Monthly Archives: November 2010

Roxanne

Does this name put on a red light in your head? No need to call the police. But it does have something sexy about it, doesn’t it? For one thing, there’s that central x, /ks/, a sound a little reminiscent of a kiss (though feeling somewhat like Pop Rocks on your tongue), represented by a mark that can indicate a kiss… or, in multiples, something rather more explicit. There’s also the rich /r/ (which, in its capital letter R, looks a bit like the profile of a courtesan from the neck down). The effect of the anne may vary from person to person.

The name Roxanne, to me, bespeaks luxury and red lipstick – no doubt aided by the nickname Roxy, which may be a name for a theatre with red velvet all over, or a glam rock band (Roxy Music), or a glam rock song (Roxy Roller). Those more into literature than music may think sooner of the love interest of Cyrano de Bergerac, of course – the luminous beauty wooed by a noble, intelligent, but visually disadvantaged poet through the proxy of a good-looking airhead dude. (Steve Martin did a modern take on the theme with the movie Roxanne, featuring Daryl Hannah as the starlet.)

The name in Edmond Rostand’s original play is actually spelled Roxane, which is also the spelling used for the heroine of a novel by Daniel Defoe – a beautiful adventuress who, deserted by her husband, becomes a courtesan and enjoys a glittering career… but repents in the end, having felt the sting of debt. (One might wonder if Sting’s song is indebted to Defoe.)

But the original name is Roxana. Well, no, actually, that’s not quite true. Roxana is the Latin version of the Greek version (Roxané) of the name of the wife of Alexander the Great (and do not the names Roxana and Alexander – or Roxané and Alexandros – sound great together?). But she was not Greek; she was Persian.

As it happens, there is disagreement and uncertainty as to the Persian original of the name. It may be from a word meaning “dawn”; it may be from a word meaning “little star”; or it may be from a name meaning “luminous beauty”. One may wonder whether it could be a name for a beautiful, luminous little star of dawn… But that would be either Aurora (the personification of the dawn; a radiant name, but one associated in Toronto with an exurb, and one I personally associate with a wicked good Scrabble player of my acquaintance) or the planet that is called the morning star when it shows just before sunrise: Venus. Ah, Venus. Speaking of sex…

guduchi

This word packs an interesting punch in its three syllables – starting at the back of the mouth, the almost-guttural /gu/, then moving to the tip of the tongue but keeping the voice and the round vowel for /du/, and then finishing with with the voiceless affricate and front vowel, like a sneeze or a quick kick. It’s almost like a three-step sequence in a martial art, culminating in a sharp blow.

Or perhaps it’s the sound you utter while executing that sequence. Or maybe it’s the name of the martial art itself Or, on the other hand, it might be the name of some Mexican food, perhaps a guacamole from Guadalajara. Or is it a brand of handbags? Or the name of some douchebag? Is it a hoodoo with voodoo? Is it good or cheesy?

In fact, it’s a plant: Tinospora cordifolia. If you’ve seen the word guduchi anywhere before, it’s likely on the side of a box of some pill or tea or similar thing, for the plant is used in Ayurvedic and other South Asian medicine, mainly for its hepatoprotective qualities – it helps look after your liver. Take something toxic (amanita, perhaps? or simply a shot or six of hooch? or a shot in the liver from some martial artist?) and it will help save your bacon.

The plant, by the way, is a climbing shrub with heart-shaped leaves. It grows yellow flowers and produces a red drupe fruit. It has a host of other names in various South Asian languages, most of which start with or at least involve /g/. It also has an entirely English name: heartleaf moonseed (sounds a bit like the daughter of hippies, doesn’t it?).

Hedda

This word has a special meaning for me.

Of course, all words to some extent have special meanings for each person who knows and uses them. Every person’s individual experiences and aesthetic proclivities are different, so meanings always have specific tinges. But some words are more variable by individual experience than others, and for any given person some words are more special than others.

Hedda is, of course, a name, specifically a female name. You probably already knew that. It’s Germanic, and in particular Scandinavian; it’s a diminutive of Hedvig (the German version, Hedwig, has an Anglicized diminutive Hedy, which has a somewhat different taste to it, thanks in no small part to Hedy Lamarr). The name comes originally from old Germanic hadu “battle” and wiga “fight”.

