Monthly Archives: October 2012

uisce

Words are a strange crop to grow, and an even stranger one to study. Oh, they have some common DNA, as it were, although there’s quite a lot of variation. Their soil is the human mind and the human vocal tract, and while there is a lot of flexibility and many options, there appear to be a few general parameters you can usually count on… usually. But where they can really fool you is when they go onto paper.

If you drink whisky or wine or brandy, you know that they don’t usually taste all that much like what they’re made from. Whisky doesn’t really give you a flavour of grains, not exactly; it’s been fermented and distilled. And it certainly doesn’t taste like water, its majority ingredient. Wine seldom tastes like grapes (there are exceptions) and brandy never does (a bit like raisins sometimes, but never like grapes). But at the same time, the grains and grapes can be cultivated for how they will taste after fermentation and, as the case may be, distillation.

Think of the written form of language as like the whisky, wine, brandy. This is not an exact analogy, but it has its uses. The written form does not always correspond reliably to the spoken form. Indeed, in a language such as English, what you get when you write a given sound can be very inconsistent from word to word. And once you compare writing from one language with writing from another, all bets are off. But sometimes the way we say the word – and the way we think of it – is shaped by how it’s spelled. And sometimes there are very interesting feedbacks even crossing from one language to another and back.

And that’s not even saying anything about the interplay of meanings. It can all get very intoxicating. There’s a certain magic in language… Watch as it turns water into whisky.

We start with uisce. This is not an English word; it’s not even in the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s a Gaelic word. You will find it in both Irish and Scots Gaelic, in the same form or as uisge (the two kinds of Gaelic are reasonably closely related, but there are certainly differences). Does it leave you wondering how to pronounce it? If you know the rules of Irish or Scots Gaelic pronunciation, it’s actually quite clear, just like what it refers to: depending on dialect, something like “ishkih” or “wishkey.” And it means “water”. If you say “Tabhair dhom gloine uisce,” which in Irish sounds sorta like “trrum glinna ishkey” to Anglophones, it means “Give me a glass of water.”

But there’s water and there’s water. In Slavic languages, add a diminutive ending to the word for “water” and you get vodka or wódka or similar, and you know what that is. In France, say “water of life” – eau-de-vie – and you are referring to a distilled spirit, such as brandy (the word brandy, not a French word, comes from Dutch brandewijn, “burnt wine”). The Irish and Scots follow the French in this – a diminutive added would just make uiscín, “a little water” (if you would even say it), but you’re talking about whisky when you say uisce beatha or uisge beatha, which means “water of life” and sounds like “wishkey bah” or “ishkibeh” or something on that order depending on dialect. When they started distilling their fermented grains, that’s the name they gave the result.

That name clearly was not going to transfer to English unaltered. Some words come over to English with spelling intact and sound changed, some with sound intact and spelling changed, some with both changed, only a few with everything intact. In this case, the sound was adapted moderately to suit English tongues, and the spelling was based on the English pronunciation. Actually, there were two different English versions at first: usquebaugh and whiskybae.

And we know that what has prevailed and made it down as the normal word in modern times is a cut version of the latter: whisky. It is also spelled whiskey. The two are pronounced the same, but it is very, very, very, VERY! important to some people that you get the spelling right (you know how some people are about these things – if they were concerned with fashion rather than words, they would be the ones tearing strips off you for wearing white after Labour Day). If you are drinking Scotch, it is whisky, no e. If you are drinking Bourbon, it is whiskey, with an e.

But the story does not end there. Let’s turn back to our Gaelic dictionary. The one I have ready to hand is Irish, because that’s the kind I’ve studied. You will find in it the word fuiscí, pronounced (to English ears) like “fishkey” with perhaps a hint of “w” after the “f”. I should say that the /hw/ that English sometimes (more formerly than now) has where we write wh is not a sound one makes per se in Irish. So that English sound was rendered in Gaelic as /f/ – and they spelled the word accordingly. They may not export their whisk(e)y to England and reimport it before drinking it, but they did export the word and reimport it. Sort of like if the French exported wine to another country to be made into brandy and then reimported it for drinking as such.

