Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I came across the sentence "Fortunately their are a variety of different offerings out there with zounds of features." Disregarding the misuse of "zounds," how would Elizabeth I have pronounced the word? To rhyme with "God's wounds?" Or otherwise?

share|improve this question
3  
-1 for (a) asking a question that can be answered by any number of dictionaries and (b) complaining about a downvote. –  MrHen May 6 '11 at 0:11
5  
Back when I was doing SCA and Renaissance Faires (a very long time ago), I was told the "authentic" way to pronounce it was zwoonds. –  Dori May 6 '11 at 3:43
    
@Dori -- Doh! Of course. Thanks. –  Pete Wilson May 8 '11 at 17:59

7 Answers 7

up vote 1 down vote accepted

It makes most sense to me that zounds should rhyme with wounds. When you take two words and combine them and then contract them, they retain their pronunciation.

couldn't isn't pronounced cowdn't

doesn't isn't pronounced dow-znt

bosun isn't pronounced bossun

Nevertheless, it seems both pronunciations are ok: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zounds, and /zaʊndz/ appears to be more prevalent: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zounds

English is weird, eh?

EDIT: See Snumpy's answer. It started off as rhyming with wounds and changed during the Great Vowel Shift to rhyme with sounds

share|improve this answer

If it's anything like the exclamation, it would rhyme with sounds.

EDIT: It apparently has been affected by the Great Vowel Shift. Maybe someone else can provide a link to exactly how the 16th-17th century version of ou would have been pronounced.

share|improve this answer
    
your wikipedia link has it: Middle English [uː] was diphthongised in most environments to [ʊu], and this was followed by [əʊ], and then Modern English [aʊ] (as in mouse) in the eighteenth century. –  gpr May 5 '11 at 23:38
    
@gpr I guess I was hoping for an audio of the [əʊ] diphthong... but I searched through the IPA verbs enough to get an idea of how it might sound. –  snumpy May 5 '11 at 23:47
2  
The 'ou' was originally Norman-French orthography for 'u'. Thou was said as thu from (OE þu). Wound (the injury) was spelled wund. We still hav this split ... you, group ... but about and house. So we can thank the N-F scribes for screwing up a lot of spelling and causing befuddling spellings that still haunt us. –  AnWulf Feb 11 '12 at 10:08

The fact is that back when the contaction of "God's wounds" came into being and common use, the Great Vowel Shift had yet to happen in English. "Wounds" back then rhymed with "bounds" and "sounds" as pronounced today. Therefore, "zounds" also rhymed with "sounds" and "bounds" and still should today. The change in pronunciation for a "wound" in human or animal flesh occurred for that rather commonplace word, but the pronunciation of "zounds" did not change. There are a number of people who say it should be pronounced "zoonds" because "wounds" used to be pronounced "woonds," but I think they're being pedantic. On the rare occasion that I might say "zounds" for humorous effect -- since it is a rather outmoded expletive that now sounds quaint -- I'm going to continue to say it so it rhymes with "sounds" and "bounds."

share|improve this answer
1  
This is a reasonable answer, but based on gpr's comment above, I think you may have the Great Vowel Shift backwards – all the words used to sound like wounds, but sounds and zounds shifted away from it. –  Bradd Szonye Aug 31 '13 at 5:52

I don't really see how "zounds" can rhyme with "wounds" unless you are pronouncing it

zoo-nds

Which just seems silly.

So, I would pronounce it so it rhymes with sounds.

share|improve this answer
    
...That's actually how I pronounce it. I've heard others do so as well. Granted I'm a very silly person, but I don't think I'm superlatively so. And in case you're wondering, I do use it relatively often. It works wonderfully when I'm mocking my friends. :) –  kitukwfyer May 8 '11 at 18:58

Zounds should be a rhyme for Sounds, unless the context is suggesting to another way.

share|improve this answer

I'd think it should rhyme with "wounds" since it's a contraction of "God's wounds" referring to Jesus's wounds on the cross.

Back in the time when it was used, people would swear on God's body parts rather than his name, thus avoiding breaking the Third Commandment, "Do not take the Lord's name in vain." Essentially, it's an archaic "Holy crap!"

So it would make much more sense for it to rhyme with "wounds," since that's the word it's derived from. However, pronunciation of certain words was wonky back then, and besides, gpr already established that both pronunciations can be correct, so the argument is irrelevent.

Why, then, did I comment? Because I like to impress people with my ability to properly follow links and use Google. And because people kept saying it should rhyme with "sounds" and I wanted to argue with them, because that's what I do.

share|improve this answer

People mention the great vowel shift - yay! Some may have noticed there's another vowel shift happening at the moment on the streets of London. Anyway, zounds is indeed an abbreviation of "God's wounds" and rhymes with it. What gets overlooked is that 'wounds' rhymed with 'sounds' before the great vowel shift, much the way 'wind' rhymed with 'kind'.

share|improve this answer
1  
Wound and sound did not rhyme before the Great Vowel Shift. Soun(d) always had a diphthong, while wound had a short monophthongal /u/. Also wind and kind still rhyme, if you use the verb wind as your basis. –  Janus Bahs Jacquet May 31 at 11:52

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.