Monthly Archives: October 2013

lysis

This word is easy to break down; indeed, when you break down many other words, this is part of what you get. It comes from Greek λύσις lusis (noun) ‘loosening, parting’ and refers to breakdown, dissolution, degeneration. Thus we get Lysol, which was originally an oil that dissolves or breaks down things: a solution of coal tar oil in soap.

By itsef lysis is pronounced “lie-sis,” but at as soon as you put it at the end of a longer word, it gets compacted: the usual habit with Greek-derived words is to put the stress on the antepenult (the third-last syllable), so you get electrolysis, glycolysis, autolysis, et cetera, all with the lysis as [ləsɪs] or [lɨsɪs]. And of course the same goes for catalysis, dialysis, and the best-known of the bunch, analysis.

Now, the next thing you’re probably wondering is, “If lysis means ‘break down’, does analysis mean ‘busting your ass’?” Ah, well, it’s not really anal + lysis; the first part is ana, meaning ‘back, again’ – so analysis is breaking something back down. Possibly your resistance, or your patience, self-respect, or fortitude, depending on where and when the analysis is being done and by whom. It could involve busting your ass. But it still doesn’t come from that.

Likewise, dialysis does not mean destroying clocks, soap, or other dial things. And catalysis will not lead to a reduction in the number of available lives for a given cat. Or, well, it may, depending on what is being catalyzed (note the z spelling in the verb, here as in some others; the Brits have generally kept it at s throughout, but oh the Americans and their z’s), but not for etymological reasons. Those would be what linguists call reanalysis… a kind of double-back breakdown. In the search for a solution, the sense is dissolved.

One thing that can be broken down is bellicosity – and armies in general. Take the word for ‘army’, στρατός stratos (as seen in such words as strategy – but not stratosphere, which comes from Latin stratus ‘layer’), put it together with lysis, make it a feminine Greek name, and you have Λυσιστράτη, Romanized as Lysistrata: the Aristophanic heroine who organized women to end the war by withholding sex. The plot of the play does not bear up well under analysis, but it’s a comedy, for heaven’s sake. And anyway, never mind the play: the name of the heroine hasn’t borne up well either. It was pronounced in Classical Greek something like “loo-see-stra-tee,” but it has managed to have the vowels shifted – and, in a fortunately now out-of-fashion version of the pronunciation, even to have the stress altered to match a Procrustean antepenultimate stress: “lie-sis-tra-ta.” Yeccch. Which just goes to show that you can destroy something not only without breaking it down but in fact because you haven’t broken it down.

combine

Today I am tasting the noun combine, not the verb combine. You can hear the difference, right? As with many similar words that have noun and verb forms, the verb puts the stress on the last syllable, the noun on the first.

The noun combine isn’t all that familiar for many people; they may see combination or combo quite a lot, or (depending on where they are) combi or combie, but combine shows up mainly in farm country and legal country.

Farm country, as it happens, is what I was driving through on my way from Toronto to Collingwood on Saturday. We were making good time, almost to Collingwood, when we found ourselves stuck behind what at first appeared to be a funeral procession: a long line of cars moving at 20 to 30 km/h. Once we were on a stretch straight enough, we could see the cause: a large tractor hauling a large combine harvester. I mean large. It took up a lane and a half, even with its various parts swung up. So we cars had formed an involuntary combine in the trail of a cumbersome combine.

Combine was first a verb, coming from Latin for ‘yoke together’ or ‘join by two’. The oldest noun sense of combine is ‘combination’ but more particularly ‘conspiracy, plot’; that sense is not used anymore. But a closely related sense, of a joint effort by various persons to further their financial or political interests (often anti-competitive collusion), is current, and you can see it in occasional legal use. For instance, in 1986 in Canada the Competition Act replaced the Combines Investigation Act. I recall seeing that legal use of combines in my youth and having a mental image of investigating harvesters.

I grew up in rural and small-town southern Alberta, so of course the noun combine was familiar to me. It’s a machine that combs the wheat in the front, binds the straw and dumps bales off the back, and blows the grain out the side into a truck. Pretty nifty. The first combine harvester, it turns out, was invented in 1834. They’ve gotten bigger and more sophisticated in the intervening years, naturally. And they’re quite a valuable thing for a farmer. Which is an important fact in the amusing song by The Wurzels, “Combine Harvester”: “I’ve got a brand-new combine ’arvester, an’ I’ll give you the key…” (also a nice example of southwest England dialect, if you take the time to listen to the whole thing).

