Monthly Archives: December 2010

entomophagy

You could see this word as looking like a line of little bugs heading from the left to the right, with the ones at the right getting… well, either larger or chewed up. In sound, it starts out soft-ish, and then gets to be a bit like a stuffed mouth trying to say something, but ends a little crisper. The rhythm is a trochee plus a dactyl, like etymology.

It’s a two-piece word made from Greek bits. The second half should be recognizable from anthopophagus, macrophage, sarcophagus, onychophagia, and a host of similar words, some less familiar than others: it’s from φαγειν phagein, “eat”. The first half is from εντομος entomos, “insect”; I don’t find it sounds especially insect-like – no buzzes or clicks, just those warm, soft nasals with a stop in the middle – but, yes, it does have a bug-like look. It actually comes from a root meaning “cut up”, because insects have bodies divided into different segments.

So, yeah, it’s eating bugs – cut up or whole, raw, cooked, or live. Does that sound horrifying, disgusting, creepy, et cetera? Well, people in many parts of the world do it, sometimes with considerable relish (and sometimes with no condiments at all). There are communities within Judaism that consider some kinds of locust kosher (I’d stick with locust bean, myself). And, hey, who hasn’t eaten bee puke? It’s great stuff – never spoils – and so flavourful. Most people call it honey.

But of course eating honey doesn’t count as entomophagy any more than drinking milk counts as eating beef. Does eating spiders or centipedes count as entomophagy? It does by the looser definition that allows other creepy-crawlies also to count. (My wife would consider eating shrimp or lobster a kind of entomophagy, given that they are, in her words, “disgusting sea insects” – to which I reply, “I’ll have yours, then.”) But is that true to origins?

Well, we should always remember that etymology is not a suitable guide to the current meaning of a word. The mistaken belief that you can know the true meaning of a word by studying its origins is called the etymological fallacy. Etymology is interesting and often useful information, but words can change their meanings quite entirely over time. As I go to troubles to show, sometimes it’s through cultural shifts, sometimes through aesthetic effect of sound, sometimes through sound resemblance to other words (up to and including shift of sense through confusion). I wonder whether someday the occasional confusion between etymology and entomology will become cemented… Probably not.

But it happens that the very word etymology has an origin that supports the etymological fallacy if you believe it, and disproves it if you don’t: it’s from ετυμος etymos “true” and λογος logos “reason” or “word”. If etymology is about finding the true meaning, then you can say that etymology is really about finding the true meaning; if it is simply about finding the history, then regardless of its origin, etymology is really about finding the history.

And why do I dig up the histories of words, then? Why, to taste them. I like a nice, rich, layered etymology, with its complex flavours. I guess you could call my tasting and digestion of them etymophagy. And so much better than entomophagy… ain’t that the truth!

carob, Carib

Ah, carob, with its pseudo-chocolately notes of and gold and beaches and anthropophagy and entomophagy… It has a sort of heavy thickness in my tasting of it,  perhaps from the echo of rubber, or perhaps just from my own experience of herbal teas and similar things made with its object, which doesn’t really substitute nicely for chocolate. Sort of, yes, but not really. Kind of rich and gross.

…Gold and beaches and anthropophagy and entomophagy? Well, OK, I’m cheating on two of those. You see, carob and its common collocation carob bean make me think of Carib and Caribbean (and, as it happens, vice-versa), a sunnier-tasting word, just because it makes one think of sun, water, and golden beaches. Carib is one version of a name for the people who were living in the Caribbean area when Columbus arrived. Other versions of the same word are Caniba, Caribe, and Galibi – those tip-of-the-tongue consonants shift dialectally (this happens in other parts of the world, too – various groups of the Sioux peoples are Lakota, Dakota, and Nakoda, for instance). Not that carib was what they called themselves, per se; the word was one they used to refer to manly virtues of bravery and daring – a “man’s man,” perhaps.

And did those virtues include eating other men’s men? Hmm… I’ll bite. The Caribs did have a reputation for athropophagy, though it seems to have come from a limited sphere – a ritual involving chewing on the flesh of one’s defeated enemies – and so this word in its various versions became associated with brute savagery (as with Shakespeare’s Caliban) and, well, cannibalism – yes, cannibal comes from the same word. Think of that – or don’t – next time you’re in the West Indies drinking a Carib beer. (Would this be a good time to point out that the word barbecue comes from the same region?)

