Yearly Archives: 2013

situated, located

Dear word sommelier: I have several Francophone colleagues who use “situated” rather than “located” everywhere, since the usual French word is “situé(e).” How do I explain the difference to them?

Geez, ask me something easy sometime. This is actually a tricky one because Anglophones tend to use them interchangeably a lot of the time, and in many cases it’s unnecessary stuffing either way:

The washrooms are located on the second floor.

The washrooms are situated on the second floor.

You can argue about which seems better, and it’s a viable argument, and we’re about to talk about it, but you should not overlook the fact that the best way to say that is

The washrooms are on the second floor.

But the question remains what difference it makes when you do use one or the other. And it does make a difference, not so much of denotation but of tone and of expected entailment and context. Each word has echoes of other words and is seen in particular collocations.

Located is often used with centrally, conveniently, ideally, strategically, physically, and abroad; things can be located at, between, close to, in, near, on, outside, within, etc. It’s used, in short, to establish the location – a spot on a map, a set of coordinates. It’s a common word, sometimes used in conversation, often used in stiff business writing and real estate ads.

Locate is also used to mean ‘find the location of’ and ‘put in a location’:

I have located the water fountain in the northwest corner of the garden. [This can mean you found it there or you put it there.]

Situate does not have the ‘find’ meaning; you can only mean one thing when you write

I have situated the water fountain in the northwest corner of the garden.

(In either case, if that’s what you mean, put or placed or installed would also be a viable option.)

Situated is less used in casual conversation, but it also used in the real-estate-ad kind of prose, in collocations with beautifully, delightfully, ideally, picturesquely, pleasantly, well, conveniently, inconveniently, centrally, remotely, and quietly. Notice the emotional tone: situated sits more pleasantly in the mind. And for many users, situated bears the context more in mind. You are located on a spot, but you are situated in a… well, in a situation. Situate also tastes of site (related) and sit (not related).

So when you’re talking about where something is, just as a spot on the map, located works:

Hamtramck is located in Wayne county, Michigan.

But when you’re talking about the context, situated can work well:

Lhasa is situated at the bottom of a small basin in the Himalaya mountains, on the northern bank of the Lhasa river.

You can use located in that sentence as well, but you may find it less natural to use situated in the sentence about Hamtramck, above.

Because situated carries the idea of context, you can also use it in to call forth the context in a more cogent way:

This sylvan abode is beautifully situated.

You get the idea of its being set in a lovely location surrounded by trees; your imagination likely fills in some more of the picture. Compare that with this:

This sylvan abode is beautifully located.

This seems to mean that the location is beautiful, or that whoever chose where to put it did a nice job. But it’s not quite as idiomatic. Add a bit more and you may see even clearer how situated seems to call forth context:

This sylvan abode is beautifully situated in the Green Mountains of Vermont.

This sylvan abode is beautifully located in the Green Mountains of Vermont.

Compare this with the dot-on-the-map approach:

I’m trying to find West Clarksville; I don’t know where it’s located.

I’m trying to find West Clarksville; I don’t know where it’s situated.

Inasmuch as you’d use the second one, you’d probably be talking about the surroundings, not just the coordinates – unless you just felt you should use a word that’s one syllable longer.

There’s one more thing that affects the sense of the two words: situate also carries an echo of situation, which has a much broader range of usage than location:

How did you get me into this situation?

How did you get me into this location?

There’s also the question of the sounds – located has the liquid /l/ and the hard /k/, while situated has a voiceless fricative and affricate hissing and catching – and the rhythm, with located a dactyl and situated two feet of trochaic rhythm. Indeed, you will often make the choice less on the basis of semantics and connotations and more on the basis of where the word is located. Or, rather, where it is situated.

Hamtramck

This name of a small city surrounded by the city of Detroit first caught my attention long ago just because of its appearance. First of all, it has the mck, which you just don’t see in English. How is that supposed to be pronounced? Secondly, it looked to me like an overstuffed version of Amtrak. And it has that ham-sandwich note as well.

