Category Archives: word tasting notes

frug

This is a short and odd-looking word. Why odd-looking? Only because unfamiliar. After all, there are many words in English that closely resemble it in form or sound: frog, frig, frag, drug, shrug, fridge, fog, fug, rug, frock, frugal, fruit, and of course that champagne I hope someday to drink in quantity, Krug.

When you look at this word, your natural expectation is almost certainly that it rhymes with drug. Actually, it doesn’t; it sounds like the first syllable of frugal, which puts it in that rather tidy little set of English words that are spelled exactly the same as in their IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) rendering. Is frugal where it comes from? Maybe – or maybe it’s a modified form of frig, or perhaps it comes from the family name Frug. Or some combination of multiple factors. The usual etymological sources ain’t givin’ me no lovin’ on this one.

So what is a frug? Is it a fugly rug? Nope, nor any other item of fugxury. It is a style of dance. I first saw the word frug in a comic book I was reading in the 1970s; it referred to a dance style, but I got no idea from the reference what dance style it might have been. It sort of seemed like the sort of thing shaggy space monsters might do. It went together with other popular dances of the era, such as (to quote “Revolution 9” by The Beatles) “the Watusi… the twist…” It was only very recently that I finally looked it up. And thought, “Oh, that.

I’m sure you’ve seen it if you’ve ever watched any movies or TV shows from the ’60s wherein girls in mini-skirts dance. In fact, the odds are not so bad you’ve actually done it sometime.

The first thing to know about the frug is that, as dance steps go, it doesn’t have any. Steps, that is. Your feet stay bolted to the spot, at least in the original version. It’s your hips that move, side to side. Those and your hands, which can do swimming-type movements such as the crawl, the backstroke, and the dog paddle. Seeing teeny-boppers do these is classical and endearing and emblematic. Seeing middle-aged dudes in supposedly funny TV ads do it is enough to motivate me to leave the room.

Here, here are some instructions from the time on how to do it: www.sixtiescity.com/Culture/dance.shtm#frug (on the left side of the page, the newspaper clipping).

But I think it would serve you well to see some examples of it in action. Here’s a nice version from the 1972 Bollywood movie Yaar Mera: www.youtube.com/watch?v=paH6QDIHZsM. And then there’s the bit from Sweet Charity – the “Rich Man’s Frug” sequence, “The Aloof,” choreographed by Bob Fosse: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZnFQvlb2OA.

So now you know. And next time you’re in a dance bar, you can walk up to someone attractive and say, “You wanna frug?” But I take no responsibility for the results.

salitter

There is much about this word that I don’t need to say, for it has already been said. This in spite of the fact that you’re not going to find it in your dictionary.

My attention was directed to this word by Jim Taylor, who saw it discussed in “Cormac McCarthy’s 17th Century Vocabulary” on Galleycat. It in turn directs the reader to Barry Weber’s post on it on his blog The First Morning. And Weber’s post is a lovely, lyrical thing that covers it wonderfully. So you should certainly read it. But no one has ever said that if one person has tasted a wine, no else need do so; the same goes for words. So I will ramify it in my own way.

Weber found the word in Cormac McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic novel The Road:

The black shape of it running from dark to dark. Then a distant low rumble. Not thunder. You could feel it under your feet. A sound without cognate and so without description. Something imponderable shifting out there in the dark. The earth itself contracting with the cold. It did not come again. What time of year? What age the child? … The silence. The salitter drying from the earth. The mudstained shapes of flooded cities burned to the waterline. At a crossroads a ground set with dolmen stones where the spoken bones of oracles lay moldering. No sound but the wind.

McCarthy does not say where he got salitter or what it means. The context does not go far enough, really, in clarifying it. Is this some bit of precious pretentiousness by a writer just showing off that he knows something you don’t? Where on earth did he get this word, anyway?

