Monthly Archives: January 2016

rapscallion, rascal

Here they come, a whole battalion – a million, a jillion, all in rebellion. But not a stallion among them, just slubberdegullions fed on slumgullion, slavering for bullion but barely getting bouillon. What do we do with this cotillion of tatterdemalion hellions? Why, rap them with scallions and they’ll scatter, the rapscallions.

Not that that’s where rapscallion comes from. You know what a rapscallion is, don’t you? If the word looks like rascal decked out for a cotillion, you pretty much have it. A rapscallion is a rascal, a rogue, a vagabond (to quote the OED), a raffish scalawag. The word is just rascallion with a rap of p to make it smarter and sharper. And rascallion? Just rascal with a fillip on the end. The OED tells me that rampallion may have had some influence too – it’s a now less-used word with similar sense.

Of them all, though, rapscallion is the one with the smartest double-slap and dribble: DUMP—DUDdadum! The first syllable takes up about as much time as the other three. You can say “Don’t give a damn” with the same rhythm. Actually, that rhythm shows up in various guises in many places – the Carol of the Bells springs to mind.

Rascal, by the way, has undergone amelioration in its history. It was first a collective term for hoi polloi, the low folk, the mobile vulgus, the rabble. It was soon used also for a singular member of that bunch. From there it came to refer to a scoundrel or rogue. But while scoundrel still has its negative tone, rogue is now often used with a certain approbation. And rascal has also gotten an endearing tone, especially through application to children. You may think of the mid-century TV series, earlier movie series, and much later movie The Little Rascals, also known as Our Gang, featuring characters with names like Alfalfa and Buckwheat. It was notable for featuring kids behaving like actual kids, and for including girls and African-American children in main roles. The children were rumbustious and endearing. Small wonder that little rascal is the most common collocation for rascal.

But not for rapscallion. It’s not used enough to have a clear most common collocation. Rascal is a common enough word, ready for use like some napkin from your coat pocket; rapscallion is a flourish with a tattered silk handkerchief, a name suited for a swordsman or a pirate. To me it gives an image of an 18th-century highwayman in vermilion coat with lace at his throat, threatening travellers with not a shot from a pistol but a – a little lash with leek? No! Just a rap with a scallion!

inkle, inkling

OK, give me a hink-pink for a lexeme attested in current speech.

A heard word.

Right! And a hinky-pinky for a coruscating suspicion?

A twinkling inkling.

You’re good. Now how about confetti from linen tape? Another hinky-pinky.

Umm…

How about a hinky-pinky for mollusk whisper?

Really?

Oh, come on. Inkle sprinkle for the first, winkle inkle for the second.

Inkle? I don’t think that’s a heard word.

Alas. Inkle is not included in your lexicon? You know what an inkling is, of course. But did you not imagine that there was a verb inkle to be derived into inkling?

If you’re like me, you may not have. For a long time, I assumed that inkling was formed like earthling: the –ling a suffix indicating a derivative denizen or member. Yearling. Youngling. Underling. So an inkling was, to my thought, a little spirit born of ink – that is to say, a word, or an inchoate or incipient written expression. I still like that best. The image of an impish sprite of the printed page charms me.

But no. Inkling is not ink+ling, it is inkl(e)+ing. And inkle is an old and now largely disused verb meaning ‘whisper, hint in an undertone’. An inkling is not an iota, nor a jot or tittle; it is a scintilla, perhaps, or susurration, or suspicion, or hint.

Knowing this, you may be inclined to say it with a longer /l/ – the syllable break occurring not before the /l/ but on top of it. But of course it can be hard to hear such subtle differences, especially in casual speech.

Some people do use inkling to mean something like inclination because of the sonic similarity. So you may see “I haven’t the slightest inkling to do that” as well as “I haven’t the least inkling of that.” Although the ‘inclination’ sense comes from outside influence and reanalysis, there’s no point in fighting it; it’s been around for well over 200 years.

There is also a noun inkle, as I implied above. It refers to a kind of linen tape, “formerly much used for various purposes” as the Oxford English Dictionary says. It can also refer to the yarn from which the tape is made. The etymology of this noun is uncertain but may relate to a Dutch word for ‘single’.

