# Etymology of the word "forte"



## Giulia da Urbino

I just read on various on-line dictionaries that "forte" like in "writing is not my forte" in English has a French origin... the identical expression exists in Italian "non è il mio forte"... and I was wondering how the French etymology (rather than Italian) was "established".
Anybody?


----------



## LV4-26

> 1648, from Fr. fort "strong point (of a sword blade)," also "fort," from M.Fr. fort (see fort); *final -e- added 18c. in imitation of It. forte* "strong." Meaning "strong point of a person" is from 1682.


(my emphasis)
From here.


----------



## JamesM

I wonder if the fact that the word is properly pronounced as one syllable and not two in English is a clue to its French origin rather than Italian. I don't know. I'm honestly just wondering.

I know many AE speakers who pronounce it as if it were Italian, but our dictionary definitions show it as one syllable.  In fact, if you pronounce it as a one-syllable word, you'll often get "corrected" by those around you here.  

It might be one of those words in transition.


----------



## Thomas1

JamesM said:


> I wonder if the fact that the word is properly pronounced as one syllable and not two in English is a clue to its French origin rather than Italian. I don't know. I'm honestly just wondering.
> 
> I know many AE speakers who pronounce it as if it were Italian, but our dictionary definitions show it as one syllable. In fact, if you pronounce it as a one-syllable word, you'll often get "corrected" by those around you here.
> 
> It might be one of those words in transition.


I think you're right.
Since there are two _forte_s in English, first that is in question comes from French and should be correctly pronounced as one syllable and the second one used by musicians of Italian origin pronounced as two syllables. I think, however, that people mingled both and the two syllable pronunciaton prevails; the one that should be pronounced as monosyllabic got the additional _e_ so that's probably the _perpetrator _of the double syllable enunciation.


Tom


----------



## Packard

I get so exasperated by the forte as a single or two syllable word, that I only say, "strength"  or "loud" in its place.

Fortay (phonetically) means "loud" and is the opposite of "piano".

Fort (phonetically) means strength.


----------



## Orange Blossom

I had no idea until now that _forte_ was pronounced in any way other than in two syllables.  In fact, I have generally seen the word written this way, forté, whether in music or elsewhere until computers became so common.

Mathematics is not my forté.

This section of the music is forté.

If I hear one syllable, I think of this word: fort.  I've heard one syllable only in reference to forts which are a kind of military outpost.

Orange Blossom


----------



## Loob

Well, here's an abbreviated version of the OED entry for _forte (_as in_ my forte)_



> [a. F. _fort_, absolute use of _fort_ strong: see FORT _a._ As in many other adoptions of Fr. adjs. used as ns., the fem. form has been ignorantly substituted for the masc.; cf. _locale_, _morale_ (of an army), etc.]
> *1.* The strong point (of a person), that in which he excels.


 
From which we draw at least two conclusions, I think:

(1) that the origin is French
(2) that in BrE, the one-syllabled pronunciation is obsolete: we pronounce it with two syllables.

Loob

_Edit: sorry - the phonetic transcription made a right mess of this quote so I had to delete it! To paraphrase, though, what the phonetic bit of the entry said was that the word is pronounced 'forty or fortay; "formerly" fort.'_


----------



## JamesM

Orange Blossom said:


> I had no idea until now that _forte_ was pronounced in any way other than in two syllables. In fact, I have generally seen the word written this way, forté, whether in music or elsewhere until computers became so common.
> 
> Mathematics is not my forté.
> 
> This section of the music is forté.
> 
> If I hear one syllable, I think of this word: fort. I've heard one syllable only in reference to forts which are a kind of military outpost.
> 
> Orange Blossom


 
It took a little work, but I think I found a way to pick up "is not my forté" without including "is not my forte" using Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS207US208&q="is+not+my+forté"+-"forte"&btnG=Search

I get 252 examples vs. 59,500 for the non-accented version:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS207US208&q="is+not+my+forte"+-"forté"

I wonder, Orange Blossom, if your mind might have "filled in" the accent since it expected it.  In print, such as books or articles, I've only seen "forte" (without the accent) to mean "strength" or "specialty."


----------



## Loob

JamesM and Orange Blossom, I'll leave you North Americans to battle it out 

The position here's clear: two syllables!

Loob


----------



## JamesM

Loob said:


> JamesM and Orange Blossom, I'll leave you North Americans to battle it out
> 
> The position here's clear: two syllables!
> 
> Loob


 
To tell you the truth, I wish it were as clear here. I'd rather have one word and one pronunciation rather than two. 

Maybe I should join a campaign for standardization on two syllables in AE.


----------



## Orange Blossom

JamesM said:


> It took a little work, but I think I found a way to pick up "is not my forté" without including "is not my forte" using Google:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...22&btnG=Search
> 
> I get 252 examples vs. 59,500 for the non-accented version:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...2fort%C3%A9%22



Your google results do not surprise me at all.  With the increased use of word processing, the accents have been disappearing from words like crazy.  Résumé is a case in point.  Google, of course, does not call up typewritten, mimeographed, or typeset texts unless perhaps they have been scanned. 
---------------
I should point out that most of my experience with _forté_ has been with music.  I became acquainted with the other meaning much later in the early 1980's.  I repeat though, that I saw it spelled with the accent mark.  It took me an awful time to figure out what the writer meant as the only definition for the word that I knew at the time was _loud_!  I didn't hear the word with the meaning of 'strong point' until later, and then it was with two syllables.

