Yearly Archives: 2011

jackdaw

When I was in elementary school, one of the kinds of instructional materials I found most fascinating was something called a Jackdaw. I capitalize it because – though I didn’t know it at the time – it’s a brand name, the name of the publisher, in fact. Jackdaws were – still are, I’m sure, as they’re still in business (www.jackdaw.com) – fascinating collections of facsimiles of primary source materials about the various historical events they covered.

I had no idea at the time why they were called that. When one is six years old (and even much older), one may tend to accept the arbitrary nature of new names, assuming that there must be a good reason and perhaps eventually the reason will be revealed. Perhaps it was because they were in a jacket, like a Duo-Tang, and chock-full?

More likely, of course, is that they were acquisitive and loquacious. Jackdaws, like magpies, are known for stealing all manner of things and hoarding them; they are also know to be, well, not so much loquacious as garrulous – they chatter on and on, and can also be taught to say words.

So if you call a person a jackdaw, that means you think him or her to be kleptomanical, garrulous, a hoarder, or some combination of the preceding. And thus a folder that has collected a variety of items pertinent to a topic might fittingly be called a Jackdaw, overlooking the foolish connotations. It occurs to me that it also wouldn’t be such a bad name for the sentences known as pangrams, which have collected all twenty-six letters of the alphabet (e.g., Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz – my, doesn’t that sound a little, ah, you know). And Cambridge University calls its administrative database Jackdaw. It seems there’s a bit of a collection of jackdaws out there.

There is, mind you, a much larger collection of jack words – a veritable jackpot. Jack – from the name – has long since been a byword for the common fellow, and a name to be applied generically. Who leaves frost on your window? Jack Frost. Whose glowing eyes and crazed grin greet you on Hallowe’en? Jack-o’-lantern. Who can fix your broken Jack-in-the-box? Perhaps a Jack-of-all-trades. “Did the ship go down with all hands?” “Every man Jack.” “But doesn’t that bother you?” “I’m all right, Jack.” And there are several jack animals, including jackrabbit, jackass, jack salmon, Jack Russell terriers (OK, that’s an eponym), and of course jackdaw.

Jack is such a square, sturdy name to my taste, with a bit of a kick or a hack, sounding not unlike the call of the jackdaw. It begins with that first letter of so many first names, J, and ends with the open-beaked, angular k. It may have come from Jacques – although that’s French for James while Jack is a nickname for John – but it may have come from Jankin and Jackin, pet forms of the Dutch Jan.

And why jackdaw? Well, for the same reason as jackass, more or less, I suppose. That is to say, we could always just say daw. That’s the older, simpler name for the bird. It’s a Germanic-derived word – it’s first recorded in English in the 1400s, and almost before you could say “Jack Robinson” there was a jack on it.

And what, by the way, is the bird? A little black thing, Corvus monedula – related to crows and ravens (and why not, if it’s known for crowin’ and ravin’ like it’s stark mad?). It’s very gregarious, mates for life, and has flocks with a strict pecking order.

So the name itself is put together of two bits, this old daw and this generic jack of all sorts of trading. And it’s such a quintessentially English thing. Not just because of its origins, but because English is a jackdaw of a language if ever there was one: swiping bits from all over, learning to mimic new words, and generally not shutting up.

Apparently ignorance is in vogue at Slate

Yesterday I had a little asterisked mini-rant about some sloppy thinking in an article on Slate. Well, today I discover that they’ve printed an article from someone who thinks that editors are narcissistic megalomaniacs who deserve no credit or consideration. I won’t name him (I’ll say why below), but I will say he knows Jack Sh…itt about editors and editing. Continue reading

Gewürztraminer

You will surely find it unsurprising that I like tasting wine. It may indeed be more surprising that I haven’t tasted that many wine words in my notes. I have tasted merlot, certainly, and xynomavro, but no white grape varieties yet; I have also tasted retsina and claret; but I really am overdue to taste Gewürztraminer.

Wines, when well made, are full of character and layers, nuances, overtones, and other delights.* Some are more complex, and some are simpler. Words, of course, can have a fair amount in common with wines in that respect. But many wine words don’t present a whole lot up front. It takes getting to know merlot before you really appreciate it, for instance.

On the other hand, just as there are some wines that practically grab you by the neck and press your nose into their bosoms, there are some wine words that have a rather similar effect. By an interesting coincidence, three of the wines that are most up-front happen to have three of the names that are most up-front – and all three are written with the letter z.