So if the name seems like a name for a headstrong or bellicose woman, it comes by it honestly. You might think of it as a name for a Wagnerian heroine, a sort of he-woman with DD cups and a type A personality, but there’s nothing about Hedda that requires massiveness, just a certain strength of will or character. Perhaps it’s the echoes of headstrong and head-butt and so forth. Perhaps it’s the drumbeat impact of the name. Or perhaps it’s who it’s associated with.

And who do you think of when you see it? There are three Heddas that come to my mind.

The first is a headstrong, bossy little girl from a comic strip I remember reading in my youth. I can’t remember what the strip was, but I think that was the first place I saw the name.

The second is Hedda Hopper. My junior high school library had a nice set of books about the different decades of the 20th century (stopping at the 1960s, I think, or perhaps there was a freshly finished 1970s volume as well), and the mid-century volumes of those, as well as some other books on Hollywood, could not fail to mention Hedda Hopper, an actress-turned-gossip-columnist. Hedda Hopper had had some middling success as a pretty young thing in the early days of movies, but her career was over by the 1930s, at which point she found great success in being a pretty nasty old thing – with a taste for huge hats. Her gossip column, “Hedda Hopper’s Hollywood,” debuted in 1938, and she was a presence also on TV through the 1940s and 1950s. As it happens, she was born Elda Furry. Hopper was her husband’s name, and she was his fifth wife; the previous four were Ella, Ida, Edna, and Nella, so Elda was not very distinctive. She asked a numerologist what name to use, and was told Hedda.

The third Hedda is one I think I first became aware of through a New Yorker cartoon (or was it Writer’s Digest?). It had the caption “Ibsen wrestles with his muse,” and it showed a playwright angrily chasing an imp, which was shouting, “Then again, Hedda Gobbledegook!” I didn’t really get it until a couple of years later, when I was a drama undergraduate student and was introduced to Henrik Ibsen’s play Hedda Gabler.

I was immediately impressed by the play, even though there were subtleties in it that my 17-year-old mind did not grasp. Its heroine seemed like a strong woman trapped in circumstances; I didn’t at first take notice of which of the circumstances were of her own choosing. She liked to play with pistols – ooh! “My pistols, George” always seemed like such a great zing line. She liked fire! She could be vengeful! And in the end… well, it was all candy for my not-really-post-adolescent brain.

I still think it’s a brilliant play, though I see it in a different light 26 years later. Hedda is certainly in part a victim of circumstance, but she is also neurotic and insecure – and very impulsive. Her romantic hero, Eilert Lovborg (Ejlert Løvborg), is smart but truly someone who uses others and lacks real self-discipline. The sweet Thea is quite cunning. The judge, seemingly in control, makes one miscalculation after another. And that dork, Hedda’s husband George (Jørgen), may not be the kind of dangerously charming guy susceptible women fall for, but he’s smart – if not creative – and genuinely nice. And the main lesson of the play, as of some other plays by Ibsen (notably The Master Builder), is that romantic idealists make horrible messes of things. (Ibsen had another play with a lead character of the same given name – but in The Wild Duck, the heroine is a young girl, and she goes by the full name Hedvig. Quite different, really.)

But whatever your view of the play and its characters, thanks to it, Hedda brings forth the image of a dark and dominant woman, a woman associated with guns and fire, a truly romantic heroine in her tragic way. And, honestly, I never tire of the play.

Perhaps if the 17-year-old me had read noted Canadian playwright Judith Thompson’s adaptation, which is a bit more overt about some aspects, I would have understood it better quicker.

Well, Thompson hadn’t written it yet then. In fact, it’s still not published. So how have I had a chance to read it?

That’s the main thing that now gives Hedda a special meaning for me: I’m in it. The Alumnae Theatre’s production of Thompson’s adaptation of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler is running from November 12 to November 27, 2010, and I’m playing Hedda’s husband, George Tesman. It’s the first play I’ve been in in about a dozen years. For more details, see www.alumnaetheatre.com/1011hedda.html.

