Monthly Archives: December 2009

ouche

“Ouch!”

Jess held up a brooch encrusted with stones of indeterminate preciousness.

I looked at it. “Did you stab yourself?”

“No,” she said, “I just wanted to broach the subject. Do you like my ouche?”

“May I touch it?” I replied.

“That sounds louche,” she observed.

“Touché.”

She handed me the ouche. Yes, ouche, also spelled ouch, is a term – used now mostly poetically and as a deliberate archaism, but found in such luminous sources as Shakespeare, Kipling, Bulwer-Lytton, and the King James Bible – for a clasp, brooch, or buckle set with precious stones. (Brooch, for its part, is in origin the same word as broach; two divergent senses – the piercing and the ornamented piercer – took on divergent spellings.)

“It’s shaped like an O, you see?”

“Like an O-you-see-H?” I volleyed back.

“Do you want a jewel?” she said. Or maybe it was “Do you want to duel?” They sound so similar, especially if the person has any British tinges in their pronunciation.

Either way, the best I could give back was “I think you’d have me pinned.” I looked at it. “Will you wear it on an apron?”

She smiled. “An orange one.” She, of course, knew that an ouche, an apron, and an orange came originally from a nouche, a napron, and a norange. It’s just another way our language has of making n‘s meet, eh? She added, “But I might wear it out. Sh!” She raised a finger to her lips.

“Where did you get it?” I asked. “It looks like a bit of an ‘ouch’ in the wallet.”

“Oh,” she said, waving it away with a flip of her hand, “I had a voucher.”

“Well,” I said, handing it back, “don’t lose it in the couch.”

“Sofa, so good,” she said, pinning it on. Then “Ow! Affricate.”

“Yes,” I said, “it’s ‘ow’ followed by a voiceless affricate. Makes a bit of a moue.”

Her mouth was indeed in a moue – sucking her fingertip. “No,” she replied, “I said, ‘Ah, frick it.’ I poked myself.”

“Ouch,” I said in sympathy. Or perhaps just to needle her.

Thanks to Amy Toffelmire for suggesting today’s word.

ophicleide

I was singing in the choir for the Andrea Bocelli concert this evening. We were at the back of the stage, behind the orchestra. I was right behind the timpani. (I.e., kettle drums. They got quite a workout. Would you believe they even used them in “White Christmas”?) My friend Miles, who is not only bass but also brass (a retired trumpet player), drew my attention to a large instrument at the end of the row of brass. It had tubing that went down to the floor and back up, with assorted involutions and a number of keys, and a final length of tubing that bent over the shoulder and then forward again into the bell. He said, “Do you know what that’s called?”

I thought for a moment. Nope. I confessed I did not.

He did, of course. And now you will too: an ophicleide.

Now, that’s a large word for a large instrument, and with about as many curves in it as the actual item (consider the six ascenders, descenders, and dots to be a down payment on the keys – there are usually nine or twelve. Or you could just take one letter per key). It also looks as complex and unusual as the keying of the instrument is said to be. Miles was wondering if the cleide ending didn’t ironically mean “small” – he had German klein in mind. I noted that since kleid related to clothes in German, ophicleide sounded more to me like “take off your clothes.” In fact, now that I look it up, I find it is something in a different key, so to speak: the cleide comes from Greek for key, by way of French.

And the ophi? Hmm, with its hint of oomph one might think it suitable for big brass, though if you were to see ophicle in this word you would wonder again if it were some diminutive. It might even have a faint floral suggestion, or something of Hamlet’s girlfriend. But you should look at the coils of this brass beastie for a clearer clue. You might also get a hint from the fact that it was designed – in 1817 – as a replacement for a large wooden, leather-covered, finger-stopped, end-blown instrument now more often associated with early music. Said item curved back and forth and so was called a serpent. And tonight’s big instrument was meant as a keyed improvement on it (so the holes could be where the sound was best, rather than where the fingers could reach). It is a keyed serpent. Ophi is from the Greek for “serpent” or “snake.” The inventor, Jean Hilaire Asté, named it in French on the basis of Greek, ophicléide.

Now, when I heard Miles say this word, I wasn’t sure how it was spelled. As you look at it, you’ve probably been wondering how it’s pronounced. It may, in fact, leave you in a quandary, all fickle-eyed. It may help you that my first response was a play on off-glide, which is something one may have in a diphthong. But ophicleide is actually three syllables. Say “aw, fick lied” and you pretty much have it.

Which is really quite amusing. You see, the Greek kleid would, in classical times, have been said similar to “clayed” (in Modern Greek it would be more like “cleethe”). The French processed that into “clay-eed.” But English took a root from Greek that had been run through French and pronounced it like German! But only partly like German. The ei is normally said like “eye” only in German, and in English imitation of German pronunciation in non-German loan words such as this, but in German the final e would also be pronounced. So what we have here is the great English dog’s breakfast, pronunciationally.

I don’t find it a very brassy-sounding word, with its voiceless fricative and stop and the nice liquid /l/ (which is largely devoiced due to the preceding /k/ sound). It seems to me it could as easily be a name for any of a variety of other instruments, from the cute (like an ocarina) to the large (like a calliope), but in any case exotic and quaint or intricate.

And what does an ophicleide sound like? To be honest, I really couldn’t hear it. When it was playing, so were the rest of the brass, and higher and louder and closer. And Andrea Bocelli was letting loose up at the front of the stage, amplified by huge stacks of speakers hanging high above the floor at the Air Canada Centre. And then there were those timpani. I could hear them very, very well.

