Yearly Archives: 2011

sforzando

This may have happened to you at some time – it’s happened to many of us: You’re sitting in church (or, for the non-churchy kind, perhaps at a concert), kinda sleepy, and the organ is noodling away… soft tones tweedling, meandering like little mellow beetles through the gardenscape of your mind as your eyelids sink slowly and SFORZ! suddenly the volume of the organ multiplies with a loud crashing chord, your eyelids flip open, your head whips up, your back jerks straight… And then the music eases off again, but you’re awake now, thank you!

Ah, sforzando. It even sounds like a thundering three-chord bar on a massive pipe organ, doesn’t it? It doesn’t look like English, that’s for sure. It’s not sports and not Schwartz; give the average anglophone a name like, say, Sferry or Sfilip and they might not know what to make of it – might even stick an extra vowel sound in between the /s/ and the /f/. And yet /sf/ does exist in English words; no one seems to have trouble with sphere. Why should sforzando require any extra effort?

Well, of course, a sforzando does require extra effort; that’s what it’s about – it’s almost the musical equivalent of a grunt of exertion. Its abbreviation on the musical page is neatly iconic: sfz – like a line of music that might be going along evenly sss, but suddenly you have that f in the middle sticking out abruptly, and after that don’t doubt but your nerves will have a bit of the electric buzz in them z.

The gesture of saying it has a bit of extra air blown out as well: the /sf/ is like what one does to spit out a watermelon seed or a small hair that’s gotten onto one’s tongue; after the tongue recoils momentarily, there’s the /ts/ in the middle, a little crisper; finally it echoes with a more muffled, voiced /ændo/.

You ought to be able to guess where this word comes from, anyway. If for some reason it doesn’t look Italian enough for you, remember that it’s a musical term, and they’re pretty much all Italian: piano, mezzo, forte, allegro, andante, adagio, dal capo, coda, et cetera. And what does it mean in Italian? “Forcing” – the verb sforzare comes from Medieval Latin exfortiare, which, it just happens, is also the source (by way of French) of our noun effort.

But of course effort seems rather prosaic to us, and forcing no more musical (to say nothing of blast or make them jump). Sforzando, to English eyes, carries that lyrical flavour we associate with Italian, and (stereotypes of Italians – and the behaviour of Berlusconi – notwithstanding) seems more elevated, perhaps in some way closer to the divine. Or anyway to some divine awakening, or at least a vaguely spiritual one: whether or not you are associated with an organ-ized religion, the sforz will be with you.

besom

I think the first time I saw this word it was in the context of being a term of contempt – something like the old besom or the little besom or whatnot. I didn’t really know what it meant or where it came from; I thought, “Well, it must be something negative.” I guessed the pronunciation correctly – it’s like “beezum” – and imagined it might be like a sort of busybody who drops abuse in over the transom.

Well, the first thing to know is that if you call someone a besom, that someone has a bosom. Yes, the term, when applied to a person, is a disparaging term for a woman. But literally it’s a word for an implement. It just happens to be an implement associated with women, historically.

No, I don’t mean a distaff. But, though calling a woman a besom is not calling her a witch, you will often see a besom in a picture of a witch. Though women got to spin rockets (originally a word for a spinster’s implement), they didn’t get to ride them; they rode brooms instead – and the brooms you’re most likely to see pictured are besoms: bundles of straw or twigs wrapped around a staff.

Of course, now Harry Potter rides one too, when playing quidditch. But they call them brooms. Never mind; besom just isn’t all that common a word anymore – perhaps partly because we have better kinds of broom. In some Scots dialects, though, besom remains the generic word for a broom. In mainstream English, it has long been little used – see the Google Ngram comparison.

One may imagine that with a broom you sweep a room while with a besom you can just be busy like a bee. The sounds are different, anyway; though they both have the /b/ to start with, broom has the rumbling /br/ that you also get in brush, and then it gets into the even more thundery /um/, while besom has the high front /i/ sound and then a buzz and a bump before at last landing back at the same /m/ as in broom – the nasal version of the stop that began the word. I do think /brum/ is more reminiscent of a sweeping motion than /bizəm/ is, but I don’t know whether that had any influence on their respective popularity.

So where are you most likely to encounter this word, other than nowhere? You will find figurative uses of it in the King James version of the Bible (“I will sweepe it with the besome of destruction”) and in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part 2 (“Be it known unto thee by these presence, even the presence of Lord Mortimer, that I am the besom that must sweep the court clean of such filth as thou art”). You will also find literal uses of it in assorted literature, but not much that was written after the mid-1800s.