Is she more knowledgeable than him?

A fellow editor and email columnist has been upbraided by a reader for using the form “smaller than me” rather than “smaller than I”. She reminded him that she was taught that both nouns must always be subjects, and it aggrieves her greatly whenever she sees it done “wrong,” as she so often does. He asked me for backup. Here’s what I sent him.

Continue reading

fream

What does this word look like it might be? Some kind of foam, perhaps? An archaic typesetting of scream without the c? (Of course, those tall s’s weren’t f’s; they lacked the crossbars. But they do look like them to our eyes.) A full ream of paper? A disorderly frame? Or perhaps a misspelling of Frean, as in Peek Frean, that brand of cookies founded in 1857 in Bermondsey, London, by Messrs. Peek and Frean and, as it happens, operating a bakery in East York (now Toronto) since 1949 on Bermondsey Road (near where my mother-in-law lives)? Or maybe a kind of fudge cream – either cookie or ice cream?

Well, sorry to be a crashing bore, but no. Actually, why apologize for being a crashing bore? A crashing boar doesn’t apologize. In fact, a boar, as it crashes through the woods, especially if it has a good head of steam, is likely to fream.

That’s right. Horses neigh, cattle low, wolves howl, boars fream. Or, as James Puckly put it in 1711, “an hart bellows, a buck groyns, a roe bells, a goat rats, a boar freams, a hare tapps, a fox barks, a badger shrieks, an otter whines, a wolf howls, &c.” What is meant is the roaring or growling noise boars make when raging. I guess you could imitate it with fream – if you said it as loudly as possible while inhaling. It’s uncertain, though, where this word comes from – it’s not necessarily imitative; it could come from Latin fremere “roar” or from old Saxon hríeman “cry out”.

Not that there’s likely to be a lot of research done on it. It’s not much used anymore. Urban Dictionary has a definition for fream as 1950s slang for someone who doesn’t fit in, for what that’s worth (which is variable with Urban Dictionary), but that was the 1950s. And we don’t meet boars too often.

We do meet bores and similar misfits, though. And when one goes on a tear about some pet peeve, you can always sigh, “Free me from your freaming.”

shiva

Near the beginning of a short story I wrote some years ago, I had the line, “I sit shiva on the steps. I sit, Shiva on the steps. I am in mourning for what I have destroyed.”

It might seem like a rather inauspicious beginning for a story. But in fact there is something rather auspicious about shiva.

Mourning, of course, is an occasion of loss, and shiva as in sit shiva is a prescribed period of seven days of mourning for any of the seven first-degree relatives in the Jewish tradition. And death and destruction are always thought of as losses – and Shiva, the Hindu god, is well known as Shiva the Destroyer.

But why would people worship a god of destruction? Ah, and here lies the path to wisdom. You cannot have creation without destruction. Every creation involves change; every change also involves something no longer being the way it was – which involves loss. In truth, nothing can dance the dance of creation unless there are separate dancers and separate places to dance. If in the beginning the world is formless and void, an even unity, the first thing that must happen is that it must be divided, cut into pieces with a shiv, as it were. And then you see what arrangements and creations can be had from the kaleidoscope of life (ah, kaleidoscope – from Greek roots for “beautiful form vision”, but note that kalé, feminine form for “beautiful”, is very similar to Sanskrit Kali, name of the Hindu goddess of eternal energy… and death).

And when creation dances in the kaleidoscope, at each turn there are new visions, and at each turn the previous vision meets the Shiva end: it is vanished. And so it will be. You have to learn to let go. You may mourn – and you are blessed if you mourn, for you will be comforted – but once you have mourned, you must accept the new state of things. And the dance goes on. (The dance… lord of the dance? Why, yes. I’m sure you’ve seen the image of a Hindu god in a dancing pose, on one foot, with four arms. That is Shiva Nataraj, Lord of the Dance. So much more than Michael Flatley.)

And so, you see, the god of destruction is also the god of change. And the god of renunciation. And the god of purity. And the auspicious god. Quite literally, in fact: Shiva is Sanskrit for “the auspicious one”.