Rule-bound tut-tutters?

I mentioned, in a discussion on editing, that editors don’t want to be seen as a bunch of arbitrarily rule-bound tut-tutters. One of my colleagues replied (tongue in cheek, she assures me), “at least when we’re NOT at work – after all, the essence of most editing is being a rule-bound tut-tutter!”

To which I replied:

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Sorry for the emphasis, but I must respectfully disagree at the top of my lungs. We are, or we certainly should be, pragmatists, and friendly, helpful ones at that. That means that we understand that rules are made for the sake of communication, not the other way around, and everything we do is to help the author communicate well with the audience. We don’t enforce a rule if there’s no good reason for it – and we have to be able to explain the reason – and we should be helpful, encouraging, and empathetic, not prissy tut-tutters.

English is too good, fun, and useful to be some kind of gotcha game. One of our primary jobs as editors is to pry it loose from the morbid grips of those who would make it simply an arbitrary and devious status game (you know, those who say “Aaargh! I hate idiots who start a sentence with ‘hopefully’!” or who insist coolly “Split infinitives are a sign of poor breeding”). We are not bound by rules; we understand them and understand why each rule exists and we apply them intelligently, not dogmatically. And we ought not to tut-tut! Such is for those who are still in the middle school of the mind, pretending to be adults but maintaining their status by trying to bring others down.

gaga

Who’s got the giggling girls all going gaga? They aren’t going to gogo dance to gagaku – Japanese ceremonial music isn’t their gig. Is it Kajagoogoo? No, they’re too shy for the ’80s one-off wonder. And Gigi is greeted with “Good grief!” No, the popular person with the poker face peeping past paparazzi is none other than Stefani Germanotta, also known as Lady Gaga.

And why is she Lady Gaga? She’s not a champion player of the ball game ga-ga – it’s more popular in Israel and at Jewish summer camps in the US. (Nor is it that her fans yearn for her – gaga also meaning “yearn” in Hebrew – though they surely do.) She’s Italian-American, after all. Nor does her singing sound like quacking (gaga) to Mandarin speakers (in Albanian “quack” is gagaga; in Russian, gaga means “eider duck” – onomatopoeia has consistent effects, but she’s still not a duck). She may or may not be thought strong or dashing (gagah) by Indonesians and Malays, but never mind.

But in Portuguese and Spanish, we see that gaga means “senile” (it can also mean “smart” in Spanish), and in French it means “silly.” And while Lady Gaga is neither of these, they are related to our English word gaga, as in going gaga over her.

But Lady Gaga doesn’t get her gaga from that, either. She gets it from being compared to Freddie Mercury. How is that mercurial singer a source of gaga? Actually, it was the drummer for Mercury’s band (Queen, if you don’t know), Roger Taylor, who is the source. He wrote a song about the increasing dominance of television and the reduction of variety on the radio and used a term he heard from his toddler son in it. The song was called “Radio Ca-Ca.”

Before you stick your hand up, yes, the song was renamed after it was recorded, just before release in 1983, to “Radio Ga Ga.” And that was the source of Lady Gaga’s name.

And our English word gaga, now, where did that come from? Well, from the French, as noted above. And the French – and Portuguese and Spanish? Well, somewhere back along there, people evidently thought of senile old fools as going gagagagaga… not so much agog as just gurgling. It is indeed an almost archetypally incoherent string of sounds, the tongue and lips lax; a single utterance may make gaaah, a classic sound of alarm, dismay, shock, et cetera. And while type faces tend to make a g and a that look like a kneeling girl in a kimono facing a penguin, standard hand printing gives us a gaping jaw on the g and just a round blob with a tail for the a – or the ga together like two eyes above a smiling mouth. Either way, it’s good and gaga.

scintilla

Lady Scintilla, scantily clad, strokes your skin with a scented nail till a thrill ascends your sacroiliac. But the skill of this scelerate Scylla is not in palliating sciatica. No, she slaps her cat-o’-nine-tails and says, “It’s not a sin till ah say it is!” But when the sparks finally fly, you see it was nothing at all… And when they escort her into court, the jury abjure any injury; there was not a scintilla of evidence.

Oooo… scintillating? As well it may be. Scintillating means, originally, “sparkling”; scintilla is the Latin word for “spark,” now pronounced in English with the c elided into the s. It is used most often (and in English always has been) to speak of minute amounts, or more particularly to deny the existence of even minute amounts. Lawyers like it best: when I ask the Corpus of Contemporary American English to list the top words (not including a) found within two of scintilla, the top six, in descending order, are of (overwhelmingly), evidence, not, one, proof, and doubt.

This is a word you can drop into a dry context, a flat assertion, to add a thrill, a titillation; it’s an electric eel of a word, the ll its gills, the dots of the i‘s the sparks it sends. There really is something to send chills in that illa; never mind Godzilla, think of Dies irae, dies illa, Solvet sæclum in favilla, Teste David cum Sibylla (see – on YouTube – Verdi and Mozart, for instance).

And yet its object is a mere spark. Ah, but such a divine spark! Divine, in this case, by dint of its absence. One does not find or discern a scintilla; it is like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time (as mentioned in Conan Doyle’s story “Silver Blaze”: the dog did nothing in the night-time; that was the curious incident). And so it is the whip that does not crack, and its silence is salient – and thrillingly injurious.