The wine that will most aggressively throw you on the bed and cover you with red lipstick is zinfandel, and rest assured that I will one day taste zinfandel. Another very popular and friendly red wine is Shiraz (its more demure version, if just slightly, is called syrah). But the most in-your-face white (true white, not “white zinfandel,” which is a red wine with the skins taken out before fermentation), with what is also the most in-your-face name, is Gewürztraminer. You might say it’s the Measha Brueggergosman of wine words (and perhaps of wines, too).

First of all, it’s a freakin’ long word. Which is actually fitting, given that it’s a German word; German words can be long, and so can German wine names – you’ll get bottles that say things like Riesling Kabinett Erbacher Marcobrunn Domänenweingut Schloss Schönborn Rheingau (I did not make that up).

Of course, like most German sesquipedalia, Gewürztraminer is a compound; it comes from Gewürz, which means “spice” or “perfume”, and Traminer, which means “from Tramin” (Tramin being actually the Tyrolean town of Termeno, in northern Italy). It rather looks like two big pieces joined together with hitches and some kind of electric bond right at the rztr (just hear that jolt!).

And you can see the perfumy nose wafting up from the glass at the ü if you want. You might want to proceed both ways from the centre, in fact, and see that on the one side, past the centre join and its flanking vowels, you have w, and on the other m, which is like the w all emptied and inverted. Or perhaps it’s the whole min that transforms the w, for on the outside of either is an e.

There’s no reason to expect Anglophones to say this word just as though they were speaking German (though they can if they want), but it’s generally thought poor form to say the w as /w/ rather than /v/. The ü, of course, signifies a sound we no longer have in English, so you can either make the ür the same way as you say the end of Bloor (Toronto reference there) or you can slip the bonds of English phonotactics. If you say r the English way, you will thereafter find yourself with a rare double treat, two affricates in tight sequence – because /ts/ is an affricate (a stop that releases to a fricative), and the /t/ before /r/ palatalizes to be like what we say at the beginning and end of church. The German pronunciation – either one, the trilled or the guttural – deprives you of the second affricate, but, ah, frick it. Have another glass.

And then the word ends in irony. Irony? Yes, and not just because it’s a German name for a grape now thought of as quintessentially German but taken from a Italian place name (well, Italy now includes it). It’s that you finally get to the kinder part of the word and it’s “meaner”.

And what is wine itself like? It presents a golden hue to the eye, although its grapes are actually a shade of pink. Your nose and your palate will give you a full serving of such flavours and aromas as lychee and rose petals, and perhaps some peach as well. If you’re picking a wine to drink with pad thai, this is it. If you’re looking for good Gewürz, two of the best regions are Alsace and Ontario. Yes, that’s right, neither is in Germany – oh, Germany makes good Gewürz too, but really, some of the best I’ve ever had is made an hour’s drive from where I live. I have bottles from Calamus and Featherstone sitting less than a metre from the computer where I type this. (They’re not open, though. Ironically, I’m drinking Bordeaux as I write.)

*A person who should know better who wrote an otherwise interesting article for Slate recently (http://www.slate.com/id/2285723/) declared that since mass spectrometers can’t “pick apart differentiating flavors of specific spices or flavors of earth in any wine,” such discerned differences must be imaginary – the critics who talk about “butterscotch” or “boysenberry” must just be imagining it on the basis of expectation. Aside from being frankly rude, condescending, and belittling, this discards a very large amount of suggestive data without taking a proper scientific look at it. Experts in blind tastings without indication of the various price levels of the wines can detect different levels of depth, nuance, and structure with considerable consistency, even as personal factors also of course come into play – wine being an aesthetic experience, and aesthetic experience being individual. It doesn’t even take much acquaintance with wine to be able to distinguish wines that develop and have nuances from ones that don’t and don’t. If I can taste a red wine and identify, on the basis of flavour nuances this author thinks are imaginary, the different grapes that have gone into it – something I have done successfully, and I’m not even an expert – it stands to reason that her reasoning is a bit wanting. She draws conclusions on the basis of what she thinks reasonable, but without taking a truly scientific approach, which would involve experiments with blind tastings – not exactly even an innovative approach with wines.

Unpacking the Grey Owl

A colleague – Adrienne Montgomerie – was recently reading to her child from a story by Grey Owl when she came across this rather large sentence (From the second-last paragraph of “How the Queen and I spent the Winter” as published in the collection Great Canadian Animal Stories,
Whitaker, 1978):

This creature comported itself as a person, of a kind, and she busied herself at tasks that I could, without loss of dignity, have occupied myself at; she made camp, procured and carried in supplies, could lay plans and carry them out and stood robustly and resolutely on her own hind legs, metaphorically and actually, and had an independence of spirit that measured up well with my own, seeming to look on me as a contemporary, accepting me as an equal and no more.