He got it from Jakob Böhme, as it turns out. Böhme was a religious thinker of the 1500s and 1600s. He had some ideas that were rather uncommon for his time. Actually, some of them would earn him a lot of abuse from several quarters even today. I’m not going to try to give you a full run-down of his thought. You’re on the web; look him up if you want.

But this term salitter, well, what did he mean by it when he used it, this word that slides and taps on the tip of your tongue? It has tastes of salt and glitter and litter and perhaps slit and sally; it seems to patter on the tongue perhaps as rain on a roof or sun sparkling on littoral waves. It makes me think of sale, French for “dirty”, and iter, Latin for “road”. It’s something that dries up from the earth, though – perhaps petrichor?

Oh, but McCarthy’s book is post-apocalyptic. What he’s saying, as it turns out, is that even the essence of life, the divine essence, the divine spark, is drying up, decamping, absquatulating, sublimating to the sublime. Salitter is that: the divine essence that is found in all things. To quote “Jacob Boehme’s Divine Substance Salitter: its Nature, Origin, and Relationship to Seventeenth Century Scientific Theories,” by Lawrence M. Principe and Andrew Weeks (The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1989)):

For Boehme, the Salitter designated the embodiment of the total force of the divinity, the compendium of all forces operating in nature and in the human psyche. The substance Salitter is a matrix of forces that are identified with sensible ‘qualities’. The latter interact by means of fundamental oppositions and affinities. Accordingly, the spirit forces operating within Salitter are discernible in many objects of speculation: in the deity, in sensory experience, in vegetable growth, and in the objects of geology, astronomy, and meteorology. Salitter animates the supersensible and the sensible; it is the common denominator of what is conscious and alive and of what appears inanimate and inert. Salitter is the embodiment of a world conceived in organic terms.

OK, very good. Now you have a word for that something. It may not sound like the word you thought it should be (were you expecting something more like om?). But where did Böhme get it, anyway?

Böhme was interested in alchemy, and in alchemy certain earthly substances gave their names to divine principles that are the basic ingredients of all things: Mercury, Sulphur, Salt. To these Böhme added one more, a version of the word we now know in English as saltpetre.

Saltpetre! This is something that I, as a youth, heard was put in some men’s foods to assault their peters and make them peter out (so they would keep their peters in). Cause of impotence! But in fact there is no real support for this young boy’s tale. Rather, saltpetre – potassium nitrate is the chemical name for it – is useful for a number of things, and two in particular: fertilizing things (it is a key ingredient in many fertilizers) and blowing things up (it is a key ingredient in gunpowder). Yes, that’s why fertilizer can be used to make bombs. A third thing saltpetre can do is preserve food – it used to be commonly used in corned beef (giving it its pink colour), but now sodium nitrate is more commonly used.

But think of it! Saltpetre can accelerate entropy rapidly, and it can also accelerate the opposite of entropy – organic growth. It can even delay entropy in food preservation. No wonder Böhme found it such a good basis for his universal divine principle. It is a kind of Shiva, a principle of change both good and bad. The earthly salitter, saltpetre, is but an “earthly, stinking,” dark, limited analogue of the pure, clear divine salitter. Here we see as through a glass, darkly. And yet this “here” is animated by the divine principle, aglitter with an immanent alterity.

Funny. Saltpetre comes from Latin sal petrae, “rock salt” or “salt of rock”, with the petrae coming from the Greek for “rock” (whence we get the name Peter too). I am put in mind of the Roman practice of salting the earth in places they wished to destroy, so crops would not grow there. But I am also put in mind of Jesus telling his disciples they were the salt of the earth. Such duality seems so suitable… And if duality disappears from the earth, what is left but undifferentiated unity? And how can there be change then – growth and destruction, the two sides of everything interesting?

