Yearly Archives: 2011

chrysotile

This word seems to have a certain crystalline charisma, to the extent that it may even dazzle the eyes and misrepresent itself to you. Are you sure you have read it correctly? You may have read the last four letters as lite. But they are tile. This word has more than one thing in common with chrysalid, but among those is not the order of liquid and stop in the ending.

And this word is not a lady’s name, not like Charys or Crystal. Nor is it a cool beverage – that’s Crystal Lite. The chrys in it is not from chrism or related words; this word is not “anointed”. It is, rather, the chrys in chrysanthemum or, as I have said, chrysalis: from Greek χρῡσός chrusos “gold”. And the tile? From Greek τίλος tilos “shred, fibre”.

Is this a word for spun gold, or a gold spinner? Not exactly, but in a way. Just as one may spin straw into gold, one may spin a simple mineral into something worth gold. Chrysotile is the name of a mineral of which Canada happens to have a fair bit. And that mineral, which is about has hard as your fingernail, can be processed into its fibres, which can be spun into thread and woven into cloth. They have remarkable insulating properties. You might see this rock as a sort of chrysalis for the butterfly that is this marvellous fibre.

But you might look again at the butterfly and wonder whether it is not, rather, a serpent. And I say this not just because chrysotile is a variety of the mineral called serpentine. I say it because the marvellous fibre that has spun so much gold for so many is the one we call asbestos.

A terrible beauty indeed. Our anointed one has apostatized. Those fibres, so resilient, can lodge themselves in your lungs and cause cancer and other diseases. Chrysotile is not the only mineral from which asbestos is made, however, and this fact has left a small opening for those who still see gold in it. Does chrysotile asbestos in specific cause asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer? The statistics often do not separate out the different sorts of asbestos. Is it possible that chrysotile is a butterfly among moths?

According to the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, no: all forms of asbestos are dangerous carcinogens. A recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (quoted in “Can asbestos be used ‘safely’?” by Julia Belluz at Macleans.ca) declared, “Numerous epidemiologic studies, case reports, controlled animal experiments, and toxicological studies refute the assertion that chrysotile is safe.… These studies demonstrate that the so-called controlled use of asbestos is a fallacy.”

And yet the glitter of chrysotile still dazzles some eyes. Last week, the golden tongue of Dimitri Soudas, communications director for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, spun the following yarn: “All scientific reviews clearly confirm that chrysotile fibres can be used safely under controlled conditions.” I suppose if by “controlled conditions” he means that all who will come anywhere near the stuff are in hazmat suits with suitable breathing apparatus, there is a case to be made (though not one for his moral fibre). But that statement seems to me to have that kind of lapidary quality, that attractive crystallinity, that dazzles the eyes, and leads you to expect a beautiful butterfly when in fact you are holding not a chrysalis but a serpent’s egg.

Grammar Matters book review

Grammar Matters: The social significance of how we use language
Jila Ghomeshi
Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring, 2010

A more incendiary writer – or a more sensationalist publisher – might have titled this book Grammar Gurus Are Bigots. But Jila Ghomeshi is not an attack dog; she is a moderate-toned professor of linguistics.

Nonetheless, her main theme is clear: abhorrence of non-standard grammar is a form of prejudice with no basis in reason, experience, or fact – no more intelligent than racial bigotry, but somehow presented as a sign of superior intelligence rather than as the expression of tribalism, intolerance, privilege, and hierarchy that it is.

Ghomeshi lays out some straightforward facts about what things in language matter to people, why they matter, and how they really work. Then she gets into the really good part. There are three fallacies, she explains, that prescriptivists use in touting the superiority of “proper” English: logic, precision, and authority. With clear examples and reasoning, she shows that “proper” English is not more logical than various “non-standard” varieties – in fact, it’s not especially logical or consistent at all; that English can be stunningly imprecise and even contradictory in its variations, idioms, and economies; and that we managed to get along quite well with language for about 100 times as long as we have had prescriptive grammars, which anyway were written by self-appointed “authorities” who were really inexpert dilettantes serving social climbers.

