figment

“I wonder what that fig meant,” Maury said, as we walked through the art gallery.

“What that figment what?” I said. “Which figment?”

“No, the fig,” Maury said. “In the painting.”

“Which one?” I looked around us to see which he meant; there were paintings in all directions.

He nodded his head back towards a room we had lately left. “The Bosch. The busy one.”

“I saw no fig,” I said. “Perhaps it was a pigment of your imagination.”

“No, I gave it a paints-taking examination.”

“Well, why would there a be a fig there? They’re not natural to the Netherlands.”

“Nor the netherworld, but no matter: it’s fiction, you know.”

“Ah,” I said, “a figment indeed, then: the ficus was fictus.” 

I will explain this: ficus is Latin for ‘fig’ and is where we get our word fig from; fictus (not related to ficus) is where we get our word fiction from, and is the Latin past participle of fingo, ‘I make’ or ‘I fake’, which is the source of our figment – and also our feign. Maury knew this, of course, since he is also a figment of my mind (you do know these vignettes are fiction, right? The narrative details, that is – the linguistic facts are facts. By the way, fact is from factus, which, like fictus, means ‘made’, but in a different way and from a different verb).

“But it was not just my imagination, running away with me,” Maury said. “It was Bosch who was the boss. He decided to inflict the ficus on us.” He halted and held up a finger. “Let us reconfigure.” He turned and headed back towards the Early Netherlandish room.

“And you decided to focus on it,” I said, following him. “But I think you were foggy. This fig leaves some questions unanswered.”

“Oh,” said Maury, feigning befuddlement, “there were no fig leaves in the painting. All figures were unimpeachably there.”

“And apple-y so,” I said. “The fruits were looming. But a fig? Under where?”

Maury rolled his eyes and turned the corner into the room. “In short, over there.”

We made a bee-line for the painting. “Is that it?” I pointed.

“No, that’s fragmentary. Over there.”

“That dab of pigment?” I gestured to a roundish pinkish patch.

“Yes, I think… oh, my word.”

“What is your word?” I asked.

“Nothing at all, in fact. It’s just a figure of peach.” He turned away in disappointment.

“Well, then,” I said. “That fig meant your imagination.”

philtre

Kendy looked at her phone and wrinkled her nose. “Ugh, no.” She swiped left on the photo in her dating app.

Janille, who was sitting beside her, looked over. “What was it?”

“Felt fedora.”

“You don’t like hat guys?”

“That is an automatic fail. I’d set up a filter if I could.”

“Huh,” Janille said. “I’m kind of a sucker for a feutre, myself.”

“A what?” Kendy was used to Janille slipping French in at random moments, but that didn’t mean she’d just let it slide past.

“Felt hat. It’s one of my favourite features. Sets my heart aflutter.”

“For a moment there I thought you said ‘foutre’.”

“No need to be filthy. For me a feutre is a philtre.”

“A filter in, apparently.”

“No,” Janille said. “Not filter, as in coffee. Philtre, as in love potion.” She typed the word into her phone and showed Kendy.

Kendy looked at it. “I mean, filter coffee is my love potion, so it still sounds the same to me. But of course French would have a special word for a love potion.”

“It’s a word in English too!” Janille typed the word into her Merriam-Webster app. It said “chiefly British spelling of PHILTER.” She snorted as a Canadian would (“chiefly British!”) and tapped through to philter; it rewarded her with the definitions “a potion credited with magical power” and “a potion, drug, or charm held to have the power to arouse sexual passion.” She held up the phone for Kendy to see.

“Huh,” Kendy said. “So is it because the potion is filtered?”

“They’re not even related,” Janille said. “This philtre is spelled with a ph because it’s from the Greek philos, which refers to love. As in bibliophile. Lover of books. Or logophile. Lover of words.”

“I can think of another -phile that felt fedora wearers might be,” Kendra said, half aside.

“Well, maybe if they’re from Philadelphia,” Janille said with a giggle.

“Say,” Kendy said, “do you think that fedora and felt are related?”

“I know they’re not!” Janille said. “The fedora is named after a heroine in a play—”

“Wait, that was where we also got Svengali, right?”

“No! But great connection. Svengali comes from the book and play Trilby, which also gave us a hat named after a heroine. In this case, though, Fedora is the Russian version of Theodora, which means ‘gift of god’.”

“So no felt.”