I haven’t spent long hours contemplating the name of this city, but I haven’t forgotten it. And then this evening it came up when my friend Brian was telling me about his recent trip to Detroit. Detroit, it turns out, is in some ways a place very much worth a visit; in fact, Brian is planning to go back. Yes, it’s famous for being a hollowed-out city, its population reduced by more than a million in recent decades, block after block after block of abandoned houses, and even abandoned office buildings in the heart of the city. But there are still people who live there, and they like to do and be the same sorts of things as people elsewhere.

And it’s currently a very good place for internet startups and art studios and other funky small businesses that can choose what city to be located in and may very well choose a city where real estate is currently very inexpensive. Brian showed me a couple of real estate ads he had seen: one for a 9600-square-foot mansion with seven bedrooms and eight fireplaces and a ballroom and hardwood floors and so on, all for about $400,000; and one for a two-storey building, formerly a Polish veterans’ association (if I recall correctly), looking to be over 4000 square feet, for about $120,000.

The latter property was in fact in Hamtramck. Hamtramck has a few distinctions. The village of Hamtramck was established in 1901; a Dodge plant opened there in 1914, and the village incorporated as a city in 1922 to resist absorption into Detroit. It was able to do so because its population had grown to about 50,000, thanks to the manufacture of cars (so much for Amtrak!). And most of them were Polish.

Hamtramck has a long history of being a very, very Polish city. In 1970, 90% of its residents were of Polish origin. That has changed – now it’s more like 15% – but the city is a city of immigrants, with a very international flavour, and the Polish culture is still very important, with the St. Florian Church in the heart of the city (its cornerstone is inscribed in Latin and Polish) and much of the culture and celebrations Polish in origin.

So it’s not all that surprising that many people think Hamtramck is a Polish name. It’s a non-English-looking name, after all, and the city has a strongly Polish culture. But Hamtramck is not a word that could occur in Polish any more than it could in English. And the Polish residents moved to Hamtramck after it was founded. The village was actually named after the township of which it was a part. The township was founded in 1798.

Where did the township get its name? From the commandant of Detroit at the time, a colonel who had served in the Revolutionary War. Who was he? A native of Québec: Jean-François Hamtramck. Yes, Hamtramck is a name from France. Not that it looks much like one. The m’s would thus be just nasalizations of the preceding vowels.

But that, of course, is not how it’s said in Hamtramck, Michigan. After all, it’s surrounded by a city with a French name that is not said in the French way at all (I mean Detroit, from French détroit, ‘strait’). Nope, they don’t say it the French way and, although it’s physically possible to say “amk,” that’s not an English set of sounds. So it’s “ham-tram-ick.” Which means it has become one of those uncommon words with a vowel that is said but not written, sticking in there like a little city in the middle of a much bigger city.

delicacy

Language learning du jour number 1: Delicacy is very often preceded by the words It’s considered a.

Life learning du jour number 1: When someone says of something “It’s considered a delicacy,” the odds are pretty good that it’s something that you would not find in your local deli – and that you probably can’t imagine stomaching.

Corollary suspicion: Some people in some places call things delicacies just to see who they can get to eat them.

Life learning du jour number 2: When people have to eat something exceptional due to force of circumstance for long enough, a certain culinary Stockholm syndrome develops and they come to love it. See haggis and retsina.

Googlefacts du jour: If you Google “considered a delicacy” you find the following things declared to be considered delicacies:

spider monkey meat
humans
camel hump
prime grade USDA beef
worms
eyeballs
urine-soaked eggs
Maine lobster
sea turtle meat
horse meat
cat meat
bear paws
duck
armadillo
shark fins
young goats
caviar

And that’s just the first two pages. On page 3 of the results I get a link to a PopCrunch article, “12 of the Most Disgusting Delicacies,” which I was going to list here but I would actually lose readers permanently. And some of them would actually lose their dinners permanently.

And yet people eat these things. And enjoy them. Apparently.