I was just talking to my father, and he said that he has heard the word pronounced only with two syllables.  However, when he read books with the word in the 1930's he didn't see the accent mark.  His association with the musical term came much later.

I just looked up the word in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language published in 2000.  Under their usage notes they write (bold face is mine):



> The word forte, coming from French fort, should properly be pronounced with one syllable . . . Common usage, however, prefers the two-syllable pronunciation . . . influenced *possibly *by the music term . . . In a recent survey . . . 74 percent, preferred the two-syllable pronunciation.


  They go on to say that those who know the word's origin might want to continue pronouncing it with one syllable but in doing so risk confusing more and more of their listeners.

From this I conclude that the word has been undergoing the shift to two syllables for quite some time. I wonder if the same trend is occuring in England. EDIT:  I see from Loob's post the shift is apparently complete in England 

Orange Blossom


----------



## JamesM

I love the entry in www.m-w.com (bolding added by me):

In _forte_ we have a word derived from French that in its "strong point" sense has no entirely satisfactory pronunciation. Usage writers have denigrated \'for-"tA\ and \'for-tE\ because they reflect the influence of the Italian-derived _2_forte. Their recommended pronunciation \'fort\, however, does not exactly reflect French either: the French would write the word _le fort_ and would rhyme it with English _for._ *So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose.* All are standard, however. In British English \'fo-"tA\ and \'fot\ predominate; \'for-"tA\ and \for-'tA\ are probably the most frequent pronunciations in American English.


----------



## panjandrum

It would never have occurred to me that forte could be pronounced in any other way than two syllables and exactly the same whichever meaning is intended.  Singing forte is my forte.

I suppose this is another of those interesting situations where AE has preserved something that was once part of BE but has now changed.
I don't recall ever seeing forte written as forté.  Surely that would never have been correct?


----------



## JamesM

panjandrum said:


> It would never have occurred to me that forte could be pronounced in any other way than two syllables and exactly the same whichever meaning is intended. Singing forte is my forte.
> 
> I suppose this is another of those interesting situations where AE has preserved something that was once part of BE but has now changed.
> I don't recall ever seeing forte written as forté. Surely that would never have been correct?


 
I can't see where it would.  It wouldn't make sense either in French or Italian, the two presumed sources.


----------



## Matching Mole

I suspect it has been complete for some time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone pronounce it as one syllable. It would sound exceedingly odd to me. The OED gives only one pronunciation:   /*for*tay/


----------



## JamesM

Matching Mole said:


> I suspect it has been complete for some time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone pronounce it as one syllable. It would sound exceedingly odd to me. The OED gives only one pronunciation: /*for*tay/


 
Complete in BE, you mean. 

I'd say that "forte" as a single-syllable word is an academic marker of some kind in AE. That's my theory, at least. The group who pronounces it this way is definitely in the minority, but to pronounce "forte" as two syllables in such a social circle will earn some raised eyebrows or an assumption that your education is incomplete.

It's awkward to use in AE; as the Merriam-Webster entry says above, you risk the disapproval of someone no matter which way you pronounce it. Statistically speaking, you're probably safer saying "for-tay" than "fort" in AE. 

I'd just like to underline, though, that the transition is _*not*_ complete in AE. It is still defined in multiple sources as a single syllable pronunciation when meaning "strength" or "specialty."


----------



## Matching Mole

Sorry, I was replying to Orange Blossom, but was late in posting:



			
				Orange Blossom said:
			
		

> I see from Loob's post the shift is apparently complete in England


----------



## LV4-26

This has been said in a couple of posts but I thought I might clarify the French and Italian aspects of the matter.

In French, the word is _fort_ (it is not my forte, _ce n'est pas mon fort_). It means _strong_ and is pronounced more or less like the English _for_ (as pointed out by one of the quoted sources) i.e. one syllable and a mute 't'.
As used in this expression, it is an adjective made into a noun.

There is indeed a _forte_ in French which is the feminine form of the adjective _fort_ which, of course, can't be used in the idiom (apart from a few exceptions, nouns do not switch gender in French, only adjectives can). It is pronounced the same as its masculine counterpart except that the 't' is sounded, this time. (which makes the word sound like the English _fort_ (= fortress, stronghold).

It seems that the predominant pronunciation for the English _forte_ is the closest possible to the Italian _forte_ (loud).

There was no logical reason for this 'e' to be added (see my first post) in the 18th century. As is, saying that the word comes from French is only half-true. Even though it may sound weird, it is more justified to say that
1. its meaning and initial form are borrowed from French
2. its current form is Italian.

Therefore, that two different pronunciations coexist is not surprising. One takes 1. into account. The other is based on 2.

PS : There is no such word as forté with an accent, either in French or in Italian.

Disclaimer : do not interpret any of the above as an assertion of what the English usage is or should be.