By comparison, carob is pure gold, even if it does have that creepy echo of scarab. Not that it has anything to do with scarab… Locusts yes, scarabs no. You see, the Hebrew word for “carob” (haruv – yes, cognate; carob comes by way of Arabic kharrub) was also used to mean “locust”. This is why the thickener made from carob beans is often called locust bean gum.

Now that you know that etymology, wouldn’t you rather avoid entomophagy – wouldn’t you rather eat a bean pod than a bug? So much easier to catch, too. I know if I were living out in the wilderness I would go for the beans. And though John the Baptist is said to have dieted on bugs and wild honey, the bugs in question were locusts – which means that the locus of meaning may have been lost or misconstrued: ah, and beans to another cherished bit of the scriptural mythos. (Just tangentially, Luther didn’t actually eat worms, either.) By the way, when the prodigal son hungered after the pods he fed the pigs, they were probably carob too.

So this bean may not seem exactly exalted in the culinary realm. And yet its syrup is popular as a sweetener; it is so important to the economy of Cyprus that they call it Cyprus’s black gold. It gets better still, though: this lowly seed sets the standard for gold.

Oh, yes, that’s the solid truth! In Roman times, there was a coin called the solidus that was made with pure gold. It weighed a sixth of an ounce – or as much as 24 standard-sized carob seeds (which were a reference weight). The purity of gold came to be measured on this basis. Greek for carob seed was κερατιον keration, not actually from the Arabic kharrub but from the Greek word for “horn”. From keration came our word carat or karat (we may observe that this kind of carat can tend to be sticky); pure gold is 24-carat or 24-karat gold, while a metal that is only 50% gold is 12-karat or 12-carat.

We may also note that there are 144 standard-sized carob seeds to the ounce. That’s six solidi – and more than $1400 as of when I’m writing this. An ounce of gold could help make one rich… and one gross.

It would also pay for a nice Caribbean cruise. And the food on those ships is so nice.

savage and obscure

Ah, is one condemned to spend one’s life in savage obscurity? Or can the day be salvaged? The reflections one may make at mid-life… Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (after whom a Boston bridge is named) was 35 when he mused on the midpoint of his life (which in actuality was some two and a half years in the future):

Half my life is gone, and I have let
   The years slip from me and have not fulfilled
   The aspiration of my youth, to build
   Some tower of song with lofty parapet.
Not indolence, nor pleasure, nor the fret
   Of restless passions that would not be stilled,
   But sorrow, and a care that almost killed,
   Kept me from what I may accomplish yet;
Though, half-way up the hill, I see the Past
   Lying beneath me with its sounds and sights,–
   A city in the twilight dim and vast,
With smoking roofs, soft bells, and gleaming lights,–
   And hear above me on the autumnal blast
   The cataract of Death far thundering from the heights.

I smile when I read “tower of song,” as I am a Leonard Cohen fan. But what takes my notice even more in this poem is its title: “Mezzo Cammin.”

Literature snobs will have twitched an eyebrow by now. Yes, the reference is to the deliciously euphonious opening of Dante Alighieri’s Divina Commedia:

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
che la diritta via era smarrita.

“In the middle of the road of our life, I found myself in a dark wood with the right way lost.” And we know where his route then took him: first of all, with the aid of Virgil, through a gate reading “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” – “Abandon all hope, you who enter.” I rather think this is indeed a bit too gloomy and wild, even though Dante’s path took him ultimately to heaven. But there is a pair of words in there that I like especially: selva oscura – “dark wood.”

There is much one can do with that. A person inclined to polyglot paronomasia may think of the obscure self one is still aiming to discover at mid-life. But is the obscure self a wild one? And if wild, is that good or bad – is it better to be uncultured, as thinkers such as Seneca and Rousseau have thought, or is the wild child in the depths one that must be tamed, an id or idiot?

This no doubt is reflected by one’s view of the forest – not just the woods we’re not out of yet, figuratively, but the sort of forest one might paint if one were to paint one. Is it a pastoral Arcadia, or a forbidding, evil place, wherein lurk wolves? A good question, indeed – now that I live in the heart of a city, I enjoy the forest and the idea of the forest, but when I lived in the middle of one, miles from nowhere and with actual wolves howling outside at night (spooky, even if not a real threat to me), its savagery did not seem so noble.

