Monthly Archives: December 2025

dissolute, resolute

The turn of the year is a time to turn the page on problems. For every problem there must be at least one solution, and New Year’s is certainly a time for solutions – often aqueous solutions of ethanol. Yes, yes, if we want to resolve our problems, we must be resolute in our resolutions; but if we want simply to dissolve our problems, their dissolution leads us to be dissolute.

Wait. Let’s solve this little matter first: Why can’t we just be solute? Isn’t dissolute the opposite of solute? And then isn’t resolute a repetition of solute?

Well, to start with, we can be solute… providing we wish to immerse ourselves in an acid bath, say. Because to be solute is to be in solution – that is, dissolved. Literally.

Hmm. If we are dissolved, we have a problem, which is the opposite of being solved – is that the reason it’s dis-solved?

Well, no. Latin prefixes are not so schematically simple: sometimes they’re virtually flammable or inflammable; they may be inspectable or inscrutable – or both. In the current case, we start with solvo, which means ‘I solve, untie, undo’ – wait, no we don’t, because solvo is from se- ‘away’ plus luo ‘I let free, loosen, satisfy’. So solvo is ‘I set free away’ – sort of like how in English we can sit or we can sit down, or we can end or we can end up, that kind of thing. 

And then we add more prefixes. Re- means ‘back’ and implies that the loosening or undoing is returning it to a previous state (a problem is a tangle in the hair of your life; resolve it and you are combing that hair back to the way it was and should be). Dis- means ‘apart’ and so dissolve means, etymologically, ‘undo apart’ or, all untangled, ‘set free away apart’ – not just loosen it and let it hang but actually separate it. If you dissolve something, it is altogether undone and separated – usually chemically, in modern usage.

So if you are dissolute you are altogether undone apart away across the place, yes? Perhaps chemically? Hmm, well, perhaps, but it’s a bit more figurative: it is not you in physical entirety but your moral substance that is as dissolved as salt in water. Originally, yes, dissolute meant literally ‘disunited, separated, dissolved’; but then it meant ‘enfeebled, lacking in altogetherness’, and then ‘lax, careless, remiss’, and then ‘unrestrained or undisciplined in behaviour’ or – yes – ‘loose’, in the sense it is sometimes used in. And finally dissolute established its current sense of being morally dissolved, which is – unknot this one – the opposite of being morally resolved or resolute.

Resolute, once we resolve it into its parts, is in fact the word that has changed more in sense. There was a time when resolute meant what dissolute means now, and resolve meant dissolve – or condense like vapour, as in “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew.” When Hamlet said that, he was not in our modern sense resolute… yet. 

But just as, over the course of the play, rather than resolving himself into a dew, Hamlet resolves himself into a doing, over time resolve focused its meaning on the conclusion of problems and the removal of obstacles, and resolute followed. When you have resolved problems, you have analyzed and separated them back into their constituent parts: water here, salt there. And, having resolved them that way, you can decide – decide coming from decido, ‘I cut off’ – and, being in a state of resolution, you are resolute: “This is this, and that is that; I have determined it and I am determined.” 

Which is quite the opposite of being dissolute. When you are resolute, you have resolved and solved; when you are dissolute, you are simply dissolved. Sometimes you solve the problems, and sometimes the problems solve you.

And so the two sides of this lexicosemantic coin are like the two sides of the new year. You may be dissolute on New Year’s Eve; you are expected to be resolute on New Year’s Day. Or perhaps on January the second… after the effects of your solutions have been resolved.

stuff

It’s the day after Christmas. You’ve probably given and gotten lots of stuff, and you’ve probably stuffed yourself to the eyeballs with the usual dinner, featuring turkey with stuffing, and maybe you’ve sat down and watched a classic Christmas movie – A Christmas Carol, Miracle on 34th Street, Elf, Die Hard, Eyes Wide Shut… that kind of stuff. And now, if you’re where I am as I write this, you’re looking out the window and you’re seeing absolutely loads of the white stuff, falling without stop and covering the streets and stopping up traffic. If you have to step out, you’ll really get to show your Canadian stuff: you’ll be shuffling in a stiff breeze through it – your boots sounding like “stuff, stuff, stuff” – or shoveling through it – “Ssstufff! Ssstufff!” And at length you might catch a cold and get a stuffed-up nose.

Well, this is such stuff as Christmas dreams are made on – although, since in the world of clothing and fabric stuff refers to textile, some might take “such stuff as dreams are made on” to mean the pillowcases. What, not what’s inside the pillow? Ah, well, that fill can be stuffing, but it’s only stuff in the way that everything is stuff.

And everything is stuff. From the fabric of the universe to the moral mettle of a person, from the real good stuff to some pretty bad stuff (which are sometimes the same thing), from specific senses in the clothing business and the building trades, through whatever a feature writer or reviewer wants to sound especially authentically thing-y (“this is compelling stuff”), to the most hand-wavey generalizations, there is nothing that is not, in some sense, stuff. Stuff is all the stuff that is in the set of all sets. All that matters and all that is matter is stuff. It is the alpha and omega of mass objects.