----------



## mplsray

LV4-26 said:


> This has been said in a couple of posts but I thought I might clarify the French and Italian aspects of the matter.
> 
> In French, the word is _fort_ (it is not my forte, _ce n'est pas mon fort_). It means _strong_ and is pronounced more or less like the English _for_ (as pointed out by one of the quoted sources) i.e. one syllable and a mute 't'.
> As used in this expression, it is an adjective made into a noun.
> 
> There is indeed a _forte_ in French which is the feminine form of the adjective _fort_ which, of course, can't be used in the idiom (apart from a few exceptions, nouns do not switch gender in French, only adjectives can). It is pronounced the same as its masculine counterpart except that the 't' is sounded, this time. (which makes the word sound like the English _fort_ (= fortress, stronghold).
> 
> It seems that the predominant pronunciation for the English _forte_ is the closest possible to the Italian _forte_ (loud).
> 
> There was no logical reason for this 'e' to be added (see my first post) in the 18th century. As is, saying that the word comes from French is only half-true. Even though it may sound weird, it is more justified to say that
> 1. its meaning and initial form are borrowed from French
> 2. its current form is Italian.
> 
> Therefore, that two different pronunciations coexist is not surprising. One takes 1. into account. The other is based on 2.
> 
> PS : There is no such word as forté with an accent, either in French or in Italian.
> 
> Disclaimer : do not interpret any of the above as an assertion of what the English usage is or should be.


 
I'm inclined to go along with the OED (see *Loob*'s post above) and see the current _spelling_ of _forte_ meaning "strong point" as having been the result of the influence of the form of the French feminine adjective _forte_--so that it would make more sense to refer to it as French rather than Italian. (The change in the noun, however, took place in English, not French.)

The current _pronunciation,_ having been influenced by the Italian cognate _forte,_ could then be said to be Italian.

Still, under the circumstances, I would say that the spelling and both pronunciations are English alone.

I expect that such words as _cachet, résumé/resumé,_ and _touché_ have a conservative effect on the pronunciation of _forte,_ because their existence would tend to keep the two-syllable pronunciation the more popular one, and in the case of the nonstandard "cash-AY" pronunciation of _cache,_ their effect is creative rather than conservative. (Not that I expect the "cash-AY" pronunciation to become standard in the long run.)


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> I expect that such words as _cachet, résumé/resumé,_ and _touché_ have a conservative effect on the pronunciation of _forte,_ because their existence would tend to keep the two-syllable pronunciation the more popular one, and in the case of the nonstandard "cash-AY" pronunciation of _cache,_ their effect is creative rather than conservative. (Not that I expect the "cash-AY" pronunciation to become standard in the long run.)


 
"Cachet" is pronounced "cash-AY", definitely, but I've only heard "cache" as "cash": a cache of weapons, a cache of ammunition, a cache of money, etc. 

Is there actually a movement towards pronouncing "cache" as "cash-ay"? How confusing! How will we tell "cachet" from "cache"?


----------



## Matching Mole

I'm pretty sure there is no movement to pron. "cache" as cashay. I think mplsray was mistaken regarding the spelling of cachet.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> "Cachet" is pronounced "cash-AY", definitely, but I've only heard "cache" as "cash": a cache of weapons, a cache of ammunition, a cache of money, etc.
> 
> Is there actually a movement towards pronouncing "cache" as "cash-ay"? How confusing! How will we tell "cachet" from "cache"?


 
The same way we tell _fort_ from _forte_ (pronounced "fort") or _forte_ (Italian-derived) from _forte_ (pronounced "FOR-tay" French-derived): context.

I've heard the "cash-AY" pronunciation of _cache_ from more than one source. However, as I said previously, I don't expect the two-syllable pronunciation to become standard, so there's no movement as such.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> The same way we tell _fort_ from _forte_ (pronounced "fort") or _forte_ (Italian-derived) from _forte_ (pronounced "for-TAY," French-derived): context.


 
There is no "for-TAY" in French, though, mplsray. The word has one syllable in French. 

I don't think that "for-TAY" is pronounced that way to distinguish it from "FOR-tay", the Americanized sound for the word loud in Italian. I've heard people say "FOR-tay" and "for-TAY" (capitalized syllables being the accented ones) but they haven't used it to distinguish between the Italian meaning of "loud" and the French-derived meaning of "strength." It's just however they learned to pronounce "forte", in my experience.

Can you provide a source where this distinction is made? Maybe I've missed something all these years. It wouldn't be the first time. That's one of the pleasures of participating on this board - finding out what you didn't know you didn't know.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> There is no "for-TAY" in French, though, mplsray. The word has one syllable in French.
> 
> I don't think that "for-TAY" is pronounced that way to distinguish it from "FOR-tay", the Americanized sound for the word loud in Italian. I've heard people say "FOR-tay" and "for-TAY" (capitalized syllables being the accented ones) but they haven't used it to distinguish between the Italian meaning of "loud" and the French-derived meaning of "strength." It's just however they learned to pronounce "forte", in my experience.
> 
> Can you provide a source where this distinction is made? Maybe I've missed something all these years. It wouldn't be the first time. That's one of the pleasures of participating on this board - finding out what you didn't know you didn't know.