We certainly don’t write like that so much anymore. I must say that I enjoyed reading that sentence, but some people may wonder whether all those commas are necessary and whether the whole thing is even grammatical.

So let’s have some fun and take it apart. Continue reading

farthingale

I know when I first encountered this word: it was in Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona. I was in early twenties and auditioning around, trying vainly to get some acting work, and one of the stock audition pieces I was using was a comic monologue (well, it was intended to be comic) wherein the clownish character Launce is remonstrating with his dog. The end of the monologue goes thus:

Nay, I remember the
trick you served me when I took my leave of Madam
Silvia: did not I bid thee still mark me and do as I
do? when didst thou see me heave up my leg and make
water against a gentlewoman’s farthingale? didst
thou ever see me do such a trick?

You can guess from that that a farthingale is something a woman wears that sits, or extends, below the knee; beyond that, it’s not obvious.

Certainly the form of the word itself is no great help. It looks like a name for a cheap bird (do I mean a cheep bird? well, it may cheep, but a farthing, being a quarter of a penny – farthing is related to fourth – was not much money even then). Or it could be a kind of craft beer, farthing ale – incidentally, farthingale is often misspelled (and misanalyzed) as farthing ale. But it has nothing to do with farthings or with ales, and the g is pronounced, so the last syllable is gale.

Not that it has anything to do with gales either, and I wouldn’t recommend wearing a farthingale in a gale, lest it become a sail or a yard sale (or an assailant). As to the opening fart, of course that’s not etymologically related – I won’t say a farthingale is a far thing from one (though that’s how the syllables divide), but, etymologically, hereby hangs quite a tale. (Whereby hangs a tail? Marry, sir, by many a wind instrument that I know of… Oh, wrong play.)

It is understandable if you think farthingale is related to martingale, or to nightingale, but in fact all three have deviated from their disparate origins towards a common pattern. Nightingale is the oldest of the three by centuries; it comes from night plus an old verb gale “sing” with an extra in stuck in probably for euphony. Martingale – which merits a word tasting note all its own, but not today – is from a French word for a resident of the southeastern French town of Martigues. (What is a martingale? Several things… as I said, it merits a note of its own.) It arrived in English in the 1500s.

Oh, and farthingale? It comes by way of French verdugalle from Spanish verdugado, which comes from verdugo, “stick”. So, yes, it’s a thing made of sticks, sort of. In fact, it’s one of those hoop arrangements that women used to wear to make their skirts stick way the heck out (more recently called hoop skirts – a farthingale is in particular a conical one). Talk about bearing fardels! They were usually made of whalebones sewn into a fabric matrix, which gives me the opportunity to note how the vocal gesture of saying farthingale is similar to the action of a sewing machine (say it several times, picturing your tongue as the needle and the fabric being at your lips). Not that they had sewing machines when farthingales were popular.

Chairs designed to accommodate them were called farthingale chairs, which you will find bothersomely often referred to as farthing ale chairs or farthing-ale chairs, which, as I’ve said, is both etymological and pronunciational reanalysis – folk etymology, as it’s often called.

But how do you get from verdugalle to farthingale? Seems like it would take jumping through some hoops, eh? Well, in fact, it’s more folk etymology (so there). But it didn’t seem to happen in one jump; the earliest English form of the word the OED has (from 1552) is verdynggale, which is a closer borrowing but with a prenasalization of the /g/. After that it was easy enough for it to be reanalyzed as farthingale, like nightingale but with a farthing (influence from martingale is possible, as that word was becoming current at the same time, but of course nightingale was even then the better-established word by far). Now, isn’t that a trick?

phlogiston

There’s something about this word that makes me think a bit of a stuffed-up nose – probably the taste of plug (in spelling but not in pronunciation) and the way phl makes me think of someone blowing their nose. But it has nothing to do with catarrh.

On the other hand, like catarrh, it also has a strong flavour for me of the scientific fancies of a bygone age, and the ph aids that too. I could picture some Chitty Chitty Bang Bang refugee called Phineas Pharnsworthy’s Marbhellous Phlogiston Steam Machine, all gears and flogging pistons and puffs of smoke, a combination jalopy and calliope.