So is Ghomeshi waging war against standards? Does she think everything is relative, and we can just chuck standards out the window? Of course not. She has her brain fully in gear. She recognizes the value of having a standard version of a language: it maintains a common reference version of the language to facilitate communication. The point, as she says, is that “it is good to have a standard, but the standard is not ‘good’” – that is, it is not inherently superior. “Non-standard” varieties have their value, and “recognizing and celebrating a non-standard dialect is of no threat to the existence of a standard if speakers know and use both appropriately.”

For Ghomeshi, then, standards don’t go out the window, bigotry about them does – so that we can enjoy “a far greater range of expression than the narrow channel we think of as ‘correct.’” And of course I agree.

piscicide

I really do like the shape of this word. It has that nice rotational symmetry in the p and d, and as a bonus it has the cici like advance echoes of the d. As well, there’s the framework set by the three i’s – candles? Pikes? Ribs? And the c and c might look like gills or fins – or perhaps like sickles or scythes. Perhaps the sickles are reaping the i’s. And the sci does make one think of scythe, though it’s not pronounced that way.

Hmm. Scythe. Reaping. The Grim Reaper. Do I seem like I’m fishing? Well, there has to be a hook here. But is it justifiable? That depends on who you ask. The OED quotes a J.C. Kimball as writing, in 1913, “I knew as a Darwinian that the fish is my elder brother, and that piscicide is no more justifiable as sport than homicide.”

Yes, of course, you recognize the cide that’s in homicide and pesticide, and piscicide has parallels to both: like homicide, an act of killing, and like pesticide, a thing used for killing. Killing what? Why, fish, of course – the pisc root you see in pisces, for instance. You can even see the sea-change that transmuted /p/ to /f/ and /sk/ to /ʃ/. Not that we say the sc as /sk/ any more… well, it depends on the word, and in the case of this word, it depends on who is saying it. The word, you see, can be said like “pisk aside” or “piss aside” – the former probably popular just as a means of not saying the latter, which might lead to carping.

I’m tempted to make a reference to piscicide as “Pisco Control,” a joke on a popular brand of the South American liquor (rather like grappa) called pisco. But pisco gets its name from a port city in Peru, which in turn is named from a Quechua (Inca) word meaning “little bird”.

Well, I suppose birds are also agents of piscicide – ask anyone who owns an ornamental pond stocked with display fish, especially if there are herons in the area. The results tend to provoke thoughts of avicide – but that’s a whole other word again. Anyway, avicide is an inevitable thing for anyone who eats chicken.

Just as piscicide is inevitable for anyone who eats, say, sushi. Say… piscicide looks a bit like one of those yummy sushi rolls, with salmon and tuna and avocado…

ataraxy, ataractic

The world is a noisy place – machines, traffic, barking dogs, crazy neighbours, and other rackets. But nothing is as disturbing to one’s peace as the noise in one’s own head: the worries, attachments, anxiety attacks, concern for the future, concern about the past, the mental screeching and yelping that arise from the collision of karma and dogma.

What a racket indeed! But what are the tactics one may use to calm it? How does one achieve the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind in the asphyxiating galaxy of scattering asterisms, how does one leave the noisy tropics of mental cancer and encounter the desert antarctic?

Well, psychotropics have been tried, but they don’t always leave the psychos in the tropics. Modern medicine recommends ataractics. But are tactics like that an appropriate orthodoxy for practical, acceptable ataraxy? Ought we not to move from xy to z – be it Zen or ZZZZ?

Perhaps I should back up slightly. Ataraxy and ataractic are noisy words for calm things. They tick and clack, the one with its cross brackets and the other with its paired magnets, and the eyes almost lose place by the third a, but they own their existence to the Greek word ἀταραξία ataraxia, which means “undisturbedness” or “impassiveness”. The Epicureans and Pyrrhonians of ancient Greece espoused their versions of ataraxy. The Epicureans said, “Stop worrying about gods and an afterlife and just focus on virtue and friends.” The Pyrrhonians said, “Stop trying to decide about dogmas; you can’t know the truth. Just keep inquiring.” In both cases the aim was a calmness of mind, a freedom from worry or preoccupation – the unattached state that is the aim of Buddhist meditation too.