Does this make salitter seem fickle, hypocritical, treacherous? Is the tt a double-cross? Do not be so passive about it. Look to yourself: it must be within you too. Sometimes it just takes a bit of prodding, a drop of salitter from outside to awaken your own creative and discovering spark. Here is a word: look it up if you want. Today that drop of salitter is salitter. McCarthy dropped it in his book, and it was picked up by one blog, then another website, then sent to me by email, and now I am bringing it to you. Just a grain, a seed… a seed that grows and propagates and ramifies.

thermos

We all know what a thermos is. It’s one of those things our mothers make us carry to school if we pack our own lunches – not to smother us but just to make sure we’re taken care of (her most precious child should not drink tepid milk or some other such thing). They’re like a thermal sweater for your beverage.

But if they’re the classic glass-lined kind, they’re a little fragile. I remember a few instances in elementary and junior high when my lunch box fell open and my thermos fell out – and the glass lining inside broke (possibly leading to sermons from my mother). That sure sucked.

Well, yeah. Vaccums suck. That’s what a thermos uses: a vacuum. Because you know what the best thermal insulator is? Nothing.

You need enough nothing to do the job, naturally. If you have no nothing between one surface and another, they can pass on their molecular vibrations to each other, and the heat normalizes. You need a space between them with nothing in it – no molecules. A vacuum. Then there’s nothing to communicate the vibrations. So heat doesn’t pass through.

Sound doesn’t, either – in space, no one can hear you scream (I’m sure we all know that the laser and other space sounds from most sci-fi movies are pure BS; the one movie I can think of that is true to the science is 2001: A Space Odyssey). Come to think of it, it would be nice if my downstairs neighbours were to surround their living (partying) space with a layer of vacuum – turn their apartment into a thermos. Their noise level kind of sucks.

You may be thinking, “Why isn’t he capitalizing thermos? It’s a brand name.” Well, yes, there is a Thermos brand, and they are the ones who applied the name thermos to vacuum bottles. Their website proclaims that they are the “Genuine Thermos Brand.” But the word thermos has passed into common usage for vacuum bottles. It is no longer protected as a trademark in Canada and the US (I’m less sure about Britain). Need further proof? The word thermos is in the Scrabble dictionary. You know that proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble! (Which is why Zen is unplayable – it’s the name of a sect of Buddhism. Don’t get me started on all the places that one is used senselessly.)

Doesn’t it suck that Thermos don’t get the trademark protection on their brand name? Heck, even Aspirin is still protected in Canada (not in the US). This is why Caterpillar and Zamboni are so particular about how their brand names are used – they really don’t want what happened to thermos to happen to them. But there are a couple of things you should know about thermos that might affect how you feel about the matter.

First, and this might not surprise you, thermos is a word taken whole-cloth from Greek. The word θερμός thermos is Greek for “hot” (or “warm”). (Yes, thermoses can also keep things cold. In fact, as you will see shortly, that’s what they were invented for. All they do is greatly reduce the rate at which what they contain normalizes its temperature to the ambient temperature – they are not perfect because the inside of the vacuum bottle has to be attached to the outside and has to have an opening that can be unsealed to allow the contents ingress and egress.)

Sure, Caterpillar is a normal word and Zamboni a pre-existing family name. The trademarked use applies only to the product in question. But there’s more to know about thermos.

One thing to know is that another name for a thermos is a Dewar flask. Now, doesn’t that sound like a container of Scotch? But it’s not named after Dewar’s Scotch. It’s named after Sir James Dewar, the inventor of the vacuum bottle. He invented it because he was studying the optical properties of cooled liquids, and it made the liquids much easier to study for longer periods of time.

Dewar was one of the greats of 19th– and 20th-century English chemistry. He also co-invented cordite. He did much important work on the liquefaction of gases, including oxygen and hydrogen, but (due at least in part to a shortage of helium – the same thing that, decades later, led to the explosion of the Hindenburg, which had been forced to use hydrogen because the US wouldn’t sell helium to Nazi Germany) he was pipped at the post for the first to liquefy helium – and the guy who beat him, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, later won the Nobel, a prize Dewar was nominated for several times but never won. Sucks, eh?

Dewar had the idea for the vacuum flask in 1892, and put it into use successfully. But he did not patent it. A German firm saw the commercial value in it, patented it in 1904, and gave it the name Thermos in 1907. Dewar sued for a share of the profits – but lost because he hadn’t patented it. Now, that sucks.