Mind you, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was set in 1910, putting it a century and a half after the heyday of phlogiston. But from our perspective, there’s something of a quaintness to those Victorian (and just-post-Victorian) inventions, and there’s a sort of quaintness to phlogiston.

But it seemed quite reasonable to 18th-century scientists. Here’s the idea: all flammable substances contain an element called phlogiston (from Greek for “burning up”) which is liberated during combustion. When wood is burnt, for instance, the flame is that part of it that is phlogiston – and it is liberated into the air – and the charred remains and ashes left behind are that part of the wood that is other than phlogiston, called the calx (sounds a bit like a dusty death cough, doesn’t it? or perhaps some mineral, or the beginning of a word – say, caloric – interrupted by death). Air can only hold so much phlogiston, however; if you burn something in a sealed vessel, it will burn out before it is all burnt, because the air has become saturated with phlogiston, and phlogiston will flow just in quantities that can be absorbed.

Well, yes, we all know better now. But the things we all have learned in school about molecular vibration and reactions and so on are really much advanced beyond the state of understanding of the 1700s. And even through the 1700s, the state of understanding was advancing; by 1800, pretty much no one still believed in phlogiston. No, heat was obviously a completely massless substance called caloric

A lot of us won’t even know how to pronounce phlogiston now –  it’s like “flow jist on” (if you want to say it like “floggy ston,” well, for shame! that would be closer to how the ancient Greeks said it, and what did they know?). But we will all get the fact that the ph is really a /f/. That matches a pattern of adding h to the letter for a stop to indicate a fricative near the stop: th for the fricative closest to /t/, and kh or ch to indicate one close to /k/. We also use it to shift the fricative /s/ towards the palate, sh. But there are two questions: a) why only those letters, and b) why bother with ph when we have f ?

Indeed, we note that we don’t use bh to spell /v/. Well, actually we do, in a few names borrowed from Gaelic, notably Siobhan; Gaelic doesn’t have the letter v. We also don’t use dh to spell the voiced pair of th; we use th for both. In fact, we used to have two completely different letters, eth (ð) and thorn (þ), which came to be used interchangeably to stand for either sound, and then were discarded under European (especially French) influence, especially when the English started buying their moveable type from Europe. The available replacement orthography in European style was th only. Most European languages don’t even have the voiced dental fricative (as in the); Classical Greek didn’t, though modern Greek does (in place of /d/). As to gh, well, we no longer make that sound anyway… but, ironically, we do still write gh where we used to make it.

And why not just write f ? Italians do – philosophy in Italian is filosofia – and in the earlier 20th century the New York Times took it upon itself to lead the charge for a similar change, writing, for example, filosofy. It obviously didn’t take. But the Latins, who also had f, used ph when transliterating the letter phi (φ) from Greek (there are plenty of Greek loan words in Latin). That was because in the Greek of the time it was like a /p/ followed by a bit of /h/ – actually the same sound we say at the beginning of pit (compare with spit, where the light puff of /h/ is absent). Now we retain it as a sort of charming archaism, smacking of science – or sometimes of what used to be thought of as science. Or, of course, of pseudo-scientific satire and other hip (or should I say phat) things.

Tantric

You’ve probably seen this word before somewhere. Tell me what word you expect to see come right after it.

Odds are pretty good you’re thinking of sex. Tantric sex is this word’s most common collocation in English. The second-most-common is Tantric yoga.

So now tell me what you know about Tantric – or about Tantra, which is what Tantric is an adjectival form of. What images do you have? Perhaps teal polyarticulated deities intricately entwined – or some concupiscent sadhu and his tan trick – performing a kind of contortionist coitus, with nimbi concentric around their entangled genitalia? Some wild Kama Sutra thing involving incense, curtains, beads, chanting? A climax that lasts an uncertain eternity?

Well. Those sorts of antics are not exactly the point. Images of throes of passion notwithstanding, Tantra is not a plural of Tantrum. It’s the Sanskrit word for “loom” (as in weaving) and by extension for “system” or “doctrine”.

Tantra is an approach that is found in several religions that have arisen from the Indian subcontinental area, most notably Hinduism and Buddhism. And the approach does not aim at ultimate physical fulfillment; rather, the physical energies are used as the means of their own transcendence. It is like a martial (or marital?) art, wherein one does not simply push force against force but rather uses the opposing force to one’s own ends.