“No felt, no feutre. But felt and feutre both have the same Germanic root, and that root also came to Latin as filtrum, which meant ‘felt’ but also meant the kind of cloth that you use a sieve. And from that we get our word filter.” She glanced over at Kendy’s phone, which was displaying another photo on the dating app. “Meanwhile, philtrum with a ph – from the same source as philtre with a ph – is the name for the groove between the nose and the upper lip.” She pointed at the distinct groove on the face of the fellow on screen.

“Wow,” Kendy said. She looked at her phone for a moment and swiped left. “Huh. You sure know a lot about words.” She looked at Janille again. “No wonder you like guys with fedoras.”

Janille winced. “I felt that.”

tatterdemalion

Little Italian tatterdemalion
fluttered a scallion at an Australian,
sat at a mullion, butt on a railion’,
frittered his bullion, glittering gaily, an’,
settling fully in, dabbled in paleon-
tology: million coccoliths salient…
Latter-day valiant butterflies flailion’
battled a stallion, prettily alien.
Startled, the silly ’un, muttering grayly in
medical dalliance sesquipedalian,
started to sally in, as he did daily in
pattering madly his tatterdemalion rag.

Well, it does get tattered and ragged by the end, doesn’t it? But still, there’s something pretty about tatterdemalion, even if it’s just another word for ragamuffin, more or less: one of the seedy dandelions of society, a person who’s not afraid of being a frayed knot. And, from that, it has made an adjective: “The perfectly appointed Letitia contrasted sharply with her tatterdemalion paramour.”

As illustrated by the patter above, tatterdemalion rhymes with alien and sesquipedalian and so on. But it didn’t always, and there’s a hint at its origin in this. The Oxford English Dictionary’s first citation for it, from 1611, by one L. Whitaker, has “This Horse pictur’d showes, that our Tatter-de-mallian Did ride the French Hackneyes, and lye with th’ Italian.” A double l, and rhyming with Italian! Indeed, it is speculated that it was a fanciful formation meant to match Italian and other nouns of nationality; see this 1614 quote from one J. Cooke: “Puh, the Italian fashion? the tatterd-de-malian fashion hee meanes.”

We don’t know for certain, mind you; the cord of evidence is frayed and will not lead us to a definite end. But the tatter is just as it looks, the same tatter as in ‘shredded rag’, coming from old Scandinavian roots. The rest is just added fabric to flap inimitably gaily in the breeze.

Pronunciation tip: Modern artists from the Albright-Knox

I love the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo. It’s where I was first introduced to modern art. In 1987 my cousin Sharon bought me a book of 125 artworks from the Albright-Knox, commemorating its 125th anniversary. I’m using that as the guide for this pronunciation tip, which covers the names of really quite a lot of modern artists. Not 125 of them, though, because I skipped all the obvious American ones. It’s just a guide to how the artists’ names were pronounced in their original home languages, for those who want to know – and especially for those who insist they always pronounce names in the “original.” (If they don’t like modern art, well, I take no responsibility for the etiolated state of their existence.)

Names covered: Albert Bierstadt, Honoré-Victorin Daumier, Gustave Courbet, Alfred Sisley, Jean-François Millet, Camille Pissaro, Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Jacques-Joseph (James) Tissot, Edgar Degas, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri Matisse, Édouard Vuillard, Raoul Dufy, Pablo Picasso, André Derain, Henri Rousseau, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Max Weber, Giacomo Balla, Fernand Léger, Jean Metzinger, Francis Picabia, Maurice Utrillo, Robert Delaunay, Albert Gleizes, Wassily Kandinsky, Franz Marc, Giorgio de Chirico, Amedeo Modigliani, Constantin Brâncuși, František Kupka, Juan Gris, László Moholy-Nagy, Joan Miró, Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Oskar Kokoschka, Chaïm Soutine, René Magritte, Julio González, Alberto Giacometti, Paul Klee, Salvador Dalí, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, Rufino Tamayo, Piet Mondrian, Yves Tanguy, Arshile Gorky, Max Beckmann, Auguste Herbin, Hans Hofmann, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Naum Gabo, Jean Arp, Lucas Samaras, Victor Vasarely, Antoni Tápies, Jean Dubuffet, Francesco Clemente

Scaramouche, skirmish, scrimmage, scrum

“Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?”

Well, he may or may not, but either way, he’s sure to boast about being the absolute best at it. That’s what Scaramouche (also spelled Scaramouch) does. We may think of Scaramouche vaguely as a mischievous character, or perhaps more to the point as a lowlife scoundrel, but the original Scaramouche, a character in the travelling Commedia dell’Arte troupes performing in France in the 1600s (he had a different name in the original Italian, but we’ll get to that), was in particular a conceited braggart of a soldier and – as conceited braggarts generally are – a coward.

