seven

Merriam-Webster's definition for chord says

chord 3 of 3 noun (2)
one
: CORD sense 3a

and its definition for cord says

cord 1 of 2 noun
three
a
: an anatomical structure (such as a nerve or tendon) resembling a cord
especially : UMBILICAL CORD sense 1a

By the above senses, are both vocal cord and vocal chord correct?

Improve this question
three
  • five
    Both spellings are acceptable in British English, but American readers are very likely to consider 'vocal chord ' an error, and I, a British English speaker, actually prefer 'cord'.
    –  Michael Harvey
    Commented 2 days ago
  • one
    for what it's worth: "vocal folds" is less common but gaining popularity and is generally considered the "more correct" word for vocal cords. Google Ngram . Vocal cords is still certainly correct and commonly used.
    –  Kaia
    Commented 2 days ago
  • one
    Backing up @MichaelHarvey, this U.S. speaker will always interpret "chord" as something played on a musical instrument. Thus, seeing "vocal cord" written as "vocal chord" would always lead to the assumption than an editor missed a mispelling or the author made a mistake. But I recognize that the traditions of other native speakers vary.
    –  JBH
    Commented 2 hours ago

4 Answers four

Reset to default
twenty-two

I don't see much difference between the BrE usage chart and the AmE usage chart (both spellings are in use, but cords is more common). The full OED definition 3.b. says...

Applied to various structures; esp. the vocal chords, spermatic chord, spinal chord, and umbilical chord (see vocal adj. & n., etc.). These are now commonly spelled cord .

Personally I think vocal chords looks weird, and checking the umbilical cord vs the umbilical chord I find the latter form died out over 2 centuries ago - as did spinal chord and spermatic chord .

I'm sure it's just the unthinking assumption of a connection between vocal sounds and musical chords that's kept the "obsolete" usage in circulation for vocal chords . I certainly advise all learners to avoid it in favour of the more logical vocal cords .

Improve this answer
four
  • one
    Agreed - and I think I have heard of a few folks who can in fact generate a chord-sound using their vocal cords! (not to mention those who sing one note while whistling another!). So at least in the world of music, ambiguity is reduced by not using the "h" version.
    –  Carl Witthoft
    Commented 2 days ago
  • one
    In literature about the physiology of singing it is more and more common to use the term vocal folds rather than vocal cords . You can even see it in the usage chart .
    –  Canadian Yankee
    Commented 2 days ago
  • Barbershop quartets always perform a capella because under equal temperament, an instrumental chord such as a piano chord is slightly out of tune so that it can play in any key. But a strictly vocal ensemble can control their pitches precisely under just intonation, and need be bound to no key to do so. This is the aural magic that allows them to “ring chords”: where the four voices ring out a tight chord which being in truly perfect harmony under just intonation creates a phantom “fifth voice” via overlapping harmonics. Thus shall piano chords be forever inferior to vocal chords . :)
    –  tchrist
    Commented yesterday
  • @tchrist: Very droll! It's still not a spelling I would commend to people seeking to learn "normal"English.
    –  FumbleFingers
    Commented yesterday
six

The only situation where the phrase "vocal chords" would make sense in common usage would be if it was referring to musical chords being performed by singers (vocalists). One could contrive scenarios where such a thing might make sense in serious writing, though it would more likely occur as a result of deliberate wordplay; someone who wasn't trying to be humorous would more likely use a phrase like "sung chords" instead.

Improve this answer
one
  • two
    Agreed.  One example of the musical use is in the first-side finale of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells 2, where the announcer says “Vocal chords” to introduce a group of singers singing sustained harmonies — so the musical term is in use, and the anatomical term needs the different spelling to avoid ambiguity.
    –  gidds
    Commented yesterday
five

These two homonyms are confusing, and are often confused. This shouldn't be surprising because their etymological history is connected: string instruments use "cords"—strings—to make "chords. " I'm not able to speak confidently about regional differences, but suffice it to say:

Yes, this M-W entry indicates that one meaning of "chord" is the meaning found under "cord," an "anatomical structure" like vocal cord or umbilical cord.

But note that this overlap is limited to this usage. You can't use "cord" to mean "a straight line intersecting a circle in geometry," or "a stack of musical notes. " And you can't use "chord" to mean "a load of wood. "

Improve this answer
three

As someone who has looked over lots of modern medical literature (British and American), I have never seen "vocal chord", and I consider it inadvisable, if not incorrect. The only "chord" I have seen is in notochord .

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .