Yearly Archives: 2009

maffick

It was a right jolly night at Domus Logogustationis, the clubhouse of the Order of Logogustation. Our local branch had prevailed against a hostile acquisition bid on the building that would have driven us into the street. Instead, it was our celebrations that drove us into the street, mucking up the traffic: we no longer needed to camp out watching for padlocks on the doors; the siege had been lifted. Needless to say, we were not behaving like boy scouts – rather more boorishly. Long words (excellent words!) were falling like snow as we careered tantivy into the laneway. Elisa Lively twirled along the sidewalk singing “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” until overtaken by hypoxemia.

“What are you doing?” a passer-by asked.

“Mafficking,” Philippe Entrecote replied.

“What?”

Ross Ewage, the noted vulgarian, leaned over. “As in ‘Keep yorficking hands off mafficking building!'”

“As Baden-Powell might have said, yes,” Philippe said, nodding smoothly.

The passer-by moved on in that quick-stepping way people do when they conclude they have been talking to a dangerously crazy person. Ross turned to Philippe. “Baden-Powell? As in the founder of the Boy Scouts?”

“Yes, it was he who held Mafeking during the siege. Two hundred seventeen days, hemmed in by the Boers. He used cute subterfuges such as having his men place fake land mines while the Boers were watching them – and stepping and ducking to avoid imaginary barbed wire. The Boer War was basically a white-against-white war, but Baden-Powell put three hundred native Africans on the perimeter with guns.”

“To get shot first, no doubt,” Ross said, as a cava cork traced gravity’s rainbow past his ear. (“Sorry!” shouted Maury.)

“Rather. He also put together a cadet corps of adolescent boys. That helped inspire the Scouts, which he formed seven years later when he was back in England.”

“So mafficking really wasn’t just partying but mayhem – a battle! The Siege of Mafeking!”

“Actually, the verb maffick was backformed on the basis of the celebrations when the siege was lifted, May 17, 1900. Naturally the British citizens in Mafeking were very happy to see the departing backsides of their Boerish opponents. The celebration spread rather far, certainly across South Africa to Cape Town, and, I believe, even to London. It was a major victory in the war. Waggish journalists reporting the celebrations spoke of ‘maffickers, mafficking as hard as they could maffick.'”

“And the neighbours,” Ross said, “were probably saying ‘Those rotten ma-fickers.'” He might have pronounced it slightly differently, come to think of it.

Elisa spun to a stop and grasped Philippe’s shoulder for stability. “Language!” she shouted, but it wasn’t clear if she was chastising Ross or simply exulting.

“We’re talking of mafficking,” Ross said.

“Change the affix and make it mafficks!” Elisa shouted. “Let us maffick in the traffic!” she sang to the tune of “Roll Me Over in the Clover.”

“Read the f‘s as long s‘s,” Maury said, leaning over, “and you have Massic, an ancient Italian wine.”

“If you could degeminate and change it to g, it would be magick,” Ross said.

“It would,” Philippe said, “not least because f to g is not a known transformation.”

“It’s a typo!” Elisa shouted into his ear. She grabbed the cava from Maury. “You need some more of this!”

“Make like Tantivy Mucker-Maffick,” Maury said. “To quote Thomas Pynchon: ‘Tantivy’s been drunk in many a place, From here to the Uttermost Isle, And if he should refuse any chance at the booze, May I die with an hoary-eyed smile!'”

“But,” Ross half-shouted, “what the f*** does Mafeking mean? I mean the place name! Where they had the siege!”

“It’s actually Setswana,” Philippe said. “It’s originally, and now again, Mafikeng, and it means ‘place of stones.'”

At this Elisa and Maury burst into song, the Rovers hit from the early ’80s: “Oh, why don’t we all just get stoned… Get drunk and sing beer-drinking songs…” They continued up the street in raucous jubilation. We all mafficked so hard we might have been mistaken for sports fans, except we were in Toronto and nonetheless had something to celebrate.

in excelsis

A carol sing is not always a good idea among word fanatics. Although they provide many wonderful archaic usages to savour, things can get a bit contentious at times. And so I’m frankly not sure what I was doing in late November singing quartets with Daryl, Margot, and Jess.