OK, Shiva is auspicious, but how about shiva? Well, shiva is simply Hebrew for “seven” (you will also see it as shivah, or sheva or shevah contingent on gender). And seven, as we know, is a “lucky” number. It is also the number of days of creation. Well, creation took six – on the seventh, God rested.

One may, with some creativity, discern shapes relating to creation and destruction in the letters of this word. The v is like a knife edge, or a division; the i is like a candle flame. The s is like a snake… or a river. The h is perhaps like the low chair a mourner must sit on during shiva. But of course you can create what you will out of forms you are given. How about the sounds? The word starts with the classical sound of hushing. Why hush? Is it about to begin? Or is it the sound of a door or window opening? Or simply the static hiss of entropy? Well, next things begin to vibrate – a vowel comes, and then the avidly vibrating /v/, made with the teeth and the lips: what bites and what kisses. And finally the mouth opens to the final vowel and lets it all go, like a sand mandala.

Speaking of dust in the wind… I know I must have a copy of that short story somewhere, the one I used a cut piece of as the entry to this note. But I wrote it on a laptop computer that I haven’t used in years (I don’t even know where it is now). I’m sure I saved it to a floppy, and I’ve transferred what I can of my floppies to my hard drive, but I just looked and I can’t find it. Well. This was the same laptop computer that developed a hairline crack in the motherboard in the middle of my dissertation research. (It did get fixed eventually.) I guess I was just getting what I asked for when I named it. Named it? I almost never name my inanimate objects. But I did name that laptop. Guess what name I gave it?

Shiva.

thrall

He threaded through the throng, enthralled by the thrum of a threnody; the thrill of threat throbbed as he thrust himself to a stone’s throw from the throne. The thrum, like a thrombus in his throat, enthused him, and he had no thought of thrift. He threshed through the throng, but as he threw himself thither, throneward, three murtherous thugs, in ruthless wrath, earthed him, thrashed him, then throttled him. And yet he could have done none other: it was all there was – he was thoroughly in thrall.

Ah, those thr words, rustling like heather: the soft, voiceless dental fricative, followed by the roll of the tongue through the liquid /r/. It may even seem to give a frisson, like a light finger up the back of the neck or athwart the throat. That “thr” onset is not utterly distinctively English – Greek certainly has it, as does Icelandic, as do some other languages that have both sounds – but there certainly are many people learning English who have trouble with it.

But not all thr words have the same feel or flavour, the onset notwithstanding. There remain also the qualities of the following vowel and the subsequent consonant, if any. A word like thrip is a swift little flip, and thrift adds just a slight shift; threat and throat both stick dry; throne resonates, but on the cold side; thrum gives a warmer hum, and throng is even stronger; thrill gives a bit of a chill; but none other than thrall has quite the steady chordal effect, as from a band of theorbos or reed and pipe instruments (Corvus Corax, anyone?). It has the steady bright open low back unrounded vowel followed by that lateral liquid with velar coarticulation – the rime of all, ball, call, fall, gall, hall, mall, pall, tall, wall, and y’all. It holds you and keeps you.

And a thrall is kept – kept in thrall. What, exactly, is a thrall? Well, we know what enthralled is used to mean: “fascinated, entranced, captivated”. Of those three, “captivated” is most directly accurate to origins, for a thrall was first of all a slave, a prisoner, one in bondage: the word comes from a Scandinavian root for servitude or drudgery (and will you now turn up your collar and pull your lapels together against that chill wind of the north?). From that, thrall came also to mean the condition of bondage or slavery itself.

But, perhaps thanks to the taste of thrill, and to an ethos where love was equated to a sort of ecstatic slavery (as in Shakespeare, for instance Midsummer Night’s Dream: “So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape”), enthralled has taken on a sense of willing captivation, of an enjoyment beyond enjoyment. And thrall likewise may be a thrill that cometh before a fall, but a thrill it often is, or even something more… like the sound of a pipe, leading you onward; all you can think or feel is that you must follow…

Thanks to Laurence Cooper for suggesting thrall.

bahuvrihi

Here’s a word suited for some silver-tongued polymath, some big-vocabulary linguistic high muck-a-muck. You can be sure that its appeal would be greatest to big-head eccentrics, even as it is itself a headless exocentric.