Do some of the things in the list seem a bit out of place? Prime grade USDA beef, perhaps? Quite disgusting to many a vegetarian. (“I’ll have yours, then,” is my usual response, but…) Some people love horse meat, but apparently Brits are shocked at the idea of eating it. Caviar? Have you seen Tom Hanks reacting to it in the movie Big? And how about Maine lobster? They used to be considered sea garbage, bottom-feeders. And even now not everyone likes them. My wife calls them disgusting sea insects. The whole phrase, every time, in place of the word lobsters. And usually accompanied by a shudder.

So I’ll have hers, then, of course. But I grew up in Alberta, where they serve lobster in restaurants all neatly filleted and set on top of the shell. In New England, you’re expected to don a bib and rip freshly boiled lobsters apart with your bare hands, which is messy – and there’s this gross green goop that comes out of the middle. Someone will inevitably school you: “That’s called the tomalley. It’s considered a delicacy.”

Meaning you’re supposed to pretend you’re not disgusted by it.

I am a bit of an adventuresome eater, to be sure. When I was eating with some friends in Puebla, Mexico, there was a dish made with maguey worms on the menu. I considered ordering it until I was told by the young woman whose presence was motivating mine there that if I did, I was eating at another table and they didn’t know me.

But everyone draws a line somewhere. And on the other side of that line, pretty much all those horrid things you would never dream of eating are “considered a delicacy” somewhere.

So evidently they’re considered delicacies because they will leave your stomach feeling mighty delicate.

Why, in fact, are foods that some people consider great treats (at least supposedly) and are willing to pay a lot of money for (because of their rarity, which may be the real motivating factor) called delicacies? Delicacy is, after all, the state of being delicate, or a thing that is delicate. The word itself has a certain delicacy on the tongue, touching off the tip and then licking and crackling and hissing – sounds and senses of many an exquisite dining experience, to be sure, but that’s not enough.

In fact, it’s because delicate had many more senses originally than it generally has now. The Latin source, delicatus (or, depending on gender, delicata or delicatum), meant ‘alluring, charming, tender, dainty’ – all those positively delicious traits that are often associated with both fine food and attractive women. In modern usage, it is mainly the ‘fine, dainty, fragile’ senses that have persisted. But the word delicacy has retained the ‘exquisite fineness, delightfulness’ sense much more.

It’s almost surprising, really, given our historic association of fine dining with the French, that we’re not using a directly French version of this Latinate word. The French word is délicatesse, and it’s rarely used in English. But, as it happens, German and Dutch borrowed it. The German/Dutch plural form of the word was then used to name an establishment that sold fine foods: German Delikatessen, Dutch delicatessen. We usually call such a place a deli for short.

So next time someone offers you worms, or eyeballs, or chicken feet, or sea insects, if you don’t feel like eating them, you can opt for pastrami. You’re covered. It’s a delicacy.

A naughty chemistry poem

I think it’s about time for another poem from Songs of Love and Grammar (my book of salacious verse about English usage, available at Lulu.com and Amazon.com). This one is a naughty chemistry poem – by which I mean both a naughty poem about chemistry and a poem about naughty chemistry. It is larded with abbreviations from the periodic table – e.g., Fe for iron. To read it correctly you need to read the abbreviations as the full names of the elements. If you’re stuck, no worries: I’ve made a video of it.

The elements of lust

I met a chemist just by chance
in the Pd at a dance.
I’m a bit of a B the dancing floor,
so I thought I’d try a little more.
I asked, “Would it be much amiss
to lead a Rn your mouth with a little kiss?”
She said, “Oh, please, don’t get me wrong.
It’s just – your W inches long.”
“I know,” I said. “It’s fun for play,
though when I it’s in the way.”
She said, “Then let’s be somewhat bolder,
with my right Ne your left shoulder.
The days Ar when I would shy –
they’re dead; let’s Ba, say bye-bye.”
My sense of shame I’d S a Ni,
so we commenced some slap and tickle,
but even I turn Cd red
to think of where our actions Pb…
The host told us we had to stop or
we’d be dragged off by a Cu;
it took some Au to Fe it out.
But this adventure left no doubt:
in love, I’m not so sentimental…
I’ll take a girl who’s elemental.