Actually, I do know. We were rehearsing. Of course you have to rehearse before Advent in order to be ready to sing when people want you to sing. And we were doing “Angels We Have Heard on High” – or was it “Ding Dong Merrily on High”? – when we came up against that perennial choir catch: excelsis.

There were four of us. On the first pass, there were four different pronunciations.

“People,” Margot said, lowering her music, “don’t you know Latin? Never mind how it’s been bastardized over the past couple of millennia. C is pronounced [k]. ‘Eks-kel-cease.'”

“We’re not singing classical Latin,” I said. “We’re singing ecclesiastical Latin. Grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation changed some in the centuries between the one and the other. Note how we’re not pronouncing the English words in fifteenth-century style.”

“That’s right,” Daryl said. “The c before i and e became an alveopalatal fricative. So it’s ‘ex-chell-cease.'”

Jess and I both winced. (So did Margot, but she does it so often you hardly need to say so.) “That’s not quite right, either,” Jess said. “While c became ‘ch’ before the front vowels, sc became ‘sh.’ No need for a transition through ‘s-ch’ either. You can also see this transformation in, for instance, Norwegian and Swedish: ski is actually said with a fricative, similar to our ‘she.’ And in ecclesiastical Latin, xc before i or e is ‘ksh.’ So it’s ‘ek-shell-cease.’ Just sing it all like Italian.”

“Or you can go with the English tradition,” I added. “I admit I’m not the world’s hugest fan at all times of what happened to Latin when it got run through the Great Vowel Shift and all that along with English – ‘nil nice eye bone ’em’ for nil nisi bonum and all that – but when you look at these songs, they’re really English songs with the Latin borrowed in. So you can sing ‘ek-sell-cease’ just as the guys who wrote the words most likely had in mind.”

“Sounds like ‘In Excel spreadsheets’!” Margot snorted. “Or ‘in eggshell sheets.’ Daryl’s version sounds like a cash register or a pachinko machine.”

Jess smirked slightly. “And you find your anachronistic stop-laden classical version somehow more euphonious?”

Excel is related, etymologically,” I pointed out. “Latin ex-cellere, ‘rise above others,’ with the cel related to celsus, ‘lofty.'” Margot was undoubtedly gratified that I said the Latin the classical way. “Excelsus is ‘high,’ so the English just repeats the Latin anyway: ‘on high,’ ‘in the highest.’ Actually, the word used could as easily have been altissimis – Saint Jerome preferred that version.”

“And then we wouldn’t be having this argument,” Daryl said.

“We shouldn’t anyway,” Jess said. “How can anyone hear in excelsis without thinking of Christmas? And how can anyone be –”

Margot jumped in: “– anything but stressed out by the pre-Christmas season? Yeah.”

“Well,” I said, “I’m going to throw my vote in with Jess, so that gives us a plurality, which is enough to win. It’s the shell, icky or otherwise. Let’s try it again.”

We ran through the song again, with Margot giving the grimace we all expected from her at the appropriate point, but going with the decision. As we were singing, Elisa wandered by and stopped to listen.

“How’d we sound?” Jess asked her when we were done.

“Excellent!” Elisa declared. “On key, gives me chills… don’t cease!”

gerrymander

This word carries an air of improvisation, with its echoes of jerrycan, jerry-built, and jury-rigged, and it has a wandering sense, with its clear hint of meander and its long, wandering form (starting with that squiggly g). It almost sounds like a phrase (‘Dja remand ‘er?). In usage, it inevitably has a sense of seaminess, corrpution, or anyway political dirty-dealing: redrawing the borders of electoral districts so as to give an advantage to one party.

This is a word the exact origin of which is well known – it traces to a political cartoon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png). The governor of Massachusetts in 1812, Elbridge Gerry, signed into law a redistricting the state to disadvantage his opponents and favour his party to ensure more wins than a strictly proportional representation would have allowed. One of these districts wandered in a shape that a political cartoonist (Gilbert Stuart) saw as like a salamander. His editor, Benjamin Russell, suggested the term Gerrymander as a blend of Gerry and salamander.