It’s also why you needn’t feel too bad about using thermos as a common noun. Sure, Thermos (the company) made the invention commercially available, leading to energy savings world-wide in keeping beverages hot and cold and reducing substantially the amount of tepid beverage consumed. But come on. Hardly right sporting, is it, to take someone else’s invention and patent it just because you can and then not give them a share of the proceeds. If they were to leave their invention in their unlocked garage, you would be arrested if you took it, even if you did something good with it.

Now, thermos is a nice name for it, that’s true. The therm is so soft and warm; it has good associations from other therm words, and it has that nice, light, cool dental fricative, a warm /m/ at the end, and in between a steady liquid, the syllabic /r/. And thermos is one easy word that has no other meanings.

But if you want to scotch that use, you can call it a Dewar flask. I’m not sure they’d let you take that to school, though.

ascapartic

Today’s word tasting note was written as a guest post for Logophilius.

David Foster Wallace has confected a nearly infinite jest on readers with his brobdingnagian book Infinite Jest and the gargantuan vocabulary he uses therein. Consider this passage – describing types I recognize from life:

this was the kind of hideously attractive girl you just knew in advance did not associate with normal collegiate human males, and clearly attended B.U.-Athletic social functions only out of a sort of bland scientific interest while she waited for the cleft-chinned ascapartic male-model-looking wildly-successful-in-business adult male she doubtless was involved with to telephone her from the back seat of his green stretch Infiniti.

Ah, that turn of phrase, with its occasional saffron thread of novel lexis as elusive as it is allusive. Ascapartic? Where’s that from (WTF)? It has stimulated assorted online discussions entomologically entumoured and tumescent with ex tempore etymology. One almost comes to wonder whether the spectacular specimen’s car is a classiomatic.

It has a nice taste, to be sure: crisp, perhaps refreshing; after a tongue-tip hiss, the stops, voiceless all, crack from the back to the lips to the tip to the back, with merely the little thrill of a liquid trill to add further to the vowels. As a written form, it is long but short: ten letters, but the heights only tapped by ti. The rest are mostly the curly little trolls, a s c and so on.

So what could this alpha male be? A scrappy Spartacus? An ASCAP artist escaped from the Arctic? Could you with a speculum or scope discern a cleft scapula counterpoised to his spectacular pectorals? In a scrap with a cop in a copse, could he expectorate pixelations to scupper a cepstrum? I don’t expect an ex post facto exculpation of David Foster Wallace, but I will speculate that that prick could have expostulated an explication of his lexicocerebral copulation.

Well, maybe an illumination of the allusion will elucidate. Ascapartic is an adjective formed from Ascapart, also spelled Ascupart, the name a figure from English legend who was defeated by Bevis of Hampton.

Oh, well. That explains everything… if you had only happened to ask a part of the question. OK, I don’t know about you, but until I looked this up I had never heard of Bevis of Hampton. I was tempted to wonder whether he hung out with Butthead of Doubletree. But nope, he’s a figure from medieval legend, and Ascapart was a giant, a Paul-Bunyan-scale sort who used a club made from a whole tree. He swung it at Bevis; it got stuck in the mud; Bevis, rather than killing Ascapart, made him his squire.

And now Ascapart is become a squire word – an adjective, a verbal servant. He has been lanced in Wallace’s infinite joust. I feel sure that you, too, will soon use this word. So what if we have other allusive words for great magnitude – brobdingnagian and gargantuan, for instance. Who doesn’t love a nice shiny new toy?

empyrean

This is indeed a lofty word, glowing with the poetic diction of earlier centuries, when classical allusions were elevating rather than trite. It is a word that seems to me to be made of rich blue velvet; Wordsworth speaks of “empyrean light,” Milton of the “pure Empyrean,” Walter Raleigh (and many others) of the “Empyrean Heaven” (the original full phrase of which this word is the short form). Empyrean has the warmth of the nasals /m/ and /n/, but with a cooling puff of the breath in its heart as we release the /p/. True blue indeed.