You may also find it in the company of other words: a besom-head is a blockhead; a besom-rider is a witch; besom-heath is heath used to make besoms (fancy that), and besom-weed is the same thing – or that other similar plant with which besoms may be made. What was that plant called? Oh, yes: broom.

phlox, phylloxera

First of all: does or doesn’t phlox seem like it might be a shortening of phylloxera? If we can shorten chrysanthemum to mum, if we can shorten San Francisco to Frisco, surely we can shorten phylloxera to phlox, no?

Well, I suppose we could if the word weren’t already taken. So, yes, phlox and phylloxera are two different things. One is a bug and one is a flower. Now: which is which? If you happen to know at least one of them, then of course there’s no guessing, but tell me anyway: which one sounds like a bug and which a flower?

I have the general sense (I’m not going to dig up stats to support it right now; that would take time) that there are quite a few flower names that are polysyllabic and often ending in a: hydrangea, azalea, calendula, camellia, gardenia, portulaca… On the other hand, a word like phlox seems to me better suited to a bug, like gnat, aphid, midge, cockroach, flea, tsetse fly, wasp…

Even if you don’t know either of these words, you can probably see this coming: phlox is a pretty, bright-coloured flower, and phylloxera is a plant louse that plagues grape vines – it destroyed most of the grape vines in Europe in the later 19th century after having been brought over from the Americas. (The vineyards recovered by means of hybridization.) The pair together (not that they are ever seen together) are not for days of wine and roses; however, at least phlox make a substitute for roses, whereas phylloxera deprive you of the wine altogether.

If you are despairing of any sort of sound-sense link in these words, there is still a straw you may cling to: their Greek origins. Phylloxera is not, after all, Classical Greek for “nasty grape-eating bug”. Look closely at its bits (the word, I mean): does phyllo look like pastry? It actually means “leaf” (well, phyllon is the word for “leaf”), just as phyllo pastry is leafy. And xera? Not a warrior princess; just a copy. A photocopy. It’s the source for Xerox, a printer that uses dry ink (toner). Xéros means “dry”. So this is the dry-leaf bug. Meanwhile, Classical Greek phlox means “flame”. (Phlox your Bic?)

Does the ph on phlox make it seem high-level? Or, paradoxically, argot-y, perhaps nerd argot, like phishing, or something a bit hipper, like phat? Does the x make it seem like a character from Dr. Seuss (like the Lorax) or from Star Trek (that would be – uh, Phlox, actually, from Star Trek: Enterprise)? Does it seem perhaps as though the mouth is fuller with ph than with, say, f? Well, what do you think about the word flocks? Does it feel different? Quite the influence that spelling and context have, isn’t it? Phlox and flocks are pronounced exactly the same, after all.

And what about phylloxera: it’s a very similar vocal gesture to that of phlox, just more drawn out and with a /r/ consonant added (and while you, like me, may automatically put the accent on the third-last syllable, there is also the option of putting it on the second-last). It certainly starts soft; it has the hard /ks/ in the middle, but then it ends soft, too. It has a certain liquidity to it as well – like the soft drink you have to have because the bugs got the wine, perhaps. Well, at least there are the flowers…

shirr

Maury had invited a few of us – me, Elisa, and Jess – over for brunch, and was setting before us small dishes with eggs and butter floating in them.

“Mmm! What’s this?” exclaimed Elisa Lively.

“It’s a shirred egg,” said Maury.

“Assured of what?” Elisa asked.

“Proper cooking and no absence of cholesterol,” Maury said.

“But can you tell me what you did to it?”

“Shirr.”

Pause.

“So what did you do to it?”

“Shirr.” Maury was trying to suppress a smile. He has a wicked streak.

“Sure?”

“Yes, I’m sure.”

“What are you sure about?”

“The eggs. I assure you, that egg is a shirred egg.”

I gestured at the yellow goodness my egg was swimming in. “Butter you shirr?”

“Always.”

“OK,” said Jess, “stop milking this or I’ll cream you.”

Maury held up a finger, turned on his heel and went to his cookbook shelf. He returned with a copy of the 1977 English printing of the 1960 edition of the Larousse Gastronomique, open to page 338. He handed it to Elisa with a gesture. She read aloud: “‘Eggs sur le plat, or shirred eggs.’ …Oh! …You’re funny. ‘…For two eggs coat the dish with one half tablespoon butter. Heat on the stove. Break the eggs into the dish and pour melted butter on the yolks. Cook in the oven for as long as is liked and when ready, sprinkle with fine salt.'” She handed the book back. “So I gather that to make shirred eggs, you shirr them.”

