Category Archives: word tasting notes

skiving

“Alright,” I said to young Marcus Brattle, “let’s get down to work, and no skiving.”

We were at the dining room table at his house, my young mentee and I, and today’s topic was syntax. Marcus had not so far warmed very much to the syntax trees I was having him draw.

“Skiving,” Marcus said. “Sounds like good sport.”

“And you’re always game for good sport,” I said. “But let’s start by drawing a tree for that sentence: ‘Skiving sounds like good sport.'”

“No, but what I mean is, it sounds rather like skydiving.”

“Indeed it does,” I conceded. “With a little insertion. And looks like skindiving, with a little insertion.”

“In fact,” said Marcus, writing the word out, “it looks like skiing, with just a little v in the middle carving a snowplow through it. You know, I’d like to ski for a living. But of course if you do it for a living it’s not skiving. Sport is much more fun when you’re getting away from work to do it.”

“Getting away – but are you simply carving off, perhaps darting quickly and lightly as another meaning for skiving has it, or slinking away, as French esquiver – a possible source for skive – means?”

“Slinking away in something slinky?” Marcus said. “Perhaps your skivvies?”

“I would think that would be a short break.”

“But you know,” Marcus said, “this word conceals a horde of Vikings.”

“And is raiding other towns and countries a way to shirk work, the ultimate laddish road trip,” I asked, “or is it work itself? I’m inclined to think the latter, since skiving is often used in the army to refer to dodging duty.”

“Dodging mopping and boring things like that,” Marcus said. “Everyone likes marauding and destroying. It’s fun.”

It occurred to me that Marcus had, in his little way, some direct knowledge of the enjoyability of marauding and destroying.

“Well,” I said, “but the point is that with skiving there’s no risking.” I wrote the rearranged letters and showed the v pinching together to become an r.

“There’s risking getting pinched,” Marcus said, meaning getting caught. “There’s risking your mentor noticing that you’re not doing any work.”

I paused and raised an eyebrow. He had succeeded in diverting the work he didn’t like for a couple of minutes already.

“But thanks,” Marcus added with a little smile, “for being a good sport.”

merlot

Ah, the Mel Tormé of wine grapes. It produces a smooth, luscious, thick red from its black grapes – when well made, its blackberry notes sing in your glass like a blackbird… which in French is merle. Oh, I know, French wines don’t traditionally go by the grape variety, and merlot is in the French context best known as one of the three varieties that go into red Bordeaux (or, as the British call it, claret). But in the New World, where wines quite often go by varietal name, many merlots have been made. And it is a wine that you can pour on a date as you murmur low, or with this blackbird (yes, merlot does come from merle) you can be singing in the dead of night…

But in recent years things have gone a bit Sideways for merlot. Ah, yes, that movie with Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh, wherein the lead character waxes poetic about pinot noir (the grape of the great Burgundies, true, but also a grape that has produced more overpriced crap wine than probably any other – you’re at the high-stakes table with pinot) and inveighs against – cannot abide – threatens to leave if anyone pours – merlot.

Well. That almost seemed to deal a coup mortel against merlot, at least among the mid-level wine snob set. The pretty-plumed blackbird gained the look of a molter; the merle was nudged closer to merde. And it will be some time before the word will be largely free of the taint it acquired from that movie. But merlot is not some harlot – nor does merlot rhyme with harlot. No, to quote a probably apocryphal bon mot from Margot Asquith speaking to Jean Harlow about the pronunciation of Margot, “the t is silent, as in Harlow.”

Indeed, one may rhyme it with Margaux, which just happens to be one of the best châteaux of Bordeaux – and, of course, Margaux wines contain merlot, along with cabernet sauvignon and cabernet franc. In Margaux the merlot sings beautifully, smoothly but not without tremolo.

And the word? Well, it depends in part on how New World or Old World you want the style. The most New World style – I really mean anglophone – starts it like murmur: smooth and quiet and without any real edge. But if you keep a taste of the French influence, it starts like mare, and then it can be a real dark horse. If you go with a Spanish way of speaking it – they do make rather nice merlots in Chile, for one – it gains just a touch of spice with the thrill of the trill. Say it in the Old World style – like the French – and you get the tongue gurgling a little in the back, but that deep tone is not of the gutter; it is shy but inviting, revealing depths that then come out to a pure finish, no contracting to a diphthong… a word best said by a beautiful Frenchwoman. And drunk with a beautiful person of whatever culture and sex.

childish and childlike

Someone who lives on the same floor as I do has discovered that the down-arrow button at the elevators can be rotated to point sideways or upwards. Practically every day now, I come to the elevators and find it pointing the wrong way. Just out of a habit of tidiness, I turn it to point down. But lately it doesn’t take long for it to be re-pointed. I have no idea who’s doing it; I’m not aware of any adolescent boys living on my floor of the building. Well, whoever is doing it is certainly a bit childish.

