Monthly Archives: September 2009

esurient

Ah, this must be something good, yes? With its echoes of luxuriant and a bit of leisure and ease, and the easy roll of the tongue tip through the sur? And its pick-and mix of common letters (all one-pointers in Scrabble), delicious like tureens plus an i or safe like ensure it…

OK, Monty Python geeks, begin reciting the cheese shop sketch. Yes, I’m sure it already came to your mind. This word shows up near the beginning as a rather flowery synonym for peckish – and hungry. And that is how it is used: not merely to mean “hungry” – or, often, “greedy” – but to mean it in a pointedly, comically hyper-erudite sense. This word is not meant to be used ingenuously anymore. It is of the winking-smart register (or perhaps the wink-wink-nudge-nudging smart).

And whence cometh it? From Latin esurientem, present participle of esurire, “be hungry,” which in turn comes from edere, “eat.” Which reminds us that one who is esurient may become edacious when given the chance to fulfill the desire – and edacious, fittingly, is also a winking-smart word; the more earnest term is voracious. Which seems so much more vicious, just as hungry has a deep, throaty gut-lust that simply doesn’t manifest in the lightly salivating tongue-tapping of esurient. How could you take it seriously?

whippletree

Is this the source of Charmin? Charming idea, but no, that’s a bit of a squeeze, whether Mr. Whipple wants it to be or not. Nor has it to do with cream or any other desserts, though the word has, for me, a certain delectable fluffiness to it, the whip notwithstanding. It is also not a low-price Hilton (that’s Doubletree). You will find no fipple and sip no tipple… but if you are chased to the steeple, well, then, you are in harness, for so is this word.

This is a word for an object that is hard to describe, but if you should see one, you’d probably say, “Oh, that!” I’ll make it easy: there’s a picture of a set of whippletrees at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_whippletree_set.jpg (since it is a set of three, is it a whipplethree? or a triple whipple?). These are devices for evening a pulling load: the ropes attached on each side – say, of a horse – pull on the ends of a crossbar, and the centre of the crossbar has a rope that in turn pulls the load. Very simple. Similar arrangements are used in other places, such as windshield wipers (the set of V-shaped things like a syntax tree that distribute the pressure).

OK, we see the tree, but wherefore the whipple? From whip, in case you forgot how horses have long been motivated. But another word for the device is swingletree, which is actually borrowed from a device for dressing flax (a swingle is a flail-like device for beating flax or hemp; I wonder whether the swingle sings as it is swung, for there is a fun a capella group called the Swingle Singers, named after their conductor, Ward Swingle). The original name for the harness piece is singletree; the crosspiece to which one attaches a pair of singletrees is in turn called a doubletree. But – to escape the connection of cheap hotels with single swingers? no; that would be anachronistic – back when people knew what swingles and whipples were, the single-swingle-whipple triple topple was capably popular.

But there is still double deviltry in this whippletree, with its double p and single-double triple e. It also pulls a double pucker: you start with the moue of the bouche on the [w], pulling back for the [p] and the syllabic [l], but look out for the second kiss: in English, we round our lips when saying [r]. It is as though the mouth is being pulled at two points. Or perhaps just squeezed twice. (How charming.)

cricket

I was on my way home from poker last night with my friend the Bri guy, and Eglinton near Laird seemed unusually suburban. The streets were almost empty, and we could hear crickets. I observed that I would not be able to hear them from my downtown apartment. Bri quipped that from his he was more likely to hear crackheads than crickets.

Which demonstrated that Bri is a dude with a good taste for words, even if his neighbourhood has its dodgy aspects. The vocal gesture of crackhead has much in common with that of cricket, but it is more open and has a fuller stress – and even an aspiration – in the second syllable, and does not have quite the crispness. And for that reason, among numerous others, it has a somewhat different flavour. Cricket lacks the violence of crackhead – not just in the association with street drugs but in the verbal interpretation, which describes something I’ve done twice in my life, against architecture, resulting in stitches – but it also lacks the echo of cráic, pronounced “crack,” the Irish word for “fun.”