Now here’s the video:

The various chemical symbols, which have to be pronounced as the full name of the element, are: Pd = palladium, B = boron, Rn = radon, W = tungsten, I = iodine, Ne = neon, Ar = argon, Ba = barium, S = sulfur, Ni = nickel, Cd = cadmium, Pb = lead, Cu = copper, Au = gold, Fe = iron. Note that the I in line 10 is iodine, not simply the first-person singular pronoun. Cadmium red is a bright red.

boon

Visual: Just look at that pair of expectant eyes in the middle of the word, oo. At the same time, you may see the word as like a soap bubble: you blow it from the bubble wand b; it floats along o o, but ultimately pops, perhaps when it hits something, n.

In the mouth: Saying this word is also a bit like blowing a bubble – or a kiss. You make the puff of air from the lips and hold them puckered to blow, finally diverting the air through the nose by stopping the flow with the tongue.

Echoes: You might think of Daniel Boone or Pat Boone (or you might not); you will probably get the tastes of boo, boom, and bone. You might think of a boon as a sort of benny, and that could bring you to notice the modest resemblance between boon and benny.

Etymology: Boon is not related to benny, but it is to bene – not the Latin word for ‘good’ but the now-obsolete English word for ‘prayer, petition’. The noun boon comes from the Old Norse sister to that word; a boon was originally a prayer request, and then a thing granted in prayer, and then any good thing granted – or simply a big boost, maybe a mini-boom. This is also influenced by the adjective boon, which means ‘good’ or ‘convivial’ (as in boon companion) and comes from French bon.

Collocations: The verb to go with boon is generally grant (although one may first ask for one). Boons are often great or tremendous; they may be economic or financial. There are a few little-used compounds, generally relating to old English agrarian customs: boon-day, boon-man, boon-work, boon-ploughing, boon-loaf, boon-shearing.

Overtones: Although this word starts with boo, it really draws on boom and boost and has the warmth of a bosom. It is a consciously literary word, but not an ornate one; it suggests formality, but the formality of either a robed supplicant or a spokesperson in a business suit.

Semantics: Probably the best synonym for boon, as Visual Thesaurus points out, is blessing. That relates back to its original use and yet also draws on the looser sense for many current usages: “Increased tourism has been a real [boon/blessing] for this small town.”

Where to find it: You probably won’t find it in casual conversation, friendly emails, text messages, et cetera. But you can find it in newspapers, articles, and assorted other non-fiction; you may even find it in fiction – novels and plays – although my suspicion is that it will be more common in the older ones.

A Word Taster’s Companion: Syllables 3: The rhythm method

Today: the seventeenth installment of my how-to guide for word tasting, A Word Taster’s Companion.

Syllables 3: The rhythm method

There’s even more fun we can have with syllables. For one thing, some people contend that, in some languages, syllables don’t exist or aren’t an appropriate way of analyzing words. For example, Salishan languages (Pacific coast of North America) can have long strings of apparently unsingable consonants. Mind you, the examples I have seen do have fricatives, which can allow some rhythm; say psspsspsspss to see what I mean. But I don’t know Salishan languages and won’t wade into that debate, and anyway, here and now we’re focusing on word tasting in English, even though the principles can be carried over to other languages (with adjustments for phonemes, rules, etc.).

But we do have some cases in English that can make a bit of havoc with a simple unitary view of syllables. Rhythm can be more complex. I mean that quite literally: say rhythm. How many syllables? Say all the rhythm in the world. Count ’em up! Six, seven, or eight syllables? You might say it as eight beats in four pairs, stressed-unstressed: all the rhyth-m in the wor-ld. But if you say rhythm is what the world’s about, you may well say seven beats: rhythm is what the world’s a-bout. Ask your English teacher and she’s likely to tell you that rhythm and world have one syllable each. But the mechanics of saying them – as long as you say the nucleus of world as a syllabic [r] rather than in the “r-dropping” way – cause a definite two-part movement. Can we have fractional syllables? Or extra-long syllables? There’s still plenty to be thought and said on this topic.

