“Forte” or “Fortë,” “Cache” or “Cachet”?

24 Responses to ““Forte” or “Fortë,” “Cache” or “Cachet”?”

1. Krissy on September 17, 2007 5:20 pm

   I am totally guilt of this with forte – I had no idea! Thanks!

2. Andrew Flusche on September 17, 2007 8:06 pm

   I learned something valuable today. And I always thought that language was my forte, although I pronounce it incorrectly.

   Thanks!

3. Pierre B on September 19, 2007 2:49 am

   I wonder if a future post, you could clarify the proper pronounciation of another French word that is increasingly used in English: Niche.

   As a francophone, I do not understand why native English speakers pronounce this word as “nitch”. There is no T!!! (this pronunciation makes it sound like Nietzsche.

4. Geoff Foster on September 19, 2007 12:11 pm

   But the desktop dictionary on my Mac (Oxford American) says:

   forte 1 |ˌfɔːteɪ| |ˌfɔːti| |fɔːt|
   noun
   1 [in sing. ] a thing at which someone excels : small talk was not his forte.
   2 Fencing the stronger part of a sword blade, from the hilt to the middle.

   So – take your pick!

5. Geoff Foster on September 19, 2007 12:17 pm

   And what about this one – I have never known before now:

   cadre |ˌkɑːdə| |ˌkɑːdr(ə)| |ˌkadri|
   noun
   a small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession : a small cadre of scientists.
   • |ˌkeɪdə| a group of activists in a communist or other revolutionary organization.
   • a member of such a group.

   How about that!

6. Maeve on September 19, 2007 1:34 pm

   Geoff and Pierre,
   My response to your comments has gone on so long that I’ve decided to submit it as a post called Battle of the Dictionaries.

7. Tom on May 6, 2008 8:40 pm

   The original post is generally correct as far as pronunciation of the Italian forte [for tay] and French [fort]. However thise words are now English and we will pronounce them with our own distict sensitivities. In my dialect of ENGLISH, a [fort] is a stronhold and a [for tay] is a strength, while [for tay] is also loud when talking music.

   Interestingly, the author does not suggest that we pronounce “foible” as [fwa blə]. We use the English version of a once French word [foy bul]

8. AM on October 8, 2008 1:22 am

   Had no idea about the “forte” pronunciation. Thanks for letting us know!

9. Cindy Cotter on April 10, 2009 2:48 pm

   When American speakers pronounce “foible,” they use common rules of English. That makes sense to me. When they put an extra syllable on “forte” they are violating the rules of English and French in a mistaken attempt to give the word a foreign flavor. I consider that a lot less sensible.

   I am reminded of an awful sign at a local mall declaring that the place is a “shopping centre” with an accent over the last “e.” The practice says more about putting on airs by trying (in a mangled way) to sound European than it does about honoring one’s native language.

10. Bob on November 30, 2009 6:18 am

    From Merriam Webster

    usage In 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 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 \ˈfȯ-ˌtā\ and \ˈfȯt\ predominate; \ˈfȯr-ˌtā\ and \fȯr-ˈtā\ are probably the most frequent pronunciations in American English.

11. Curtis J on February 5, 2010 4:21 am

    I like to follow these simple phonics rules for the word Cashe:

    When a syllable ends in a consonant and has only one vowel, that vowel is short. Examples: “fat, bed, fish, spot, luck”.

    When a syllable ends in a silent “e”, the silent “e” is a signal that the vowel in front of it is long. Examples: “make, gene, kite, rope, use, taste, and baste”.

    So it should be pronounced Kaysh

12. Maeve on February 5, 2010 9:50 pm

    Curtis J,
    If “cache” were governed by English spelling rules, then your argument would carry more weight.

    However, cache is a French word that has been anglicized with French spelling and pronunciation. In addition, some English words do not conform to the “e makes the vowel say its name” rule. For example, “have.”

13. duke on September 25, 2010 10:18 pm

    you didn’t answer the question: forte or fortë?

14. Tom on December 4, 2010 3:01 am

    As a fencer, I find it interesting that American (and Canadian, not sure about British, etc) fencing coaches universally pronounce “forte” as “for-tay”, when referring to the strong part of a weapon. This includes coaches who have emigrated from France and other parts of Europe. Additionally, French is the primary language of fencing; all international referees must use French and the majority of the terminology is Franco-derived as well.