“You gather correctly,” Maury said. “In fact, if I may say ‘sew,’ when you shirr you always gather.”

“OK, you’ve lost me again,” Elisa said.

“The meaning of shirr is elastic,” I explained.

“You guys!” Jess said. She turned to Elisa. “Shirr also means ‘gather or draw up fabric using parallel threads’, and a shirred garment has elastic threads woven into it. The noun shirr can mean elastic webbing.”

“Oh,” said Elisa. “What’s the connection?”

“The elastic, of course,” Maury said. Elisa swatted him. “Actually,” Maury said, “I don’t know, and the usual reference sources are not forthcoming on the subject. It may have to do with the appearance of the eggs when they are shirred.”

“Well,” said Elisa, determined to get a wordplay into the match, “I guess you’re the shirriff today.”

“No, this is the Shirriff,” said Maury, gesturing to a jar of Shirriff marmalade that was on the sideboard. “And your toast.” He pointed to a plate of toast on the table.

“I’m toast?” Elisa said.

“Don’t egg him on,” Jess said. “Look, I’m eating.” She took a bite. “Why don’t we all?”

“I hope it’s good,” Maury said.

Jess smiled a little. “Shirr.” (Or perhaps she said “it is” in Mandarin. It sounds about the same…)

What’s the reason to not do it?

I was wandering around through Twitter, and I read the following tweet from someone called @GrammarMonkeys: “not to participate” — there’s no reason to split that infinitive (others, yes, but not this one)

That’s sort of like saying to a chicken, “There’s no reason to cross that road (other roads, yes, but not this one).” You see, what if the chicken just wants to cross the road? Is there a general rule saying “Don’t cross roads without a special reason to do so”? No, there isn’t.

And is there a rule in English that says “Don’t split infinitives” or even “Don’t split infinitives without a special reason to do so”? Continue reading

snuck

Well, maybe it’s time I snuck in another pocket screed. Today’s will be “why ‘that’s not a word’ is a senseless assertion.” And maybe if I snuck in a bit of linguistic terminology as well… it’s ablaut time.

Let’s start with that ablaut thingy. What is ablaut? It’s a term (pronounced like “ab lout”) linguistics has taken from German to refer to what’s happening in word sets such as shrink, shrank, shrunken, or sing, sang, sung, or drive and drove, or any other set of words where an inflectional change causes the main vowel to move back in the mouth – in particular “strong” verbs.

Now, the thing about “strong” verbs is that, supposedly, they’re not making new ones. New verbs have to get the -ed past tense and past participle endings, supposedly. It would be sloppy and irregular and so on if some verb that didn’t have the “strong” blue blood in its veins were to take on the airs of ablaut.

The problem being that people, goshdarnit, don’t seem to approach language in a purely schematic, consistent way. Things are often done by analogy. And some things begin as “mistakes” but take root. There are quite a lot of fully accepted words and expressions now in use that have come about through “mistakes,” reanalysis, et cetera. And of course there are some that are still resisted vigorously in spite of being in common use for more than a century. One such is snuck.

It’s quite a sensible ablaut alternation, isn’t it? Sneak–snuck, as self-evident as, say, dive–dove. Alas, it was not always thus; the original (and still used, especially outside of North America) past tense of sneak was sneaked. Somehow snuck just snuck in there (like dove – the same people who oppose snuck oppose dove as the past of dive, for the same reason: it’s not an original strong verb).

It’s not as though the ablaut words we have have all kept their original vowels from the beginning, either. Drove would then be drave, for instance. But snuck is a pure interloper! It’s like having one of those people trying to get into your country club. They’re just not our sort. They don’t belong, you see. Why, snuck is not a word!

Well, yes it is. First of all, a word is any unitary lexical item that is used with proper effect to communicate a particular sense. In other words, if I say it as a word, and you understand it as a word, it’s a word for us. And if it’s in general circulation in a given language and used by many people, and those speakers of that language who hear it generally understand it, it’s a word in that language. Doesn’t matter if it’s not in your dictionary; dictionaries are like field guides, not legislation. Birdwatchers don’t say “That can’t be a bird; it’s not in my book,” they say “My book is missing that one.” That’s how it is with dictionaries too. And if you’re arguing against something being a word, it’s surely because you’ve heard it used as a word (otherwise why bother arguing?), so you’re already wrong from the start.