 
I just corrected the pronunciation of the French-derived _forte_ in the post to which you were replying. The reason I mentioned pronunciation in that post was simply to distinguish between the one-syllable and two-syllable pronunciations of the French-derived _forte._

While it is true that in some people's speech the Italian-derived adverb _forte_ can be distinguished from the French-derived noun _forte_ by the pronunciation "FOR-tay" for the first and "for-TAY" for the second--and that includes my speech--that was not what I was discussing in my post. Instead, I was discussing how _forte_ the adverb and _forte_ the noun are distinguished when they are pronounced the same way: "FOR-tay." It is _context _which disambiguates them.

Note that there is still another pronunciation for the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun: "FOR-tee," that is, a homonym for _forty._ In this case also, what distinguishes the homonyms is context.

All the pronunciations for _forte_ referred to above can be seen in _Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. _And for the record, I speak French.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> All the pronunciations for _forte_ referred to above can be seen in _Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. _And for the record, I speak French.


 
Thanks.  I was not asking for the pronunciations, but a source that showed that "FOR-tay' and "for-TAY" are used to distinguish between the two meanings.  I understand that you do so, but do you know of any place that suggests this distinction?


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> Thanks. I was not asking for the pronunciations, but a source that showed that "FOR-tay' and "for-TAY" are used to distinguish between the two meanings. I understand that you do so, but do you know of any place that suggests this distinction?


 
Ah, I see the problem now, and it turns out it's actually another question of context.

It is in the context of the speech of an _individual_ that the pronunciations "FOR-tay" and "for-TAY" might distinguish between the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun. And other pronunciation distinctions could be made in the case of other individuals.

I still think the distinction between the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun depends mainly upon the semantic context. But if an individual's speech distinguishes between the two by pronunciation, an objective observer could learn to identify which word was being used by the pronunciation alone.

For some people, _forte_ (Italian-derived), _forte_ (French-derived), and _forty_ are all pronounced "FOR-tee." An objective observer could not learn to distinguish between the three words as spoken by such people by pronunciation alone.

but if a person pronounced _forte_ (Italian-derived) as "FOR-tay" and _forte_ (French-derived) as "for-TAY," and _forty_ as "FOR-tee," an objective observer could learn to distinguish between the three words by pronunciation alone.

I would expect some current speech-recognition systems which have the capability of being programmed by the individual user to be able to make such distinctions even now.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> Ah, I see the problem now, and as it turns out it's actually another question of context.
> 
> It is in the context of the speech of an _individual_ that the pronunciations "FOR-tay" and "for-TAY" might distinguish between the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun. And other pronunciation distinctions could be made in the case of other individuals.
> 
> I still think the distinction between the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun depends mainly upon the semantic context. But if an individual's speech distinguishes between the two by pronunciation, an objective observer could learn to identify which word was being used by the pronunciation alone.
> 
> For some people, _forte_ (Italian-derived), _forte_ (French-derived), and _forty_ are all pronounced "FOR-tee." An objective observer could not learn to distinguish between the three words as spoken by such people by pronunciation alone.
> 
> but if a person pronounced _forte_ (Italian-derived) as "FOR-tay" and _forte_ (French-derived) as "for-TAY," and _forty_ as "FOR-tee," an objective observer could learn to distinguish between the three words by pronunciation alone.


 
This sounds theoretical. I understood your earlier post to say that many people already distinguish between the two meanings by which syllable they accent. Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> This sounds theoretical. I understood your earlier post to say that many people already distinguish between the two meanings by pronunciation. Did I misunderstand you?


 
I wouldn't consider it "theoretical," but instead a question of logic and probability. Let's exclude the example of my own speech for the sake of argument. The pronunciations for _forte_ and _forty_ which are given in _Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary_ are the following: 

_forte_ (Italian-derived): "FOR-tay," "FOR-tee."
_forte_ (French-derived) "fort," "FOR-tay," "for-TAY," "FOR-tee"
_forty_ "FOR-tee"

None of these are given a regional label, so there is no logical reason to rule out that there are people who say the three words as "FOR-tee." By a similar argument, there is no reason to rule out that there are people who pronounce _forte_ (Italian-derived) as "FOR-tay" and _forte_ (French-derived) as "fort," or _forte_ (Italian-derived) as "FOR-tay" and _forte_ (French-derived) as "FOR-tee," and _forte_ (Italian-derived) as "FOR-tee" and _forte_ (French-derived) as "FOR-tay."


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> I wouldn't consider it "theoretical," but instead a question of logic and probability.


 
Logic and language are not always easy bedfellows.  

What you said earlier was:



> While it is true that in some people's speech the Italian-derived adverb _forte_ can be distinguished from the French-derived noun _forte_ by the pronunciation "FOR-tay" for the first and "for-TAY" for the second--and that includes my speech--that was not what I was discussing in my post. Instead,


 
What I was asking for was any information you could provide that indicates this is more than a personal preference.  I have never heard it used as a distinction, and as I am both a musician and a student of French, I'd probably be more likely than the average person to run into this distinction if it were an attempt to distinguish between the Italian music marking and the "forte" that means strength or specialty.