15. Marilyn on February 26, 2011 8:41 am

    French is, indeed, the language of fencing; however, anyone who is native French will tell you that Canadian French is unintelligible to them–much the way Glaswegian “English” is to the Scots (and esp. to us). Same thing with Acadien (Cajun) French that’s spoken in Louisiana, which is barely French at all, it has been so far removed from it for so long.

    That NPR correspondent has also been driving me nuts with her “cashay” pronunciation. It is “cash,” period. It is “fort” when one is using the Anglified version of the French word for “strength,” while it is “FORtay” when used as the Italian in musical instruction to indicate “loud/strong.” People do mimic announcers who mispronounce words, believing announcers know best. They used to–when we had well educated graduates leaving our colleges; alas, no longer. The state of higher education has fallen down to the lowest common denominator along with that of our public secondary schools, because while now you can buy a degree, sadly, one cannot buy an education. (Getting an education is acquiring knowledge through the process of experiences among faculty and students that support learning, and the full scope of a proper degree program isn’t something one just “clicks” toward at one’s convenience online at one’s home.)

    The symptoms of our educational system bottoming out at all levels show in a multitude of ways. Those we notice immediately surface through language precisely because that is our primary means of communication (until we might again master clairvoyance as our early hominid versions did–until they mastered spoken language). Our computers don’t use words, but crude symbols akin to cuneiform. We’re reverting to crude linguistic techniques. The breakdown of language is the breakdown of culture, because language is its unifier as the primary communicative means. Cultures that are annihilated or which are overtaken by other cultures will lose their language over time. (Aramaic, for example–the language that Jesus Christ spoke; and now, the Navajo language is nearing extinction, with Scots Gaelic on its way, if it doesn’t receive some prompt attention.) Culture and language are so integral to each other, that when one dies, the other soon follows.

    That said, a dictionary is a volume of work that represents copious amounts of research done by the dictionary’s team of expert editors and staff. It lists the word; its standard, accepted spelling(s) and pronunciation(s); and its definition(s). It does this, however, according to usage. There must be a certain number of “citations” that have been culled throughout the land over a certain period of time; once an adequate sum of these have been acquired, the word warrants inclusion in the dictionary. Some do not warrant inclusion, because the word (usually a slang term) has’t stood the test of time. Many are just a flash in the pan. As with any piece of work, it is only as good as the team that creates it; some are significantly better or worse than others. Some are done to suit specific purposes for specific users’ needs; others try to reach a general audience. (Today, it also might also be made for a certain “market,” and publishers of dictionaries are the same as any others–they are in the business to earn money, not to lose it.)

    One team that is not in any “market” at all is that which heads up the language reference works publishing done by Oxford University in England. There is a work that’s solely meant to be a serious reference volume about the English language’s words. One doesn’t use this multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary lightly (O.E.D.–20 volumes, plus supplements). By this, I mean merely to look up correct spellings or definitions for one’s English 101 paper, but, rather, to research any English word’s history from its earliest usages onward. To say, “I looked it up in the O.E.D. and it is spelled/pronounced/means…” says less about the word in question than it does about the person who said it. This statement means he’s trying to make an impression–and is doing so, because those in-the-know realize one doesn’t refer to this work to get a spelling, pronunciation, or definition, but rather, to learn the word’s entire lifespan and usage in the English-speaking world, and to determine whether it still lives and breathes as always, or has changed–perhaps it is even on its last legs. For any word to be included in a dictionary, usually it has to have been cited for at least a couple of years, preferably longer. (Furthermore, this is a dictionary for British English moreso than for American English. There is an Oxford American Language Dictionary.) There is also a little matter of practicality: This O.E.D. costs about $1300 (plus shipping), and volumes will be, for example, A-Be; Bea-Cip, etc., making it impossible to carry around as a handy reference guide; it is meant to be purely a reference “set,” which is almost always bought exclusively by and housed in a libraries. (Even the smaller, “compact” two-volume set is hefty–and requires a magnifying glass to read it; they do include the glass with the book, however. It’s “only” in the mid-$300 range.) Clearly, this is a work suited to the language scholar (and that doesn’t necessarily mean an English scholar). Libraries (or individuals) can now subscribe to gain entry to the newly launched online O.E.D.; British users have free access through their libraries.