Really, does this seem like a bit of linguistic heavy breathing? Oh, you don’t know the half of it!

Let’s start with its appearance: it’s a sort of high-tail or fright-wig kind of word, with those ascenders sticking up kind of like your hair might when you see it.

Or when you hear it. It’s all voice and breathing, and the sound of it takes me back to junior-high-school days and the sound of some adolescent bully breathing intimidation into my ear. But you see those h‘s? Well, it just so happens that in Sanskrit – yes, this word comes to us from Sanskrit, a language with a panoply of sounds that could frighten Alexander’s army – the phoneme here written as h was voiced. In fact, anywhere in a Sanskrit word you see an h, it was voiced… except at the end, which is just the place in English we never put a /h/ sound.

I’ll let you wrap your head around that a little. Yes, a voiced version of /h/. There’s an International Phonetic Alphabet symbol for it, but it won’t come through in ordinary character sets, so I’ll leave it. But what, exactly, is the voiced counterpart of /h/?

Well, one British book helpfully described it as the sort of noise a small boy makes to try to startle you. I rather think most people would approach it more by the medium of panting or heavy breathing. Imagine you’re a pervert on the phone… now say (lustily) “Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh,” making sure to keep the voice involved throughout. That’ll give you some idea.

In the context of this word, what it really means is that the vowels before the h‘s are extended with a breathy quality. And it happens that the first /i/ is long, which in Sanskrit actually means long – that is, like the short one but taking up about twice as much time. So you’ve got a couple of vowels that get a chesty quality at the end, then melt into the next vowel – and the last one is almost like a pervert’s slow giggle, “eeee(h)ee”.

But this word is an English word now, so maybe don’t actually try to say it the old Sanskrit way… you’ll be taken for some sweaty-palm mouth-breathing lowbrow, I daresay.

Oh, and what does this word mean? Well, I’ll start by telling you that it’s an example of what it names (rather like other, newer linguistic terms such as eggcorn). Bahu means “much” and vrihi means “rice”, and put together they make a word for a rich man – a “much-rice”. And they also make a word for words that put an adjective and a noun together to name something that the two words actually describe rather than name – like lowbrow, which refers to someone to whom is attributed a low brow, rather that referring to a low brow itself. The compound is exocentric: it focuses on something external to it.

We actually have a lot of cases of this in English. I’ve sprinkled a few throughout this note, as you may have noticed. We also have some terms that originated in this but aren’t viewed as such now. One such is high muck-a-muck, which comes from hayo makamak, meaning “plenty food” and referring to a rich person – very much like bahuvrihi itself.

dogpile

I saw quite a noteworthy dogpile today.

No, I didn’t step over it on the street. That’s not what a dogpile is. No, no, it’s not.

Dogpiles these days typically happen on the web. They’re when masses of people all jump on someone. Figuratively, I mean, of course.

In today’s case, a blogger reported that she had found an article by her published on a magazine’s website, and that when she emailed the magazine, she got a response – from someone claiming to be an experienced editor – on the order of “your article was on the web; what is on the web is public domain; you should be lucky we even put your name on it; university students do this all the time, in case you didn’t know; and in fact you should be grateful for all the editing work we did to tidy up your article, which frankly wasn’t all that great but now will be a good addition to your portfolio.”

That’s paraphrase, of course, but that’s the gist of the email this blogger reported receiving. Well. This went viral (meaning people started passing it around from one to another – do you remember that ad from about 30 years ago, “You’ll tell two friends, and they’ll tell two friends, and so on, and so on…”? Well, how about “You’ll tell your 138 Facebook friends, and they’ll tell the 462 people on their listserv, and so on, and so on…”). The magazine in question has a Facebook page. With a wall and discussions that may be posted on. I took a look. Ooo. Massive dogpile. Scads of posts about the falseness and rudeness of the reply. Great big loathe-in.