Oh, yes, the savage. The noble savage (like Tonto – you savvy, kemo sabe?) was a romantic image – the human from the state of nature, emerged from the forest and pure of heart. But savage is first of all savage. And first of all, the savage – the person from the forest, selvaggio as they would say in Italian or silvaticus in Latin – was about as welcome as a wolf. Even if in times past the term was used more broadly – I remember reading an old book in which  someone living with New World aboriginal people referred ingenuously to “my lousy savages” meaning just that they were forest people infected with small insects – the pejorative sense was original and always inescapable. Now when we hear savage, we think not so much “natural” as “vicious”: savage as a verb means something on the order of “tear apart”, like ravage but with hissing at the beginning.

(I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention the mild mollifying influence of the surname Savage – when one thinks of Fred Savage, who played that cute kid on The Wonder Years, one can’t think of some evil hairy barely human woodland freak. Incidentally, Fred Savage turns 35 in 2011.)

Music, of course, hath charms to soothe the savage breast (no, not the savage beast). Some music may trace the soothing of the breast through in fact becoming more savage. I am put in mind of the movie La Vallée, in which a citified Frenchwoman, lured by the prospect of rare feathers for her Paris boutique, joins an expedition into the heart of New Guinea, in the course of which she gradually sheds her “civilized” persona. The woman discovers free love among the hippies she is travelling with, and she thinks she has found an ideal society in the tribespeople of the forest (with luscious vegetation and, oh yes, killing pigs with clubs – animals were harmed in the filming of this movie) when she arrives at last at the destination, a valley perpetually obnubilated – or, as the title of the soundtrack, by Pink Floyd, puts it, Obscured by Clouds. But it turns out they are not so different from what she thought she was leaving behind.

So at what point is the obscurity cleared? Do you know for certain that you see clearly now? Some forests are not so obviously dark, and yet, even if the route sings as you set forth, within three steps all may change… (Yes, that’s a reference to “La Marée haute” by Lhasa.)

So what routes does our life take in the middle? Are they inevitably obscure, or is there a cure for the obstacles? And where does the word obscure come from, by the way?

Well, to answer the last, it comes from Latin obscurus, “dim, dark, hard to see” – or “hard to understand”. It comes from the ob prefix that we see in obstacle and obviate and various others, added to a root that is related to our word sky: scurus, “covered”.

And what is obscure may indeed by uncovered. But sometimes obscurity is an invitation – to adventure, or simply to one’s own inner exploration: fill the gaps with your interpretations and understandings. Many poems have this effect. I am put in mind of T.S. Eliot, whose poems are often quite recherché but invite more than a simple decipherment. He made his name in his 20s with “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” that great poem that one understands better at mid-life and beyond, when one may say “No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be” and

I grow old… I grow old…
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

Ah, the savagery of the average. Is there any salve for obscurity?

Eliot returned again and again to meditations on the mezzo cammin; he never left the obscure forest. In his early 50s – 24 years after Prufrock and 24 before his death – he wrote this:

You cannot face it steadily, but this thing is sure,
That time is no healer: the patient is no longer here.
When the train starts, and the passengers are settled
To fruit, periodicals and business letters
(And those who saw them off have left the platform)
Their faces relax from grief into relief,
To the sleepy rhythm of a hundred hours.
Fare forward, travellers! not escaping from the past
Into different lives, or into any future;
You are not the same people who left that station
Or who will arrive at any terminus,
While the narrowing rails slide together behind you

Yes, the unending river, the eternal now; a human life is a wave form (even at the cataract), and you are not who you were nor who you will be. Life is always the middle of the road (it’s not trying to find you – even if Chrissie Hynde and The Pretenders sang it so well when Hynde was 33); it is always obscured, front and back; and there is no self to salvage, for the self that you salvage is by then but a dry relic, as you roll on, a wave of similar shape but ever a wave.