    Every English department–and/or English professor–will have a preferred dictionary and grammar/usage guide they recommend their students use, which they’ll note in their syllabus at the semester’s start. Some prefer the Webster’s New World or the Webster’s New World College; others prefer the Random House Unabridged; others like the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate, or the American Heritage College, and…. You get the idea. If one is in college, then follow the recommendations given there. If one wants it for other specific purposes, then one must do some research, depending on the main goals the user has in mind. Everyone has their individual prefernces, and specific reasons for having them. An American who just wants to quickly get an idea of correct spelling or a quick definition can get by with a small, light-weight, $30 Merriam’s, Webster’s, or American Heritage.

16. Mike on May 23, 2011 2:25 pm

    The author is wrong here. In North America at least (I can’t speak for anglophones in other countries), /fortay/ is perfectly acceptable and probably more correct than /fort/ at this point.

    - The most simple justification is the “smell test”. If you were to tell a group of people that “gardening is not my /fort/”, a few things would happen. Nearly everybody in the room would look at you funny; half probably wouldn’t understand what you just said (or they would, but only because of the context); the other half would just think you sound like a pretentious ass. If the situation got particularly awkward (which it might), you could find yourself in an unfortunate position of having to explain to everyone else how woefully misinformed they are about the language they speak. Saying “gardening is not my /fortay/” isn’t going to draw any attention (except from word snobs).

    - Related philosophical point: language is a fluid and constantly evolving tool, whose chief purpose is communication. Referring to the example above, if you have failed to communicate to your audience, then you have not used language (your tool) effectively. This is the “smell test”, so to speak. Rules of language are fine, and they should be adhered to, but they can never trump this higher principle. Perhaps /fort/ was once the only correct way to pronounce the word. Today it just seems archaic.

    ALSO…

    - It looks like same word has entered twice into modern English usage, with two different pronunciations: from Italian as well as from a (mangled) French – both meaning “(with) strength”. Initially, it seems like context dictated which pronunciation was correct in a given situation. But, as I said, language evolves and American anglophones seem to be choosing to use one over the other. There is no truly good reason why the French pronunciation should win out over the Italian.

    - Tom’s (a commenter) anecdotal point about the correct pronunciation in fencing is particularly interesting (and telling). Marilyn (the next commenter) seems to have completely misinterpreted what he said. By Tom’s account, the fact that “forte” is pronounced /fortay/ in fencing has absolutely nothing to do with weird pronunciations in Quebecois French. It seems like that is just the way it is pronounced, even in France, when fencing. Furthermore, nobody who is native French would pronounce the word the way Marilyn wants to pronounce it anyway.

    - Finally, Bob (another commenter) passed along the Merriam Webster answer to this question. I consider MW to be as authoritative on American English usage as anyone. To me, that seals it.

17. Jim on July 10, 2011 11:48 pm

    Mike,
    The author is right and many of us have known it for a longtime. For you to simply say it is accepted is not an answer.
    There is no accent (as most try to write the word) no “t” after the “e” as in cachet,. The writer points out that this word has been mispronounced for so long that it is engrained and on its way to acceptability.
    MW points out the same thing the author here does. But is is still a mistake of conventional translation rules, whether it is accepted or not.

18. Jim on July 10, 2011 11:49 pm

    Pls. ignore my own grammatical errors above (comma, “longtime” etc.). Sticky keyboard.

19. SteveG on July 18, 2011 7:43 pm

    This is just another case of “if enough of us are wrong, we’re right.” By the way, I fall into the “fort” category, but am accepting (grudgingly) of “fortay.” Not the case with cache (“cash”), having grown up near the Cache la Poudre river in Colorado…

20. venqax on November 7, 2011 4:13 pm

    To say for-tay is simply indefensible. It is pronounced fort in French and the spelling forte would be pronounced fort by any English standard. There is absolutley no English spelling-pronunciation convention which would have the spelling F-O-R-T-E be said “for-tay”. So by either standard– anglicize the french or keep it– for-tay is flatly wrong. Who cares how many people say it that way or would look at you funny if you said it correctly? Many people say excape and expecially and pervent and prevert, too. Don’t be afraid to be correct. FGS, when does this relativism stop?

21. Matt on November 11, 2011 9:24 pm

    Another great French word that is commonly mispronounced by English speakers is “repetoire.” How many baseball announcers have you describing a pitcher’s “Rep Er Twar”? I agree with Venqax and previous posters…just because a French word has been adopted by English speakers and mispronounced does not mean we should accept it or adopt it.

22. jerome on February 5, 2012 7:04 pm

    As ashamed as I am to have been pronouncing that incorrectly for so long, I’m equally excited to use it correctly in the future

Have something to say?