There are two things to know about Gerry and salamander. First, while today we just think of a house-pet lizard when we see salamander, the salamander was long given mythic qualities and endowed in the imagination with various magical powers, including a great affinity to fire. In effect, it was akin to a dragon in the mind of the Massachusetts man in 1812. Second, the last name of Elbridge Gerry (not Eldritch, but given what we’ve just said about salamanders, you may wonder) was pronounced like “Gary,” not like “Jerry.” (There’s a town in New York State that has this same issue: Gerry, near Jamestown, not said like “Jerry.”) But most people don’t know that, and haven’t known that for a long time, so gerrymander starts with the affricate, not the stop.

Gerrymander is both a noun (the original usage) and a verb (the now more common usage). Some may argue that there is value in gerrymandering, constructing anfractuous districts to form coherent voting blocks of like-minded people to allow them representation. However, it may be argued that this is not really gerrymandering unless it results in their having significantly less (or more) representation than they would proportionally get: it is not simply the form but the results that matter in the definition. If you create districts such that party A gets overwhelming wins in a few districts and narrow losses in many others, you can allow party B to get more seats with fewer voters by letting them win narrowly in many districts and lose by wide margins in a few. That’s gerrymandering; putting together districts that allow different groups to have a reasonable voice in the legislature isn’t.

But it also has to be deliberate. The sort of accident of geography that allows the Bloc Québecois to gain far more seats in the Canadian Parliament than a national party with many more voters (Kim Campbell may remember this especially bitterly) doesn’t count. Gerrymander imputes deliberate wrongdoing, and without the deliberateness or the wrongdoing it’s just funny-looking or unfortunate… or proof of the need of a better electoral system.


Thanks to Dianne Fowlie for suggesting today’s word.

 

I

Who am I? What is this I that I perceive? The most essential thing in the universe or a pure illusion? Is it as solid as a metal beam or as evanescent as a candle in the wind?

Reflect, Grasshopper. Reflect on yourself, because your self is mere reflection. This shining I is a mere mirror, and even the mirror is not there when you – with your eye, your seeing part, which you may mistake for your I – look for it.

You look in the mirror, and you say, “I see.” And indeed I C spells the source of I: in Old English, I was ic, said sometimes as “eek” and sometimes as “each” – the two sides of the self, one of fear, withdrawing, the other of distribution, sharing, outgoing. It was sometimes after written ich. Make this capital: ICH. In a serif font, the formal way, an I is like a steel beam (an I-beam, in fact), reminiscent of an H on its side. Make it more like an H on its side and you have 工, the Chinese character for gong, “work.” But Chinese for “I” is wo – the self is only half of work, for action is the rest. The character for wo, however, is a slashing pattern of seven strokes, 我, half of which is a spear and the other half of which is said to be a hand, or grain, or another spear: fighting, action.

The self is the ready hand: the letter I began as an arm and hand, Phoenecian yod, which lost first the hand, then the elbow and wrist, and soon became the smallest of letters, a mere stroke, iota, ι, the famed jot of jot and tittle, the small wisp of Hebrew yod, י. You see the strong hand, but when you follow it, it vanishes into smoke, it is the merest small thing.

But I was not I then. In Hebrew, when you speak of yourself, you do not say an I, you say ani. In Greek, like English an Indo-European language, “I” the speaking first person was – is – ego, written in Greek letters εγο; in Latin, it is ego written first EGO (as we ever write our selves in our own minds). These little letters we love, e g o i etc., came about later, as scribes shrank them in brisk writing: the I became a little single stroke, at risk of being taken for one half of an n, one third of an m, so they added a dot, like a finger, a flag… a flame. We are a candle burning down. No, we are not: we are only the flame. We consume the wax, but the matter of the wax passes in other forms into the air; when it is burnt, however, the flame – which was only ever an ongoing reaction, not a discrete object – is gone. Ay, gone.

Ay. This is how we say I. This is not how we always said it. Our long vowels shifted half a millennium ago. Before that, the ich lost the fricative at the end and we said it “ee”: simply the narrowest opening at the tip of the tongue. Tighten the tongue a little more as you say it, and whisper as you do so, and you have German ich. But when “ah” became “ey” and “ey” became “ee” we needed this sound of I to be more distinctive, and so we swooped into it, starting at “ah” and narrowing down, like a hand swinging through the air and pointing at a spot.