But the ancient Greeks didn’t go for such meditation. Nor, for that matter, do the modern masters of medicine, carriers of the caduceus in the tradition of Hippocrates; they tend to prefer medication, and ataractic – an adjective derived from ataraxy – is, as a noun, a synonym for tranquillizer. Or, perhaps, given the taste of Antarctic, we should say a chill pill.

Still, I can’t help but think that there are better ways to bring calm clarity to the cataracts of the cortex than simply to drown out – or just drown – one’s troubles. Actually, I prefer a little run-off – lace up the shoes and go, whether at a race or something less climactic. And an added benefit is that after you’ve gone from x to y, you do indeed get better ZZZZ’s. I find that quite attractive!

begat

And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Thus read verses 13 through 16 of the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible (New Testament, i.e., the part only Christians have any truck with). I’m sparing you the first 12 verses, in which there are 29 more begats, and a lot of names that, out of context, would look to most modern readers more like names from science fiction or fantasy.

The point of the opening recitation of Matthew is to show the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon and on down – trotting out his bloodline bona fides, as it were (the messiah had to be a descendant of David), even though it traces it through Joseph, who, according to the same book (two verses later, in fact), had nothing at all to do with the actual procreation of Jesus.

But that’s all immaterial to the great majority of modern readers. The greater general significance of this recitation in the here and now is that any use of the word begat is effectively a reference to it – and therefore pulls in a tone of archaic religiosity and, just incidentally (or not), stultifying recitations.

But what is begat, now? Aside from a Cockney pronunciation of “big hat,” that is. We can see, of course, that it is an abrupt little word, two balancing voiced stops b g and a crisp t at the end, and in the act of saying it the tongue thrusts forward, compresses in the front and touches in the back, and then pulls back, expanding the cavity as it pulls and then touches at the tip. It’s a bit like a two-stroke engine.

But it has nothing to do with bug or Bugatti, nor with bigot. Rather, as you likely know, it’s an archaic past tense form of beget, which means “procreate” but has long been used in a more metaphorical sense, as, for instance, in Hamlet: “Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.”

The modern past tense of beget (inasmuch as there is a modern one – we still use the word, but it invariably has the dusty honeyed smell of old books about it) is begot, and the past participle is begotten – which is also seen in misbegotten, as in Eugene O’Neill’s play A Moon for the Misbegotten (the quasi-sequel to the superlative Long Day’s Journey into Night). But in the old days, the pattern was beget – begat – begotten.

Yes, indeed, it’s ablaut time again. Ablaut is also called “vowel gradation,” and it’s the movement of vowels back in the mouth (the opposite of umlaut) to express a change in tense. We no longer have many full sets of three: drink – drank – drunk(en), swim – swam – swum, begin – began – begun, not much else, and generally the participles don’t have the additional en ending. The verb get used to have the complete set: get – gat – gotten. However, centuries ago gat got to be got, and in the past couple of centuries gotten has fallen out of use in England (except in some northern dialects). It’s still in use in North American English, however, giving crusty Brits another reason to look down on American English: “It’s have got, not have gotten – how illiterate you people are.” (If Britain had retained gotten and America lost it, the Brits would nonetheless look down on the Yanks, but in that case for losing a glorious old differentiation.)

Mind you, there are actually people who have the misbegotten idea that any use of get or got or gotten – and not just have got in place of have – is poor English (I know of an editor who had a government client insist this very thing, risibly false though it is). Snobbishness begets ignorance, and ignorance begets snobbishness.

But if you really want to sound stuffy – or mock-stuffy – you can still use begat. Whether or not you have a big attitude, you will be (as it were) pulling out and blowing the dust off your old, foxed family Bible when you display your begat-itude, though there is no beatitude in it.

Thanks to Sue Innes for, if not suggesting, at least begetting this note.

legion

This past week I spotted a little error in someone else’s text: precancerous legions.

