# high, low (pitch)



## Giordano Bruno

Good morning/evening everybody.

In many languages, we use the metaphors "high" and "low" to refer to sound which have short and long wavel lengths.  Tall people have lower voices than small children, long organ pipes create lower tones than the short pipes.  It is not obvious where this metaphor comes from, but my guess is that it refers to musical notation.  If this is correct, people would not have talked of "a high pitched squeal" prior to the invention of written music.

Please tell me how you refer to high and low pitched sounds in languages you know and let me have your thoughts on the origin.

Thanks to everyone.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Interesting. Well, in Turkish, we also say yüksek/alçak(high/low) just like in English.


----------



## Outsider

As far as I know, we do not use the equivalents of "high" and "low" in this context. We have specific words for it, *agudo* (acute) and *grave* (grave).
We do use "high" and "low" to describe the loudness of a sound; loud and feeble, respectively.


----------



## Whodunit

In German, we use "*hoch*" (high/tall) and "*tief*" (low/deep).


----------



## elroy

As far as I know we also use the words for "high" and "low" in Arabic.

high: عالي
low: واطي


----------



## brian

Hello Giordano,

I think you actually answered your own question. :



			
				Giordano Bruno said:
			
		

> "a high pitched squeal"


If I'm not too mistaken, the terms _high_ and _low_ describe the pitch, or frequency, of a sound.  The "higher" the particular sound sounds to you, the "higher" its pitch or frequency.  (I'm differentiating between _pitch_ and _frequency_, but _pitch_ is just the perceived _frequency_ of a sound wave.)

Now I suppose you could ask, "Well why are 'high' and 'low' applied to frequencies?"  And that would be a very valid question.  After all, frequency is a measurable quantity, measured in inverse time, usually Hertz.  But how do you linguistically quantify something like frequency?  As a mathematician, I would definitely say that 440 Hz is _greater_ than 260 Hz (just like I'd say _5 > 2_), as well as _higher_, depending on my mood.  But I'd never say that the fourth _A_ played on a piano sounds _greater_ than _middle C_.  (Though I could say it has a _greater_ frequency.)

Perhaps both _greater_ and _higher_ (as well as _lesser_ and _lower_) were originally used to describe frequencies, but since _greater _and _lesser_ have more connotations in sentence like, "His voice is greater than mine," the default word choice in such a sentece became "higher."  Besides, what else could it mean?


Brian


----------



## Giordano Bruno

brian8733 said:
			
		

> If I'm not too mistaken, the terms _high_ and _low_ describe the pitch, or frequency, of a sound. The "higher" the particular sound sounds to you, the "higher" its pitch or frequency. (I'm differentiating between _pitch_ and _frequency_, but _pitch_ is just the perceived _frequency_ of a sound wave.)
> 
> Now I suppose you could ask, "Well why are 'high' and 'low' applied to frequencies?" And that would be a very valid question. After all, frequency is a measurable quantity, measured in inverse time, usually Hertz. But how do you linguistically quantify something like frequency? As a mathematician, I would definitely say that 440 Hz is _greater_ than 260 Hz (just like I'd say _5 > 2_), as well as _higher_, depending on my mood. But I'd never say that the fourth _A_ played on a piano sounds _greater_ than _middle C_. (Though I could say it has a _greater_ frequency.)
> 
> Perhaps both _greater_ and _higher_ (as well as _lesser_ and _lower_) were originally used to describe frequencies, but since _greater _and _lesser_ have more connotations in sentence like, "His voice is greater than mine," the default word choice in such a sentece became "higher." Besides, what else could it mean?


Hi Brian,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I don't think people actually think about frequencies when thy talk about sounds.  More vibrations per second could also be thought of a smaller vibrations, so, higher in number, but smaller in size.  My own belief is that we use these terms because the written high notes are above the low notes on the page.


----------



## brian

You may very well be right.  If so, it may be useful to know that the modern musical notation used today was invented around the 11th century by one Guido d'Arezzo (which I don't think is his last name but rather his place of habitat).

And speaking of Italian, here's something else to ponder.  The terms _alto_ and _bass_ are derived, respectively, from the Latin _altus = high, tall_ and _bassus = low, short_.  According to this etymology website, _bass_ was first used around 1390 and _alto_ in 1784.  (_Tenor_ and _treble_ were also first used in the 14th century.)  So perhaps "high" and "low" came from these, or perhaps these came from "high" and "low"...who knows?  The chicken or the egg?!