So you can picture Scaramouches through history. 

In the 17th century, being a soldier was a common occupation, and a Scaramouche would be sure to boast about any skirmish he had been in – a mere bar brawl in which he received a kick to the pants would be transmuted in the telling to a glorious raid on a tavern in which he prevailed.

In more recent times, when sport has generally replaced military action as the main vehicle for civic pride and competition, a Scaramouche might more likely regale the bar with tales of the stomping he delivered in the football scrimmage the night before – a stomping he more accurately received.

And now in the world of business, a Scaramouche might talk about how he came out of the latest agile scrum with everyone following his lead and hanging onto his words, when in fact the phrase most often directed at him was not “That’s right!” but “Let’s put that in the parking lot.”

And in that other world of combat, politics? We know exactly what a Scaramouche would say, and much of it is not printable in a polite medium: vulgar braggadocio, with plenty of invective against his enemies. For examples, if your sensibilities aren’t especially delicate, google Anthony Scaramucci.

As it happens, Scaramucci is also the Italian name from which Scaramouche was taken – well, almost. The Commedia dell’Arte character was Scaramuccia, with an a on the end. His name meant ‘skirmish’. In fact, his name was the origin of the word skirmish.

Yes, that’s right. There is debate as to where scaramuccia came from – some propose a German origin, others say Lombardic or Frankish, but the true path of this rogue word has been lost in all the little linguistic sallies and raids of history – but the word gave rise both to the character Scaramuccia, who became Scaramouche, and also – and earlier – to the French escarmouche, which also means ‘skirmish’ and is the immediate source of English skirmish, which we have had since the 1300s.

But why stop there? English didn’t. Like the wanton wanderings of warriors on the field, fighting willy-nilly and making a mess of the best battle plans, this word entered into several more exchanges and took on subsequent forms under the influence of other English words. Scrimmage, for one, which started as another form of skirmish referring to little random battles and ended up on the football field. That morphed into scrummage, which was adopted by rugby for its combative huddles. From that we clipped scrum, which went from a disorderly tussle to a disorderly crowd to a press of journalists around a politician, and finally became a term used in “agile” project management.

Now, that’s quite the etymological fandango. And I’m not making it up.

scrutatious

Are you scrutatious?

You know what scrutatious means, of course. I just used it in my tasting of harrumphery and I heard no squawks. To define: ‘characterized by or disposed to scrutation; inclined to intense study or thorough inspection’. (Scrutation, of course, is the act of giving scrutiny – the OED defines it as “minute search or examination.”) 

That monocle-with-eyebrow-raised emoji, 🧐, is iconically scrutatious. Which means pick, pick, pick, always picking at things. Why must you pick so much? Why are you so scrutatious?

Huh, when you put it that way, it almost sounds trashy.

Well, hey, there’s nitpicking and then there’s trashpicking. Nitpicking may have a negative tone, but in the real world, removing nits is a very good and caring and helpful thing to do, because they hatch into lice if you don’t. Trashpicking, on the other hand… say, did you know that there was a self-described, self-appointed “Dylanologist” who regularly picked through Bob Dylan’s trash when Dylan lived in New York City? Dylan moved out of town in no small part just to get away from the guy. This kind of obsessive “fandom,” where you go through the flotsam and jetsam of a life just for the sake of your own mastery of it, is certainly the apex of scrutatiousness. Or, rather, the nadir.

And there are other areas of life that are similarly subject to the gimlet eye of the scrutatious. Language is one such. Grammatical pedants and etymological trashpickers make life needlessly unpleasant without any true benefit for others. But it’s not that being scrutatious is inevitably bad; a person who has the inclination but is well balanced about it might become a good safety inspector or editor (sometimes the same thing).

And a good etymologist or linguistic historian is also scrutatious in a good way: looking at the origins of words to know, for instance, that the scrut- root in all these words (and others) comes from Vulgar Latin scrutor, which appears to come from Late Latin scruta ‘rubbish, broken trash’ – which would mean that scrutiny etc. refer in their origins to picking through trash. (There are competing theories, though, that might yet trash that one.) A bad etymologist will insist that scrutatious must therefore refer to literal trashpicking, but that’s a load of rubbish. 

OK, so how scrutatious are you are about language? Well, tell me this: how common a word is scrutatious? How many dictionaries is it in?

The answer is that it is in zero (0) dictionaries. And if you Google it, you get three results, and one of them is my word tasting note on harrumphery, and another is (or will be) this very thing you’re reading right now. The third is the comments section of a post from 2006.