That kind of manifestation of mass outrage is a new thing. Mass outrage, of course, is not such a new thing; Marie Antoinette was reported (falsely) to have said, when told the people did not have bread, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” Well. A lot of people were calling for her head. And guess what… they got it. We’re not necessarily so violent today. But we still dogpile. (And sometimes it really is a justifiable and effective response.)

Dogpiling can also be a physical thing, certainly. If you have a bunch of stoked-up jock types who, for instance, want to have a bit of aggressive fun at the expense of one of their number, they may dogpile on him: all throw themselves in a pile on him (and of course on each other). It also happens in football games and frat house fights, as noted by two early citations in the Oxford English Dictionary.

And how early are the citations? Well, I had been wondering whether this term started where I heard it first: in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, where a bunch of stupid, thuggish dogs, on seeing Bugs, shout “Dogpile on the rabbit! Dogpile on the rabbit!”; when the view pans up to the top of the pile, we see Bugs jumping up and down on the top of the pile, shouting the same.

But that, although likely a very important vector for this word, is not the origin. No, the earliest citation the OED has is from 1921 (about a football game). And where did they come up with it from? After all, if you think about it, it’s not stereotypical behaviour for dogs to pile. Well, dogs, no, but pigs yes. And pig pile dates from 1880 or earlier. It would seem that dog replaced pig – probably due to the other associations pig has, but that’s a guess.

This word has a bit of a clotted taste or sense to it, I find, due to the /gp/ in the middle. When you have both the lips and the back of the tongue closed, you have a sealed chamber in your mouth – one that can have its air rarefied or compressed: put your mouth in a /gp/ position and then widen your jaws before opening your lips. Bit of a pop, eh? It’s more of a logjam than logjam. The voiced first stop and unvoiced second add to the clotting effect. Then, of course, it all opens up. But you may find that the sound of /l/, perhaps especially after /p/, gives you an little sense of layers, perhaps by association with other similar words.

Oh, and if you want to know more about the dogpile I was talking about, you might find it with a web search. Google is of course the most popular search engine now, but there was a time when there were many others, and guess what – many of them still exist. And one I especially liked also still exists: a metasearch site that searches several engines – www.dogpile.com.

Are this kind of sentences wrong?

A colleague was puzzling over a “correct” example in Words into Type (page 358): “This kind of cats are native to Egypt, but they are common in America.”

Does that sound odd to you? It rubs my ear just a bit. But why?

One colleague averred that the problem was that this and cats don’t match. Ah, this question of matching parts.

Not “these question of matching parts”!

Anything after of modifies the word before of. What’s the word before it? Kind. What is kind? Singular. It’s the head of the noun phrase, and the specifier – which agrees with the head – is this. This kind. This box of cakes, this quintessence of dusts, this kind of cats.

So why does it sound odd? Well, to start with, if kind is singular, why is it “are native”? Shouldn’t it be “is native”?

In fact, there’s a very good argument to be made for sticking with the singular, and many people will do it without being wrong. But it also happens that kind is often used as a collective, an indefinite plural, like bunch and lot and percentage. As in “a very large percentage of people find this sentence odd,” or “a lot of people think it’s strange,” or “a bunch of people said it must be ungrammatical.” Wait – which bunch are saying it’s ungrammatical? Oh, this bunch are. This bunch right here are saying it’s ungrammatical. This…X…are.

But kind feels a bit off in that role, because it’s not a group per se as we usually see it, but rather a class identifier. Like style: “This style of coat is popular.” Who would say “This style of coat are popular”? Well, actually, in other times and places that would count as not only acceptable but in fact expected English. It’s a difference in construal of properties.

In fact, many of us wouldn’t say “This kind of cats is native”; we would more likely say “These kind of cats are native.” Oh, yes, you know you’ve heard it, and perhaps even used it: “These kind.” So we have evidence that in Canadian English “kind” has a quality of a plural.

Still, I find the sentence sounds odd too. And when something sounds odd, that’s because in the version of English you know so well, it’s just not done that way. So in Canadian English, while we may get away with treating kind as a plural (“these kind are”) and as a singular (“this kind is”), we can’t always get away with it as a collective without its sounding odd. Caveat editor.