But if _alto_ and _bass_ preceded "high" and "low," we can still ask what prompted people to choose those Latin words for this function.

I should mention that since all these words come after Guido, your theory still holds.  They may have used _alto_ and _bass_ to describe what they saw on his music notation.

Perhaps you might want to research a bit on _contrapuntal music _and see if "high" and "low" was originally used to describe the various "points."  An answer may lie somewhere in there...I'm not sure.  I'm not the best music theorist around...


Brian


----------



## Outsider

The title of this thread keeps reminding me of the song _Hunting High and Low_ by A-Ha, which they sung in a characteristically high pitch.


----------



## cajzl

In Latin:

high: acutus (= sharp)
low: gravis (= heavy)

*vocem* *ab* *acutissimo* *sono* *usque* *ad* *gravissimum* *sonum* *recipiunt* = _from the highest treble to the lowest base _


----------



## brian

cajzl,

That is exactly what I was trying to find.  Pray tell, whence does it come?  How old is it?


----------



## optimistique

brian8733 said:
			
		

> And speaking of Italian, here's something else to ponder. The terms _alto_ and _bass_ are derived, respectively, from the Latin _altus = high, tall_ and _bassus = low, short_. According to this etymology website, _bass_ was first used around 1390 and _alto_ in 1784. (_Tenor_ and _treble_ were also first used in the 14th century.) So perhaps "high" and "low" came from these, or perhaps these came from "high" and "low"...who knows? The chicken or the egg?!


 
A question: was 'alto' formerly referring to the higher part of the male voice, what 'tenor' is now?  

Anyway, in Dutch , you do use *hoog* (high) and *laag* (low). A low voice, and probably a tone too,  can be called *diep* (deep) as well.


----------



## brian

I'm not sure what you mean.  _Alto_ can still refer to a male with a very high voice, and _contralto_ (for a female) can be used to distinguish since _contralto _is a bit higher.  The word _tenor_, on the other hand, has nothing to do with highness, and comes from the Latin _tenere_ _(to hold)_ because before there was bass, the _tenor_ would hold the harmony around which the other parts would play/sing.  And _soprano_ is Italian, derived from Italian _sopra_ _(above)_, from Latin _super_ _(above)_, which can be thought of as _highest_.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Romanian 

*inalt/jos* _(high/low in a physical way or even in the musical/vocal sense)_
*ridicat/scazut* _(highed/lowered) _
*acut(a)/grav(a)* _(when it comes to voices and sounds)_

I seem to recal that you can say "ai o voce adanca" (meaning "you have a deep voice"), but I don't seem to know the antonyme. Maybe "ai o voce deschisa"??!! 

 robbie


----------



## optimistique

brian8733 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean. _Alto_ can still refer to a male with a very high voice, and _contralto_ (for a female) can be used to distinguish since _contralto _is a bit higher.


 
Well, not where I live, at least not to my knowledge. So that's why I did not understand your post I was referring to, but now I do. Thanks for your answer.


----------



## cajzl

Quid est oratori tam necessarium quam vox? Tamen me auctore nemo dicendi studiosus Graecorum more tragoedorum voci serviet, qui et annos compluris sedentes declamitant et cotidie, ante quam pronuntient, vocem cubantes sensim excitant eandemque, cum egerunt, sedentes *ab acutissimo sono usque ad gravissimum sonum* recipiunt et quasi quodam modo conligunt.

*M. TVLLI CICERONIS* DE ORATORE AD QVINTVM FRATREM LIBER PRIMVS

In classical Latin the expression *alta vox* (= literally _high voice_) means rather _a loud voice._

I think the classical Latin_ acutus/gravis _is based on sense perception.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Thanks Cajzl,

Any idea what the ancient romans said to describe short and long wavelength sounds?

And thanks also for your thoughts Brian.  My theory seems to be holding up so far.


----------



## ILT

Outsider said:
			
		

> As far as I know, we do not use the equivalents of "high" and "low" in this context. We have specific words for it, *agudo* (acute) and *grave* (grave).
> We do use "high" and "low" to describe the loudness of a sound; loud and feeble, respectively.


We use the exact same words in Spanish:

agudo (voz aguda) for a ¨high pitch¨ voice
grave (voz grave) for a ¨low pitch¨voice

We sometimes use _voz gruesa_ for grave too, but we don´t say voz fina or delgada for aguda.

We use high (alta) for loud voice and low (baja) for whispering.