The word has a variety of tastes and overtones: comb and bind, of course, and combustion and many other words that have an elbow at mb (from camber to cumbersome and beyond, and in particular columbine), as well as carbine and perhaps carabiner. It uses all three key locations in the mouth: the back of the tongue [k], the lips [mb], and the tip of the tongue [n]; it uses all three kinds of stops we have in English: voiceless [k], voiced [b], and nasal [m] and [n].

All of which was suitable fodder for thought as we drove in that slow line behind the combine from Singhampton until it turned at Duntroon. That and the combinatorics of cars: How many different ways could the 20 cars in line be arranged? And, incidentally, how much food would be left when we finally got to the family Thanksgiving face-stuffing?

kempt

Well, we all know what unkempt is, right? All messy, shirt untucked, hair to and fro – not well-kept-up. And we know that unkempt is one of those odd negative words that don’t have a positive version, so it’s always funny to say kempt because you’re using a word that’s not a word because English is kinda unkempt in that it has words like dishevelled and discombobulated and disgruntled that don’t have positives.

But of course there is a word kempt. It’s just not used much. Especially not in its original sense.

You’d have to comb a dictionary for it, but if you look you’ll see that kempt is the past tense of a verb. Now, we know that kept is the past tense of keep. But there is no keemp. No, this is more in the line of dreamt. The present tense verb – no longer used now except in some dialects – is kemb.

And what is kemb? It’s a verb that has been supplanted by a related verbed noun. Kembing is something you do with something. That something you do it with – also from the same original root – is a comb.

So yes, you kemb your hair with a comb, and if you have done so, it is kempt. But kemb gained extended senses – ‘make smooth or elegant’ (OED), for one. So something that is kempt is something that is well presentable. And something that is unkempt is… not.

(Kemb is – was – also used to refer specifically to combing wool. And a woman who did this as her line of work was a kempster. Which looks to modern eyes like a word for someone who, by being tidy and kempt and so on, is a sort of opposite of a hipster.)

Here’s one more thing to think about: How kempt is your pronunciation? And how kempt do you even want it to be? When you say kempt – or unkempt – do you really say the [p]? It’s easily inserted between the [m] and the [t], since it has the place of the former (lips) and the voicing and manner of the latter (voiceless stop). But it is also easily dropped. And when you say unkempt, do you really say [n] before the [k]? Place assimilation often draws it towards the [k] so it becomes a [ŋ]. And the preceding vowel is nasalized and sounds the same regardless of where the next consonant is, so you may not even notice the difference.

Or at least not until you hear it said overly scrupulously. Record yourself saying unkempt normally in a casual environment. Then record yourself saying it precisely, with the n as [n] and the [p] present. That sure does sound more precise and kempt, doesn’t it? But I bet it doesn’t put you at ease. It’s possible to be too kempt.

dewildered, smartfounded

Today, watching Toronto city council in action and live-tweeting it, @cityslikr tweeted, “Crowdsource: We need a word that describes being surprised but not being at all surprised. Anyone? Everyone?”

Several people made suggestions, most of them portmanteau words and the remainder based on humorous reanalyses. My first effort was subprised, which I wasn’t altogether satisfied with. Surprise is actually formed from Latin parts meaning ‘overtake’; replace the sur with sub and you get parts meaning ‘undertake’ – but in this case the sense seems really more like ‘underwhelmed’. But that’s not what @cityslikr had in mind.

I knew just what was intended. I’m sure you know too. The city hall instance that provoked the question was not likely a pleasant surprise, but the same word could serve equally well for a pleasant one. I think of the time when a very capable, intelligent, calm, steady, and devout young woman who had been one of the leading lights in the production department where I work (she programmed websites) announced she was resigning to pursue a life as a nun. It was (for me) quite unexpected, and yet at the same time it made perfect sense for her. It was not astonishing at all, simply unforeseen and rather momentous. (She is, incidentally, progressing well in her path to her chosen vocation. It happens that convents need webmasters too, for one thing.)