While it _could _be possible that people distinguish the two words this way, as you do, do you know of any source that indicates this is more than your personal preference?


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> Logic and language are not always easy bedfellows.


 
But the analysis of usages in the wild must be consistent with logic, and that includes matters of probability. That is, modern lexicography is a science, and as such must adhere to logic. (I'm not saying that the usages _themselves_ must be logical, just that the identifying of usages, their pronunciations and meanings, is subject to the rules of logic and probability just as much as any other science.)



> What I was asking for was any information you could provide that indicates this is more than a personal preference. I have never heard it used as a distinction, and as I am both a musician and a student of French, I'd probably be more likely than the average person to run into this distinction if it were an attempt to distinguish between the Italian music marking and the "forte" that means strength or specialty.
> 
> While it _could _be possible that people distinguish the two words this way, as you do, do you know of any source that indicates this is more than your personal preference?


 
I know of no such source, but such a source is utterly unnecessary due to probability!

Given that _apricot_ has the two pronunciations "APP-rih-cot" and "APE-rih-cot," and _alloy_ has two pronunciations "AH-loy" (with "ah" being the vowel in _hat_) and "uh-LOY"--these pronunciations taken from the "Variant Pronunciations" section in the introductory pages to _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,_ 11th ed.--it is _extremely_ likely that someone makes the following distinction: They use the pronunciations "APP-rih-cot" and "uh-LOY."

Now, if there were a regional distinction between "APP-rih-cot" and "APE-rih-cot" and between "AH-loy" and "uh-LOY," the likelihood would diminish because the probabilities would change. But, as I pointed out before, there is no such regional distinction between the pronunciations "for-TAY" and "FOR-tay."

Still, it occurred to me that there's a way of finding if someone other than me makes a distinction between the Italian-derived adverb _forte_ and the French-derived noun _forte_ based upon the pronunciation of these words. I've made a sort of survey, a post to a couple of Usenet newsgroups in which English-usage is discussed. One example (besides my own) presumably would be sufficient to disprove your belief that no one makes the distinction being discussed. I'll report back on the results.


----------



## lizzeymac

I'm sorry if this seems dim but I am getting confused.  

Are you saying that some dictionaries give a pronunciation of "for-tee" for either forte (fr.) or forte (it. Mus.)?  And in some places in America people are taught in a school to pronounce either of these 2 different words like that?

Or that these 2 different words are taught in a school as being pronounced the _same_ way, as for-TAY/FOR-tay?

I really wonder if this isn't regional because I don't think I've ever heard for-tee from a local.  
Many people only use forte (fr. strength), and some, especially those who never took French in school, pronounce it for-TAY.

I think I have only very rarely heard someone who _intentionally uses both_ senses of forte/forte pronounce them _both_ as for-tay or for-TAY.  

As for cache "becoming" cachet - isn't that just people not knowing that they are 2 different words & misusing/confusing them?

Please ignore this if I have mis-read a post or missed a key point, but my experience is entirely different from mlspray's & it is a puzzle to me.


----------



## Orange Blossom

I have heard _forte_ which means _loud_ in music pronounced only as FOR-tay.  I have heard _forte_ which means _a strong point _pronounced as for-TAY.  In fact, I do this myself as did my mom, though my dad didn't.  He thinks it sounds affected.  I suspect the for-TAY pronunciation is influenced by such words as _café_, _toupee_, and _entree_ and not knowing French or Italian.  In music, we learn very early that the pronunciation if _forte_ is FOR-tay.  We hear the word long before we read it.  My experience has been that _forte_ meaning _a strong point_ is read before it is heard.  It isn't really used much in conversation.  Hence, I think, the for-TAY pronunciation when it is used.

My theory is that _forte _of either definition pronounced like _forty_ is a result of people having only read the words without hearing them first and then pronouncing them the way they think they should be pronounced.  Of course, that pronunciation is then heard and learned by others. 

Orange Blossom


----------



## river

Orange Blossom said:


> My dad thinks for-*tay *sounds affected.


 
Listen to your father.


----------



## Packard

I say we take it to a vote.  The most votes decides the correct pronunciation.  

Seriously, I don't think we are going to get a concensus on this.

My solution is to use "strength" instead of "forte" on the one hand, and "loud" in place of "forte" on the other.  I realize that I am not making a strong stand on the matter, but it works for me.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> Given that _apricot_ has the two pronunciations "APP-rih-cot" and "APE-rih-cot," and _alloy_ has two pronunciations "AH-loy" (with "ah" being the vowel in _hat_) and "uh-LOY"--these pronunciations taken from the "Variant Pronunciations" section in the introductory pages to _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,_ 11th ed.--it is _extremely_ likely that someone makes the following distinction: They use the pronunciations "APP-rih-cot" and "uh-LOY."


 
I don't think our discussions here are about if any one person on the planet makes a particular distinction. That information might be interesting but is hardly useful, in my opinion.



> I've made a sort of survey, a post to a couple of Usenet newsgroups in which English-usage is discussed. One example (besides my own) presumably would be sufficient to disprove your belief that no one makes the distinction being discussed. I'll report back on the results.