These are crazy crops, these words. You may want to tread with a light foot around them. Perhaps a Gordon Lightfoot – he sang “Whiskey and wine help me pass the time / I don’t leave no evidence.” Well, these words, with their Zugunruhe, do show evidence of their travels. They come back aged and transformed. And then we sit and sip them.

Tá tart mór orm anois. Cá bhfuil an fuiscí?*

Thanks to Roberto De Vido for suggesting uisce.

*I’m very thirsty now. Where’s the whisky? Pronounced sort of like “taw tart moor orum anish, caw will a fishkey?”

kex

Look at this stylish little word. It has lines vertical, horizontal, and diagonal, plus an almost-circle. It’s almost architectural. And it has such a snappy crisp sound. It looks like it could be a brand name – shoes, maybe? (That’s Keds.) Some kind of stock exchange symbol? (KEX is the NYSE ticker symbol for Kirby Corporation, and it also stands for the Kansai Commodities Exchange in Japan.) Perhaps a sci-fi character? (Actually yes, Kex is a Mandalorian in the “extended Star Wars universe.”) Does it mean complain? (That’s yex.) Annoy? (Vex.) Curse? (Which is hex.)

Could it be a slang word? (In northern England and southern Scotland, it means “trousers” or “underpants” – also spelled kecks.) Is it perhaps something from Greek? (Well, it is part of the sound the frogs make in Aristophanes’ Frogs: brekekekex koax koax.) Maybe Icelandic? (Indeed: in Iceland kex means cookie or cracker.)

I’ll tell you what kex makes me think of, or what makes me think of kex. You know when your throat feels like one of those hollow dry plant stems, and you just have to cough, and the cough catches and leaves your throat feeling even more like that hollow stem, perhaps ready to snap? That sound makes me think of kex, or kex makes me think of that sound, or both. (Aina and I are currently coughing back and forth at each other. It’s like a battle of the kexes.)

Any dry, hollow stem of that sort can also make me think of kex. Plants that have them – cow parsnip, wild chervil, marsh angelica, poison hemlock, and other large umbelliferous plants – are called kexes. They get the name from their stems, which bore the name kex first (by the 1300s), though the OED tells me that the usage to refer specifically to the stems is obsolete except for dialectal. No one seems to know where the word comes from; I doubt that it is any more than coincidence that a kex, when broken, might make a sound like “kex.” (So do many other things, such as a finger snap.)

Oh, was there a word back there that might have been unfamiliar? Not everyone knows what umbelliferous means, so I should say it means “having an umbel”. And what’s an umbel? Here’s the OED’s definition: “A mass of inflorescence borne upon pedicels of nearly equal length springing from a common centre.” Isn’t that nice and clear and helpful and easy? Here’s a plainer picture: it’s a plant that has as its head a whole bunch of little flowers spoking out from the main stem like the ribs of a blown umbrella. As it happens, another word for umbel is umbella. And it is unrelated to umbrella. Aren’t words fun?

Sure, kex kex, lots of fun, kex kex kex. Could I just get to sleep now? Where’s that hemlock? That oughta fix it. Oh, no, no, no… Relax and delectate the lexis. Go have a snack. Perhaps an Icelandic cookie. Or some cake mix.

whippersnapper

Look at this word: it looks like a long bridge, with two piers – perhaps two double piers. It has a nice visual rhythm to match the rhythm of saying it. It starts with the lips out, then they bounce together, then you go to the tongue tip, then the lips again; the vowels match, with a higher forward /ɪ/ to go with the forward /w/, and a lower /æ/ to go with the pulled-back /sn/, and in the off syllables bouncing from /p/ you have that syllabic /ɹ/ with the tongue bunched up in the middle. If you say the wh as /hw/ then you have a voiceless consonant at the start of every syllable, giving it an appealing contrast and crispness – but even without that touch, it still cracks.

