Monthly Archives: April 2012

empyrean

This is indeed a lofty word, glowing with the poetic diction of earlier centuries, when classical allusions were elevating rather than trite. It is a word that seems to me to be made of rich blue velvet; Wordsworth speaks of “empyrean light,” Milton of the “pure Empyrean,” Walter Raleigh (and many others) of the “Empyrean Heaven” (the original full phrase of which this word is the short form). Empyrean has the warmth of the nasals /m/ and /n/, but with a cooling puff of the breath in its heart as we release the /p/. True blue indeed.

But what, empirically, may we say it is? If you have seen empyrean here and there in prose and verse, you must be burning to know. Is the empyrean the empire of the sun? Is it blue heaven? May it be black? Oh, but how can we talk of the highest heaven as black? Although on a mountaintop in crisp winter air I have looked up and seen the sky so deep blue it was almost black, we must consider the sky of daylight to be enrobed in blue.

Even though at night you may see far more suns than just the closest one. Even though the blue you see by day is simply the filtering effect of the atmosphere that is near. May it be that our heaven is really more a matter of our perspective than we think? But what is beyond it?

Well. If you reach the firmament and peek beyond it, like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show opening the door in the fake shell of the sky, what you see beyond is – or was – thought to be the empyrean. That is the pure realm of the highest heaven. There is nothing impure in the empyrean; it has been cleansed by the fire of the divine sun. It is where Dante was taken by Beatrice; it is Milton’s highest sphere in Paradise Lost.

Now, of course, empyrean is used more loosely as a synonym for sky. But any sky, night or day? How could the inky black of night be the empyrean? And yet there are millions of millions of suns out there, and as we look out on them we know some of them have planets wandering around them, and perhaps through the atmospheres of some of those planets other eyes see their own empyrean lit by their own sun, while we are an atom of dark by a spark in their occult welkin.

Yeah, yeah, lay off the overbaked language. Did you know people actually used to like that? Not just heaven but heavenly verse seems to relate to the perceiver.

Funny thing, though, empyrean. The word speaks of the highest, but it has no letters that reach above the common; indeed, it has two that reach downward like roots. And what do they reach towards? What is this word grounded in? Is heaven under our feet as well as above our heads?

I should say that empyrean has no etymological relation to empire or empirical, which in turn are not related to each other – things may resemble and yet dissemble. This word has pyr at its heart, and those who enjoy reading these word tasting notes probably know that root: as seen in pyrite and pyromaniac and such like. Our word of the day comes by way of Latin from Greek ἔμπυρος empuros, “fiery” or “in or on the fire”. Thus it has a pur heart that is the great purifier (like a refiner’s fire).

And indeed, from earth, through air the colour of water, we see the fire of our sun. What burns is not a thing, it is a process, a wave, a constant change. Fair enough for the highest: infinity by definition is always increasing, or it would be in some sense finite. Perfection that is unchanging is imperfect because dead. Fire may burn and destroy, but that is change, and change is life. The real illusion is that the earth, air, and water are not also changing at their own rates. It’s a matter of perspective.

And fire is not intrinsically good or bad; after all, when you think of fire, do you think of heaven or hell? What does inferno mean to us? The word is not related to words for “fire”; it is related to inferior, because hell is below, and inferno is Italian for “hell”. But in English inferno means fire. We can even have a “towering inferno.” We get this connection of inferno and fire from Dante, but where did he get it? From Christian tradition, naturally. But let us gain some more perspective on that.

The vision of “hell” attributed to Jesus is of a place where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die – Jesus calls it Gehenna, which is a reference to the valley outside of Jerusalem that served as the garbage dump, where of course garbage was always being burned. Does that mean he just meant the town dump? That he was just speaking of death and decay? We know he was a dab hand at metaphors, so we can’t assume that, although we should be careful about some of the other assumptions we are in the habit of making too.

But do remember this: If you’re on the garbage heap, it may suck for you, but it’s heaven for the worms. The local fire that they would not want to be burned by is nonetheless the empyrean light beyond their paradise. And when the worms and fire have done their business, you’ll be good fertilizer for the soil, so that new things may put down roots and grow… with the help of that sun up there in the empyrean.

lowly

“I find that highly suspect,” Wally said to the lowly suspect, knitting his owly brow w, tugging on his tie y, and pulling close his woolly coat. “You are saying that there was no antonym?”

The suspect was not so manly as to display contumely, but his answer was not timely. Was he simply being cowardly? “Enough lollygagging!” Wally exclaimed. “We know that -ly means an adverb. You simply attach it and it goes. Strongly, weakly; majorly, minorly; brightly, darkly; heavily, lightly.”