But there is much fun to cricket. A word that often travels with Jiminy – ah, a chirpy insect – and also often in the company of the rhyming wicket, which, appositely, is something involved in the game called cricket. (Which, in its turn, is not the game called croquet and is not related to it in name or style; nor is it related to the critter called cricket, nor to the thing one does to one’s neck if one watches a match from a seat with an awkward angle: crick it. And on the pitch, bats are essential to the existence of cricket, whereas in in the pitch dark, bats may eat crickets.) Then there is the other game called cricket, the one one plays with darts – it is one of many things one may do with darts and a board. Cricket also has a lighter sense. Lighter than an insect? No, cigarette lighter: Cricket is a brand of them. It is also a name of a children’s magazine. And then there is The Cricket on the Hearth, by Charles Dickens, a Christmas favourite.

Most of these (but not the game!) come from the insect, which gets its name onomatopoeically – but not directly; by way of Old French. The insect itself presents a merging of music and math (this may seem trivial, but in fact it is quadrivial) through Dolbear’s law: the snowy tree cricket chirps at a rate directly correlated with temperature, such that 50 plus the number of its chirps in 15 seconds makes the temperature in Fahrenheit. (The reason for this correlation is their cold-bloodedness, which results in a variable energy threshold, which can be expressed by the Arrhenius equation, but I’ll leave that reference exercise to you. We may conclude they stop chirping when it gets down to 50 degrees, which is 10 Celsius.) Note, however, that other species of cricket have different rates, and some do not correlate well to temperature.

And how do crickets make this chirp? Not with their ticker; no, the trick is that they – just the dude crickets, though, not the chick crickets – rub their legs together, or specifically they raise their left and rub it against a scraper on the right; this act is called stridulation. We assume that, in their thicket, wherever they may stick it, they do not raise their leg before a wicket. That would not be cricket.

chupacabra

Whatever it is, it sounds macabre. You can almost hear it licking its chops with an evil purr. It seems made, too, for baring fangs: the mouth begins with a pucker but through two lip-smacks the lips draw back, and the tongue tip, which starts in an affricate, lashes back to a liquid. And surely there is something otherworldly about it – it sounds like a dark cousin of abracadabra. Or perhaps some Puerto Rican curse.

Well, it is a sort of curse in Puerto Rico, at least if you ask some people there: a curse of livestock. They find bunches of their creatures dead, drained of blood through puncture wounds. The culprit: the goat sucker, chupacabra – chupar means “suck” and cabra means “goat” (you may be reminded of capricorn, which is from Latin for “goat-horned”). Sightings crop up here and there, not just in Puerto Rico but in Texas, Maine, Russia, the Philippines, the National Enquirer… It looks like a mean hairless coyote, maybe (some dead animals found and reported in as examples turned out to be coyotes with nasty cases of mange), or else a reptilian being with a ridge of sharp spines down its back, a forked tongue, large fangs, a sulfuric smell, an unearthly screech, and perhaps basilisk-like eyes, and a tendency to saltation – jumping up to 20 feet. Well, anyway, whatever it is, it ain’t pleasant.

No actual specimen of this little vampiric demon has been caught and verified yet. But with a creature like this, that only strengthens its ability to terrify, for what is more frightening than the unkown? Especially an unknown that is sort of like a refugee from Jurassic Park with a taste for blood in large quantity. This isn’t like bigfoot; you’re not so likely to hear “Don’t go out; bigfoot might get you.” Bigfoot doesn’t have a reputation for this kind of nastiness. But kids in Puerto Rico and Texas run the risk of being terrified by the threat of chupacabra. Which, on reflection, might put them right off their Chupa Chups.

This isn’t a mythical beast of long standing, though, even if it seems born of ageless tradition. It was first reported within the last two decades (but its franchise spread quickly: soon after the first incidents, reports cropped up in ever widening circles – hmmmm – throughout Latin American and beyond). And the name, which may prima facie seem to have crawled forth from some mediaeval grimoire, was invented shortly thereafter by Silverio Pérez, a Puerto Rican comedian.

catharsis

Purge from your mind the idea that this word may refer to a heretical sibling. Oh, the history of the Cathars is one rooted in catharsis, to be sure: they saw themselves as purged of sin, and so more pure, and they in turn were purged from the church – no one likes a holier-than-thou, and no one likes them less than other holier-than-thous. That engenders a transactional mismatch, each party playing the parent role to the other. But catharsis refers more often in modern English to a purging of the emotions, a release more in line with Freudian theory than with transactional analysis. It can also be used in reference to Aristotelian aesthetic theory, in an interesting contrast: whereas in psychotherapy the catharsis is accomplished by reconnecting the errant emotional reaction to its original impetus, in Aristotle it’s accomplished instead by reacting to a fictional surrogate, a sort of inoculation. And if you think that that is all, er, crap, well, that leads us to the physical sense, of which no more need be spoken here.