Does it do harm? No, but it’s disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. It aims to call attention to itself. Now, children love to play, and they are known for having open and inquisitive minds (although mothers of some picky eaters may snort at the idea); that’s not a bad thing at all. Simple joy and wonder is very engaging and something we ought not to lose; it is even recorded that Jesus enjoined his followers to be like children. But was he asking them to be childish? Or childlike?

So what’s the difference? Both childish and childlike signify behaviour that recalls the behaviour of children. Why wouldn’t they mean the same thing? Why even have two words for it?

Well, we know why. Children are little angels and little devils all rolled into one – a child may be mild or wild, and we may stop and wonder whether it’s only coincidence that those three words (child, mild, wild) have come to be the three rhymes with that spelling. And adults who emulate some quality of a child may emulate a positive or a negative one. So the word we use varies accordingly. It’s a difference of tone, of connotation. There are even contexts in which one could safely use childlike but would risk tut-tuts or worse for using childish – it’s such a deprecatory term as to be itself a touch improper, because insulting.

It’s a sign of maturing linguistic understanding when a person comes to realize that denotation is not all there is to words. Words are known by the company they keep, for one – certain words for certain things are unacceptable in contexts where other words for the same things are perfectly allowable. And this is, of course, also related to the connotations and implications of words – which are bound together with the pragmatics of their usage. If I use a vulgarity where I might have used a polite Latinate word that denotes the same thing, it means that I am aware that I am being transgressive, impolite, and maybe a bit childish too. For that matter, if a mother calls to her son, “Stevie,” it simply means she wants him to come see her (though the tone of voice will certainly matter), but if she calls out “Stephen Maxwell Davidson,” the formality probably means she’s upset with him, even though the denoted object is the same and the required action is not per se different.

But, now, why negative ish and positive like? At this point we must wander into speculation. It would seem reasonable that like would be more likeable. It has shown up repeatedly in words such as godlike and gentlemanlike, after all – but also in such as devil-like and Brutus-like. Still, it has that light sound and the lick and kiss of /l/ and /k/. And it has been reinforced by usages in translations of the Bible and by such writers as Shakespeare (“I thought the remnant of mine age Should have been cherish’d by her child-like duty” —Two Gentlemen of Verona).

As for ish, it, too, has had its tone reinforced by Shakespeare (“What cannot be avoided, ‘Twere childish weakness to lament” —Henry VI part 3) and others. And while it may rhyme with wish, it is more wishy-washy in tone: things that are ish are imitations or are inclined towards something, and perhaps not something esteemed. We know foolish, of course; those opposed to Roman Catholics have over history referred to Popish people; even if it appends to something positive, ish may weaken it: “Is she pretty?” “Prettyish.” I can’t think its sloshing, hissing sound helps, either.

But can we find counter-instances? Would we find similar results with other words suffixed with the same pair? Hmmm… we know clownish; how would we receive clownlike? Mannish versus manlike? (Manlike, like gentlemanlike, appears more often in the related form with ly in place of like.) Some would produce semantic differences – bookish is not like booklike. The only one I can think of that would go the other way is one where the ish form has undergone amelioration: devilish shows up with words such as charm, where as devil-like, not commonly used, just means “like a devil”.

And how about other cases (not involving these suffixes) where a parallel denotation results in an opposite connotation? I leave this as an exercise to the reader. It should be easy. Or easyish, anyway.

blaspheme

A word like a blast of mephitic steam from the foul mouth of some demon. Its object is often lately somewhat blasé and ephemeral, at least in some cultures; in others, it can eventuate in blasts and fumes, and not necessarily just verbal ones.

The topic is currently a dodgy one. In truth, it has been dodgy through much of history, but as respect for freedom of speech has grown, and cultural insistence on piety (or at least religious observance) has waned, freedom to speak irreverently or even hostilely about religion – and sometimes about one or another specific religion or deity (most especially the religion that has been a dominant and sometimes oppressive force in Western cultures) – has been taken advantage of. It’s not at all difficult to find music, books, humour, movies, what have you, that engage in and perhaps even revel in what many would call blasphemy. In our culture now, we accept vigorous and not always respectful discourse on such subjects, and it is expected (and I will not say unreasonably so) that an all-powerful God won’t be hurt by it and that whatever religion is in question can just suck it up and speak for itself.