To me, that seems almost fitting. I’ll explain. My first encounter with the word legion was in Exshaw, a small town in Alberta at the entrance to the Rockies. It’s a one-industry town – cement plant – and there was (perhaps still is) only one place in town that served alcoholic beverages: the legion. So when I was a kid in the 1970s, the “leejun” (which is how I first thought it was spelled) was a smoky place where adults went to drink. Precancerous indeed!

My next encounter with the term was in French foreign legion. At that point I still assumed a legion was a drinking establishment. It was therefore a little confusing to see it referring to a lot of guys out in the middle of the desert. But, hey, Frenchmen in the desert? They must be thirsty. (And, as we all know, the French smoke a lot.)

As I read Asterix comics, I became aware of the Roman legion as well. It was clear that it wasn’t a drinking organization. Even if legion never lost its overtone of spilled beer and stale cigarette smoke (what one smelled on the one day in a year that kids were let into the legion – Remembrance Day, November 11), it acquired this military sense with its derivative form legionary.

And then there was the line that I saw first in a Captain Marvel comic, when he was confronted with a demonic villain who was one but many (and thus had to be defeated with a superspeed group smite with the superfist): My name is legion, for we are many. Again, I really didn’t get that. I may have understood by that time that legion could refer to a bunch of army guys, but I still wasn’t quite getting it. After all, in Exshaw, there was (is) only one legion, though I guess many guys went there for beer.

And no, I didn’t at first get the Biblical reference at all. (It’s when Jesus is confronting a demon who has possessed a man, and Jesus asks the demon its name. Subsequently, Jesus drives it – them – into a herd of pigs, which throw themselves into the lake. Lemmings schmemmings.)

And then there was legionnaire’s disease, a deadly lung disease that burst on the scene (at a legion convention) when I still wasn’t completely sorted out on what legionnaires were. It has imparted further senses of baleful sickness to legion.

So now, although I am aware of the word’s origin – it referred to a body of army in Roman times numbering from 3000 to 6000 soldiers (depending on the time), and came from legere, “choose” (as in conscript) – and its current sense, its dominant taste for me is nothing like religion or allegiance or collegiate or belligerant, even though all have some semantic as well as phonetic echoes with it (of the four, only collegiate is etymologically related). It does have some taste of lesion, thanks to puns such as foreign lesions.

But it’s still first of all leejun for me, with its hint of gin and the jaw-jutting “j” and the louche leer in lee. It’s the place with the IITYWYBMAB sign above the bar, the place where I read my Remembrance Day poem to the assembled veterans and other adults, my voice no match for the precancerous miasma of played-out Players and doomed du Mauriers matched with mopped-up Blue and Canadian.

riddelliine

This word, with its doubled lines of l’s and i’s, presents a riddle to the eyes. The llii is like a thicket of tall prairie flowers that leave you dazed and confused. Of course, it has the dd as well, but they are earlier, and the two e’s are separated, and it opens with the third i (or the first one, really) and that solitary r.

The ensemble is like one of those photos of a woman altered through vertical doubling to give her two mouths and four eyes – there’s just more to this word that meets the eye than the eye is ready to meet. So the hair stands on end with droplets of anxious sweat flying from the head, as in a cartoon, llii, and the eyes become heavy-lidded e e, and you don’t know what is delineated by it but you want to get rid of it before you become delirious.

Just as well if you avoid riddelliine, anyway. The word may stay on the tip of your tongue when you say it, but you don’t want any actual riddelliine on the tip of your tongue. In sufficient quantity (and it doesn’t take all that much) it will damage your liver and may kill you (if not immediately by liver toxicity, then eventually by liver cancer). It’s a pyrrolizidine alkaloid, you see (and tell me if the sight of pyrrolizidine alkaloid isn’t enough to cause a toxic ocular reaction). It’s found in the plant Senecio riddelli, among some others, hence its name. The solution is simply not to consume any of that plant, which is also known as Riddell’s groundsel and Riddell’s ragwort.

The problem is that this plant, which is a yellow flowering perennial that grows in clusters in the grasslands of the American south and southwest, is sometimes mistaken for other plants. Inexpert herbalists have mistaken it for gordolobo yerba, a herbal tea used for treatment of cough, and sold it as such. Now, gordolobo, there’s a word that just sets four cups of pleasant tea before the eyes, and with a lovely symmetrical dab of dolob. How would you feel if you were expecting that and got riddelliine? Just sick, I’m sure.