In other languages it widens from the spot. In Scandinavian languages, you have jeg – the j a glide, like our y – or similar words. In Slavic languages, you have ja and similar words. In Romance languages, you have Spanish yo, Portuguese eu, Italian io, French je – this last has a fricative, but it was once a glide, too, as its first letter has descended from none other than I. Thereby hangs a tale: what we see now as j was first an ornamental i with a tail; when the glide sound came from the vowel, it was written the same way at first, but when we decided we needed a separate letter for the glide – or for the fricative or affricate it had become – we kept the j for that. If we needed another version still, we used y. And sometimes, in English, where the i seemed too small for the vowel, we wrote y instead. See that y: like an i and a j joined. In Dutch, words once written with y – such as the river Y – are now written with ij (and the river is het IJ). The self plain and the self fancy, extended: together you have branching, division, or you have dowsing, divination, depending on your direction. Widening or narrowing: your self is your choice. Which shall you do?

We aggrandized our little i. When we stopped saying ich we were left with a jot and a dot. It was not big enough; the I does not want to pass unnoticed. So it gained an infusion of capital. In other languages, politeness may dictate the upper case for the formal other person: Sie in German, U in Dutch (which, informally, says je for “you”). Honour may dictate it for royalty and deity: Your Grace, His grace. But we, we who see ourselves as the axis of all, we plant a flagpole at our north pole of the self: I. How we forget that when all rotates around a point, the point around which is rotates has no size, no dimension. It is a perfect nothing. Without it the action could not be happening, but it is only there as a result and part of the action. It itself does not move; it is still, there. And when the action stops it is not still there.

I is not the most common word in English; it sits, according to wordcount.org, at 11th place – ay, ay, 11. The most common pronoun, in eighth place, is it. The most frequent actual noun is in 66th place, after so many function words, pronouns, auxiliaries, and staple verbs. It is what the I exists in: time.

What does the I stand for? among other things, I stands for the heaviest element commonly used by living organisms, an element rare in many places but soluble in water and so concentrated in seawater: iodine. It stains and it stings, but we need it. Without it our thyroids underdevelop, with bad effect; iodine deficiency is the leading cause of preventable mental retardation.

But our little candle, the small i, takes us to the root of this all. And if our self is defined in opposition – the spear against spear, the ego that opposes, the reversal seen in reflection, the inevitable entropy of the candle – then our self is a negative one. And the root of negative one is i: an imaginary number, not countable or accountable in the real world, but still usable for describing and calculating things in our lives. The square root of 1 is 1; the square root of –1 is i. One less than nothing, and reduced by one dimension.

This is your I, grasshopper: a useful illusion, a mere effect of and part of action. You see a line between yourself and the world, but I, the line, is all there is, and even that is nothing real.

Email joke writers, please read this

I receive and forward a lot of email jokes. I’m pretty well known among my friends for being a nexus for humour. But in my years of reading emailed jokes, I have observed that there are many people out there who really don’t understand how to tell a joke well. (Worse, if I receive a joke several times over the course of a few years, it typically gets more and more ruined each time I get it – people are destroying it with their unneeded and misguided additions.) I’ve had to edit quite a few just to un-kill them. So I’ve decided to give some advice for those who want to write down some joke they recently heard to send around. Please read this and heed these pointers if you want to be funny. These are not tut-tutting po-faced rules! They are practical advice based on experience. The entire point is to be funnier.

Continue reading

teh

lolz. this is teh l33t. im in ur langwidj eating ur wordz. lolspeak: ur doin it rite. all ur teh are belong to us!!111! i can has noms now?

If you don’t grok the above, I suggest you spend several hours on icanhascheezburger.com, after which you will be laughing too hard to care. And then Google leet.

But what is teh? Oh, come on. You’ve typed it a squillion times. Yes, it’s when your left hand follows the t of the with the e before your right hand can get the h in.

“Pshaw! It’s not a word! It’s just a typo!” you object. And this was true for a long time. People have been typing teh for as long as there have been qwerty keyboards, after all. Blame Christopher Sholes, who devised the qwerty layout (which was later modified by Remington) to prevent typewriters from jamming – it moved apart some pairs of letters frequently typed together.

But now, though not in formal English, teh has taken on a special valence and even, in some versions of typed slang, some extra functions. It all proceeds, certainly, from teh being a typo, one typically made when typing quickly or carelessly. From that it can be a mark of a self-consciously “sloppy” or “incorrect” way of typing.