But of course we know that there are many people who are very, very, very touchy about the topic, especially people from cultures that do not prize free speech as highly as they prize ideological conformity. (In particular, they are likely touchy about blasphemy of their own religion but at the same time not inclined to recognize any utterances about another religion as blasphemy.) And, honestly, it is somewhat outside the ambit of these notes to wander very far into what is really a very large debate (others have covered it quite well anyway, discussing both freedom and responsibility of speech – the same good manners that tell you not to call someone “ugly” should tell you to be reasonably civil when disagreeing with their religious beliefs; see Interfaith panel on freedom of speech expresses hope about a recent panel on the subject, for instance).

But it is germane to note that when one person’s words are labelled “blasphemous” by another person, and when that other person reacts with not just ordinary words but death threats, sometimes acted on, the word blaspheme (and blasphemous and blasphemy) is clearly associated with a strong negative reaction: not just the strong negative reaction by those threatening or performing violence but a strong negative reaction against the intolerance and threat of violence. I certainly think I know more people who will be upset by blaspheme because of the image of others using it against them (or those they empathize with) in conjunction with threats than I know people who will be upset by it for the idea of someone blaspheming.

So this word has, from either side, a threatening, malevolent tone, perhaps of some blatant Mephistopheles, or perhaps of some brutal Polyphemus: scheming or raging, goat-horned or one-eyed. And who is to blame?

Indeed, blame is inescapably related to blaspheme. You see, the Greek word βλασφημος blasphémos “evil-speaking” (the phem root refers to speaking – but, by the way, ephemeral is not related; it comes from epi+hemera) has come down to us in two forms: the one still resemblant to the source, the other sanded down by time and usage through forms such as blasmar to our modern blame. The perfect companion to blaspheme… so to speak.

Roxanne

Does this name put on a red light in your head? No need to call the police. But it does have something sexy about it, doesn’t it? For one thing, there’s that central x, /ks/, a sound a little reminiscent of a kiss (though feeling somewhat like Pop Rocks on your tongue), represented by a mark that can indicate a kiss… or, in multiples, something rather more explicit. There’s also the rich /r/ (which, in its capital letter R, looks a bit like the profile of a courtesan from the neck down). The effect of the anne may vary from person to person.

The name Roxanne, to me, bespeaks luxury and red lipstick – no doubt aided by the nickname Roxy, which may be a name for a theatre with red velvet all over, or a glam rock band (Roxy Music), or a glam rock song (Roxy Roller). Those more into literature than music may think sooner of the love interest of Cyrano de Bergerac, of course – the luminous beauty wooed by a noble, intelligent, but visually disadvantaged poet through the proxy of a good-looking airhead dude. (Steve Martin did a modern take on the theme with the movie Roxanne, featuring Daryl Hannah as the starlet.)

The name in Edmond Rostand’s original play is actually spelled Roxane, which is also the spelling used for the heroine of a novel by Daniel Defoe – a beautiful adventuress who, deserted by her husband, becomes a courtesan and enjoys a glittering career… but repents in the end, having felt the sting of debt. (One might wonder if Sting’s song is indebted to Defoe.)

But the original name is Roxana. Well, no, actually, that’s not quite true. Roxana is the Latin version of the Greek version (Roxané) of the name of the wife of Alexander the Great (and do not the names Roxana and Alexander – or Roxané and Alexandros – sound great together?). But she was not Greek; she was Persian.

As it happens, there is disagreement and uncertainty as to the Persian original of the name. It may be from a word meaning “dawn”; it may be from a word meaning “little star”; or it may be from a name meaning “luminous beauty”. One may wonder whether it could be a name for a beautiful, luminous little star of dawn… But that would be either Aurora (the personification of the dawn; a radiant name, but one associated in Toronto with an exurb, and one I personally associate with a wicked good Scrabble player of my acquaintance) or the planet that is called the morning star when it shows just before sunrise: Venus. Ah, Venus. Speaking of sex…

guduchi

This word packs an interesting punch in its three syllables – starting at the back of the mouth, the almost-guttural /gu/, then moving to the tip of the tongue but keeping the voice and the round vowel for /du/, and then finishing with with the voiceless affricate and front vowel, like a sneeze or a quick kick. It’s almost like a three-step sequence in a martial art, culminating in a sharp blow.