But what, empirically, may we say it is? If you have seen empyrean here and there in prose and verse, you must be burning to know. Is the empyrean the empire of the sun? Is it blue heaven? May it be black? Oh, but how can we talk of the highest heaven as black? Although on a mountaintop in crisp winter air I have looked up and seen the sky so deep blue it was almost black, we must consider the sky of daylight to be enrobed in blue.

Even though at night you may see far more suns than just the closest one. Even though the blue you see by day is simply the filtering effect of the atmosphere that is near. May it be that our heaven is really more a matter of our perspective than we think? But what is beyond it?

Well. If you reach the firmament and peek beyond it, like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show opening the door in the fake shell of the sky, what you see beyond is – or was – thought to be the empyrean. That is the pure realm of the highest heaven. There is nothing impure in the empyrean; it has been cleansed by the fire of the divine sun. It is where Dante was taken by Beatrice; it is Milton’s highest sphere in Paradise Lost.

Now, of course, empyrean is used more loosely as a synonym for sky. But any sky, night or day? How could the inky black of night be the empyrean? And yet there are millions of millions of suns out there, and as we look out on them we know some of them have planets wandering around them, and perhaps through the atmospheres of some of those planets other eyes see their own empyrean lit by their own sun, while we are an atom of dark by a spark in their occult welkin.

Yeah, yeah, lay off the overbaked language. Did you know people actually used to like that? Not just heaven but heavenly verse seems to relate to the perceiver.

Funny thing, though, empyrean. The word speaks of the highest, but it has no letters that reach above the common; indeed, it has two that reach downward like roots. And what do they reach towards? What is this word grounded in? Is heaven under our feet as well as above our heads?

I should say that empyrean has no etymological relation to empire or empirical, which in turn are not related to each other – things may resemble and yet dissemble. This word has pyr at its heart, and those who enjoy reading these word tasting notes probably know that root: as seen in pyrite and pyromaniac and such like. Our word of the day comes by way of Latin from Greek ἔμπυρος empuros, “fiery” or “in or on the fire”. Thus it has a pur heart that is the great purifier (like a refiner’s fire).

And indeed, from earth, through air the colour of water, we see the fire of our sun. What burns is not a thing, it is a process, a wave, a constant change. Fair enough for the highest: infinity by definition is always increasing, or it would be in some sense finite. Perfection that is unchanging is imperfect because dead. Fire may burn and destroy, but that is change, and change is life. The real illusion is that the earth, air, and water are not also changing at their own rates. It’s a matter of perspective.

And fire is not intrinsically good or bad; after all, when you think of fire, do you think of heaven or hell? What does inferno mean to us? The word is not related to words for “fire”; it is related to inferior, because hell is below, and inferno is Italian for “hell”. But in English inferno means fire. We can even have a “towering inferno.” We get this connection of inferno and fire from Dante, but where did he get it? From Christian tradition, naturally. But let us gain some more perspective on that.

The vision of “hell” attributed to Jesus is of a place where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die – Jesus calls it Gehenna, which is a reference to the valley outside of Jerusalem that served as the garbage dump, where of course garbage was always being burned. Does that mean he just meant the town dump? That he was just speaking of death and decay? We know he was a dab hand at metaphors, so we can’t assume that, although we should be careful about some of the other assumptions we are in the habit of making too.

But do remember this: If you’re on the garbage heap, it may suck for you, but it’s heaven for the worms. The local fire that they would not want to be burned by is nonetheless the empyrean light beyond their paradise. And when the worms and fire have done their business, you’ll be good fertilizer for the soil, so that new things may put down roots and grow… with the help of that sun up there in the empyrean.

lowly

“I find that highly suspect,” Wally said to the lowly suspect, knitting his owly brow w, tugging on his tie y, and pulling close his woolly coat. “You are saying that there was no antonym?”