The verb inkle is not related to the noun inkle as far as we know. Where does it come from? Of that we have…

…not the slightest inkling.

Wherefore pleaseth archaic English?

Originally published on The Editors’ Weekly

“O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?”

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

“Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low.”

Are these not beautiful English? Doth not such usage of the tongue please thine ears or eyen? And yet, if so they do, wherefore do they?

You’d think if it was such excellent English you’d use it on a daily basis, no? Or at least fully understand what it means. And yet many of those who will recognize “wherefore art thou Romeo” as exalted English don’t know that wherefore means “why,” not “where.” We don’t use exalted literally anymore, and we don’t use yea (pronounced “yay”) as an introductory discourse particle at all, except when making a classical reference. Countless millions who say thou and thee every Sunday think them pronouns of the highest reverence, rather than the familiar forms that they are — reserved in their time for social inferiors and those with whom one is on the most intimate terms. Most modern English speakers don’t even know where (and where not) to use –eth conjugations. The language of King James and Shakespeare does not do as good a job at communicating the sense to us; it is too unfamiliar.

And yet this unfamiliarity is one of the main reasons this kind of English is thought beautiful. We see it only in the most exalted contexts. We know Bible quotations mostly from the King James Bible simply because it had a lock on the non-Catholic English-speaking church for a long time. It’s not nearly as accurate or effective as many modern translations. But, because of this, it is like a stained glass window of words, while more idiomatic and accurate translations are like ordinary photographs. It is what our parents and priests quote and what we learn in school. It has guided our literary traditions.

As have the writings of Shakespeare and his contemporaries and successors. His plots are often quite nasty, his characters impulsive and abusive, his moral lessons frequently questionable, his body counts excessive; most of his stories would not be considered family viewing in modern renditions. There’s a reason Thomas Bowdler made sanitized (“Bowdlerized”) versions. But Shakespeare does tell some good and compelling stories with insights into the human condition. And his writing — nearly all in blank verse — has been set as a prime exemplar of elegant English. We learn it in school. We are taught that this is what truly good English is.

So Shakespeare’s plays and the King James Bible are essential texts in English literature. But most people have a hard time understanding them, and the King James Bible is not a good translation, especially for modern readers. Want literature? Want to impose on people with a sense of high majesty? Read the King James. Want to understand the Bible and communicate its message? Use a better, modern translation. Does it seem awfully much like daily life to say “Don’t judge and you won’t be judged” rather than “Judge not that ye be not judged”? That’s because it’s supposed to. Did you really think the man was speaking in archaic verse in his own time?

We also learn that poetry is more elevated than prose. The tortuous syntactic braidings necessary to fit metre and rhyme become marks of distinction. We learn that “else the Puck a liar call” is more exalted than “or call me a liar,” even though the same thing uttered in daily conversation would elicit a “Huh?!”

But that’s just the thing. It’s not daily. It’s what some anthropologists and theatre scholars have called extra-daily: it is a language of a special, privileged time and place. It does not bear the tarnish and grime of the quotidian grind.

We have also learned in English that exceptions to rules are better than consistency. Nearly all the spelling and grammar mistakes we get browbeaten out of us in our young years are matters of failing to know exceptions to the rules: “Not goed. Went.” “It’s spelled e-i-g-h-t, not a-t-e, and g-r-e-a-t, not g-r-a-t-e.” And so on. As linguists put it, we privilege the marked — marked meaning exceptional.

Marked with exception, but also marked with the grime of time. These works may not have the dull dust of daily life, but they have the chimney soot of ages past. When the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was being cleaned, the soot and dirt of centuries carefully removed to reveal the brilliant colours put there in the first place by Michelangelo, many people complained bitterly about removing all that “beauty and mystery.”

When it comes to the exalted, people want “beauty and mystery,” which consists of what they have learned is beautiful and mysterious because it’s what was handed down to them from ages past, with all its obscurity, in the most exalted extra-daily contexts. The King James Bible is a standout example of English literature precisely because English literature has learned over the ages to treat it as such, and each new generation is shown it as an example. When we judge it exalted, we are judging it by a standard based on … it.

discombobulate

If you discombobulated a thingamabob, would you absquatulate? What if someone gave you a bunch of pieces of old machinery and you screwed them up together to make a machine as curious as a Rowland Emmet fancy but less, um, obvious? But if you made some odd machine from assorted bits, would that be discombobulation or recombobulation?