Which brings me around to the title of Eliot’s poem. No doubt by now you know my style and have noticed that I haven’t mentioned it. The poem is “The Dry Salvages.” It takes its name from three rocks off Cape Ann in Massachusetts. Their name in turn comes from French, les trois sauvages. At the root of these marine rocks is thus a forest… but the waves of time have obscured it.

homage

What do you do when you look up to someone? How do you express it? Perhaps you say, “You da man! I’m your homey!” Or perhaps more subtly, or more formally, you give him his due – or her hers. In modern times, we don’t typically think of kneeling before the person, hands clasped together, so that the person may take our hands in his or hers and so accept our fealty. But, then, in modern times, when we pay homage, it is not a real binding commitment as of a vassal to a lord. No, when someone owns our butt, it’s with ink on paper. And we’re not so romantic about it.

But we do romanticize things that have come forth from the middle ages. Ah, chivalry, and feudalism, and all that wonderful stuff – a time of giants, and knights, and a world that might as well have been constructed of felt for all most of us really know of it. And we also use it as the basis for more figurative uses today. So it is with homage: it was first a word for declaring one’s service and fealty, of saying “I’m your man” – of in fact becoming his man, as the hom is “man” as in Latin hominem and modern French homme and the age is is that nominalizing suffix we see in so many different words. And now homage simply means a declaration of respect or reverence, a eulogizing. We may pay homage, but we don’t actually pay.

Incidentally, although we may have a habit of thinking of medieval England when we imagine all that chivalry and so on, proper due needs to be given to the French, who really played a very important role in all that the era is associated with. Aside from giving us much of the historical basis for our Disney-ized modern fantasies – including our modern concept of romance, which was founded in dalliances that led not to a new marriage but rather away from an existing one – the French gave us various pertinent words: romance for one; chivalry for another; and, of course, homage for a third. It also gave us pilgrimage (even if Canterbury’s pilgrims never left England), marriage, and other similar usages in our language.

Oh, yes, that age – never mind the middle ages, let’s talk about the final age. To which language does it owe allegiance? It comes to use from French (which made it thus from Latin aticum); many of our words ending in age came fully formed from French, often quite a long time ago (homage came in the 1200s); the suffix itself also got brought over and even today is used to form new words (pwnage must be about as au courant as one can get).

But while it still is also used in French, it’s ours now, and so are all those words, stolen fair and square and generally modified to suit. Nonetheless, while many of them have an English-style pronunciation (marriage, pilgrimage, language, usage, advantage), some others have retained – or reverted to – a more French phonemics. One such is garage, a comparatively recent borrowing, which is said like “gahr-ij” in England but in the French style in the U.S. and Canada. Another such is homage, which got along well enough for centuries in the same anglicized mould, “haw-mij”, but which more recently has on some people’s tongues taken on some French leanings: perhaps just the initial /h/ dropping off, or perhaps said just (or almost) as if it were French… although it’s not spelled the same as the French word (hommage). Well, if you want to make something more formal and fancy, it never hurts to give it a foreign pronunciation (inasmuch as practically anything is all that foreign to English, the tosspot of languages), especially if that foreign pronunciation is French.

But if that seems a little archaic, well, all sorts of things coming from the middle ages are of course archaic. All those notions of chivalry that put women on pedestals but kept them from doing much, for instance, and of course the obvious masculinity of original reference in homage, too. But that doesn’t mean this word is still sexist – etymology is no reliable guide to current meaning and certainly cannot dictate it. We don’t want to have mistaken ideas of history, but we also don’t want to have mistaken ideas about the present.

We will not, of course, utterly eradicate our fantasies and mythologies about the middle ages. Nor should we; as long as we can separate fantasy from fact, it’s good to have a mythos. It gives us a common cultural base. And not just notions of romance, either, but formative ideas from our childhood – of a world where everything might as well have been made of felt, and there were figures we could look up to, waayyyyy up, friendly giants to pay homage to – like the Friendly Giant, played by Bob Homme.

idioblast

Oh, dear, I’m so short on sleep and I still haven’t done a word tasting… I was going to do one earlier this evening, before going to the show, but I sidetracked myself writing a blast at some idiot. (Well, not just any idiot – a local politician who has managed to climb the ladder in spite of being insistently out of touch with his surroundings and out of tune with his colleagues and, for that matter, reality.) I suppose it’s a better idea than just blasting him with a firearm…

Also, I had been hoping for some inspiration. We went to see Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, a very enjoyable musical. Now, there’s a piece about a few people who find themselves in distinctly different surroundings which they are strikingly different from! But in their case, it’s not because they’re idiots. It’s because they’re fabulous. But anyway, no inspiration struck me.