Or perhaps it’s the sound you utter while executing that sequence. Or maybe it’s the name of the martial art itself Or, on the other hand, it might be the name of some Mexican food, perhaps a guacamole from Guadalajara. Or is it a brand of handbags? Or the name of some douchebag? Is it a hoodoo with voodoo? Is it good or cheesy?

In fact, it’s a plant: Tinospora cordifolia. If you’ve seen the word guduchi anywhere before, it’s likely on the side of a box of some pill or tea or similar thing, for the plant is used in Ayurvedic and other South Asian medicine, mainly for its hepatoprotective qualities – it helps look after your liver. Take something toxic (amanita, perhaps? or simply a shot or six of hooch? or a shot in the liver from some martial artist?) and it will help save your bacon.

The plant, by the way, is a climbing shrub with heart-shaped leaves. It grows yellow flowers and produces a red drupe fruit. It has a host of other names in various South Asian languages, most of which start with or at least involve /g/. It also has an entirely English name: heartleaf moonseed (sounds a bit like the daughter of hippies, doesn’t it?).

Hedda

This word has a special meaning for me.

Of course, all words to some extent have special meanings for each person who knows and uses them. Every person’s individual experiences and aesthetic proclivities are different, so meanings always have specific tinges. But some words are more variable by individual experience than others, and for any given person some words are more special than others.

Hedda is, of course, a name, specifically a female name. You probably already knew that. It’s Germanic, and in particular Scandinavian; it’s a diminutive of Hedvig (the German version, Hedwig, has an Anglicized diminutive Hedy, which has a somewhat different taste to it, thanks in no small part to Hedy Lamarr). The name comes originally from old Germanic hadu “battle” and wiga “fight”.

So if the name seems like a name for a headstrong or bellicose woman, it comes by it honestly. You might think of it as a name for a Wagnerian heroine, a sort of he-woman with DD cups and a type A personality, but there’s nothing about Hedda that requires massiveness, just a certain strength of will or character. Perhaps it’s the echoes of headstrong and head-butt and so forth. Perhaps it’s the drumbeat impact of the name. Or perhaps it’s who it’s associated with.

And who do you think of when you see it? There are three Heddas that come to my mind.

The first is a headstrong, bossy little girl from a comic strip I remember reading in my youth. I can’t remember what the strip was, but I think that was the first place I saw the name.

The second is Hedda Hopper. My junior high school library had a nice set of books about the different decades of the 20th century (stopping at the 1960s, I think, or perhaps there was a freshly finished 1970s volume as well), and the mid-century volumes of those, as well as some other books on Hollywood, could not fail to mention Hedda Hopper, an actress-turned-gossip-columnist. Hedda Hopper had had some middling success as a pretty young thing in the early days of movies, but her career was over by the 1930s, at which point she found great success in being a pretty nasty old thing – with a taste for huge hats. Her gossip column, “Hedda Hopper’s Hollywood,” debuted in 1938, and she was a presence also on TV through the 1940s and 1950s. As it happens, she was born Elda Furry. Hopper was her husband’s name, and she was his fifth wife; the previous four were Ella, Ida, Edna, and Nella, so Elda was not very distinctive. She asked a numerologist what name to use, and was told Hedda.

The third Hedda is one I think I first became aware of through a New Yorker cartoon (or was it Writer’s Digest?). It had the caption “Ibsen wrestles with his muse,” and it showed a playwright angrily chasing an imp, which was shouting, “Then again, Hedda Gobbledegook!” I didn’t really get it until a couple of years later, when I was a drama undergraduate student and was introduced to Henrik Ibsen’s play Hedda Gabler.

I was immediately impressed by the play, even though there were subtleties in it that my 17-year-old mind did not grasp. Its heroine seemed like a strong woman trapped in circumstances; I didn’t at first take notice of which of the circumstances were of her own choosing. She liked to play with pistols – ooh! “My pistols, George” always seemed like such a great zing line. She liked fire! She could be vengeful! And in the end… well, it was all candy for my not-really-post-adolescent brain.

I still think it’s a brilliant play, though I see it in a different light 26 years later. Hedda is certainly in part a victim of circumstance, but she is also neurotic and insecure – and very impulsive. Her romantic hero, Eilert Lovborg (Ejlert Løvborg), is smart but truly someone who uses others and lacks real self-discipline. The sweet Thea is quite cunning. The judge, seemingly in control, makes one miscalculation after another. And that dork, Hedda’s husband George (Jørgen), may not be the kind of dangerously charming guy susceptible women fall for, but he’s smart – if not creative – and genuinely nice. And the main lesson of the play, as of some other plays by Ibsen (notably The Master Builder), is that romantic idealists make horrible messes of things. (Ibsen had another play with a lead character of the same given name – but in The Wild Duck, the heroine is a young girl, and she goes by the full name Hedvig. Quite different, really.)