One suggested word that seems to have gotten at least a little traction was from @squideye: mehbergasted, a blend of flabbergasted with meh. But to my mind the not-at-all-surprised part is not necessarily a “meh” – that’s a dismissal born of disinterest and uninterest and boredom. I think what we need here is more in the line of a “Well, whaddya know… of course.” Or, for Toronto city council, perhaps “Good grief! And of course. Sigh.”

One I particularly liked was from @MayorNPhillips (an account named after a now-deceased mayor after whom the plaza in front of Toronto city hall is named): dewildered. A lovely construction: a simple change of articulation from lips to tongue in the opening consonant, and a flipping of the letter b to d, and the engaging be becomes the disengaging de. The wilder is the same one as in wilderness; if you are bewildered you are left in the wilds – a landlubberish version of all at sea. Dewildered would be expected to be a reversal of that, which is certainly not what is intended; this is not an anagnorisis or de-astonishment. But it still has a certain nice something to it. And clever words often go elsewhere than expected.

I made a second effort that I like better than my first: smartfounded. This is patently jokey; the dumb in dumbfounded refers to muteness, not unintelligence. That word is actually already a portmanteau word – it grafts dumb onto confounded. This replacement of that part with another plays a false reversal and at the same time has smart that can signify the awareness, the not-at-all-surprisedness.

None of these is quite perfect, though. In earlier times, of course, some confection of Greek and/or Latin parts would have been made, perhaps something like the breathtaking ugly triskaidekaphobia (‘three and ten fear’ for a phobia focusing on the number 13). One possibility here would be something like isoecstasis. But that is not a fun word, nor, at present, anything other than an opaque tangle of letters for most people.

I think this question needs more thought. And suggestions.

embargo

I’ve just come back from a long weekend in Cuba. Lovely, fun tropical place. Of course it is, as it has been for quite a long time, under embargo from the United States. Nonetheless, it’s doing pretty well – not perfectly, to be sure, but in many ways much better than several other Caribbean countries I’ve been to.

The US has lots of money, of course, and one might think that the absence of its tourism and trade dollars would hurt a country. Notwithstanding the value that US tourism money can bring, though, US tourism also brings a level of US control and cultural imperialism, not to mention hordes of American tourists – you can see them barging in wherever they want to go. I really wanted to get to Cuba before the embargo was lifted, so I could go to a country that was relatively free of that American presence. As you may imagine, Cuba is hugely popular with Canadian tourists. Who, it should be admitted, are not always all that different from American tourists in many ways – but there are differences, I assure you.

So while the embargo has contributed to some key elements of Cuban culture, such as the large number of very old cars somehow still running (and sometimes on the side of the road being repaired on the spot), the main flavour of embargo we had there was the bar we would go and get our drinks from. We had some truly delicious piña coladas. Almost from our disembarkation, we were imbibing bargain rum drinks (rum is stunningly inexpensive in Cuba). And we had all the sun, sand, warmth, and humidity we wanted, and then some.

The tourism business is burgeoning in Cuba, although the country does have its problems – much more tangible to those who live there than to those who visit, however. But the embargo is porous; the US actually does quite a lot of trade and aid with Cuba, and Americans do visit. It’s not entirely the blockade it can be made out to be.

Blockade? Here’s the fun linguistic thing: notwithstanding that embargo is a Spanish word meaning ‘seizure’, ‘arrest’, ‘impediment’, or – yes – ‘embargo’, in Cuba the US embargo is called el bloqueo.

I should say that embargo has another common use in Spanish: in the phrase sin embargo. Now, in English, a sin embargo might be a boycott or blockade of naughtiness. But in Spanish sin means ‘without’, and sin embargo means ‘nevertheless, notwithstanding’. Perhaps that’s one reason they call the embargo el bloqueo: Cuba goes on, sin embargo.

Critters that say their own names – or do they?

This week is a double-header on TheWeek.com for me. The second article of mine they’re running is about birds and animals that are named after their cries – and the important differences between those names and the actual noises:

If you think these animals say their own names, you are wrong

kep

Think of a vowel as a projectile launched by the consonant before it. In this word, the [k] at the back is like a spring-loaded lever popping out the ball of the [ɛ]. But it doesn’t get far – the lips cut it off, closing with an unreleased [p], and the vowel is kept in.