But there is one riddle left to solve. Or rather one Riddell. When you see Senecio riddelli, if you know about botanical naming, your first question may well be “Who was Riddell?” because this is obviously the kind of Senecio that is named after someone Riddell.

Mind you, if you’re a major botany geek, you may well think instead “Oh, another Riddell plant.” This is because John Leonard Riddell (1807–1865) was a significant figure in American botany who went about the American south and southwest identifying all sorts of plants. He was for 29 years a professor at Tulane, and he invented the first microscope that allowed binocular viewing through a single objective lens. I don’t know whether he ever put rye under his lens – I mention this just because the family shield of the Clan Riddell, who are a Scottish family (the origin of the name is disputed and may be multiple), has three heads of rye on it (and just perhaps three fingers of Scotch before it).

But most people who read anything about poisonous herbs these days are as likely to read them in Harry Potter books. And those who have read the Harry Potter books have another association with that clan, through the variant spelling Riddle: Tom Marvolo Riddle was who became Voldemort. On the whole, pyrrolizidine alkaloids could not be more baleful than Voldemort, even if Voldemort is easier on the eyes – and on the i’s.

Ascot

It’s Royal Ascot week, and today was the Ascot Gold Cup, a.k.a. Ladies’ Day. Apparently a horse race is involved, but nobody really talks about that much; it’s mainly the fillies in the stands who get the attention, with assorted confections fastened to their heads – hats and fascinators galore, in colours from lilac to apricot, some more like mascots than millinery. Have a look at this year’s crop at fashion.telegraph.co.uk/hot-topics/437/royal-ascot-fashion.html. Many a North American might think, “I would never have my Ascot in that.”

Such hats, mind you, are not called Ascot hats. On the other hand, the ladies’ escorts have ascots, for it happens that a type of cravat suitable for wearing with a morning coat – what gentlemen are to wear in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, plus top hat – is now called an Ascot tie, or, particularly in North America, just an ascot (it’s lost the capital A, which actually looks a bit like an ascot).

I should say that various of the wordplays one may give in to the temptation to make on Ascot actually don’t work if you pronounce it the British way. The cot, you see, is reduced entirely (somewhat like the base of a fascinator), making Ascot sound rather like ask it and go nicely with waistcoat (“weskit”). So it’s a tisket, a tasket, a basket worn at Ascot; the lid of it hangs before her bangs, and her head looks like a casket. (How does it stay on? Perhaps with an elastic.) The word comes from east cot, “east cottage”. It is, as it looks, an English word of thoroughbred pedigree.

That pre-empts the more impolite double entendres, which is just as well, as there is a clear code of formality and decorum – and attire – for the Royal Enclosure. (Many in attendance stretch the rules some, exposing more flesh than recommended, perhaps including tattoos and bottle tans, and this year there was something of a dust-up among some of the blokes in one of the enclosures, with a champers bottle being wielded as a weapon. How infra dig.) A race, after all, is an occasion for one’s best behaviour and one’s best attire, as I demonstrated a few years ago: www.flickr.com/photos/sesquiotic/5840900617/in/photostream.

cortex

I remember this record my Dad bought when I was a kid. My brother and I listened to it quite a few times. It was all about the brain – a song for every part (rather amusing, too, as I recall). I can’t remember much of it now, but I do remember one song (musically just a little reminiscent of “Copacabana”), the chorus of which began, “It’s the cortex! The cortex!”

That was, I’m pretty sure, my first encounter with the word cortex. And what sorts of flavours did cortex have for me? Not Gore-Tex, that smart outer layer to wear when you’re encountering nature and its elements – that hadn’t even been invented yet (not for another few years: 1976). No, it would have made me think of Chargex – what VISA cards used to be called in Canada – and similar commercial things and brand names ending in ex. And it would have made me think of core, of course. Which is certainly ironic, since the cortex is not the core but the outer layer of the brain. Your conscious interface with the elements, inner and outer. The part you’re processing this right here right now with.