But is this word so purgative in its phonaesthetics? The experience of saying it is reminiscent perhaps of spitting a watermelon seed, or rather trying once to spit it and then having to hiss a remaining bit off the tip of the tongue. But all those soft sounds seem so pure, like an alabaster statue of, well, someone named Catherine, perhaps. And fair enough: although the ultimate source of Catherine is Aikateriné, the name of an early Hellenic saint, its form has long been influenced by katharos, Greek for “pure” and the ultimate source of our word du jour. And although catholic and cathedral also have different sources, we can see something so ecclesiastically white and pure in the overtones of cath that even cathode ray tube may seem softened by it. Certainly it sounds so much smoother and nicer than purgation, with that urg in there all too iconic. And the is at the end keeps it classically Greek, all white and pure. Except that the classical Greeks actually painted their temples and statues; they’re white now just because paint comes off. Does that seem like heretical revision? In this case – as in many others, notably including some prescriptivist notions in English – the “return to purity” is the real revision, an imposition to be shed like so many cat’s hairs.

frosh

Ah, I remember frosh week. Well, actually, I don’t really, not my own, anyway; as the actress said to the archbishop – or was it the converse? – it was long ago, and I was drunk. With excitement, I mean, of course. But, ah, to see those lively young faces about to embark on what they mistakenly believe is the beginning of adulthood (no, sweeties, not yet, but you do get to pretend and rehearse) – a step up from high school, at that fountain of knowledge where they will gather to drink (ever wonder how many campus bars are called the Pierian Spring? not enough, probably). So I gladly man the Order of Logogustation table at the local university’s frosh week, even though visitors often include (a) speckly social maladepts in whom I uncomfortably recognize an earlier version of myself and (b) entirely typical youth for whom excessive intellectual exercise is likely to elicit blank looks usually gotten from unexceptional canines being addressed in monotonous Esperanto.

Today I was visited by a tidy pair of the latter sort whom I, in a moment of hope, invited to taste the word frosh.

“Frash?” said the female of the pair. “Oh my gad, is this like some kind of tast?”

“Just say it a few times and say what it feels like to say it.”

“Frash… frash, frash, frash. It’s like, fresh. Fraaaaaaash.”

“That’s cuz it’s from ‘fresh,'” her male cohort pointed out. “Like, it’s so obvious: freshman – frosh.”

“Well, yeah, OK, I knew that?”

“But why?” I asked. “Why go from fresh to frosh? Do we go from mesh to mosh?”

“Mosh pit!” the guy replied. “Yeah, like mesh pit, but mosh!”

“Except that comes from mash,” I said.

“Omigad, how d’you know this stuff?” the girl drawled.

I tapped a few keystrokes into my laptop. “The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that frosh has been short for freshman since at least 1915, and it may have gone from fresh to frosh under the influence of the German word Frosch, meaning ‘frog,’ which was also used in some places to refer to elementary-school kids.”

The guy crossed his arms. “So, like, you’re saying we’re German frogs.”

“At a glance,” I replied, “I don’t think so. Though you might be a bit green around the gills after too many Jäger bombs this weekend.”

“Frags don’t have gells,” the girl pointed out. “They’re amphebians.”

“True enough,” I said. “But anyway, nobody thinks of frogs now when someone says frosh, right?”

“Like, more likely fesh?”

“Fish?” the guy said. “Frosh – fish? Frosh – wash, I think.”

“Cuz, like, you don’t?”

“Sure,” I said, “the sound of frosh is sort of like the sound of a washing machine, ‘frosh-frosh frosh-frosh frosh-frosh.’ Then they tumble you, put you through the wringer, and you come out clean.”

“Clean is so nat what frash makes me think. So far.”

“How ’bout, like,” the guy made a bit of head bobbling as he spoke, “frosh-tration?” He made a sideways glance at the girl.

A relevant pun. I was a bit impressed.

“Oh that’s like, so funny? or not?” the girl said.

“It could also be a dog kind of sound,” I offered, and made fat hound sort of noise: “Frosh! Frosh!”

“Dude, OK” – the guy swept his hand to half-pointing – “you know what that really sounds like?” He mimed an act of emesis over an imaginary toilet bowl: “Frosh!”

“Omigad,” the girl said, very equivocally, “that’s so perfact.”