But whatever your view of the play and its characters, thanks to it, Hedda brings forth the image of a dark and dominant woman, a woman associated with guns and fire, a truly romantic heroine in her tragic way. And, honestly, I never tire of the play.

Perhaps if the 17-year-old me had read noted Canadian playwright Judith Thompson’s adaptation, which is a bit more overt about some aspects, I would have understood it better quicker.

Well, Thompson hadn’t written it yet then. In fact, it’s still not published. So how have I had a chance to read it?

That’s the main thing that now gives Hedda a special meaning for me: I’m in it. The Alumnae Theatre’s production of Thompson’s adaptation of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler is running from November 12 to November 27, 2010, and I’m playing Hedda’s husband, George Tesman. It’s the first play I’ve been in in about a dozen years. For more details, see www.alumnaetheatre.com/1011hedda.html.

fream

What does this word look like it might be? Some kind of foam, perhaps? An archaic typesetting of scream without the c? (Of course, those tall s’s weren’t f’s; they lacked the crossbars. But they do look like them to our eyes.) A full ream of paper? A disorderly frame? Or perhaps a misspelling of Frean, as in Peek Frean, that brand of cookies founded in 1857 in Bermondsey, London, by Messrs. Peek and Frean and, as it happens, operating a bakery in East York (now Toronto) since 1949 on Bermondsey Road (near where my mother-in-law lives)? Or maybe a kind of fudge cream – either cookie or ice cream?

Well, sorry to be a crashing bore, but no. Actually, why apologize for being a crashing bore? A crashing boar doesn’t apologize. In fact, a boar, as it crashes through the woods, especially if it has a good head of steam, is likely to fream.

That’s right. Horses neigh, cattle low, wolves howl, boars fream. Or, as James Puckly put it in 1711, “an hart bellows, a buck groyns, a roe bells, a goat rats, a boar freams, a hare tapps, a fox barks, a badger shrieks, an otter whines, a wolf howls, &c.” What is meant is the roaring or growling noise boars make when raging. I guess you could imitate it with fream – if you said it as loudly as possible while inhaling. It’s uncertain, though, where this word comes from – it’s not necessarily imitative; it could come from Latin fremere “roar” or from old Saxon hríeman “cry out”.

Not that there’s likely to be a lot of research done on it. It’s not much used anymore. Urban Dictionary has a definition for fream as 1950s slang for someone who doesn’t fit in, for what that’s worth (which is variable with Urban Dictionary), but that was the 1950s. And we don’t meet boars too often.

We do meet bores and similar misfits, though. And when one goes on a tear about some pet peeve, you can always sigh, “Free me from your freaming.”

shiva

Near the beginning of a short story I wrote some years ago, I had the line, “I sit shiva on the steps. I sit, Shiva on the steps. I am in mourning for what I have destroyed.”

It might seem like a rather inauspicious beginning for a story. But in fact there is something rather auspicious about shiva.

Mourning, of course, is an occasion of loss, and shiva as in sit shiva is a prescribed period of seven days of mourning for any of the seven first-degree relatives in the Jewish tradition. And death and destruction are always thought of as losses – and Shiva, the Hindu god, is well known as Shiva the Destroyer.

But why would people worship a god of destruction? Ah, and here lies the path to wisdom. You cannot have creation without destruction. Every creation involves change; every change also involves something no longer being the way it was – which involves loss. In truth, nothing can dance the dance of creation unless there are separate dancers and separate places to dance. If in the beginning the world is formless and void, an even unity, the first thing that must happen is that it must be divided, cut into pieces with a shiv, as it were. And then you see what arrangements and creations can be had from the kaleidoscope of life (ah, kaleidoscope – from Greek roots for “beautiful form vision”, but note that kalé, feminine form for “beautiful”, is very similar to Sanskrit Kali, name of the Hindu goddess of eternal energy… and death).

