while the verb in Italian is indeed the same, I _don't_ think there is such a strong connection in the minds of Italian speakers between feeling and hearing. 

In fact, _sentire_ can refer to _any_ kind of perception (except seeing): feeling/touching, hearing/listening, tasting, and smelling. In a way, you could think of _sentire_ as _to perceive_ - and then context always rules all but one type of perception. As such, there is never any impression of overlap!

For example, if I tell you, "Senti questa canzone!", it would never cross your mind to wonder if I mean taste, smell, or feel this song.

As such, I don't think that in Italian a deaf person can _sentire_ a song any more than a deaf person in English can hear or listen to it.


----------



## Outsider

lantern said:


> And the same in English with "to see" and "to watch".


English actually makes a three-way basic distinction with respect to vision:

to see / to look / to watch

But this subject should probably be left for a new thread.


----------



## lantern

sakvaka said:


> I've seen photos of hearing-impaired people who've put their fingers (or other body parts) on an instrument and _felt_ the music resonate inside them. Of course they aren't able to _hear_ it, but they can still _listen_ to it.


No, maybe in Romanian, Finnish, Hebrew or other languages this is true with whatever verbs are used, but *in English* the fact you can feel the music does not mean you are listening to it. You cannot listen to music (note: I haven't mentioned "listening" to anything else) if you cannot hear it, at least in a literal sense.  Maybe some interference from your native languages is taking place here.


----------



## sakvaka

lantern said:


> No, maybe in Romanian, Finnish, Hebrew or other languages this is true with whatever verbs are used, but *in English* the fact you can feel the music does not mean you are listening to it. You cannot listen to music (note: I haven't mentioned "listening" to anything else) if you cannot hear it, at least in a literal sense.  Maybe some interference from your native languages is taking place here.



I don't believe that Finnish would deal with these concepts differently from English. We consider hearing just _passive receiving_ of information (through the ear, of course) whereas listening is _active processing_ of it. 

If deaf people are "listening" to music, they can't hear sounds, but they can probably feel its resonance in their bones. 

But is "listening" the correct term for this kind of active perception? The concept of a deaf music hobbyist sounds silly, even in Finnish. Of course this is an endless topic of discussion, but I believe that this is what Encolpius originally meant by saying "hearing-impaired people could be angry now".


----------



## bibax

Czech:

to hear: *slyšeti* (perf. *uslyšeti*)
to listen: *poslouchati* (perf. *poslechnouti*)

All verbs are from the same original root.

*poslouchati/poslechnouti* means also _to obey_ like in Latin: auscultare, oboedire

*"Poslouchej svou žízeň"* is ambiguous: Listen to your thirst. Obey your thirst.

Thus a deaf man can "poslouchat" (to listen, in the sense _to obey_).

*"Hluchý otrok poslouchá svého pána"* = A deaf slave obeys (lit. listens to) his master.

Some dialects use the verb *číti* (to feel, sentire) instead of *slyšeti*.


----------



## Encolpius

lantern said:


> No, maybe in Romanian, Finnish, Hebrew or other languages this is true with whatever verbs are used, but *in English* the fact you can feel the music does not mean you are listening to it. You cannot listen to music (note: I haven't mentioned "listening" to anything else) if you cannot hear it, at least in a literal sense.  Maybe some interference from your native languages is taking place here.



Yes, the native language interference may take place. BUT. Just imagine this situation. Two blokes find a magic pebble on a faraway planet. One of them finds out the pebble gives out strange sounds. Is this conversation incorrect grammatically? 
- Hey, Kevin, look. This pebble is talking. Listen. (hands over the pebble)
- 
[listening to the pebble]
- So? Nothing? 
- I do listen but can't here anything.


----------



## lantern

Feeling resonance in your bones is not listening to music. At least not with any normal usage of the verb "listen". That is exactly and *all *I was saying. Obviously you can stretch the meaning of any word in a figurative, poetic or any way you like, but as a native English speaker, the sentence "If you are deaf you can listen to the music but cannot hear it" just doesn't seem right. It has everything to do with how the verb "listen" is commonly used with regard to "music", and nothing to do with people with hearing disabilities.



Encolpius said:


> Yes, the native language interference may take place. BUT. Just imagine this situation. Two blokes find a magic pebble on a faraway planet. One of them finds out the pebble gives out strange sounds. Is this conversation incorrect grammatically?
> - Hey, Kevin, look. This pebble is talking. Listen. (hands over the pebble)
> -
> [listening to the pebble]
> - So? Nothing?
> - I do listen *am listening* but can't *hear *anything.


It's not grammatically incorrect (apart from one small error), but doesn't really have anything to do with my original comment, which was simply disagreeing with your sentence which I've quoted above.


----------



## ThomasK

To me the most interesting observation is that most verbs seem to have two different verbs, not linked etymologically, I mean, except in Finnish and Hungarian - no coincidence of course. Yet that somehow seems to be the most logical as both 'activities' seem linked as referring to the same sense. _(I agree, you have the same thing with see/ watch - and it would be interesting to hear from Fins and Hungarians whether their words have a common root). _

I come to think of it: in Latin they are linked --_ audire_ and _obaudire. (See a next thread.)_


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> To me the most interesting observation is that most verbs seem to have two different verbs, not linked etymologically, I mean, except in Finnish and Hungarian - no coincidence of course. Yet that somehow seems to be the most logical as both 'activities' seem linked as referring to the same sense. _(I agree, you have the same thing with see/ watch - and it would be interesting to hear from Fins and Hungarians whether their words have a common root). _
> 
> I come to think of it: in Latin they are linked --_ audire_ and _obaudire. (See a next thread.)_


 
_kuulla_ and _hall _- from the same Uralic root *_kule_ (to hear)
_kuunnella -_ frequentative form of _kuulla_
_hallgat -_ frequentative form of _hall_

_nähdä and néz -_ from the same Uralic root _*näke_ (to see)

Finnish and Hungarian turned out to be language relatives...


----------



## Hutschi

listen
German: zuhören (if you listen a concert or a speech), in some context: lauschen, in some context: horchen 

hear
German: hören, vernehmen

Note: "hören" is often used in the meaning of "gehorchen" (obey).

In fairy tales there is "Ich höre und gehorche" = I listen and obey. In this case it is clear by context.


----------



## Kanes

Bulgarian, слушам - I listen, чувам - I hear


----------



## medeor

Turkish: duymak and işitmek (to hear), dinlemek (to listen to)


----------



## mataripis

Tagalog: Hear= Dinggin(As in prayer)   , Listen= Pakinggan(the sound of music)  **De pa Dumaget: Hear= Notobeg (the one who answers), Listen= Patalikngan


----------



## terredepomme

> Japanese: No distinction between a more-or-less active and passive use of the auditory sense; at least by one-verb constructions.


Well there's 聞く and 聴く. Although the distincition of these two verbs is a bit different.


----------



## Hutschi

I just remember that "aufmerksam zuhören" can also be "lauschen" in German.
_Ich lausche der Musik._

"Ich höre Musik" is fuzzy because it can mean to hear or to listen, depending on context.


----------



## OneStroke

terredepomme said:


> Well there's 聞く and 聴く. Although the distincition of these two verbs is a bit different.



The 'distinction' is also made in the Chinese phrase 聽而不聞 (ting er bu wen, listen but not hear, usually follows 視而不見, look at sth but not see it.) In my opinion, 聽 and 聞 are pretty much the same in Chinese (semantically, not grammatically, of course) - they're even used together in the word 聽聞 - which means 'hear' in the sense 'I hear your sister's getting married'.


----------