The suspect was not so manly as to display contumely, but his answer was not timely. Was he simply being cowardly? “Enough lollygagging!” Wally exclaimed. “We know that -ly means an adverb. You simply attach it and it goes. Strongly, weakly; majorly, minorly; brightly, darkly; heavily, lightly.”

“Don’t be silly,” said the suspect. “There is more than one -ly in the language.”

“There is only one!” shouted Wally.

“It’s not the only one,” riposted the suspect. “It is true that they come from the same source, which is also the origin of our word like. But like it or not, not all -ly words are adverbs, just as not all adverbs are -ly words.”

“You tricked them with semantics!” Wally said, jabbing his finger at the suspect.

“It was a bit lawyerly, I admit,” he replied. “But I spoke the truth: I told them that if I said the jewels were highly valuable, no one could say the opposite.”

“I’d say you sold them some mighty lowly valuables,” Wally said. “So you lose.”

“But lowly valuables are not the same as being lowly valuable. If you say something is highly poisonous, that makes sense. But if you say it’s lowly poisonous, it doesn’t.”

“You think highly of your reasoning,” Wally said, “but I think lowly of it.”

“I concede that there are adverbial forms of lowly,” the suspect said, “but they don’t have the same range of usage as highly. You see, highly can be used before an adjective to indicate great degree, like very or maximally. It can also, of course, be used to indicate high placement. But while lowly can be used to indicate low placement, it can’t be used before an adjective to indicate small degree.”

“That doesn’t make sense,” said Wally. “It’s highly irrational.”

“Human language is never truly a slave to lowly reason,” the suspect said. “Anyways, what I sold them was lovely.”

“More meretricious than meritorious,” Wally snorted.

“You simply don’t see the beauty in things. Take lowly. It has the echo of three v shapes without a single v in the word; it reaches high with two uprights like the Tower Bridge; it may seem to carry nothing, an empty o, but it can still double you; and it is introspective enough to end by asking ‘Why?’ And it sings a song with its parallel liquids, lowly lowly low…

“A goodly homage to a lowly word,” Wally allowed, “but you deceived them badly. Goods made cheaply became costly. You are dastardly.”

“It was not a princely sum; they got the early-bird price,” said the suspect. “Goods discounted daily. Anyways, words are free, but what is more valuable?”

“Silence is golden,” replied Wally, “and you will pay dearly for your words. I think you come out poorly on the balance sheet, and you will get what you richly deserve.”

coryphaeus

I’m currently reading Vortex, the third book in Robert Charles Wilson’s Spin trilogy. In it there is a society who are all networked together at the limbic level, so that they tend to have much greater unity of emotion. The central networking node of this society is called the Coryphaeus.

It took me a moment to recall where I knew that word from. It had been a while since I had studied Greek drama. But a coryphaeus is, in Greek drama, the leader of the chorus.

Now, when I’m talking about a chorus, I’m not talking about a group of singers who stand by the side, and I’m not talking about the supporting company of singers and dancers in a Broadway show – though it’s something rather like the latter. The chorus, in Greek drama, is a group of persons germane to the action – often the play was named after them, as in The Trojan Women or The Libation Bearers or almost any play by Aristophanes (The Birds, The Frogs, The Clouds, The Acharnians). They dance together, sing together, speak together – actually, no, the coryphaeus is their spokesperson.

So clearly coryphaeus is related to chorus, right? There’s just that middle bit… But no, actually, there’s no etymological connection. Remember that our ch in Greek-derived words represents the letter chi χ, which in Greek is like the ch in Scottish loch or German bach – we just don’t use that sound in modern English. The c, on the other hand, is just a kappa κ passed through Latin. So this cor and chor are no more related than tail and sail.

In fact, coryphaeus just means “chief” or “leader” in the original – koruphaios, κορυϕαῖος, which comes from koruphé κορυϕή “head” or “top”. So when it’s used to mean more generally the leader of a group, that’s actually not an extension of the chorus sense; it’s just a use of the broader sense.