Perhaps I should have taken something from NASA’s big announcement today: In the depths of California’s toxic Mono Lake, a new kind of bacteria has been found that is in fact a new kind of life form (as my friend Kristen Chew put it, quoting Bones McCoy, “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it”) – it has arsenic in its DNA rather than phosphorus. It’s fundamentally different at the very root of its biological being. And yet there it is, in the middle of our world, where every life form we’ve ever known before this had the same DNA building blocks. But while it stands out, I didn’t get any outstanding inspiration for a word tasting.

In the end I just went to the Oxford English Dictionary website to look for inspiration. And in their list of recently updated words, one stuck out: idioblast. (Actually, idioblastic, but I’m going with the noun root.) And what does idioblast mean? Here is the OED’s quote from an 1882 biology text by S.H. Vines: “It is not unusual for individual cells in a tissue otherwise homogeneous to become developed in a manner strikingly different from their neighbours; to such cells I have applied the term Idioblast.” In geology, the word has a similar use: “A mineral crystal within a metamorphic rock which has developed its own characteristic crystal faces” (that’s the OED‘s own definition).

But what has this to do with blasts, let alone idiots? Well, the blast is actually from Greek βλαστος blastos, “sprout”; it is used in various words referring to initially developing forms. It is not related to our Germanic-rooted noun blast referring to gusts of air or similar. Idiot, on the other hand, is related to the idio; the Greek root refers to things that are personal, private, distinct, etc. (for instance, any given person’s own specific speech patterns, word choices, etc. form his or her idiolect). We get our modern idiot by way of a Greek word for a private person, i.e., someone of no public significance, education, understanding, knowledge, etc. Which is a bit paradoxical, of course, when a person of strikingly little knowledge or understanding comes to occupy a very public position. But given that such a person is a bit like a frayed cotton patch on a silk dress, we can see the connection.

Not that idiot is the only echo of the beginning of this word. I think the word actually sounds a bit like giddyup last, minus the /g/. And its letters make such interesting patterns – the i and i like two torches flanking the d; the b like the d turning to look the other way; the first five letters having three circles and the last four having none; and what else may you find? Does it all hang together? And what about anagrams? Is it a bold word? Can you find labs I do it in? Perhaps most importantly, is there a solid bit in the middle somewhere?

Ah, indeed, this word has coherence. It is, one may say, integrous. And, really, it’s a blast to taste.

Are this sentence’s needs being met?

A colleague just asked about a sentence similar to the following:

Provided that each member of the faculty club’s basic needs is met along with a comfortable free wine allotment, each professor will remain suitably compliant to expectations.

He question was whether it should be is met or are met; she was leaning towards is because it’s each member.

How do you sort out questions of conjugation? Find the head of the noun phrase that’s the subject of the sentence. What’s the head noun here? Is it member? Only if the faculty club’s basic needs is what it’s a member of. But I rather suspect that it’s actually talking about the basic needs of each member of the human family – in other words, the ‘s on club’s actually applies to the whole phrase each member of the faculty club… which makes that phrase a modifier of needs. And so “needs” is the head noun, the one that the verb conjugates to. (Anything that has a possessive, and anything that is the complement of a preposition – e.g., of the faculty club – is a modifier.)

The skeleton is in fact Provided that … needs … are met …, each … will remain … compliant. The rest is modifiers. And yes, it’s are: it’s the needs that are being met, not each member that is being met.

quidnunc

Oh, what now? Another funny-looking qu word? Well, yes, but this one’s for a sort of quid pro – not that a quidnunc necessarily believes in quid pro quo, though some will pay to get what they want. Enquiring minds want to know – and, if you ask the National Enquirer, in some matters the only way you’ll get the real goods is by paying.* But this is not some Shakespearean cockney saying “I’ll give you a quid, nuncle, if you tell me the latest.” (Nor is he offering a five-spot… anyway, the usual five-spot pattern is a quincunx.)

No, it’s just someone – anyone – who keeps wanting to know the latest news. Whoever it is, if they sniff some new scuttlebutt, they’ll quickly dun you for it. Could be a gossip columnist who spills more ink than a squid (Hedda Hopper, perhaps?). Could be an average dunce, a small mind with petty interests. You know, a gossip, a busybody, a nosy person.