And when creation dances in the kaleidoscope, at each turn there are new visions, and at each turn the previous vision meets the Shiva end: it is vanished. And so it will be. You have to learn to let go. You may mourn – and you are blessed if you mourn, for you will be comforted – but once you have mourned, you must accept the new state of things. And the dance goes on. (The dance… lord of the dance? Why, yes. I’m sure you’ve seen the image of a Hindu god in a dancing pose, on one foot, with four arms. That is Shiva Nataraj, Lord of the Dance. So much more than Michael Flatley.)

And so, you see, the god of destruction is also the god of change. And the god of renunciation. And the god of purity. And the auspicious god. Quite literally, in fact: Shiva is Sanskrit for “the auspicious one”.

OK, Shiva is auspicious, but how about shiva? Well, shiva is simply Hebrew for “seven” (you will also see it as shivah, or sheva or shevah contingent on gender). And seven, as we know, is a “lucky” number. It is also the number of days of creation. Well, creation took six – on the seventh, God rested.

One may, with some creativity, discern shapes relating to creation and destruction in the letters of this word. The v is like a knife edge, or a division; the i is like a candle flame. The s is like a snake… or a river. The h is perhaps like the low chair a mourner must sit on during shiva. But of course you can create what you will out of forms you are given. How about the sounds? The word starts with the classical sound of hushing. Why hush? Is it about to begin? Or is it the sound of a door or window opening? Or simply the static hiss of entropy? Well, next things begin to vibrate – a vowel comes, and then the avidly vibrating /v/, made with the teeth and the lips: what bites and what kisses. And finally the mouth opens to the final vowel and lets it all go, like a sand mandala.

Speaking of dust in the wind… I know I must have a copy of that short story somewhere, the one I used a cut piece of as the entry to this note. But I wrote it on a laptop computer that I haven’t used in years (I don’t even know where it is now). I’m sure I saved it to a floppy, and I’ve transferred what I can of my floppies to my hard drive, but I just looked and I can’t find it. Well. This was the same laptop computer that developed a hairline crack in the motherboard in the middle of my dissertation research. (It did get fixed eventually.) I guess I was just getting what I asked for when I named it. Named it? I almost never name my inanimate objects. But I did name that laptop. Guess what name I gave it?

Shiva.

thrall

He threaded through the throng, enthralled by the thrum of a threnody; the thrill of threat throbbed as he thrust himself to a stone’s throw from the throne. The thrum, like a thrombus in his throat, enthused him, and he had no thought of thrift. He threshed through the throng, but as he threw himself thither, throneward, three murtherous thugs, in ruthless wrath, earthed him, thrashed him, then throttled him. And yet he could have done none other: it was all there was – he was thoroughly in thrall.

Ah, those thr words, rustling like heather: the soft, voiceless dental fricative, followed by the roll of the tongue through the liquid /r/. It may even seem to give a frisson, like a light finger up the back of the neck or athwart the throat. That “thr” onset is not utterly distinctively English – Greek certainly has it, as does Icelandic, as do some other languages that have both sounds – but there certainly are many people learning English who have trouble with it.

But not all thr words have the same feel or flavour, the onset notwithstanding. There remain also the qualities of the following vowel and the subsequent consonant, if any. A word like thrip is a swift little flip, and thrift adds just a slight shift; threat and throat both stick dry; throne resonates, but on the cold side; thrum gives a warmer hum, and throng is even stronger; thrill gives a bit of a chill; but none other than thrall has quite the steady chordal effect, as from a band of theorbos or reed and pipe instruments (Corvus Corax, anyone?). It has the steady bright open low back unrounded vowel followed by that lateral liquid with velar coarticulation – the rime of all, ball, call, fall, gall, hall, mall, pall, tall, wall, and y’all. It holds you and keeps you.

And a thrall is kept – kept in thrall. What, exactly, is a thrall? Well, we know what enthralled is used to mean: “fascinated, entranced, captivated”. Of those three, “captivated” is most directly accurate to origins, for a thrall was first of all a slave, a prisoner, one in bondage: the word comes from a Scandinavian root for servitude or drudgery (and will you now turn up your collar and pull your lapels together against that chill wind of the north?). From that, thrall came also to mean the condition of bondage or slavery itself.

But, perhaps thanks to the taste of thrill, and to an ethos where love was equated to a sort of ecstatic slavery (as in Shakespeare, for instance Midsummer Night’s Dream: “So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape”), enthralled has taken on a sense of willing captivation, of an enjoyment beyond enjoyment. And thrall likewise may be a thrill that cometh before a fall, but a thrill it often is, or even something more… like the sound of a pipe, leading you onward; all you can think or feel is that you must follow…

Thanks to Laurence Cooper for suggesting thrall.