 
I do not have the belief that no one makes the distinction being discussed, nor have I said that I did. It's clear that at least one person does.  I was simply asking if there's any source that indicates this is a recommended distinction to make. Until your post, I had never heard of such a possibility, or that there might be a significant number of people who make this distinction by which syllable is accented.

I'm interested in the results of your poll.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> I don't think our discussions here are about if any one person on the planet makes a particular distinction. That information might be interesting but is hardly useful, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have the belief that no one makes the distinction being discussed, nor have I said that I did. It's clear that at least one person does.  I was simply asking if there's any source that indicates this is a recommended distinction to make. Until your post, I had never heard of such a possibility, or that there might be a significant number of people who make this distinction by which syllable is accented.
> 
> I'm interested in the results of your poll.


 
Well, if it's simply a question of someone recommending that a distinction be made between the Italian-derived adverb and the French-derived noun by pronouncing the first "FOR-tay" and the second "for-TAY," not even I would make such a recommendation. I rarely recommend one standard usage over another unless there is a real danger of a misunderstanding or some other regrettable consequences. A simple example of that would be to tell a British speaker to avoid labeling a product as _inflammable_ if he intends to send it to the US, since such a label would be contrary to US Federal law: Inflammable materials must be labeled _flammable_ over here.

But nothing of the sort is at stake in the distinction between the Italian-derived adverb _forte_ and the French-derived noun _forte._ As I stated previously, context would disambiguate them.

Here were the results of the survey: Of those who did express a preference in distinguishing between the Italian-derived word and the French-derived one, one person said he would pronounce the French-derived term as "fort" or "FOR-tay" "depending on who I'm talking to" and another person agreed that he would do the same. Two others said they would pronounce the Italian-derived term as "FOR-tay" and the French-derived term as "fort." A fifth person did not actually state his own preference, but he quoted a source which preferred "fort" for the French-derived noun, so presumably that represented his preference as well.

Of the other six people who answered my question, many of which were speakers of British English, no pronunciation distinction was made between the two different terms. No one used "for-TAY" of "FOR-tee" for the French-derived noun and no one used "FOR-tee" for the Italian-derived adverb. (As I pointed out before, these were listed as standard variants for those respective terms in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate.)

I did some further research on the matter today, looking up _forte_ in etymological dictionaries and books on English usage. There is no real consensus among the etymologists about the treatment of the noun _forte_ meaning "strong point" as being either French or Italian. The source which has the most extensive and interesting discussion on _forte_ is _Webster's Dictionary of English Usage,_ Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Mass. (C) 1989. I learned in the entry for that word the term _hyperforeignism,_ which is a term the book's editors use, in analogy to _hypercorrection_ and _hyperubanism,_ with the meaning "an unsuccessful attempt to give an authentic foreign pronunciation to a foreign-derived word being used in English context." They say that the French-derived _forte_ pronounced like an Italian word or like a French word with an acute accent over the final _e_ is an example of this phenomenon. However, while they say they would ordinarily recommend against using a hyperforeignism, in the case of the French-derived _forte,_ they find it acceptable. One reason they give for doing so is that there are no etymologically respectable pronunciation for the word.

Another point which I mentioned previously, the pronunciation of cache as "kash-AY," is dealt with in this book's article "hyperforeignism." The editors, referring to the sound files on which M-W dictionaries base their pronunciations, say "we have occasionally recorded educated speakers rendering _cache_ as "ka-SHAY". (Note that this does not constitute a recognition that such a pronunciation is standard.)

(I also found, either in that book or in an etymological dictionary, that the French-derived _forte_ is sometimes spelled _forté._ This is useful in pointing out what ideas people might have about the word's history, but there's no question here of the spelling _forté_ being recognized as standard.)


For me, the best thing I got out of this subject was the term _hyperforeignism_. It is useful shorthand for describing such things as "coo duh GRAH" for _coup de grâce_ and the "lon-juh-RAY" pronunciation of _lingerie._


----------



## Forero

I opt for "fortay" because otherwise it gets mixed up with "fort" (fortress).  It is not a word I use, because it sounds too much like fake French.


----------



## Lester Hawkins

Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts on this subject, but none of them seem to address the original poster's actual question: "How was the French etymology established over the Italian?"

Well Giulia, here's what I can tell you:

   Obviously both the French and Italian derive from the Latin "fortis" meaning "strong". The reason for the French etymology is as follows: The French conquered England in 1066; something the Italians never did.  Their conquest had huge impact on the English language.  Many French words were assimilated into various aspects of English life.  Military vocabulary was altered, and so a "fort" ("forte" minus the "e") became a "military stronghold".
   Also, since the French have always represented the peak of European sophistication, phrases that sound sophisticated were adopted and adapted into English so that someone would now say "such and such is not my forte" instead of just saying "such and such is not my strength"

However, in musical terms, "forte" the opposited of "piano" is of Italian derivation, because during the Renaissance the English borrowed many words from the Italians when it came to music, art, architecture and theatre because the Italians were originators and innovators in these fields.
   In general, English words don't tend to have Italian etymologies unless they are outright borrowings of artistic terms from the Renaissance.

I hope this explanation is clear and helpful to you.


----------



## Loob

Good post, Lester Hawkins, and welcome to the forums!