Oh, and if you want a word that is related to chorus, that would be choragus – also seen as choregus and choragos. It refers to the honorary leader of the chorus, an Athenian citizen who ponied up the drachmas to pay for the chorus. The coryphaeus was the actual leader of the chorus.

Or should I say the koruphaios was. Oh, heck, we get so many of our Greek words by way of Latin! And the Latin spelling and transliteration practices prevail – and all those os (and ous) endings become us, even when they’re not actually nominal suffixes (as in Oidipous, Latinized as Oedipus). For that matter, I could really render that Greek as korufaios; it’s kind of misleading to use ph for that sound that has come down to us as /f/. But it has a different feel, doesn’t it? Compare our philosophy with the Spanish filosofía. The f’s are slender, sinuous; the ph’s are stuffed, fat – or is that phat. And pompous.

But korufaios is more foreign-looking; it has that hard k and the aio bunch. We’re just not used to seeing such things in refined company. Does it really pass the test for something that, as Peter Shaffer had his Mozart say in the play Amadeus (but not in the movie), is so lofty it shits marble? True, actual Greek choruses were not necessarily so elevated in the original. But does not coryphaeus seem more elegant, crisp, refined, professional, philosophical? The aeus is a Latin bunch, unlike the wild aios; the c and y are suitable for presentation at tea-time, perhaps to your aunt Cory.

It is true that this word can be yours cheap, but doesn’t it look so expensive? The shape, the cypher, give you pause; surely you will pay to score it. Spruce ahoy! But of course if you’re footing the bill, that makes you the choragus, not the coryphaeus…

jildi

I want to do today’s word tasting note quickly, so I’m going to do it on the jildi. I mean I’m going to do a jildi. Specifically, I’m going to do jildi.

I’m going to do Jill D.? Who’s that – a fast woman, a jilt? No, no, no… Jildi is Anglo-Indian, originally military slang; it’s from Hindi jaldi “quickness”. Why the switch from jaldi to jildi? To be fair, jeldy, juldie, and some other variants also exist. But jildi has become the most officialized version, as it were. I don’t have any reliable data to say why, but I can point out that higher vowels have a way of being associated with greater speed; that the shift assimilates it towards the other vowel in the word; and that “jill” is a more established syllable in English than “jall” or “jull” (the vowel in the Hindi original is as much like the one we would say in “jull” as like the one we would say in “jall”).

And of course the switch to i adds to the visual effect: you get better motion lines with that sequence of parallels interrupted only by the bump of the d. Better still, you have three dots – and they are increasing in distance; perhaps the word could be extended to jildiddldi to add a fourth dot even farther along…

How do you use this word? Best to stick to idiom – in a phrase such as on the jildi or do a jildi or move a jildi, or as a one-word exclamation, Jildi! (the equivalent in medical spheres would be Stat! – but I rather think that, though jildi takes longer to say than stat, it’s a word that has a better flavour of fast motion; stat has a greater sense of instantaneity than of movement).

So it’s a noun? Well, the OED says it’s a noun; Wiktionary says it’s an adverb (citing more jildi and most jildi to support it); Urban Dictionary (citing the one-word sentence) says it’s a verb meaning “hurry”. It’s a sort of imported flower with no roots in English soil, so it gets planted here and there, always perceptibly a little different from its surrounds – and anyway, words often have a way of moving quite easily between categories in English.

But when you want something jildi, questions of morphological yield are unwieldy. Just stuff it in and move!

tiza

This is a stylish-looking word, I’d say, one ready for TV: it has the play of the narrow ti and wide za, the rectilinear t and the diagonal z, the neat line across on the first three letters with the dot of the i hovering above it, the first three letters like the styling on the side of a convertible tiz and at the end a soft curly a. It brings to mind Liza as in Minnelli, and also (for those who know this) Tisa as in the sister of Mia Farrow. For me it also brings to mind my sister-in-law Tisa, whose name I sometimes pronounce to rhyme with Liza.