Let’s look at the bits. You might want to grab at the opening disco, but there’s no disco ball or discobolus here. It’s dis – as in dismantle, disappear, disgust, and other words of removal and destruction – plus com – as in combine, compliment, complement, and other words of joining and coming together (also seen as con in many other places; the com version goes before b, p, and m). And ul as in molecule and spatula and congratulate: a diminutive suffix. And ate, a suffix that makes a verb relating to making. And bob.

Who’s bob? That’s the odd piece out. It’s the ornamental figure in the middle of an arrangement of cogwheels. It’s what takes an almost plausible assortment of affixes and brings it down to earth. It’s the root in the middle, of course; the others are prefixes and suffixes. Bob is the American heart of this word. Picture Bob as an inventor smoking a pipe and wearing a housecoat, surrounded by junk-shop bits. This word, you see, is a fake-fancy word that came out of an early-mid-1800s fad for such confections. Other examples include absquatulate, which shows up first in 1830. The bob could be related to thingamabob, though that word first appeared nearly a century earlier and across the Atlantic.

The first appearance of discombobulate is in 1825, except that it’s not discombobulate. It’s discomboberate. There’s also discombobracate around the same time. You will also see discombooberate. But one thing you will see nearly all of them with is a d on the end: they’re typically used as past-participle adjectives. We seldom talk about a person discombobulating something; rather, things and people just become – or are – discombobulated: disturbed, messed up, confused.

You could say that a word that gets mixed up is discombobulated. Loxicoglody, colisexogy, kexilolozy, all could be discombobulated versions of lexicology. But discombobulate is not a discombobulated version of anything. There is no word it is trying and failing to be. It has been combobulated from obvious morphological doodads – or recombobulated, if you feel they have first been dismantled. It is as flashy as a disco ball and as beep-boopy as BB8, but it conveys sense and attitude quite efficiently. If you find it faintly discomfiting, so much the better, Bob. But it shouldn’t discombobulate you.

eunuch

I’m at my parents’ house for the holidays. I grew up in a house full of books. I once counted them as best I could; there were more than 2000. This house is not that house – the house in which I counted the books was much larger and out in the country, at the foot of Mount Yamnuska. Were I to give you directions to it, you would find only a flat area of gravel; it burned down years ago, but years after we had moved out of it. My parents now live in a standard-issue western Canadian suburban house (I have been in dozens of the same design) in Cochrane, near Calgary. Their books are now shelved in their offices in the basement.

Many of the books I was surrounded by are also not to be found any more. They did not all make it all the way here. Some of them my dad sold to a used bookstore, which subsequently lost them to water damage caused by putting out a fire in a unit upstairs from it. Some went to other people and places. Some are on my shelf in Toronto. But there are still some I recognize on my parents’ shelves.

Here is a shelf in my mother’s office area of the basement. Her office, where after she stopped being a full-time teacher she tutored students who needed extra help, is now full of assorted acquisitions, papers, books; it’s no longer much used as an office, my mother being generally retired from all but cooking and cleaning and social obligations.

It’s quite the collection of books from various eras. Some of the authors are old favourites of my mother’s – Erma Bombeck, Neil Bissoondath. Some are less familiar to me. There is the one-volume edition of The Lord of the Rings, and I will come back to that another day soon. But what leaps out at me is a book I first noticed on my mother’s bookshelf back in the 1980s, in that large house. The title is somewhat noteworthy, but the cover is particularly striking.

In all these years, I have never read it. Pulled it out, yes, and looked at that cover, and wondered. But it was my mother’s book and it looked like the sort of book I wasn’t suppose to be looking at, so I always put it back.