And while we’re on the subject of rhythm, there’s the question of stress. This, too, is something you almost certainly learned about in school (I don’t mean exam stress! I mean which syllable has the stress). Of course, as with just about everything to do with language that you learned about in school, there’s a heckuva lot more to it than what your teacher said. Now, with stress and rhythm, the really crazy stuff gets going when you start looking and phrases and sentences, and this book is about word tasting, so you’re off the hook for now. By and large, individual words have the stress patterns you probably think they have. Any word with more than one syllable will, at least when said by itself, have one or more stressed syllables. Syllables that are stressed can have primary stress (strongest) or secondary stress (stressed but not the strongest stress in that word); the syllables that don’t have primary or secondary stress are, well, unstressed.

So let’s just try a few words and identify where the stresses are in each of them:

powder

about

coattail

buttercup

badaboom, badabing

reminder

margarita

calculator

formidable

laboratory

You may have noticed I set these out in a fairly sensible order. And, as an added treat, they exemplify some important terms for rhythm – terms you simply must know if you are to be serious about tasting words!

So let’s look at them. Bold underline is primary stress and bold is secondary stress.

pow-der – This is a trochee: two syllables, stress on the first. It’s the staple rhythm of English speech.

a-bout – This is an iamb: the reverse of a trochee. Shakespeare is generally said to have written in iambic pentameter, meaning five iambs per line, although not everyone agrees that that’s what he was doing.

coat-tail – This is a spondee: two stresses (also known as two long syllables). Generally the idea of a spondee is that the stresses are equal, and although I’ve put the second as secondary here, that’s a bit of a judgement call; they’re pretty much equal.

but-ter-cup – This is a dactyl, named from the Greek word for “finger.” A dactyl, strictly, has one long followed by two short, but the in common speech the shorts aren’t always equally short. I’ve put the hyphen between the t’s, but of course there’s only one /t/ here (and you probably say it as a tap), unlike in coattail. Which syllable does it go with? Well, now, you’ve read the bit on ambisyllabicity, right? So you decide.

ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing – These are anapests, the reverse of dactyls. I haven’t indicated the secondary stress because the first syllable isn’t always given that much more stress than the second.

re-min-der – This is an amphibrach: The stressed syllable is the middle of three.

There are also other permutations of three syllables, but these rhythms more often occur with more than one word. Still, for your reference, I’ll list them, using + for “stressed” and – for “unstressed”: –++: bacchius; ++–: antibacchius; +–+: cretic; +++: molossus. There are also cases of two unstressed (dibrach) and three unstressed (tribrach or choree), but those always only occur in the context of a sentence; words are social things, and when they’re on their own, they’re always stressed somehow.

Now to the longer words:

mar-ga-ri-ta – This is really two spondees, with the primary stress being on the second one, which is the penultimate (second last) syllable.

cal-cu-la-tor – This difference between this one and the one above (aside from one being something you drink and the other being something you can use to add up how much you spent on drinks) is just where the primary stress is.

for-mi-da-ble – This has the stress on the antepenultimate syllable (third last). But if you’re British, you may say this for-mi-da-ble, with a slight secondary stress on the last syllable. Either way, it involves a dactyl, though some might say that the British version has three unstressed in a four-beat foot (there’s a name for that, too, but I’ll spare you the terms for all the four-beat feet).

la-bo-ra-to-ry or lab’-ra-to-ry or la-bo-ra-t’ry – The last of the three pronunciations is the British style, and the penult gets swallowed and generally doesn’t make even a fractional syllable. The first is North American citation form, and the second is the way North Americans usually actually say it, dropping the /o/. So there are two common ways to say this word, and both of them involve dropping an /o/ before an /r/ – and, what’s more, not always even extending the /r/. Oh, and what kinds of metric feet are involved here? As math texts put it, this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Next: phonaesthetics.

jiggery-pokery

Have you ever had the feeling the English language is some kind of trick? A slick cup-and-ball with peas under jiggers, except there are no peas? A juke box that takes your quarter to put your song in queue but never gets to it? A pig in a poke, a perverted sick joke, some kind of hocus-pocus that leaves you feeling like you’re juggling hot pokers after a few too many jiggers of potcheen? In short, a load of jiggery-pokery?