This word is actually pronounced like “tee-za”. And what does it mean? Oh, think of all the things you might want to give a name such as this. Where has it been all your life? The iza ending makes me think of Spanish words (indeed, there is a Mexican Spanish word tiza for a sort of chalk; that word comes from Nahuatl), or just maybe Italian (a double z would be more like that). It really is a little gem, a precious little stone – you could quite fairly call it lapidary.

And what it names is a mineral. The Oxford English Dictionary has an almost startlingly recondite definition: “Ulexite or hayesine.” Um. OK. What are those?

There’s a first hint in the etymology. Its source is Quechua (the language of the Incas): t’isa “card wool” (verb), which is a reference to its appearance. So it’s like wool fibres? Rather. Ulexite is the more common name; it comes from the German chemist Georg Ludwig Ulex. Hayesine is more problematic; what it refers to in a given instance may be ulexite. Anyway, the rocks look the same.

How do they look? Like a translucent white fibrous mineral. And those fibres, which are all oriented in the same direction, give tiza a particular optical property, as they act as optical fibres. If you cut a slab of tiza (ulexite) across the fibres and put something up against one side, the other face will display an image (not necessarily sharp and clear) of what is against the one face, regardless of the angle you view it from. So if you put a bright object perhaps 3 cm from the bottom, then on the other side you will see the indistinct image of that thing 3 cm from the bottom – even if you’re looking at an oblique angle from above.

This property gives it a nickname: TV rock. ’Tis a good name – TV is similar in ways to tiza. Unfortunately, it seems that tiza is not ready for prime time; ulexite is the more common name, and tiza the more recondite, ironically. Such a shame to make so little use of such a good name.

roborant

In matters of weather, sports, and politics, Canadians are surely comforted by Nietzsche’s pronouncement that what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. (We generally ignore the entailment that what doesn’t make us stronger kills us.) Today’s word seems particularly germane in that vein.

Ah, roborant. So much there. To begin with the end, there is rant. Canadians are fond of rants, of course; we just love to complain. It’s prophylaxis for actually doing anything. Molson Canadian had a very successful commercial that was a Canadian rant. Rick Mercer is well loved for his political rants on his weekly new humour show (Canadians excel at topical humour, and most other kids of humour too; many of the funniest people in the US are Canadians).

And the robo is clearly topical: we are currently in the middle of the robocall scandal, in which voters in some ridings who were identified as likely Liberal or NDP voters were deliberately directed by automated phone calls (and sometimes by live callers) to the wrong polling stations. A rant on that topic would qualify as a robo-rant, to be sure.

Or, on the other hand, it could be a Toronto thing. Our mayor here, after all, is named Rob, and – aside from having a decade-long history as a councillor of ranting a lot and listening very little – he has done a variety of things as mayor that have led quite a lot of people to quite a lot of ranting. So perhaps roborant is a Rob-o-rant?

Or maybe it’s just a rubber ant: a bug that won’t be squished. No matter how hard you stomp, it bounces back. Or it could be a robber ant, a Robin Hood that can’t afford the inflated property prices in Toronto and has a rob a rent every month.

Nah. What roborant has in common with all those things is just that if they’re not killing us, they must be roborants, according to Nietzsche.

Would you like me to corroborate that? Well, you can look at the word corroborate, which has the same root: Latin roborare, strengthen. (Although this word is said with stress on the first syllable, it has nothing to do with robot actually; robot was invented by Czech playwright Karel Čapek from the Czech robotnik “peasant”.) So if they strengthen us, then they’re roborants.

Admittedly, I’m stretching the definition a bit. A roborant is a strengthening or restorative food, medicine, or treatment, really. Things that actually make you feel better. Like a nice big plate of poutine on a cold winter’s day. The “character-building” abuse we regularly weather from the inevitable weather and the unnecessary political stupidity don’t really count.

But anyway, who ever said Nietzsche was right about anything? We can get into all sorts of trouble from believing things just because they’re clever-sounding or provide tidy explanations.