“Don’t be silly,” said the suspect. “There is more than one -ly in the language.”

“There is only one!” shouted Wally.

“It’s not the only one,” riposted the suspect. “It is true that they come from the same source, which is also the origin of our word like. But like it or not, not all -ly words are adverbs, just as not all adverbs are -ly words.”

“You tricked them with semantics!” Wally said, jabbing his finger at the suspect.

“It was a bit lawyerly, I admit,” he replied. “But I spoke the truth: I told them that if I said the jewels were highly valuable, no one could say the opposite.”

“I’d say you sold them some mighty lowly valuables,” Wally said. “So you lose.”

“But lowly valuables are not the same as being lowly valuable. If you say something is highly poisonous, that makes sense. But if you say it’s lowly poisonous, it doesn’t.”

“You think highly of your reasoning,” Wally said, “but I think lowly of it.”

“I concede that there are adverbial forms of lowly,” the suspect said, “but they don’t have the same range of usage as highly. You see, highly can be used before an adjective to indicate great degree, like very or maximally. It can also, of course, be used to indicate high placement. But while lowly can be used to indicate low placement, it can’t be used before an adjective to indicate small degree.”

“That doesn’t make sense,” said Wally. “It’s highly irrational.”

“Human language is never truly a slave to lowly reason,” the suspect said. “Anyways, what I sold them was lovely.”

“More meretricious than meritorious,” Wally snorted.

“You simply don’t see the beauty in things. Take lowly. It has the echo of three v shapes without a single v in the word; it reaches high with two uprights like the Tower Bridge; it may seem to carry nothing, an empty o, but it can still double you; and it is introspective enough to end by asking ‘Why?’ And it sings a song with its parallel liquids, lowly lowly low…

“A goodly homage to a lowly word,” Wally allowed, “but you deceived them badly. Goods made cheaply became costly. You are dastardly.”

“It was not a princely sum; they got the early-bird price,” said the suspect. “Goods discounted daily. Anyways, words are free, but what is more valuable?”

“Silence is golden,” replied Wally, “and you will pay dearly for your words. I think you come out poorly on the balance sheet, and you will get what you richly deserve.”

coryphaeus

I’m currently reading Vortex, the third book in Robert Charles Wilson’s Spin trilogy. In it there is a society who are all networked together at the limbic level, so that they tend to have much greater unity of emotion. The central networking node of this society is called the Coryphaeus.

It took me a moment to recall where I knew that word from. It had been a while since I had studied Greek drama. But a coryphaeus is, in Greek drama, the leader of the chorus.

Now, when I’m talking about a chorus, I’m not talking about a group of singers who stand by the side, and I’m not talking about the supporting company of singers and dancers in a Broadway show – though it’s something rather like the latter. The chorus, in Greek drama, is a group of persons germane to the action – often the play was named after them, as in The Trojan Women or The Libation Bearers or almost any play by Aristophanes (The Birds, The Frogs, The Clouds, The Acharnians). They dance together, sing together, speak together – actually, no, the coryphaeus is their spokesperson.

So clearly coryphaeus is related to chorus, right? There’s just that middle bit… But no, actually, there’s no etymological connection. Remember that our ch in Greek-derived words represents the letter chi χ, which in Greek is like the ch in Scottish loch or German bach – we just don’t use that sound in modern English. The c, on the other hand, is just a kappa κ passed through Latin. So this cor and chor are no more related than tail and sail.

In fact, coryphaeus just means “chief” or “leader” in the original – koruphaios, κορυϕαῖος, which comes from koruphé κορυϕή “head” or “top”. So when it’s used to mean more generally the leader of a group, that’s actually not an extension of the chorus sense; it’s just a use of the broader sense.

Oh, and if you want a word that is related to chorus, that would be choragus – also seen as choregus and choragos. It refers to the honorary leader of the chorus, an Athenian citizen who ponied up the drachmas to pay for the chorus. The coryphaeus was the actual leader of the chorus.

Or should I say the koruphaios was. Oh, heck, we get so many of our Greek words by way of Latin! And the Latin spelling and transliteration practices prevail – and all those os (and ous) endings become us, even when they’re not actually nominal suffixes (as in Oidipous, Latinized as Oedipus). For that matter, I could really render that Greek as korufaios; it’s kind of misleading to use ph for that sound that has come down to us as /f/. But it has a different feel, doesn’t it? Compare our philosophy with the Spanish filosofía. The f’s are slender, sinuous; the ph’s are stuffed, fat – or is that phat. And pompous.