In lolcat speak – the deliberately “incorrect” usages attributed to cats in those funny captioned pictures (as on icanhascheezburger.com) – it displays the imperfect English use that is yet another endearing feature of our furry oral-retentive friends (so focused on getting their noms – meaning food, because when you eat it you go “nom nom nom nom”).

In leet, an in-group type-based argot favoured by those who wish to claim an elite level of tech savvy, it is a winking in-group usage, like pwn (for own, which in this case is a verb meaning “defeat, dominate, perhaps humiliate”) and typing 1 in place of ! and 7 in place of &. (Leet also does other deliberate substitutions, for instance numbers in place of certain letters – leet can be written l33t or even 1337 – and novel morphology, such as xor, an agentive noun suffix that can also be verbed.)

But in leet, teh can also be used to make the following word a superlative adjective without further inflection, even if the word is a verb (ur teh lame would mean “you’re the lamest”; this is teh rock could mean “this really rocks,” although one might more likely see further modifications to make it, for instance, this is teh r0xx0rz). And because of its self-consciousness, it can add extra ostension and possibly irony to the noun it specifies (you’re teh boss).

So teh has become something on the order of ain’t in its effect as a register marker. And because written language always begs for a way to be said – since the spoken form is the primary form of language and the written form’s first purpose is to represent it – it needs a pronunciation. Teh is usually pronounced just as it looks, but generally with the h silent, and perhaps with the vowel reduced so it’s like the but with a voiceless stop rather than a voiced fricative.

This word also has other little overtones and notes that can be found beyond its rather layered usage implications. For one, since it is a rearrangement of the letters of a word, other rearrangements also play in, notably het, which is one of the Dutch equivalents of “the” (the other is de; het can also mean “it”), and eth, not just an archaic inflectional ending (he maketh; he shibboleth; he smiteth) but a long-disused character in English which could, if it were still in use, prevent the typo that gave rise to this word in the first place by allowing us to write the word with it in place of the th (ðe). (Actually, the was formerly written with a thorn (þ), not an eth, and when both of those characters were dropped because they weren’t in the type sets brought over from the continent, thorn was sometimes represented with a y, giving us ye – still pronounced as “the” and usually written with superscript e – for þe, i.e., the.)

And teh also happens to be the Yale transliteration of the Mandarin Chinese word now (in pinyin) written de, as in Dao De Jing, best known in its Wade-Giles version, Tao Te Ching, but in Yale rendered Tao Teh King. And what is this teh? Virtue, also described as strength, power, integrity, etc. If u has virtue, ur not just teh king, ur teh l33t!

book it

Say some guy was a crook, though he didn’t look it, and he saw a chance to steal and took it: when the alarm went off he’d know he had to book it.

Wait, what? Book the alarm? Noooo… Although book it is a term perhaps more often known for use with tickets and other things that need to be reserved, it also has a slang use to refer to rather unreserved haste. “Man, he was bookin’ it around the corner, and he ran right into a cop!” It can also be speed of other activities: “Your essay’s due when? Six hours? Have you written it yet? Dude, you’d better book it!”

It’s an interesting usage, inasumch as books are not always thought of as fast-moving (jacket-flap reviews nothwithstanding). Boot it and boost it have clear senses, and cook it would seem a suitable metaphor (heat = speed); beat it is common enough, and of course move it. But book it? Librarians are known no more for celerity than for celebrity.

But, now, what are all these its? Well, they’re rather like what you might be muttering between breaths as you book it to something you’re late for: they’re expletives. That is to say, they just fill out the sentence. Originally (in the 16th century) there was always some sort of “it” in mind: fight it out meant “fight the matter out.” The out was soon enough dropped and the form became a pattern with an indefinite object. Shakespeare made use of this form several times.

This phrase does have a quick sound; it has the bursting [b] of book and the kick-back of the kit. (Speaking of kick, it’s also very similar to bucket; in northern British dialects, it may be a homophone.) When we look at it, we see the boo, which could be the scare that motivated the flight. The sequential circles of boo may also recall some cartoonish indications of motion. Book is a good old Anglo-Saxon four-letter word (those are so often suited to rushes), and it is even quicker – and thinner, and depersonalizing. No time to be nice! Shakespeare notwithstanding, this form has a colloquial feeling, and of course haste and slang go well together: it is not so dignified to move at top speed, and the use of an obviously casual form can reinforce the need not to stand on ceremony.