But stop for a moment. Why stuff? Why this word consisting of three voiceless consonants – a stop and two fricatives – all said at the front of the mouth plus one neutral central vowel? Why three letters with crossbars, one snake, and one cup (not running over)? Its countable counterpart, thing, has ascenders and descenders, crosses and dots – all the things – and covers the length of the oral cavity, closing with a voiced nasal ringing like a soft gong. But stuff? Just some stuff. Don’t like it? Tough.

And where did we get stuff? Most immediately from Old French estoffer ‘provide the necessaries; equip; furnish’ – the verb and noun forms of stuff have both been around in English since the early 1400s. But, yes, the verb first meant the same in English as in Old French: to provision an army, a town, or a person with all the necessary stuff – arms, food, money. Following soon on that it gained the sense of ‘line or fill with padding’ and – at about the same, not expanding on the clothing sense – ‘fill the inside of a roasting fowl or other piece of meat with another foodstuff’. From those two and similar senses came all the extended versions of the verb that we use now, including any instance of stuffed up or similar reference to clogging and stopping up.

But keep an eye on that. We know that, although stuff can certainly get in the way, the noun stuff doesn’t refer specifically to things that stop things up; it first referred to provisions such as foodstuffs and the various stuff of armies, and has only expanded from that. Its German cousin, Stoff, is altogether neutral and general and is used broadly in compounds: Lehrstoff (‘learning stuff’) ‘educational material’, Lesestoff (‘reading stuff’) ‘reading material’, Kraftstoff (‘power stuff’) ‘fuel’… Say, stuff does seem like a Germanic kind of word, doesn’t it? Well, there is one line of thought that says that the Romance languages got it from a Germanic root, and then the Germanic languages – English, German, Dutch – borrowed it back; this wouldn’t be the only time that has happened. But the conjectural Germanic etymon meant ‘stuff up, plug up, stop’ – in fact, it’s the source of our word stop

The problem is that, as I have just said, the earlier senses of stuff in English, and of Old French estoffer, did not relate to blocking and clogging and plugging; they related to equipping, furnishing, supplying. All the good stuff, not the bad stuff. So somehow the ‘stop’ sense would have had to stop, and from ‘stuff that stuffs’ it would have become just ‘stuff’ and ‘needed stuff’, and then later on, atavistically – as if revealing the true stuff it’s made of – the word would have had to come back to that original meaning. I won’t say that’s crazy stuff, but it is not quite the usual stuff of language history.

But anyway, we don’t know for sure. And that’s how it is. The world is full of stuff, and often you don’t really know where the stuff comes from, even if you have staff to deal with your stuff. Sometimes it seems like we have more than enuff stuff, too, ya know? But without stuff, what do you have? Nuffing! 

covert, overt

What’s the difference between covert and overt? Just what you can c.

Well, that and what you conceive on the basis of what you can see. Sometimes some added variable can convert it. But also, a difference can be hiding (covert) in plain sight (overt), and it takes a change of perspective to uncover it.

It is the antonymy of these words, and their near identity in form, that causes them to cleave and yet to cleave. Of course covert is the opposite of overt; of course they are nearly identical: the only difference in pronunciation is the /k/ sound at the start – unless, as you may, you say covert like “covert” plus “t.”

Which gives us a bit of an opening here. I don’t mean an aperture – that might be malapert for covert, though it would be perfectly apposite for overt, which traces back to Latin aperire ‘open’ (etymon of aperture), which slid into the descendants of Latin as obrir and ovrir and then, in French, ouvrir, which gained the past tense ouvert, which gave us overt. But OK, how did overt gain a c to reverse the sense?

It didn’t. The question that will uncover the truth is in fact how the a in aperire became the o in obrir and ovrir. And the answer to that is, apparently, by imitation of its antonym operire.

Well, that’s awkward. How do you deal with two words that sound identical but mean the opposite? You can get by if they’re not often used (like cleave), and perhaps if they’re colloquial the uncertainty can leave you either chuffed or chuffed, but for words in regular use that need clarity to avoid disaster, you add something distinguishing to one – in this case, a co- to make it more (or less, depending on your perspective) cooperative. And so operire ‘cover’ became cooperire ‘cover together’, i.e., ‘cover’.

And from cooperire was descended French couvrir, the source of English cover. It is tempting to say that covert is a past participle of cover as meant is a past participle of mean, and in a sense it is, but not quite in an etymology: covert comes not from English cover plus t but from the French past participle, couvert, from Latin coopertus. And so the pronunciation we would expect would be like “cover” with a “t” – but the influence of overt is, well, overt.

In other words, overt has an o because it sidled over towards its antonym, and covert has a c to look less like its antonym but is said with a “long o” because it has sidled over towards its antonym. Opposites attract; the two words look like siblings but are not really related – they have covertly converged in overt form because their opposite vectors aligned them. What a trove!