Never mind English grammar. We know that’s a bit odd and loaded with idioms and other exceptions, and that it’s stripped down from what it used to be and that it’s affected by centuries of influence from other languages. And never mind English spelling. It has its reasons for how it is, even if they’re not necessarily good reasons. No, even just English words, and what they look like and where they come from, may end up being like Peer Gynt’s onion: you peel away the layers only to find that there’s nothing inside the layers. Or at least nothing you can lay hold of.

Take jiggery-pokery. It’s a perky, jiggly word that brings to mind jiggers of liquor and finger pokes and elbow nudges and who knows what else. It’s been seen in English for at least ten dozen years (or sixscore, if that’s how you keep score). Where does it come from, this word for deceitful manipulation? The Oxford English Dictionary says “compare Scots joukery-pawkery.” So we do. That term, known since at least 1686, is formed from joukery (‘underhand dealing, deceit’) and a derived form of pawky (‘artful, sly arch, wry, sardonic’, etc.).

OK, so where is joukery from? The verb jouk (also jook), ‘dodge, duck, dart’. And where is jouk from? The OED says it is “A Scottish word of uncertain origin.” It notes the sound resemblance to duck.

Ummhmmm. And pawky? Apparently from the noun pawk, the OED tells us. And pawk, which used to mean ‘trick, artifice, cunning device’ and now in northern English dialect means ‘impertinence, sauciness’? The OED says “Origin unknown. Compare pawky.” In other words, at the end it loops back to just before the end. It’s like the inner groove on the original Sergeant Pepper LPs: once the needle has played the record to the centre groove, it plays a track that repeats infinitely until you lift the needle.

So. You thought you would get somewhere. Maybe this word is related to jigger? It seems not to be. Or to poke or poker? Again, no. In both cases, the original words have just been shifted so that they sound like the new words. Imagine someone who started hanging out with you and who then got cosmetic surgery to look like a member of your family. Creepy? Happens all the time in English.

I’m telling you, when you hang with English words you get into some pretty louche territory. But that’s hardly surprising, given that English is a language that, as James Nicoll is famous for having said, “has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.” The dodginess is part of its charm. And if it jigs you and pokes you and slips a jigger in your drink and knocks you out with a poker, well, that’s just in its nature.

8 odd sounds from other languages you could never make except you probably already have

My latest article for TheWeek.com has been posted today:

8 bizarre sounds you’ve probably made without knowing it
And their prevalence in several foreign languages

theweek.com/article/index/241811/8-bizarre-sounds-youve-probably-made-without-knowing-it

(Please note that I don’t make up the captions for the photos. Where it says an uvular trill I would recommend reading a uvular trill.)

Watch a video of me reading it and making the sounds:

fadfix

Is -ist the next -ly or -ster?

Does that make sense? How about this: After e- and i-, what’s next?

That might make more sense. With the e prefix (for electronic) on email came a welter of other e– branded items. And with Apple’s iMac and iPod and iPhone, there have come to be numerous other i- branded items wanting to ride the crest. It was the latest thing for a while. Once some brand leader comes along with a new prefix, expect a fad for that. So what next?

Likewise with suffixes. A few of us may remember Friendster, a proto-Facebook, and Napster, a music file-sharing network. They drew on a popular jocular -ster addition to names and nouns (“Hey, Rickster! How ya doin’?”), taken from the still-productive suffix as in gangster, mobster, teamster, and so on. A few other website names with -ster have also shown up, for example a speed-trap warning community, Trapster, and a tea-lover community, Steepster. There are other brand names such as the Veloster, a Hyundai car. And of course there are hipsters.