Where did this phrase come from? I don’t know; slang can be a prodigious borrower. I’m inclined to guess that it’s a reference to booking a ticket to somewhere. Truly fussy prescriptivists may be jogged to remember that this book is also a verbing, of the type that focuses on the destination of the act, and therefore must be an abomination unto the language (since at least AD 966).

But do people have that in mind when saying it? Most likely not. And I’m inclined to think that any of quite a few words would fit here, and people would still understand the intent. “It’s going to rain; we’ll really have to ___ it back home.” Fill in the blank: not every word will work – short ones are best – and it seems that verbed nouns suit especially well, but you could get away with quite a lot of words. You could practically throw a whole book at it!

shibboleth

There’s a popular beach in the Netherlands called Scheveningen. And dollars to doughnuts if you don’t know Dutch you just read that word wrong. Well, the Dutch are nice, tolerant people. They won’t kill you for it.

Not now they won’t, anyway. Back in World War II they might have – they or the Americans or Brits. The story goes that if a person was trying to pass as Dutch but screwed up the pronunciation of this name, he was assumed to be a German spy, and shot. A little lifesaving phonemics, then: the opening sch is not like “sh” or even like “sk”; in Dutch, the s is [s] and the ch is like the ch in German ach (in the International Phonetic Alphabet this is written [x]). The ng does not have a hard [g] sound at the end of it, and, unlike in German, the v is [v], not [f]. As well, the final n is often dropped. And the accent is on the first syllable.

So why am I talking about Scheveningen when the word we’re tasting is shibboleth? Because Scheveningen was a shibboleth in the narrowest sense: a pronunciation test for group membership, failure of which could have fatal consequences. Here’s the original shibboleth story from the Bible, Judges 12:4–6, in the King James Version (I use it here because it was from this version that the word entered the language; otherwise I would use a translation that was more accurate to current English and more in tune with the scholarship that has happened in the last four centuries):

Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites. And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

My, my: a thin line between elocution and execution! Two voiceless fricatives, one alveolar, the other alveopalatal. Say one and then the other and you can see how close they are. If you think it should be obvious that the one is not the other, consider that Polish, for instance, has two sounds that pretty much both sound like “sh” to anglophones but are easily distinguishable to people who have been making and hearing them all their lives – as easily as we tell “s” from “sh”. But at least if you greet Ryszard or Kasia the wrong way they probably won’t kill you.

Failure to know in-group shibboleths can of course lead to a sort of social death, or exclusion anyway. If you say claret as “cla-ray” rather than “clair-it,” for instance, you may be seen by some oenophiles as a tyro or a poseur, a veritable Florence Bucket. In any in-group, if you don’t know this or that bit of vocabulary, well, you’re marked, possibly without even knowing it – and if you do use it correctly, then it can be your bona fides. Marketers and speechwriters like to use the term dog whistle refer to a phrase that seems unremarkable to most people but has a special reference or effect for a particular group; a dog whistle in this sense is also a shibboleth. And even a certain mode of dress or other distinguishing mark or behaviour – or idea to which one is expected to give allegiance – can, in the broader sense, be a shibboleth.

Does this word have a blunt, brutal sound to you, perhaps like clubbing someone in a cloth sack with a shillelagh? So much the better, since shibboleths can be used as blunt weapons of exclusion in many contexts. And if you think of sabbath, well, some of those exclusions are certainly religiously based. But think, too, of gibberish; many of them are grammatical – we do judge people by the language they use.

It works at different levels in different ways, too. For instance, while ain’t may put you out in the cold in one group, it may be part of a style of speech that proves your credibility in another group. And hypercorrections can play into this as well: some people will think that if you say “between you and me” or “take a picture of my friends and me,” you’re poorly educated. But move a level farther up in knowledge of English, and usage of “between you and I” and “take a picture of my friends and I” is a sure mark of an inferior user. And how often we seem so ready to press the “Smite” button on those who use “bad English”! I’m almost surprised this word didn’t get backformed into a verb when it could: I shibbol, thou shibbolest, he shibboleth. Meaning “test and smite,” I suppose.