Let me quote from Harold Coward, one of my professors at the University of Calgary (from his book Jung and Eastern Thought):

In contrast to the approach of the Sankhya-Yoga system of Patañjali, in which the aim is to circumvent and crush the passions within, the Tantric hero (víra) goes directly through the sphere of the passions to the spiritual goal. This is accomplished not by indulging in the passions, as one might be led to think, but rather by shifting attention from the object of passion to the inner energy of passion – without trying either to prolong or suppress the energy. Rather than being puritanically avoided, the passions themselves are used as the very means (sádhana) by which self-realization may be achieved. . . . The Tantric hero triumphs by way of the passions themselves, riding them the way a cowboy rides a wild bronco to obedience.

I recall one class in which Dr. Coward recalled with relish breaking the news to a colleague who had a statuette of a Tantric sexual position. “You know, it’s not about the sex…”

Of course Tantra has to do with much more, and other, than sex; indeed, for the most part, actual sexual activity is not even part of the practice – it is more a metaphor for divine mystical union. Tantra is a spiritual and ritual practice. But the racier mystical connotations of the word are entangled in its English usage patterns, and the related concept of kundalini – also generally poorly understood but rather wild-sounding – adds to it. And the mixture of crispness and liquidity and warm nasal /n/ of the word, with its various echoes and overtones – explored above – can certainly play into that.

But the point is to get beyond the word: use it, enjoy it, taste it, feel it, read it, but let its curling type be the trebuchet that launches you beyond.

boot

“Oh, this does not bode well.”

Marilyn Frack gazed with consternation at her laptop. In this case, I mean she was looking at her computer. She had been doing a presentation on constellation names when her computer froze on Boötes. She tapped at it a few times and then looked up with a slight pleading in her gaze. Everyone knew what that meant: time for the resident computer geek.

Daryl sighed. He got up and walked up to the table. “Let me have a look at it.”

Marilyn stepped aside. “Well, I guess sometimes these things happen… and one has to pull oneself up by one’s boöte-straps.” She did a Hollywood flex, displaying thigh-high boots below her black leather skirt, with black fishnets to boot.

“Are those cowboy boots, then?” said Philippe Entrecote from the back of the room, in reference to Boötes being the herdsman, from Greek for “ox-driver”.

“Reverse cowgirl, maybe,” Marilyn said, winking at Edgar Frick, her other half.

“Um,” said Daryl, not so much because he had something to say as to divert that line of discourse. “Well, ironically, my usual best efforts are proving bootless. Fittingly, I will have to reboot.”

“Overall more fitting than ironic, then,” I piped up, “since her boots and reboot are related and bootless is not.”

Daryl looked up from the computer. “Reboot and boot up coming from a reference to pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, yes,” he said. “Because a part of the operating software loads the rest up.”

“But what do you mean bootless is not?” Marilyn said, sitting on the table edge and peeling off her boots in as provocative a style as she could muster. “It seems related to me.”

“It might or might not be related to you,” I said, “but bootless meaning ‘unavailing’ and to boot meaning ‘in addition’ come from a different root than the Latin root of boot meaning ‘footwear’. They have an old Germanic root meaning ‘good’ or ‘advantage’. We mostly don’t use it as such, but we use a related comparative form all the time.”

Booter?” Marilyn said.

“Perhaps butter,” Edgar leered.

“Well,” said Philippe from the back, “it may be related. He’s referring to the conjectural bat, which may be related to boot; thanks to umlaut, bat in the comparative is better.”

“Better than what?” Marilyn said, disingenuously, with a little smirk.

“A bat might be better used on your computer,” Daryl said, forcing a second reboot.

Marilyn leaned over and batted her eyes at the machine. “Is that better?”

I turned to Philippe. “Did she just call herself a bat?”

“I believe she did,” he said.

“Well,” said Marilyn, turning to us, “here’s boot and reboot.” She flung a boot at me, and one at Philippe to boot. But her efforts were bootless – she missed, and we were not cowed.

A variety of ways of using a variety

A colleague asked, “What verb would you use with ‘a variety of terms…’: is or are?”

The answer is that if you’re referring to what the various terms are doing, it’s are; if you’re referring to the variety qua variety, it’s is. Probably you want are:

A variety of terms are used. (Meaning several diverse terms are used.)

A variety of terms is used. (Meaning a specific variety is used – e.g., they’re all vulgar.)

A variety of flowers were on the table. (Assorted flowers were on the table.)

A variety of flowers was on the table. (One specific variety was on the table – presumably I don’t know what it’s called, or I would have said so.)

Generally, you’ll use the is when discussing the variety more in the abstract:

The board was discussing what herbaceous emblem to use for the society. A variety of flowers was on the table, as was a variety of grass, as well as the larch.