Kept in? If the past tense is kept, then the present must be kep, right? It keps the vowel?

No, no, keep your hat on. I know that kept is the past tense of keep. And kep looks more like kepi, a French military cap (the name of which comes from Swiss German käppi) – which actually sounds in French like English “KP,” which is not something a military person wants (it stands for kitchen patrol and means that today you’re doing scut work).

But guess what: kep is Northern and Scots English for the present tense of kept – but just when we’re talking about something being intercepted: stopped from falling or proceeding forward, by being blocked (as by throwing oneself in the way) or caught (as with the hands cupped). And guess what else: it comes from a backformation of a present form from the past tense form kept. Yep. It’s not that they don’t have keep. But this is kep.

There is, by the way, another kep – or, rather, KEP. It stands for kinetic energy penetrator: a projectile that does its damage not by exploding on impact but just by force of kinetic energy. Which means it’s heavy and is fired fast. Cannon balls were the original KEPs, but today a KEP will be in the line of an armour-piercing round, probably shaped like a thick arrow and made of very heavy metal. It’s something even metal armour inches thick can’t kep.

But if you want to use kep in real life, think of a person kepping a bullet, baseball, or thrown cream pie – or cup your hands and kep some pouring water or grain. Or sing along with Pretty Poison or Real Life, just slightly modified: “Kep me I’m falling…”

prerogative

Say this word.

No, no, say it the way you would normally say it (inasumuch as you would normally say it) in a sentence. “Well, that’s your prerogative.”

We know how it’s supposedly pronounced: /pri rɑ gə tɪv/. That’s what we think is called for. But I can tell you how I say it most of the time: [pr̥rɑ gə ɾɪv]. The first two syllables collapse into a sesquisyllable at most; the aspiration of the /p/ devoices the /r/, but then it runs at least briefly into a voiced /r/, having utterly ditched the first vowel. And of course as is usual in North American English, the intervocalic /t/ is flapped – it sounds more like a [d], though it’s not actually that either.

It’s that retroflex /r/ of ours, making the tongue hunch upwards like a cat stretching itself. Words like rural are more exercise than they should be. It can seem an undignified sound, but I find it wry, curling, almost purring. I do like languages that use it: many dialects of Irish, some versions of Dutch, Mandarin Chinese, some versions of English…

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no arguing about taste. What you like is your prerogative. And what I like is my prerogative. Just as my choice of dialect and accent is my prerogative. No sweeping it under the rug.

So, now, about this word prerogative: where does it come from, anyway? Jim Taylor, who suggested this word, had the following thoughts in his email to me:

Pre- is easy, ‘before’.

-rogative? Apparently to do with writing something, perhaps on a shard of pottery in Athens, for a vote. But rogation is also a litany of the saints. Rogation Sunday, I vaguely recall, has something to do with agriculture. And then there’s rogue, which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the other definitions above.

And, of course, roger, with a soft g, connoting the use of an appendage that is no longer soft.

(Does that seem a touch off-colour? Uncalled for? Well, that’s Jim’s prerogative – and mine.)

But what does this rogative come from? It looks odd so bald, sans prefix – it seems to need some lexical Rogaine. If not pre, how about inter? Of course. Interrogative – is that the question? Yes. The root is Latin rogare, ‘ask’. The original meaning of prerogative is ‘prior choice’ or ‘prior election’ – or, more to the point, ‘preordination’ or ‘inherent advantage’. Your prerogative was your talent, your advantage, your superpower.

Now, of course, your prerogative is your say-so. If something is your prerogative, that means you get to decide. You are not beholden to anyone else on that score. It’s your right. You’re king of that thing, or queen of that scene. No one else is the boss of you. This comes to us by way of royal prerogative – the “divine right” of kings and queens.

It’s sort of like being a cat: master of all you survey, and entirely free to ignore all and sundry at your leisure. Your purr-rogative.

Of ilands, dets, and spelling reforms

My latest article for TheWeek.com is on English spelling reform – a few people who have tried it, some who succeeded, some who failed, some who succeeded but should have failed:

6 quests to fix English’s messed-up spelling