Some lexical trashpickers might conclude on that basis that it’s not a word. But obviously they’re wrong. I used it and you (probably) understood it, and you (probably) didn’t even question it. It is a word that always existed in potential and was just waiting for people to notice it and use it. That’s not so inscrutable, is it?

harrumphery

Another week, another eructation of harrumphery about the parlous state of today’s youth published on one opinion page or another to be passed around as the latest hate-read. The jeremiad fulminates against the current decadent generation of whippersnappers, so horribly coddled and disrespectful and feckless, simultaneously inert and destructive, passive and insolent. The criticisms are all familiar, having been harrumphed by various curmudgeonly harruncles for as long as there have been people willing to publish them. It is the regular round of exgramination (get-off-my-lawn-ery) as grunted and burbled in the huffing tones of the most walrus-like of people.

Indeed, the particular characteristic of harrumphery is that its rumbled disgruntlement insistently affects a kind of gravitas that devolves into gravy-toss. When you harrumph, you take the posture of one whose social status is assured, one whose presence is the opposite of callow, one who – after abundant clearing of the throat – insists on elevated elocutions and would never be so undignified as to utter a vulgarism. So what if the harrumphing is incoherent, inconsistent, just a rehashing of unoriginal psychosocial dyspepsia assembled harum-scarum (or rather harumph-scarumph)? Harrumphery claims the earned right to supersede scrutiny. It is the harrumpher who is scrutatious!

Oh, speaking of scrutiny, and of things done harum-scarum: there is the question of how many r’s there are in this word. In point of fact, while neither spelling – harrumphery or harumphery – is to be found in dictionaries, both are to be found in use, the former somewhat more than the latter. I favour the double r, but not just on the basis of frequency. For one thing, if you search harrumphery on Google, Google wants to assume you meant harrumphed, whereas if you search harumphery, Google wants to assume you meant Humphrey. What a boggart! But more to the point, the doublet rr better conveys the phlegmatic onomatopoeia, and it adds just that much extra weight to the word. But of course the single-r version is no less legitimate, just as the single-r versions of the others – harumph, for example – are established alternatives to the double-r ones.

But, yes, this is a word that may become its own target: language grouches might insist it’s not a word at all. It’s not in their ledgers of lexical legislation! That means nothing, though. The word is, as noted, in use; and when I first used it above, I feel sure you knew on the instant what it meant. If you know harrumph – as you do, I am sure – and if you know the suffix -ery, as in cookery, mockery, and so on, then this confection is clear enough. So let it be used. We shall surely have repeated use for it, every time another geyser-like eruption issues forth from the harrumpherate (it would accord them too much style to call them the harrumpherati).

sequacious

Lead is the most sequacious metal. 

I’ll prove it. What metal is quite ductile, and yet not too costly? Easily lead. What metal can be melted readily and formed into whatever model is required? Easily lead. What metal will behave as you want without oxidizing excessively or otherwise reacting and altering? Easily lead. And what is a good definition of sequacious? ‘Easily led’. 

You see how neatly it follows? As well it should. An argument that is sequacious follows neatly, with tidy reasoning tending in a single direction like a smooth sales pitch. Music that is sequacious has notes that follow neatly in entirely regular order. A person who is sequacious is one who follows neatly – one who is credulous and will adhere without second thought to the dictates of their leader. And a thing or object that is sequacious is ductile, yielding, and easy to shape. …Well, sequacious is not commonly used in that last sense anymore, but, then, it’s not very commonly used at all – though there are many occasions where we could use it.

I won’t say that sequacious is itself a sequacious word in form – it does have all the vowels, but not in exact order, and the u repeats; it also ends as it starts, with s. But its etymology follows neatly enough. It starts with Latin sequor ‘I follow’, which gains -ax ‘inclined to’ to make sequax ‘follower’ (sounds like ducks in a row, doesn’t it?); that has a combining form sequac-, which mixes with -ious and there you have it, a nice tidy sequence.

Tidiness is appealing, and can be a good thing. However, a certain amount of resistance, complication, and thought can also be valuable. Being easily led is great for myrmidons and myrmecoids, and perhaps for dogs and ducks and ductile metals, and it’s true that being excessively reactive or unstable is often undesirable – though there will always be elements that are, such as potassium and cesium – but persons of a sequacious mettle will never be able to get the lead out, steel their resolve, and brass their way through to iron out difficulties. And while lead’s sequacious properties may seem a useful model, when looking at the public sphere, we should extend the analogy even farther: What metal is known to be damaging to the healthy functioning of the brain? Easily lead. And what metal is famously of low value? Easily lead.

flibbertigibbet

“Daddy told me to tell you that I don’t know what he hired you for and not to tell me. That I’m totally untrustworthy. I’m a flibbertigibbet. Come on, let’s get out of here.”