Loob


----------



## lsp

JamesM said:


> To tell you the truth, I wish it were as clear here. I'd rather have one word and one pronunciation rather than two.
> 
> Maybe I should join a campaign for standardization on two syllables in AE.


If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh, JamesM? The quote you bolded in a prior post says it all (So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose).

If you say it with 1 syllable, the 2-syllable people will correct you. When you explain it, they'll think you're a pedant and an intellectual snob, and go on being 2-syllable people. If you say it with 2 syllables, the 1-syllable people will correct you, and you won't be able to tell them _you really knew it_, but weren't sure they were 1-syllable people because they won't believe you and/or they'll be insulted. 

You can avoid the word, as was suggested or take a stand one way or the other. Or you can slightly over-exaggerate the TAY and leave those who know wondering if you are being sincere or sarcastic...


----------



## liliput

Whatever it's origins and meanings, I've never heard "forte" pronounced any other way than "for-tay" in the UK. I for one will continue to pronounce it this way if only to avoid being corrected every time I use the word.


----------



## davidahn

Sorry to chime in so late: this has been frustrating me for years, but tonight I watched an episode of "Blue Bloods" where this was the subject of a $20 bet. Prior to now I had never researched, but always assumed the snootiness of "fort" pronuncers was unfounded due to the possibility of Italian or Latin (fortis, forte both Latin for strength) origin. Other than the matter of fact declarations of French etymology, I haven't seen any specific evidence.

Still, I am now convinced the origin is indeed French, because the French noun "forte," the strong part of a sword, is a much closer match to its present use of "strong suit," noun, than is the Italian or Latin adjective, "forte," meaning "strong." Not as exact a definition, and not even the right part of a sentence.

Still, that said, it is now an English word (albeit of French origin), and it's ridiculous for a handful of "fort" true believers to try to reverse the pronunciation predilection of 217 million Americans and 63 million Brits (I've seen stats that 70% of AE and all Brits say "for-tay". But if you enjoy fighting a losing battle, or banging your head on a wall, be my guest!


----------



## Tazzler

I saw that episode, too. The blond policewoman should get her money back as both pronunciations are valid.


----------



## natkretep

I just looked up the current WR Dictionary (Collins Concise English Dictionary), and although I have no quarrel with the etymology information, the pronunciation (three versions are given) recommendations seem to go counter to what has been said here:


> *forte* /fɔːt; ˈfɔːteɪ/... Etymology: 17th Century: from French _fort_, from _fort_ (adj) strong, from Latin _fortis_
> *forte* /ˈfɔːtɪ/...Etymology: 18th Century: from Italian, from Latin _fortis_ strong



I would recommend /ˈfɔːteɪ/ for both!


----------



## Chasint

natkretep said:


> I just looked up the current WR Dictionary (Collins Concise English Dictionary), and although I have no quarrel with the etymology information, the pronunciation (three versions are given) recommendations seem to go counter to what has been said here:
> 
> I would recommend /ˈfɔːteɪ/ for both!


I agree because:

1. piano-forte (the musical instrument) is universally pronounced /ˈfɔːteɪ/   by musicians as far as I know and

2. 'fort' in French is pronounced 'for' with a silent 't', not like English 'fort'.


----------



## JamesM

But "forte" in French is pronounced like the English "fort".  There is no way to decide this one, I'm afraid.  We need to start "The Society for The Tolerance of Pronunciation Variants".  Our motto could be "Tolerance is our forte".


----------



## Tazzler

True (if we switch "r"s), but "fort" is the original French source word. The "e" is a corruption.


----------



## JamesM

Corruption?  Where did you get that? Both "fort" and "forte" are equally valid French words.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> Corruption?  Where did you get that? Both "fort" and "forte" are equally valid French words.


So is _force_, but the French expression is "... est mon fort", not "... est ma force", "... est ma forte", or "... est mon forte".


----------



## Elwintee

Chambers English Dictionary says that for the meaning 'that at which one excels' the pronunciation is usually with two syllables.  That is certainly the 'standard' pronunciation I am used to as a Londoner. I would be thrown if someone told me 'that is not my fort'.


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> So is force, but the French expression is "... est mon fort", not "... est ma force", "... est ma forte", or "... est mon forte".



But is it established that the one expression is a direct translation of the other?


----------



## Roberta Hardy

In both French and Italian, "forte" has more than one meaning: strong and loud. "A strong point" in French is spelled "fort" and pronounced "for" (having a silent "t"). In Italian it's spelled "forte" and pronounced "for-tay." The only reason to choose the Italian spelling and pronounce it as "fort" (with the "t" sound at the end) is to honor some medieval or 18th century bastardization. This is an odd sort of purism. I prefer the Italian pronunciation.


----------



## JamesM

French has both "fort" and "forte" (masculine and feminine).  According to the Online Etymology dictionary it's the feminine French form that is being used, which is pronounced the same as English "fort" (with a pronounced "t").


----------



## Packard

I was taught that "forte" (pronounced "fort") meant strong, and "forte" (pronounced "fortay") meant loud, as in "piano-forte".  