The 2026 Sesquiotica calendar

Announcing the 2026 Sesquiotica calendar! My Patreon patrons above a certain level receive a Sesquiotica calendar, and I like to give a calendar to family and friends as well. And I have ordered enough of them that I have a few extras that I am happy to part with for $20 each plus shipping. If you’re wondering if you would like one – or even if you don’t want an 11×14 coil-bound calendar – here is a flip-through, followed by stills of the photos (all by me!) that are featured for each month.

Cover

January

February

March

Digitized with Negative Lab Pro v2.1.2

April

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

If you’re interested in acquiring one, email me (if you don’t have my personal email, use the form at jamesharbeck.com/contact/ – I don’t want to post my email here because spam address harvesters will pick it up). I’ll let you know how much the shipping will cost (it varies a lot depending on where to and by what method) and we can make it happen!

Silberhochzeit

December 9, 2000, was a silver day in Toronto: snow had fallen all the previous night, and everything was blanketed in shiny white as Aina and I posed for pictures and then went to the church and said our vows.

December 9, 2025, is also a silver day – well, the snow isn’t quite so fresh, but I bear a silver hue on the top of my head everywhere I go now, and today in particular is specifically silver for me and Aina. And it is high time for me to talk about Silberhochzeit.

Unless you speak German, you’re probably looking at this word Silberhochzeit as though it were a pile of snirt dumped on your dinner table. German is not famous for pretty-looking or pretty-sounding words, and not only does this word look like the speeding passage of a race-car (or a quarter of a century), /ˈzɪlbɐˌhɔxtsaɪt/ sounds more like an unfortunate bicyclist aspirating a bumblebee than it does a word for a silver wedding.

Which is what it is. It means ‘silver wedding anniverary’, but technically, literally, it just means ‘silver wedding’; ‘silver wedding anniversary’ would be Silberhochzeitstag, as ‘anniversary’ is Hochzeitstag, which is literally ‘wedding day’ – and even more literally ‘high time day’, because Hochzeit, ‘wedding’, is literally hoch ‘high’ plus Zeit ‘time’. Not necessarily as in “It’s high time you got married!” but just as in it’s an exalted occasion.

OK, but why am I plopping this German monstrosity in front of you when this is normally a blog about English words? It’s not because my surname is German, and it’s not because Aina loves sauerkraut, and it’s not even just because it’s one word whereas in English we use three. It’s because the tradition of silver (25th) and gold (50th) wedding anniversaries started in Germany. It seems to have begun around the 1500s there, and was quite well established by the time it ported over to the English-speaking world in the 1800s (the other anniversaries – a long list, including wood for the 5th, tin for the 10th, and crystal for the 15th – were mostly invented in the 20th century, by companies that sold gifts). 

And while big celebrations of silver and gold anniversaries are not such a common thing in the Anglo world (the gold one moreso, because 50 years is a long time to be married), they are apparently still quite the thing in Germany, where, for the 25th, in some parts of the country friends and neighbours hang silver decorations on the couple’s door, and in other parts they come in and defenestrate the silverware.

Which will not be happening chez nous, thank you very much. Aside from the fact that I’d rather retain the wedding flatware, defenestration of objects is strictly verboten in our building – and it would be exceedingly unwise anyway, given that we’re on the 27th floor. But for that exact reason, even before we open a celebratory bottle of wine with dinner, we are guaranteed a high time.

infrigorating

I was in a warm place last week, visiting friends who have an outdoor pool. It has a heater that can be turned on. The first time we got into the pool, the heater hadn’t been turned on for a while, and what is a nice air temperature is not necessarily as warm when it’s water. I jumped in and proclaimed it infrigorating.

And then, a couple of days ago, I got back to Toronto, where – in my absence – autumn had seceded to winter, and I remembered what’s really infrigorating.

Infrigorating? Is that a word?

Well, it should be. When you jump into a cool pool or step out in warm-weather clothing into freezing air, you may want to declare pertly that it’s invigorating, but you may also want to shout “Frig! It’s a bit brisk!” And frigor is a Latin word meaning ‘cold’, and frigorific is a word – meaning not ‘terrifically frigging cold’, but ‘causing to chill or cool’.

But we do already have an established Latinate word for the sense to which infrigorating is a pretender: infrigidating. It’s clear, it makes sense, it provides a nice match to intepidating (which is not in use as a word but sure could be) and more loosely to infuriating, and it has overtones of going out on a frigid date. And its root frigido is (aside from sounding like a perpetually chilly hobbit or supervillain, perhaps) Latin for ‘I chill, I make cool’ – literally, not as in hanging with the gang.

But, well, heck. Might as well just say chilly as infrigidating. I think infrigorating has a feel I like better, for reasons given above. If I’m going to have to experience the cold shock, I want a word for it that sounds more like what I’m muttering under my breath as steam comes out of my mouth.