But why, if we already have several synonyms, do we need another word for this sort of person?

Need? Who said anything about need? The desire for novelty seeks no justification. And this word has something others lack: a tinge of erudition – since, after all, it’s from Latin (quid “what” and nunc “now”). It also has a kind of tricky puckishness to it, like a quick little character, an imp of a person perhaps. The darting sense is aided by the vowels: the first one zipping quickly front and high, like an upward motion; the second lower and farther back, neutral, the classic “dumb” vowel landing with a “thunk.”

And what a fun shape this word has, no? It’s like someone has been given some pieces and is turning them around to examine them – perhaps for topographic information, perhaps to find a way in: q and d, u n u n… c. And the i? Why, that’s what’s doing the looking.

*How do they justify this direct transgression of the fundamental principle of “journalistic ethics” that, however much money you may make on a story, it’s wrong to give any of it to the person(s) who gave you the information you needed? Well, in the Enquirer’s line – which largely involves dishing dirt on individuals – people who give facts for free often have an axe to grind, while the people who know the facts often have a lot to lose by telling them… not to mention that they may have other people also willing to pay (the Enquirer pays for exclusivity). Of course, sometimes paying backfires, too. But that’s really a big debate for another time and place.

bussing

I was squished into the number 34 bus, jouncing along Eglinton Avenue, when I heard a familiar creak, a sound rather like two people clad head-to-toe in leather rubbing against each other.

Not rather like. Exactly like. No, not even like. Of.

I turned around to see, standing behind me, Edgar Frick and Marilyn Frack, enjoying the incidental frottage engendered by the uneven paving as each bump rubbed them together. Before I could turn away and pretend not to have seen them, Marilyn’s eye snagged mine and her left eyebrow arched like a firework. “Edgar,” she purred, “look who’s here.”

“Hey there,” I said. “Busing today, I see.”

“Well, no, you don’t see, because we haven’t been,” said Edgar, “although, now that you mention it, it does sound a good idea.”

“No,” I said, “with one s.”

Marilyn was momentarily nonplussed. “I’m sure I don’t quite follow. We are bussing, and how does one do it with one s? Wouldn’t that be like ‘bew-zing’ – perhaps abusing ourselves? …Which –” she gave Edgar a quick smack on the butt cheek – “might not be such a bad idea.”

“Marilyn, my luscious peach,” Edgar said, “have you never encountered the one-s-two-s distinction? How amusing. Or amussing. You see, bussing with two s’s is from the verb buss, meaning ‘kiss’.” He gave her a smoochlet on the cheek (I mean the one on her face). “Which is why the ‘using the bus’ busing is spelled with one s.”

Marilyn’s eyebrow went up again. “Really! A new word for ‘kiss’. My life has been ever so depraved without it.” Pause, then, purring, “I’m sure I meant to say ‘deprived.'” Another pause as the bus jolted. “But how could I not have heard or seen it before?”

“No one uses it,” I said. “It can be found in Shakespeare, and in poetry up to the 19th century, but now pretty much anyone who knows it only knows it because they were told it was the reason they couldn’t spell what we’re doing now –” the bus lurched as if to illustrate – “with two s’s. But of course many people do anyway.”

“Well, that seems rather half-essed,” Marilyn said, smirking. “But now you clever boys are going to tell me how a word for something so soft and a word for something so hard came to be so similar.”

Buss, the kissing kind, is thought to come from the same Latin root that gives us Italian bacio, Spanish beso, and French baiser,” I said.

“Whereas bus, the riding kind, is short for omnibus,” Edgar added. “Amusingly, it’s the inflectional ending. Omnis means ‘all’ and omnibus means ‘for all’.”

“Hmmm… a genuine inflectional ending,” Marilyn purred. “I don’t mind ending with a genuflection. But first, if bussing is for all, then let us have one for all.”

She leaned into Edgar and planted her rosy-reds on his lips, but hardly had they made contact when the bus hit a pothole with a bang that sounded like a gunshot, and Marilyn’s lipstick left a red streak over half of Edgar’s face. Marilyn steadied herself against her consort and said, “Good gracious, what was that!”

I suppressed a smirk of schadenfreude and replied, “A blunderbuss.”