And there was -ly, as in bit.ly and various other websites – because .ly is the Libya domain suffix and domains registered to it are available for a reasonable rate and it allows formation of words such as visual.ly and futurefriend.ly, but also as a fad on the English suffix; it shows up in other domains such as graphicly.com and optimizely.com.

And now there is -ist, as in the whole chain of -ist websites for cities – my local one is Torontoist.com, but there’s a network, and it has clear hipster tones: Gothamist (New York is Gotham for geeks, fanboys, and other “in the know” people), Austinist, DCist, SFist, Chicagoist, and a few others. I am beginning to see other -ists as well, perhaps spurred by the city websites. There’s todoist.com, a task manager. There’s Eyeist, an online photography review service. There’s Contemporist, about contemporary culture.

Perhaps next will be -age. It’s already popular for colloquial formations of mass nouns: if you can have verbiage and sewage, why not feedage (already the name of an RSS directory) and trollage (also in use, because trolling is not nounly enough, I guess)? What website and other brand names may show up with it?

I raised the question today on Twitter of whether -ist was the next -ly or -ster. A fellow Tweeter, @maxbaru, asked, “isn’t ist already a suffix in SE?” I answered, “Suffix, sure, but fadfix?” I clarified: “You know, affixes that are used faddishly in brand names. (Actually, I think I just made up the word “fadfix.”)”

You can find fadfix with a Google search, true, but not with this usage: there is a publicity consultant for fashion companies, and a Saudi finish building material company belonging to the Fadl Al-Ashey Group, and a lot of usages of fad fix (as in getting your fix of the latest fad). People who are not linguistics geeks are less likely to have suffix, prefix, and affix in their mind. But I think it’s a perfectly good coinage for the purpose at hand – a portmanteau of fad and affix. If affix is not a familiar term for you, I will clarify: it refers to any bits that can be attached onto words but can’t be independent words themselves. They can go at the start (prefix), at the end (suffix), or even in the middle (infix) – though we don’t do infixes in English, just colloquial tmesis. As a bonus, affix is from Latin ad ‘to’ plus fixus ‘fastened’. So it would be adfix except there was assimilation in the Latin. In the Latin, though, not the English! We will not make faffix out of fadfix.

So fadfixes are any affixes used faddishly, especially for brand names. I wonder whether we might even include pseudofixes – not real affixes, but simply catchy replacements of existing elements, such as X in a million places where there might otherwise be ex, or the various replacements of to and for with 2 and 4 (such as in In4mation, In4mants, and even a Spanish website that uses the English replacement in the middle of a Spanish verb: In4mateinfórmate is “inform yourself,” but incuatromate is nothing…). Maybe, to be extra-hip, we can de-X the X and call those fadfickses. Or would that be just too fickle?

mist

In word country, where the realms of different languages meet, there is mist. The view is unclear; on peut perdre le sens. There is a mystique. The greenery hisses as you brush past it, all mixed: insalata mista. You hear it: “mist, mist.” But be careful of what you may have missed.

You know this word mist, of course, this good old word of Germanic origins, recognizably cognate even with Sanskrit (mih). You know where you hear it, coming through the morning mist, a fine mist, a light mist; you see the mist-covered mountains of home. You see mist on bottles of beverages, shampoos, cleaners. You cannot mistake it, the fountain m, the spray-top i, the sinuous s, the capped-off t. You say it: the mouth starts warm, /m/, and then the nozzle opens and tightens to a spray, /ɪs/, and then stops, /t/. Short. Simple. Clear.

But mists are not clear. They are things you get lost in, and not just the mists of time but the mysteries of language. Even with so few letters, you can get mixed up, ISTM. Wandering in English, you may smell must and find your shoes messed. This cannot be dismissed. Perhaps you have wandered over into German, where Mist means ‘dung’ or ‘rubbish’. Your ears and eyes and mouth may have taken you astray, and now you find you are in something you do not want to be in at all.