I have also, once or twice, seen Germaine Greer interviewed on television. One time she was interviewed on The Journal, a newsmagazine show that followed The National, the nightly national news program on CBC. I can’t remember who interviewed her – probably Barbara Frum, a doyenne of Canadian journalism, long since lost to cancer. (Another host on that show was a lean guy with a smirk who liked to get people of opposing views arguing and then announce that they had run out of time. Only recently did I realize that I was seeing the same fellow again on TV, in a slightly different capacity, and remember that his name was Keith Morrison.) I remember that interview with Greer, partly because she said some obnoxious things such as that men never wash their pants (this based on the smell of her father’s pants, and she probably didn’t know that dry-cleaning also makes pants smell) and that in her family they always said straight A’s are a sign of a dull mind (would you like to make some whine from those sour grapes?). But also in particular because she used a vulgarity once – something like “Why is it that what men fuck they have to destroy?” – and, the CBC being the CBC, and having the justification that it was a news interview, not only did not censor or bleep it but used that clip in particular in the previews for the interview, which they broadcast multiple times in advance.

So we have established that Germaine Greer is forthright, outspoken, and likes saying things that catch attention and stir the pot. But that doesn’t tell me so much about the contents of the book. Why female eunuch?

I’m not entirely sure that I even knew what a eunuch was the first time I saw the book. I feel confident that if I didn’t, I went straightway to find out. I think it safe to assume that everyone who is reading this now knows what a eunuch is. But let us pause and look at this word for just a moment. It is one of those words that are sure to stymie anyone still learning English, thanks to its spelling, which comes to us from Greek by way of Latin. Find me another such word – one that ends in uch but rhymes with “suck.” You won’t find much; I think you won’t find any, though I won’t vouch for it with absolute certainty. (Here is one: cleruch, an Athenian who had land in another country but retained citizen’s rights. Here is another, perhaps, though it might sooner rhyme with “took”: trebuch, another name for a trebuchet, which is a war machine that can hurl large projectiles a considerable distance. We may wonder if Germaine Greer named her typewriter trebuch.)

It is a fun-looking word, eunuch, with the two curls (e and c), two cups (u and u), and two caps (n and the one with a chimney, h). You might say it is unique; at least you will say it quite like “unique.” We know that it refers to a castrated male. In particular, it refers to one in a service capacity – as an attendant for a lady (no threat to the master of the house) or in an attendant government role (no threat to the emperor). Capable of intercourse, but not of impregnation. The Greek source, εὐνοῦχος eunoukhos, comes from εὐνή euné ‘bed’ and ἔχειν ekhein ‘keeper’. So a eunuch is, in origin, someone who keeps the bed. Master of the bedchamber. But not of his own sexuality.

And this takes us back to Greer. She has helpfully written an initial chapter summarizing the book, and I have read it (I will read the rest later). Here are three passages from it that give you an idea of her position:

In essence, Greer views the traditional possessive marriage, both the domination by the man and the desire of the woman to retain her man in iron bonds of commitment, as neutering the woman. She wants women to be true masters of their sexuality and self-determination, and not in a passive role, the traditional construction of feminine sexuality, but in a truly liberated, self-determining role. There are a number of very interesting quotations assembled on Goodreads, and rather than selectively reproduce them here, I suggest that you go to www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/94985-the-female-eunuch and have a look. Note that there are two pages. Some of the best quotes are on the second page. Go read them now. I’ll wait here until you get back.

I have put my mother on notice that I intend to borrow this book. She says just that she wants to put her name in it, as she likes to do with all her books that she lends out. She bought it more than 30 years ago, because it seemed like a book worth having for interest, but she’s never put her name in it because she’s never needed to.

There’s the bookmark from the Banff Book and Art Den, in its time a truly excellent bookstore, the place where I discovered Vonnegut and Milligan and so much more. I can now go to the Banff Avenue Brewing Company pub and point out where the shelves of books used to be. There was where I found Teach Yourself German, which is still on my shelf today; there was where I first read about the Dead Kennedys and Jello Biafra, knowledge which impressed the punk-loving ski racers at school; there was where the smut section was. That was what the sign above the section actually said: SMUT. Greer wouldn’t have been in that section (Xaviera Hollander was, though), but I have to assume she would have had a lot to say about it – endorsement of some books, condemnation of others.

That bookmark is exactly where the cashier put it when my mother bought the book back in the early 1980s.

When I read this copy of this book, I will be the first. It is still virgin, so to speak (please do not overdose on the irony). I wonder what intercourse it will have with my mind.