And anyway, snuck is in the dictionary. So there. It’s been in use in American English since at least the late 1800s, and it’s made its way into all sorts of dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary.

Sure, it’s comparatively informal. But the verb sneak isn’t exactly high-flown. And there’s use for informal words. Especially ones that have a suitable mouthfeel and sound, like snuck does. Let’s face it: sneaking is a generally negatively toned act, or at least a rascally one. It’s something done in such a way as to evade detection. There is a certain underhandedness and lack of dignity to it. Under what circumstance could you even think of saying “The Pope snuck into the room”? (Or “The Pope sneaked into the room”?)

So we have a word that has the nose-reminiscent /sn/, which also shows up in words like snip, snicker, snake, and sneer, and then we get that “uck”, which can be a very down-to-earth, informal kind of sound in our language: it might be good luck or a big truck or it might be getting stuck trying to buy a duck (yuck), or it might be any of a variety of other more or less louche words ending with the same rhyme.

This is not to say that sneaked lacks any such tones – it has the same onset, and rhymes with leaked and peeked and tweaked and such like – but it’s a higher, thinner sound (I have the sense that snuck is more appropriate to going under a table and sneaked to going in through a narrow gap), and it has a more complex ending, /kt/ rather than /k/.

So why not have a choice? It’s hardly the first time we’ve had two words for something, and just aesthetic and similar connotative matters to distinguish between them. After all, snuck is a word too.

patty

I lately learned of an interesting little episode in bureaucracy thanks to torontoist.com. At Historicist: The Toronto Patty Wars, I found out that in 1985, federal food inspectors from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs informed sellers of Jamaican beef patties in Toronto that they absolutely could not sell their products under that name.

The inspectors, you see, armed with the federal definition of a beef patty as consisting of only meat, salt, seasonings, and flavour enhancers, and definitely nothing made from grain products, were shocked, appalled, dismayed, etc., to discover that these so-called “beef patties” actually had quite a lot of flour and similar things in them!

Well, of course they did. A Jamaican beef patty is somewhat like an empanada or a Cornish pasty: it has a pastry shell inside which is ground, seasoned meat. And they had been sold in Toronto under the name beef patties since the 1960s (and in Jamaica long before that). So what’s the beef?

In the end, the vendors were allowed to continue calling their products patties, but they could not call them beef patties. Which of course means that if you sell Jamaican patties some of which have beef and some of which have other fillings, you have to use a more convoluted syntax to designate them.

This is clearly a case of putting the cart before the horse, and it’s also a great example of the grand old language game of presenting inferior understanding as superior understanding. The government knew of only one kind of patty, and made its narrow definition on the basis of that, and when it was confronted with other patties, it insisted they could not be patties because they did not fit its definition. This is perhaps the most classic example of a Procrustean bed I have ever seen in real life. It just goes to show how sometimes (often, in fact) pat answers are flat wrong.

The greatest irony of all in this is that the Caribbean sense of patty, “small pie or pastry”, predates the “flattened cake of ground or minced food” sense… by nearly 250 years.

The word patty, and its sibling pasty (pronounced like past with an /i/ on the end), come from an older sense of French pâté, which in turn comes from pâte, which is cognate with pasta and pastry and comes ultimately from Greek παστη pasté, “paste” or “barley porridge”. The English sense, in use by 1660, was first a meat pie. The meaning transferred to the filling – specifically formed and shaped as a disc – by the early 20th century.

And now what do we think when we hear patty? Well, if it’s beef patty and we’re not used to Caribbean food, we’ll think of a hamburger. But if we hear the word patty by itself (and we don’t think we’re hearing paddy as in rice paddy), we’re probably going to think of the female name. We might think of particular people, real or fictional, who have had that name. I’m put in mind of a rather winsome, introverted girl I knew I high school, for instance. (Thanks to Facebook, I know that she is now a university professor.) But I’m also put in mind of Peppermint Patty from Peanuts (a.k.a. Charlie Brown comics), singer Patti Smith, and the song “Cow Patti” by Jim Stafford – and of course cow patties, something I saw many of up close and personal when I was growing up in Alberta. And there are many males also called Patty (or Paddy), short for Patrick (or Pádraig).