That scene from Joe Versus the Volcano is what always comes to my mind when I think of flibbertigibbet. Others think first of The Sound of Music:

“How do you find a word that means Maria? A flibbertigibbet? A will-o’-the-wisp? A clown?”

I have to wonder where else in popular entertainment flibbertigibbet has been used. It’s such a lovely, lively word – like a flapper fluttering in furs and taffeta, or a flivver’s flat tire flip-flopping on the tarmac. (Or, I suppose, like a gibbeted robber babbling deliriously for a final filbert, though that’s rather unpleasant.) It’s a word that expresses in sound the idea “Why say one thing when you can say two? Why say two when you can say three?”

It expresses it in its history, too. In its earliest forms, flibbertigibbet seems to have been just flibbergib, a kind onomatopoeia of bafflegab, folderol, rigmarole, and ad libitum hocus pocus – the daily verbal traffic of the average gossiping tattletale: a merge of flibber and gib, two and one to make three to make one. But why have one syllable of gib when you can have two of gibbet (with that little diminutive – a creditable derivative, though indubitably punitive, with its adventitious baleful overtone), and why have two of flibber when you can have three of flibberti (we could as readily spell it flibber-de-gibbet, which would make it rather oojah-cum-spiff)?

And that is the basic origin of the flibbertigibbet: someone for whom words multiply, a person who simply can’t not say – originally a flattering sycophant or a gossip, but now evolved to mean a flighty person, one who may well babble endlessly but who in any event is as firm and easy to follow as a butterfly. And, of course, social stereotypes being what they are, a flibbertigibbet has generally been thought of as a woman.

There were, to be sure, attempts to turn flibbertigibbet another way. Shakespeare and Walter Scott both gave it as a name to a demon or imp – in Scott’s Kenilworth, what the OED calls “an impish-looking, mischievous, and flighty urchin.” Meaning, perhaps, a sort of devilish ragamuffin. But it didn’t stick. Now it’s not the Artful Dodger or Puck, or a little Beelzebub; it’s Meg Ryan or Julie Andrews. Well, I’d rather adorable than abominable.

hobbledehoy

What does a ragamuffin become when he hits that awkward age? A hobbledehoy.

Strictly speaking, hobbledehoy just means any awkward youth, in those gawky years between childhood and adulthood – though it typically implies is a boy. A girl, if she was not sufficiently “ladylike,” might in times past have been called a hoyden or a tomboy (hobbledehoy, hoyden, and tomboy? oyoyoy). I would like to suggest that an awkward but boisterous adolescent girl might be called a hobbledehoyden… but the words are not related, as far as we know.

Mind you, we are hobbled by incomplete etymological information. There are various guesses as to the origins of both words, but, as the words were confected not in the hallowed halls of academe or at the cramped carrels of the law-clerks but in the wide wild world, where writers simply put down what they heard and later readers tried to fit it with what they recognized, what we get is an awkward trail that has little more direction, reason, or consistency than a foolish fourteen-year-old.

In particular, we may note that most of the older appearances of hobbledehoy – in the 1500s and 1600s – are more like hobber-de-hoy or hobby de hoy or even hobbadehoy. They all have the hoy and they all have the hob and they even all have the de, but that first off-beat syllable is variable. It’s unlikely that the word has any original relation to hobble, but it’s clear to see that hobble drew the word to it. After all, hobbling is awkward, and hobbledehoys are awkward, and it just made sense, right? 

Not that the word always implied that the person was awkward. It may have come from an old French word for a country squire (perhaps also applied to apprentices) plus another old French word for ‘today’, but that’s based on sound resemblance and has no real trail of evidence. Some suggest that it originally meant ‘today’s young upstart’, but all the recorded uses seem simply to signify a teenage boy, with all that is normally expected from one. The hobble just happened to be around, and the word’s development of form and sense has been hobbled by it.

What if it had been drawn into the gravity of some other word? One could imagine a historical circumstance in which the word instead shifted to hoppity-hoy, which would have been more lively. Well, when words are in that awkward period, you don’t always know just what they’re going to end up as. Just like awkward youths. For all you know, your hobbledehoy might end up happily matched to a flibbertigibbet.