I've stuck with that, but virtually every one I come in contact with pronounces both as "fortay", and I believe that almost all believe that there is only one word with two definitions, when in fact we have two separate words with different origins and different meanings.


----------



## JamesM

Packard said:


> I was taught that "forte" (pronounced "fort") meant strong, and "forte" (pronounced "fortay") meant loud, as in "piano-forte".
> 
> I've stuck with that, but virtually every one I come in contact with pronounces both as "fortay", and I believe that almost all believe that there is only one word with two definitions, when in fact we have two separate words with different origins and different meanings.



Agreed.  "Forte" (pronounced like Fort Knox) meaning strength is the feminine French word for strong and "forte" (pronounced like fortay) means loud and comes from Italian.  That's my understanding.


----------



## Barque

I recently watched a movie called "The F word" where there is a discussion of just this point. The character played by Daniel Radcliffe speaks of how it's actually "fort" and that people kept correcting him when he pronounced it to that way.

The movie's title doesn't refer to this word however or to the word that's usually considered the F word.


----------



## Packard

My college journalism teacher would knock down your grade by a full letter if you used a wrong word.  When another student used "forte" in a paper and he had her read it aloud to see if she was using the right word.  She was not.  So her grade (probably) went from a "B" to a "C".

I've been careful ever since.  (I used "interface" as a verb back then and I suffered the same fate).


----------



## JamesM

Language changes.  Interface is now an accepted verb.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> French has both "fort" and "forte" (masculine and feminine).  According to the Online Etymology dictionary it's the feminine French form that is being used, which is pronounced the same as English "fort" (with a pronounced "t").


Interestingly, as Forero points out, the French say '*X est mon fort*' - in other words the French for the English *forte* is *fort*, a masculine noun, *le fort*, which is used for a fortress, but also for such things as the thick of a battle, or the heat of an argument.


----------



## JulianStuart

What a mess  English may be prolific at purloining words from other languages but the word "proficient" does not come to mind.

I'll keep using fortay to mean someone's strength.  The Italian word for fort is forte They all have the same original meaning


----------



## wildan1

JamesM said:


> I'd say that "forte" as a single-syllable word is an academic marker of some kind in AE. That's my theory, at least. The group who pronounces it this way is definitely in the minority, but to pronounce "forte" as two syllables in such a social circle will earn some raised eyebrows or an assumption that your education is incomplete.


Hmm, I'm not sure this holds water, James.

I have graduate degrees and say (and only hear said around me by the well-educated) _forte_ in two syllables. And it never occurred to me that it was drawn from French and not Italian!

I would have the same raised eyebrow about a person who said _forte _in one syllable.

Is it possibly a regional difference (East/West coasts of the US)?


----------



## Packard

wildan1 said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure this holds water, James.
> 
> I have graduate degrees and say (and only hear said around me by the well-educated) _forte_ in two syllables. And it never occurred to me that it was drawn from French and not Italian!
> 
> I would have the same raised eyebrow about a person who said _forte _in one syllable.
> 
> Is it possibly a regional difference (East/West coasts of the US)?



I've gotten raised eyebrows for saying, "I'm afraid this is not my forte" (pronounced "fort").  Indeed some have even offered, "You mean "fortay".

I think it is a lost battle for traditionalists.  Both words seem almost universally pronounced "fortay".

I lost the last battle over "careered vs. careened", and it appears I've lost the forte battle too.


----------



## JamesM

Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:



> n _forte_ we have a word derived from French that in its “strong point” sense has no entirely satisfactory pronunciation. Usage writers have denigrated \ˈfȯr-ˌtā\ and \ˈfȯr-tē\ because they reflect the influence of the Italian-derived _2forte._ Their recommended pronunciation \ˈfȯrt\, however, does not exactly reflect French either: the French would write the word _le fort_ and would pronounce it more similar to English _for._ So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All are standard, however. In British English \ˈfȯ-ˌtā\ and \ˈfȯt\ predominate; \ˈfȯr-ˌtā\ and \fȯr-ˈtā\ are probably the most frequent pronunciations in American English.


----------



## JamesM

Here's another interesting discussion on the topic:

Dr. Goodword’s Language Blog  » Blog Archive   » Defending the Fort for Forte

One of the points brought up in it:



> However, as modern dictionaries list the one syllable pronunciation first and mid-century dictionaries only list that pronunciation, it is incorrect to say that that pronunciation is incorrect. It may not be any more correct than the two syllable, I can agree with that.



The OED says this, apparently (from the article):



> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists the pronunciation as “fo:ti, fo:te, formerly fo:t,” omitting, as the Britons are wont to do, the R. The point is, this shift is not limited to the US but has occurred throughout the English-speaking world.




So I'd say it's a word in transition.  Some people are holding on to the older pronunciation which could easily have been an incorrect borrowing of a French word or a mispronunciation of an Italian word.  I'm not saying the _only_ way to say it is like the English word "fort", but I am saying that I have heard it used this way in conversation by very educated people, I was taught this pronunciation,  I've seen it listed that way in multiple dictionaries and it appears to have a history of being pronounced that way.  I'm fine with "fortay".    I'm more accustomed to reading it as a music marking than in a common English sentence anyway.


----------