Cracks like a whip? Perhaps, or should we say snaps like one. After all, that’s where this word seems to come from: whip-snapper, extended for the echo and rhythm in a similar way to fixer-upper and quicker picker upper. But what has this to do with what the word refers to? Its object might seem to be more like a wimpy little whippoorwill of a person, or at most an impertinent pipsqueak. Look at what the word most often goes with: young whippersnapper (and you can hear a creaky old man’s voice saying it, can’t you?). Sometimes it’s little whippersnapper. You wouldn’t expect such a snippet to snap a whip at anyone.

But that’s just the point: this insignificant personage is attempting to order around his (or her) superiors, or, by extension, to behave towards them as though they were inferiors. (It is possible, however, that the word was first a word for a ruffian of whatever age and size, and that it subsequently narrowed to refer to rambunctious youth, and shifted to indicate impertinence rather than violence.)

Whippersnappers have of course been around from the dawn of time: impertinence is a characteristic of youth, and resentment of the impertinence of youth is common for some types of older people. Interactions that would give occasion to use the word whippersnapper can be found in comedies throughout the ages. The word whippersnapper, however, dates only from the later 1600s.

What did they call them before that? Hm. The options are plenty. I immediately hear John Gielgud’s voice: “You little shit.”

Thanks to Margaret Gibbs for suggesting whippersnapper.

prior

You’ve seen this word before. Many times. You have prior knowledge of it prior to seeing it here. You may even have seen it a few too many times – it sits like a brier in laboured formalese, all those documents by assorted office staff who issue stiff directives and think before is too informal somehow. How could a good old English word be as good as this Latin one? Formalese hews, as though driven by an anxiety disorder, to prepositional phrases rather than the nice, direct verb phrases: Please remove shoes prior to entering rather than Please take off your shoes before you come in. It sallies forth with a breastplate – nay, an escutcheon – of nouns and Latin-derived words, not to mention telegraphic omission of articles.

Not that prior to is the only place you’ll see prior. It shows up in a variety of collocations: prior knowledge, prior research, prior experience, prior approval… These do make nice, compact phrasings. They also have the arched tone of authority, the sound of police-speak – prior convictions – or the starchy formalism of someone writing for people he or she wishes to speak authoritatively to. Prior is inescapable superior. It has the loftiness of prayer, but with the beginnings of rotation of an eye orbit.

A prior, noun, is a superior officer of a religious order. This is from the same origin: Latin prior, meaning (as the OED has it) “in front, previous, former, earlier, elder, superior, more important”. It is related to the prefix pre and comes from the same root, way back in Indo-European, as English fore – as in foreman and before. So our synonyms have not only prior acquaintance but prior identity.

But it is from the noun prior that I get my favourite prior: Maddy Prior, the folk singer. (I’m OK with Richard Pryor, too; there are various other Priors and Pryors that I’m less well acquainted with.) If you have no prior acquaintance with her music (as a soloist, with June Tabor, and with Steeleye Span), here are a few songs to take your mind off monkish formalese:

Zugunruhe

There is a season in word country when things rise and fall: some things fall in place, and others rise to go. All is changing, colour, temperature, movement. After springing forth, after flourishing and strengthening in the constant rounds of the estival festival, a direction is found, and that direction is either down or away. There is a hunger. All seems under the gun. There is an electricity, a summer’s buildup of static ready to discharge.

It happens in many places and with many things, this energy. Runners who have trained all summer now taper for their fall target race, skittish, antsy, almost overcome with an urge to run. Students’ long lazy summers end in a pile of unread, unwritten, uncounted work lurking on the thither side of a bell. Birds gotta fly: they’re skittish, they don’t sleep the same, they just want to go south like so many Canadian retirees at the first sign of frost.