But very often a variety of is used as an indefinite plural quantifier, and so takes the plural, just like a lot in A lot of people are coming and a bunch in There are a bunch of questions I want to ask (as opposed to discrete singular entities, as in A lot of land was the subject of the dispute and There is a bunch of flowers on the table).

begroan

“They used a hyphen in wake up, the verb!” Margot exclaimed. “How do they propose to spell wake him up, then? As wake hyphen him hyphen up?”

Daryl rolled his eyes and looked around the coffee shop to see if other eyes were turning yet. “Happy Friday afternoon,” he said, raising his latte in mock toast.

“Come on,” Margot protested. “These things matter.”

“You are more apt than most people to begroan other people’s usage,” Daryl said.

Margot’s eyes popped wide. “It would be very apt to bemoan your use of a non-word!”

Moan, groan… how do you know begroan’s not a word?” Daryl said. He had pulled out his iPad and was tapping away at it.

“You meant bemoan,” Margot said.

“If I’d meant bemoan I would have said bemoan,” Daryl said with a flicker of a fake smile.

“Come, now,” I said, “can’t we be groan-ups? He used it, you understood it, it’s a word.”

“A word you won’t find in any dictionary,” Margot said.

“That may be,” Daryl muttered, continuing to manipulate his iPad, “or that may not be. …A-ha!” He turned his iPad to Margot. It displayed the be-, prefix entry from the Oxford English Dictionary, scrolled to show “begroan v. to groan at” with a citation from 1837. Margot was nonplussed, or should I say bemused. “Pity there’s no entry for be-hatch,” Daryl said, “’cause I done be-hatched this on you, be-hatch!” He made the sort of hip-hop-style hand gesture that cretins from “reality TV” shows are fond of.

I took the iPad from him and started scrolling through the very long entry. “Boy, someone’s been busy as a bee with all the be’s.”

“But it doesn’t even make sense,” Margot protested, gesturing to the list. “I mean, a lot of these words have nothing to do with being something. When you think of become, that’s ‘come to be’, right? And bemoaning is to be moaning, and bejewelled is to be with jewels, and so on.”

“I think you’ll have to leave that one by,” I said. “The prefix be- is not from the verb be, it’s from the preposition by. So adding be can add the sense of ‘about’, ‘around’, or ‘throughout’; from that it took on a broader use as an intensifier, and also came to signify result – as in bedimmed – or object bestowed – as in bewigged – or an instrumental relation, as in bewitch.” I started idly humming the tune from the TV show Bewitched as I continued to scroll.

“Oh, would you bequiet… yourself?” Margot grumbled.

“Perhaps you could becalm… yourself,” I replied with a little smirk, and launched into another musical snippet: “Let it be, let it be…”

“Behave,” Margot said.

“I’m being as have as I can,” I said, giggling. Margot leaned over to look at what was in my cup.

“Perhaps,” said Daryl, “you could bestow my iPad upon me, so I can be stowing it in my bag.”

“Here you be,” I said, handing it over. I turned to Margot, lifting my cup. “I only wish I were beliquored.”

“You can’t be telling me that’s a word,” Margot said.

Daryl lifted an index finger and scrolled quickly on the page. “Ah… yep. ‘Beliquor, verb, to soak with liquor, to alcoholize.'”

Margot slouched back in her chair and threw her hands up. “I’m beleaguered.” She reached for her coffee and slugged the rest of it back.

Here is a small sampling of the frankly enormous list of words included under the OED’s be- entry:

* be-aureoled
* beballed
* be-belzebubbed
* beblear
* be-blockhead
* bebutterfly
* becivet
* becomma
* becrawl
* becupolaed
* becurse
* bediamonded
* bediaper
* bedinner
* bedrug
* beduchess
* beduck
* befetter
* befezzed
* beflogged
* befrounce
* befurbelowed
* beglitter
* begruntle
* behearse
* bejumble
* be-Legion-of-Honoured
* bemadam
* bemissionary
* benightmare
* beprank
* bepreach
* berailroaded
* bereason
* beschoolmaster
* bescutcheon
* beshag
* beshriek
* beslime
* beslipper
* besnowball
* besoothe
* besqueeze
* bestink
* besugar
* beswelter
* bethunder
* bethwack
* betipple
* betired
* betwattle
* beulcer
* beuncled
* bevomit
* bewhistle
* beworm

I would like to thank my lovely wife, Aina Arro, for using the word begroan today, inspiring this note.