Other flavours cortex may bring depend on context – and include context. You might get mixed up and think of an escort or perhaps of your oxters (that means “armpits”). You might think of Hernán Cortez, the Spanish conquistador who defeated the Aztex – oops, I mean Aztecs. You might be reminded of Texas by the tex – or even by the size of the cortex, which is really rather expansive: about 2000 square centimetres, around the size of a newspaper page. A wrinkly newspaper page, though: the cerebral cortex has all sorts of wrinkles in it.

But, yes, whatever you think of, whatever new wrinkle, in whatever context, you’re thinking of it with your cortex. And not just history and geography but biology – your biology: the nerves in your oxters connect to your cortex as well.

But how did this crisp word come to be the name of the rind of the mind? You can play with the shapes, see the c come to o, the connection made and circle closed; you can see the crossroads of information at x. You can feel the tongue tap at the back, then (with a little wave motion) the tip, then again at the back and subside into a fricative at the tip, like water rocking in a box. But what has it all to do with the surface of the pond that is your brain?

Well, it’s not really that it’s the surface of a pond. It’s that it’s the bark of the brain tree – consider the ramifications of that. Cortex is Latin for “bark”, you see. Think of the bark of a pine tree, with its wrinkles.

But then think of the wood of that tree being made into a bark, to float on the seas of imagination: the wandering bark that is love, the bark of fantasy… It’s all in the cortex. The cortex!

barque

Can a word that immediately calls forth a harsh, sharp sound (from a dog or other creature) be somehow elegant, lovely, or dreamy?

I don’t see why not. Of course, as soon as you use the que spelling, everything gets a little fancier – barque is what Phydeaux does, perhaps, while bark is what Fido does. The que calls forth French but also Latin – in Latin, que stuck on the end of a word (and fully pronounced) means “and”, as in Senatus Populusque Romanus “the Senate and People of Rome”. So if you had a place called Barbecue Barque perhaps it would mean it had a barbecue and a bar. (And maybe they should go with the alternate spelling Barbeque, which, however, I have a hard time not reading like “barbeck”.)

But the best evidence of the possibility of a little crisp, fresh elegance is the contrast with barge. Barge is a word that brings to mind something quite lumpish and unpleasant – perhaps a garbage barge – and goes with ill-mannered action. “He just barged in! What a bounder – I wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole!” On the other hand, embark is what one does on an expensive trip.

And yet barque (bark) and barge most likely come from the same source, by way of barca and barga. There is some dispute as to the origin – Celtic, perhaps, or maybe Greek, but by way of Latin anyway. They were once the same boat, but they’re not really in the same boat now.

Barque and bark rather are in the same boat, on the other hand, although barque can refer specifically to a three-masted ship square-rigged on the foremasts and fore-and-aft rigged on the rear. Bark can name any of quite a variety of mid-small boats – though nothing as small as a birch bark canoe (and no, that’s not the same bark any more than what a dog does is).

Why use the barque spelling when bark will do? Well, for clarity, for one thing. But also for the beautiful balance of the form. Whereas bark bursts a bubble (b > k), barque presents a back half that seems to be made of rotated forms from the front half, sea-changed: b > q (the mast trimmed and turned to make a rudder), a > e (a type a has some resemblance to that rotated e, the schwa ə), r > u (the lost leg grown back). And paradoxically we view inefficient, wasted silent letters as somehow elegant (certainly not in the mathematical sense!).

Still, it’s not the spelling preferred by poets. Well, if Noah released a lark from the ark, we may hark in the stark dark and mark a bark, wandering. Oh, yes, wandering! Shakespeare set down this collocation in his 116th sonnet: it is love that is “the star to every wandering bark.”

And where does the bark wander? In dreamland, surely. I recall again (as I did in my note on virch) “a barca da fantasia” from Madredeus’s O Pastor:

Ao largo ainda arde
A barca da fantasia
E o meu sonho acaba tarde
Acordar é que eu não queria

“At a distance still burns the barque [or barge] of fantasy, and my dream ends late – waking is what I didn’t want.”

And what do you see on the lovely barque of dreams? Perhaps a world as painted by Georges Braque…