Languages, too, grow into these seasons, these moods. Something that has always been with you but that you have never needed a word for, something that could easily have had a name from local rootstock, instead seeks abroad for its label. Somehow it feels better. The soil it grew up in is too plain, too ordinary, too expected and habituated. The familiar thing, to be seen apart from its surroundings, must go to another language for its word, returning in its new form after the winter of discontent.

These urges and these flight paths may at first seem incoherent. Perhaps you cannot make out the sense of the form: Zugunruhe. Is this Tibetan, Mongolian, Turkish? As your eyes focus you see it may be German. That ruhe, that’s something German, no? “Peace”? And zu, “to” – so is this, um, peace to the gun? But wait, what is gun in German? No, that’s not it. Your eyes zig-zag through the gauze, picking out hunger, urge, run, rotating shapes (three cups u u u and two caps n h and that electric bolt Z and…). This strange bird that we have brought back from our migrations, it has to do with…

Zug. What’s that? One of German’s more basic all-purpose words: “train, trend, way, move, push, pull, migration” und so weiter. Said like “tsook” to English minds. Plus unruhe, “restlessness”, said vaguely like “oon rooa.” Together, “migration restlessness”. Our restless need to go abroad has led to our bringing back a word for a restless need to go abroad – or, more exactly, to migrate: it’s a word for the birds.

Birds fly away, then come back, and they seem much the same. People often grow or change, though not always. The language, in its excursions, returns like a merchant ship laden with treasures. But as the exotic becomes familiar we must again seek to make the familiar exotic. Old words, fallen out of use, coat the ground and enrich the soil; new words will come to take root and add new forms and colours to the landscape.

And the time has come around again.

Thanks to Doug Linzey for suggesting Zugunruhe.

Are you deranged?

As people who read Sesquiotica know, I’m not in the business of coming up with inflexible rules for people to slave under. But I am in the business of making observations and occasional suggestions. And sometimes asking questions.

Well, today I have a question for you: Are you deranged?

Actually, that would be better put as Is your prose deranged?

Here’s what I’m getting at. How do you normally express a range in English? You know, from 1 to 20 or from ultraviolet to infrared?

The way I just did, naturally: from…to.

And when people write ad or marketing or expository copy wanting to talk about all the options available in this or that place or from this or that person or business, they very often like to use this form to give a sense of a full range. In fact, two items often don’t suffice to express the ambit of offerings: you’ll get

from Iqaluit to Toronto and from Victoria to St. John’s

or you’ll get

from drama and dance to engineering and physics

and sometimes you’ll even get a string of to‘s.

But what you much too often will not get is an actual range. The from…to construction is grabbed as a convenient way to convey the idea of a a diverse offering, like a sweep of the arms. But too often it lacks clarity, it lacks sharpness, it lacks punch, because it doesn’t express a real range. It’s de-ranged.

Consider a sentence such as

From its beautiful waterfront to its exciting dining options to its lively theatre scene to its lush parks, Toronto has a lot to offer.

Diagram that out if you can. Does that really express a contrast between endpoints or extremes? It’s four different things, but it’s not like

from Bonavista to Vancouver Island, from the Arctic Circle to the great lake waters

It’s more like

from your elbow to a poodle to your nose to pineapples

As I’ve discussed elsewhere (“Sharpening and vowel shifts” and “chiaroscuro“), contrasts appeal. Make a strong statement. Give it some flavour if you can. Go for something like

From Napoleons to beef Wellington, if it has pastry, we make it.

If you don’t have a sharp contrast, don’t pretend you do. But you can probably find one if you look – rather than just being lazy and relying on a usage that seems to suggest contrast. You’ll get more contrast from

Treat yourself to our one-inch micro-whoopie pie. Or to our twenty-inch monster cake. Or maybe just a nice warm muffin.

than you will from

From cookies to cakes to muffins, we have the full complement of baked goods.

This isn’t a rule; this is advice: don’t be de-ranged. Don’t be lazy or sloppy. Don’t rely on clichéd syntax. Stop for a moment and think about the truly vivid images available. You’ll produce much better results if you do.