Dilo en voz alta: say it outloud
Dilo en voz baja: whisper it


----------



## Outsider

I love translating said:
			
		

> We sometimes use _voz gruesa_ for grave too, but we don´t say voz fina or delgada for aguda.


We use _voz grossa_ (thick voice) for a low-pitched voice, and _voz fina_ or _voz fininha_ (thin voice) for a high-pitched voice.


----------



## Thomas1

In Polnad we say:
wysoki - high
niski - low

I believe I also heard :
ostry (sharp/acute)
głęboki (deep/grave)

Tom


----------



## selters

Norwegian

high: høy
low: lav


----------



## happyonend

Chinese
high: 高（gau）
low: 低（dee）


----------



## Isabel-fr

Hola;

Spanish: high - alto    low-bajo
French: high - haut    low-bas
Italian: high- alto   low-basso


----------



## DrWatson

Finnish:

high = korkea
low = matala

EDIT: Even in musical context, I think. There are certain words 'kimeä' and 'möreä' that express particularly the pitch of a sound. They're not official musical terms but more like onomatopoetic synonyms for 'korkea' and 'matala'.


----------



## Outsider

Please have a look at the first page of this thread. It's about "high" and "low" in a musical context.


----------



## linguist786

In Urdu/Hindi, it is most probably "uNchaa" and "nichaa", even for this context.

In Gujarati: "uNchu" and "nichu"


----------



## Giordano Bruno

linguist786 said:


> In Urdu/Hindi, it is most probably "uNchaa" and "nichaa", even for this context.
> 
> In Gujarati: "uNchu" and "nichu"


 
Thanks for your reply.  I would like to know whether the words used to describe high and low notes are also used to refer to altitude as they are in English, or do they mean perhaps something like fast and slow, or hard and soft


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

*High (sound)*: «Οξύς» [o'ksis] (masculine adj. because sound is a masculine noun in Greek); Classical adj. «ὀξύς, ὀξεῖα, ὀξὺ» (ŏ'ksūs _m._/ ŏ'kseiă _f._/ ŏ'ksŭ _n._)--> _sharp, shrill, pungent, acid_ (PIE root *ak-, _sharp, pointed_).
*Low (sound)*: «Βαρύς» [va'ris] (masc.); Classical adj. «βαρύς, βαρεῖα, βαρὺ» (bā'rūs _m._/ bă'reiă _f._/ bā'rŭ _n._)--> _heavy, grievous_ (PIE root *gʰrebʰ-, _to dig, to scratch, to scrape_).
*High (frequency)*: «Υψηλή» [ipsi'li] (feminine adj. because frequency in Greek is a feminine noun); Classical adj. «ὑψηλός, ὑψηλὴ, ὑψηλόν» (hŭpsē'lŏs _m._/ hŭpsē'lē _f._/ hŭpsē'lŏn _n._)--> _high, lofty, upraised_ with obscure etymology.
*Low (frequency)*: «Χαμηλή» [xami'li] (fem.); from Classical adv. «χαμαὶ» (xā'mæ)--> _on the ground, to earth_ with obscure etymology.


----------



## ancalimon

In Turkish, we use "ince sesli" (thin voiced) and "kalın sesli" (thick voiced) to explain the pitch of a sound.  Ex: İnce sesli adam : Thin voiced man

When we are talking about the volume of a sound, we use "yüksek ses" (high voice) and "alçak ses" (low voice).


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Thanks for that Apmoy 70.  I like the idea of "pointed" for high notes.  In English a piercing shriek is high pitched.  "Heavy" is also a fitting metaphore for low notes which have a feeling of greater substance.

Thanks ancalimon.  "thin" and "thick" also sound more appropriate.

It's clear that "High" and "Low" are not universal.  To support my original thesis, I guess I need to know if there are any languages (English included) where the adjectives have changed since the introduction of musical notation.


----------



## darush

in Persian:
zeer(low) and naazok(thin) for higher frequencies and
bam(?) and zakhim(thick) for low frequencies


----------



## ThomasK

ILT said:


> We use 'high' (*alta*) for loud voice and 'low' (*baja*) for whispering.
> 
> Dilo en voz alta: say it outloud
> Dilo en voz baja: whisper it



That is quite interesting. I had just been focusing on loud/ quiet/ silent, and maybe there is also a link between high and low pitches and (perception of) volume. 

And also in Dutch there are _zware stemmen _(heavy) and _fijne_, maybe _scherpe stemmen _(sharp voices), though not that common.


----------