By the way, since you’re probably wondering what shibboleth meant: “stream in flood.” It could also have meant “ear of corn,” but since the action took place at a ford, scholars reckon it was the watery sense. To my ears, the word happens to sound also like a rush (or splash) of water, or like walking through ears of corn. But, then, so does sibboleth.

A couple things to know

I just encountered yet another person talking about how “a couple things” (rather than “a couple of things”) is wrong and is a sign of the decline of the English language.

It is true that you do well to be aware that “a couple things” will seem informal or even sloppy to some people. But it is a change in progress (and has been for more than 80 years). And such changes herald not the destruction but the continued vitality of the language. Languages that don’t change are dead.

“A couple” is following a course like “a dozen”: from countable noun to quantifying modifier. Some people insist that “a couple” must take “of,” but you will find that those same people happily and without a second thought use a variety of grammatical structures and usages that at one time or another were innovations. “Dozen” passed through the “of” dropping (except when plural, “dozens”) in the 18th century. “Myriad” can still be used with equal justification as countable noun (“a myriad of reasons”) or as modifier (“a myriad reasons”).

Here’s a general rule of thumb: people who decry certain usages and bemoan the declining state of the language generally have a very limited knowledge of the history of the English language and don’t look things up as much as they should.

cognoscenti

Look at that i sticking up at the end: is it a cog? No, it’s a lone candle. And what do we smell as it burns? Hmmm… one who knows perfumes might detect a scent of the Congo… But among linguistic cognoscenti, it’s obviously an Italian plural ending, the singular word being cognoscente.

Funny thing, though: while it is common enough to turn to individual names for expertise and inside knowledge – in wine, a Robert Parker or a Tony Aspler, say; in fashion, an Anna Wintour or a Jeanne Beker – one rarely ever comes upon a singular cognoscente. No, there’s always a cloud of knowers, that famous in-group: the people who swirl and sniff their wines and can tell you grape and place at a sip, the people who can tell you what’s hot and what’s not and what you must not be caught dead wearing. The cognoscenti.

The most common word to show up near cognoscenti is among: among the cognoscenti, among wine cognoscenti, among fashion cognoscenti, etc. The plural form of the word is an index to a cultural perception. It is not quite that they are the Illuminati, wielding secret power and arcane knowledge (such as how to make a cabal of power-hungry people stay unified for centuries; they usually start killing each other off or having rifts within months), but they are this level of society, this group. No doubt they have their own special terms for things, meaningless or misleading to the uninitiated.

Indeed, I would venture to say that knowledge of the vocabulary and ability to use it appropriately is, well, the shibboleth of the cognoscenti – the Masonic handshake, as it were. I can remember, back before I learned all about figure skating jumps from my wife, being at a party with her skating friends and making a jokey comment that hinged on a Salchow being somehow a harder jump. One of the others in the conversation remarked how people who don’t skate seem always to pick on the Salchow. I was not one of the skating cognoscenti, obviously. (Here’s a tip: the toughest kind of jump that takes off on a backward edge is, for most people, the Lutz; the Axel is harder still just because of its forward take-off and extra half-rotation. I’m not even counting the Walley, because the judges don’t, either.)

And so, too, with wine, fashion, and a variety of other things. It’s not that vocabulary is the only feature, but it is a mark of knowledge. And knowledge is what this is about: Latin cognoscere, “know,” cognate with cognition (but not with cognate!). Cognoscere was classically pronounced “cog no scare, eh,” but in the Italian cognoscenti the cogn is said as in Cognac and the sc as English sh. You will also hear this word said “cog no scent ee”; is saying it thus a mark of not being among the linguistic cognoscenti? Well, perhaps not if you justify it by saying “I was going with the classical Latin style – you know, the plural of cognoscentus.” Most people won’t know you’re BSing. And if you just drop the [g] and say “caw no shent ee,” well, then you’re saying it in modern Italian. So there. But those who don’t know will think you don’t know. Oh, how dreary.

Oh, and those who know, what do they know about? Well, the field perhaps most often mentioned with cognoscenti is fashion. Art is up there too. It must be something refined, right? Except that the game and hoops are also up there, so I guess it gets to slum from time to time. What do you know…

 


Thanks to Elaine Phillips for suggesting this word.