You might also think of patty cake (also known as pat-a-cake) and the act of patting something and perhaps even that charming little Christmas song with the line “tu-re-lu-re-lu, pat-a-pat-a-pan.” And perhaps you’ll be put in mind of putty or petty or pretty or potty or pity or maybe even (in the spirit of the Christmas song) piety. It just has such a pleasing little percussivity to it, kind of like the little pats with which one may form a hamburger patty. (That word pat, by the way, most likely is imitative in origin – your hand goes “pat, pat, pat”, so that’s that.)

Now or immediately?

Wilson Fowlie has brought to my attention the cartoon How to Express Yourself Forcefully at basicinstructions.net. I have no quibble with the main thrust of the cartoon – it’s rather well done, actually – but there’s one thing in it that has caught quite a few people out, if the comments are anything to go by: in the first panel, one of the characters says “You didn’t say do it now. You said do it immediately. There’s a big difference.”

“Oh no!” think various readers. “Another subtle distinction in English that I never learned and that now threatens to make me look like an idiot! Uh… what’s the difference?” Well, I’ll tell you. Continue reading

snood

I’ve always found this a funny sort of little word. Its /sn/ onset sets it squarely in the midst of a number of words having to do with noses and nasal-toned things (snoot, snout, snore, snort, snot, snook, sniff, snuff, snivel, snoop, sneer, snarl) along with some unrelated to noses but that may seem to have some affinity of tone nonetheless (snag, snail, snap, snare, snatch, snazzy, sneak, snipe, snitch, snob, snub, snug) and some that may (or may not, depending on the hearer) seem unrelated (snake, snow). It has a bluntness in its /d/ ending, and it stares up at you wide-eyed from the page with its oo.

But what does it mean? And how is it pronounced? Well, the second question is not too hard – how it is, or anyway according to dictionaries should be, pronounced is not to rhyme with hood but rather to rhyme with mooed – making it sound like snowed said with a certain kind of Scottish accent.

The first question, on the other hand, is more of a trick than you might think, because it’s a moving target. We can say for certain that it’s always a doodad or odd and sod that is worn on or near the head. But greater specifics require context.

I knew it first as a hairnet – that bag-like sort of net that women may wear at the back of the head to contain long hair. They had some popularity during World War II; now they are mainly seen on strictly Torah-observant married Jewish women, Hutterites, and women from some other religiously conservative groups.

This is what I thought James Joyce was referring to in his poem “Bid Adieu to Maidenhood,” published in 1907:

Bid adieu, adieu, adieu,
Bid adieu to girlish days,
Happy Love is come to woo
Thee and woo thy girlish ways —
The zone that doth become thee fair,
The snood upon thy yellow hair.

When thou hast heard his name upon
The bugles of the cherubim
Begin thou softly to unzone
Thy girlish bosom unto him
And softly to undo the snood
That is the sign of maidenhood.

I thought it rather odd that he was obsessing on a hairnet and I wasn’t sure why he thought it to be so particularly a sign of maidenhood. (I also found his rhyme of snood and maidenhood every bit as off as his rhyme of adieu with woo and of upon with unzone – clearly dialectal differences.) But in fact he had a different sort of thing in mind, it turns out; we learn what from Walter Scott, in a note in his 1810 Lady of the Lake:

The snood, or riband, with which a Scottish lass braided her hair, had an emblematical signification, and applied to her maiden character. It was exchanged for the curch, toy, or coif, when she passed, by marriage, into the matron state. But if the damsel was so unfortunate as to lose pretensions to the name of maiden, without gaining a right to that of matron, she was neither permitted to use the snood, nor advanced to the graver dignity of the curch. In old Scottish songs there occur many sly allusions to such misfortune; as in the old words to the popular tune of “Ower the muir amang the heather”:

Down amang the broom, the broom,
Down amang the broom, my dearie,
The lassie lost her silken snood,
That gard her greet till she was wearie.

It was, in other words, a ribbon, which might have been braided into the hair.

But along with Scottish maidens and ultra-orthodox wives, there is a third set of people lately seen wearing snoods: soccer players.

No, they’re not wearing hairnets or hair ribbons. Somehow snood has come to refer to yet another thing: a neck warmer. They’re an in thing with some players, and FIFA is considering banning them – for safety reasons, they say, but I wonder if it’s just because they’re still frustrated about not being able to ban the vuvuzela during the World Cup and they want to ban something (no snoods is good snoods?). You can see this kind of snood pictured with articles such as the following, which American Dialect Society member Victor Steinbok drew my (and other ADS-L listers’) attention to: FIFA considering snood ban; Suspended pair fail with appeal bid and FIFA thinks snoods could be a danger to players’ necks.