But korufaios is more foreign-looking; it has that hard k and the aio bunch. We’re just not used to seeing such things in refined company. Does it really pass the test for something that, as Peter Shaffer had his Mozart say in the play Amadeus (but not in the movie), is so lofty it shits marble? True, actual Greek choruses were not necessarily so elevated in the original. But does not coryphaeus seem more elegant, crisp, refined, professional, philosophical? The aeus is a Latin bunch, unlike the wild aios; the c and y are suitable for presentation at tea-time, perhaps to your aunt Cory.

It is true that this word can be yours cheap, but doesn’t it look so expensive? The shape, the cypher, give you pause; surely you will pay to score it. Spruce ahoy! But of course if you’re footing the bill, that makes you the choragus, not the coryphaeus…

jildi

I want to do today’s word tasting note quickly, so I’m going to do it on the jildi. I mean I’m going to do a jildi. Specifically, I’m going to do jildi.

I’m going to do Jill D.? Who’s that – a fast woman, a jilt? No, no, no… Jildi is Anglo-Indian, originally military slang; it’s from Hindi jaldi “quickness”. Why the switch from jaldi to jildi? To be fair, jeldy, juldie, and some other variants also exist. But jildi has become the most officialized version, as it were. I don’t have any reliable data to say why, but I can point out that higher vowels have a way of being associated with greater speed; that the shift assimilates it towards the other vowel in the word; and that “jill” is a more established syllable in English than “jall” or “jull” (the vowel in the Hindi original is as much like the one we would say in “jull” as like the one we would say in “jall”).

And of course the switch to i adds to the visual effect: you get better motion lines with that sequence of parallels interrupted only by the bump of the d. Better still, you have three dots – and they are increasing in distance; perhaps the word could be extended to jildiddldi to add a fourth dot even farther along…

How do you use this word? Best to stick to idiom – in a phrase such as on the jildi or do a jildi or move a jildi, or as a one-word exclamation, Jildi! (the equivalent in medical spheres would be Stat! – but I rather think that, though jildi takes longer to say than stat, it’s a word that has a better flavour of fast motion; stat has a greater sense of instantaneity than of movement).

So it’s a noun? Well, the OED says it’s a noun; Wiktionary says it’s an adverb (citing more jildi and most jildi to support it); Urban Dictionary (citing the one-word sentence) says it’s a verb meaning “hurry”. It’s a sort of imported flower with no roots in English soil, so it gets planted here and there, always perceptibly a little different from its surrounds – and anyway, words often have a way of moving quite easily between categories in English.

But when you want something jildi, questions of morphological yield are unwieldy. Just stuff it in and move!

tiza

This is a stylish-looking word, I’d say, one ready for TV: it has the play of the narrow ti and wide za, the rectilinear t and the diagonal z, the neat line across on the first three letters with the dot of the i hovering above it, the first three letters like the styling on the side of a convertible tiz and at the end a soft curly a. It brings to mind Liza as in Minnelli, and also (for those who know this) Tisa as in the sister of Mia Farrow. For me it also brings to mind my sister-in-law Tisa, whose name I sometimes pronounce to rhyme with Liza.

This word is actually pronounced like “tee-za”. And what does it mean? Oh, think of all the things you might want to give a name such as this. Where has it been all your life? The iza ending makes me think of Spanish words (indeed, there is a Mexican Spanish word tiza for a sort of chalk; that word comes from Nahuatl), or just maybe Italian (a double z would be more like that). It really is a little gem, a precious little stone – you could quite fairly call it lapidary.

And what it names is a mineral. The Oxford English Dictionary has an almost startlingly recondite definition: “Ulexite or hayesine.” Um. OK. What are those?

There’s a first hint in the etymology. Its source is Quechua (the language of the Incas): t’isa “card wool” (verb), which is a reference to its appearance. So it’s like wool fibres? Rather. Ulexite is the more common name; it comes from the German chemist Georg Ludwig Ulex. Hayesine is more problematic; what it refers to in a given instance may be ulexite. Anyway, the rocks look the same.

How do they look? Like a translucent white fibrous mineral. And those fibres, which are all oriented in the same direction, give tiza a particular optical property, as they act as optical fibres. If you cut a slab of tiza (ulexite) across the fibres and put something up against one side, the other face will display an image (not necessarily sharp and clear) of what is against the one face, regardless of the angle you view it from. So if you put a bright object perhaps 3 cm from the bottom, then on the other side you will see the indistinct image of that thing 3 cm from the bottom – even if you’re looking at an oblique angle from above.

This property gives it a nickname: TV rock. ’Tis a good name – TV is similar in ways to tiza. Unfortunately, it seems that tiza is not ready for prime time; ulexite is the more common name, and tiza the more recondite, ironically. Such a shame to make so little use of such a good name.