We also see (and thanks to ADS-L member Damien Hall for this link) that it may have used to refer to a sort of cowl to go with an ’80s-style jacket: 80s New Romantic Gold Larme Jacket and Snood (note the reconstrual of lamé as larme).

So, I guess, if your hair’s nude or your neck’s nude, you can wear a snood; whether you should, and whether you will seem a snob or a prude, is another matter.

ejective

Eject is a word that may fairly easily raise a slight smile due to the roughness, hazardousness, or indignity of its most frequent referents – a fighter pilot may eject from the cockpit, a boisterous drunk may be ejected from a bar, a skier whose tips jam into something suddenly may do a double eject from his bindings… The most genteel sense I can think of is the eject button on various media players, from cassette recorders to DVD players. The overtones of ejaculate and the derisive flavour of reject add to its rather improper flavour. And fair enough: it’s from Latin for “throw out” – e “out” plus jacere “throw”.

So ejective would be “able to eject” or “pertaining to ejection”, yes? Yes, but in particular it has a linguistic sense: it’s a kind of consonant. Now, it’s possible that you’ve never spoken an ejective consonant in your life, because English doesn’t have them and neither do any other European languages I can think of, but I rather think, given the way children – and to a perhaps lesser extent adults – play with sounds, that at some time in your life you’ve made the sound. I do think it’s quite likely you’ve heard ejective consonants. I say this because I think it’s quite likely that you’ve seen the movie Avatar.

James Cameron, director of Avatar, wanted the indigenes of the planet Pandora to have a developed language, one that would sound alien to audiences but at the same time be pleasing to listen to and not prohibitive for his actors to speak. He hired Paul Frommer, a trained linguist and business-school professor, who presented some options, and what was chosen was a phonemic set with noticeable use of ejectives.

So what are these ejectives? One stand-out word from the movie is sk’awng or, as it’s spelled in the standardized Na’vi orthography in the Latin alphabet, skxawng. It means “idiot” and is used several times. The ejective k’ gives the word a feel of some cartoon character being hit in the head with a hammer and his head ringing like a gong. You may remember it.

In the real world, ejectives are found in many languages, including a goodly number of African and American languages – Hausa and Lakhota, for instance. They are also present in Georgian (what they speak in the republic of Georgia in the Caucasus), and when I sang in Darbazi, a choir that sang music from the ancient polyphonic tradition of Georgia, what our conductor, Alan Gasser, told us to do was basically to say the consonant very emphatically. And then he demonstrated.

A demonstration goes a long way, but I can’t actually give you one here. But it’s important to know, first of all, that an ejective consonant is not just any forcefully produced consonant. It has to be a stop or affricate – the airstream has to be stopped for a moment – and the glottis has to close. Ejectives are not sternutatory – they’re not like sneezing. There is no force from your lungs. The force comes entirely from a buildup of air pressure in the space between your closed glottis and where your tongue has stopped up your mouth (I’m put in mind of a piston in a diesel engine). So an ejective is a stop coarticulated with a glottal stop, with a buildup of pressure and the glottal stop releasing after the stop.

That’s probably confusing to most of those reading this. So let’s do this: start with the word uh-uh, as in “no” (rather than uh-huh, as in “yes”). Say it. Now say it again, but build up some pressure in the stop between the uh and the uh as if you’re lifting something; make sure to be actually holding your breath and adding a bit of tension in there: uh-…-uh. Now say the word okay in the same way: ok…kay. Now try it with the the /k/ released with a sort of pop outward a half second before you actually release your breath: ok…k’…ay. You should be able to produce the same piston-pop effect with “p”, “t”, “ts”, and “ch”.

So an ejective ejects the air that has built up pressure between your glottis and your tongue. But of course in ordinary speech it’s not quite so emphatic. I’ve found a video that teaches some words in Adyghe (Circassian), a language of the Caucasus, and in some of them you can see how ejectives come out in normal speech and how they’re different from ordinary stops. Just look for the p’, t’, or k’ – the other places you see will have it just as a glottal stop, as in uh-uh.

And why, if we don’t have them in English and you’re unlikely to learn a language that has them, should you care? Well, you like the taste and feel of words and their sounds, don’t you? There is much to be learned from the various things your mouth can do that you don’t use it for. (I mean sounds it can make. Of course.) And we do occasionally make these kinds of sounds when speaking English, just for effect. So why throw them out?