curt

Is succinct the boldest kind of counsel? Is terse the least courteous manner?

No.

Think of when you are cut short. In fact, shot right out the middle. Cut short… Cu…rt… That is what kind of reply does it. Curt.

Curt is so curt it does not even start with “If I may be so bold”; it just is so bold. Curt sounds like the beginning of courtesy, but that is quickly curtailed, and uncourteously at that. The curtain is pulled.

Curt looks like it could be a rude word. A word that is curt is a rude word, you can bet on it. It can hurt. Get your knickers in a twist, even.

It sounds crisp and cutting. The tongue kicks at the back, passes arched through the middle, taps cold and hard at the front. That is all. It has a sound of a short skirt, but it is not. A short skirt may be interesting. Curt rebuffs.

Now tell me what sort of a fellow is likely to be curt. Is it a fellow who is likely to be Kurt, or Curt?

Two names identical in sound but different in feeling because of their spelling. Also because they come from different origins. Both are short forms of something else. Curt is short for Curtis, which originally came from Old French for ‘courteous’ but was later associated with curt hose ‘short leggings’. Kurt is originally a short form of Konrad, which originally meant ‘bold counsel’.

And curt?

Latin.

Curtus. ‘Short’, now so short it cuts us out. Shows up in French court, Spanish and Italian corto, but also German kurz and Swedish and Danish kort.

If you are being curt, you are being short with someone.

Obviously.

terse

Succinct may be succulent or have a shiny sound like a knife, but terse cuts worse. Terse is tense. There is no tergiversation in terse. No time for verse, not terza rima, not even the tierce of it (one third). You can see the e and e giving you the cut-eye.

The word starts with a little spit of exasperation, the aspiration on the /t/. Then it’s straight into a syllabic liquid (or a neutral vowel for the non-rhotic), and quickly thereafter a hiss that can last as long as the other two phonemes combined. A jab, a sound, a hiss. And that’s it. Pressed reset. Wiped clean. Polished like a cut diamond, and just as cutting.

Whence comes this tight insertion? Where else but Latin? From tersus, ‘wiped’, past tense of tergere. Wiped? Wiped clean, polished, burnished, shining smooth without dirt. Spruce. Trim. Pithy. Visual Thesaurus gives three synonyms: Crisp. Laconic. Curt. You may be succinct without being impolite, but it is hard to be pleasant when being terse… though it’s perhaps not quite as rude as curt.

succinct

Look, someone’s left nail clippings in this word, cc c. You can hear the clipper: “succinct, succinct.”

Maybe I’m wrong, though. Could be bellows, this word. It sounds like “sucks in,” as in breath. And you can whisper it well while sucking in your breath.

It slices the air around your tongue like a scalpel, this word. As Jim Taylor puts it, “Such a nice word, with all those sucking sounds, and those pursed-lip c’s, ending with the distinct smack. Sounds of suck, of course, but also vestiges of sphincter locking tight. Argument sucked dry, closed, no loopholes left…” Quick. Tight. A cinch.

Literally a cinch. A cinch, after all, is a sort of girdle on a horse to help hold a saddle on. The word cinch comes from Spanish cincha ‘girth’, which can be traced to Latin cingere ‘gird’. And it is that that undergirds this word: sub ‘under’ plus cingere is succingere, and the past participle is succinctus. Undergirded. Girdled. A bit of verbal belt-tightening. (Economic belt-tightening may be because of lean waists from lean diets, but verbal belt-tightening is more like corseting, tightening up to display to greater advantage the more salient parts.)

Still, as succulent and sexy a lexical succubus as succinct is, it’s not as terse as terse. Nor as curt as curt.

naked text

its international punctuation day so ive given punctuation the day off after all on mothers day were supposed to give mothers the day off right im also giving capital letters the day off because why not they can go and have a nice lunch with the punctuation marks

i have recently talked about how much less useful the apostrophe is than we generally believe it is i would not say the same about other punctuation marks nor capital letters although people often have a very hard time getting capitalization rules straight

to celebrate id like to present another poem from my book songs of love and grammar please buy it or ill think you dont like me

getting naked

i met a woman young and fair
who liked her skin to feel the air
now im not wedded to convention
but i felt some apprehension
when i got to know her better
and she sent me this short letter
it is time that i should tell
i keep my text au naturel
i know that this will sound uncouth
but i believe in naked truth
in every place and situation
shed the chains of punctuation
doff the clothes of upper case
and stand revealed on white space
now i dont mind it being nude
but naked text at first seemed crude
however now its plain to see
that form and sense are both more free
and so we read our morning papers
sprawled in bed we serve up capers
in the kitchen we grow flowers
in the garden we take showers
in the bathroom we go hiking
on the mountains its our liking
to go swimming every day
in the pond in a cafe
sip a coffee or just run
on the trail our life is fun
my only cause for consternation
is some miscommunication
if my lover should insist
on writing on the shopping list
get some mustard greens and tea
do i buy two things or three
and now i have this little note
that concerns me and i quote
darling i think love is great
with others i would hesitate
to give my all to none but you
i feel open can you too
as i read it twice im guessing
if shes offering her blessing
to monogamous relation
or some other situation
its one thing when going shopping
now im faced with chamber hopping
in this textual revolution
can i find a real solution

chaff

The NPR affiliate radio station KPCC in Los Angeles broadcast an interview with me today (listen to it here) about my article “Kill the apostrophe!” (as republished on Slate). Their website has drawn a few comments, pretty much in the same line as the comments the article has gotten on TheWeek.com.

One comment I particularly liked in defence of the apostrophe was “I like it because you get to separate the people as wheat from the shaft.” Ah, honest: the apostrophe is there so you can look down on some people. It shows who doesn’t know English well enough!

Mind you, so does making an eggcorn error in a common phrase. “Wheat from the shaft”? Um, heh heh, as two subsequent commenters quickly pointed out, that’s chaff, not shaft…

It’s an understandable error: we just don’t thresh or winnow grain by hand anymore; chaff is something most of us have no literal personal experience of. On the other hand, we know what wheat looks like, kernels of grain on a stalk – that is, a shaft… So this commenter has reanalyzed it to make it something that makes sense to him.

There we go, one of the great sources of error in the English language: “It’s obvious!” Something looks like it should be so, so it is assumed that it must be so. Another great source of error, on the other hand, is “It’s too obvious!” (or “It’s too simple!”). We have a tendency to prefer the marked (the less obvious or less usual) in many cases, especially thanks to our perverse spelling and our heavily idiomatic usage patterns.

Our perverse spelling… Oh, we do chafe at it. And yet we look down on anyone who has not achieved sufficient mastery of it. At one time in our history we added an erroneous s to iland because we thought it came from Latin insula. Several attempts, some very persistent, have been made by various parties at various times since then to remove that s, but the ordinary user won’t tolerate it – that would be wrong and uneducated! – and so it stays in. We do love our mumpsimuses. And we do love to use the perverse rules of our language as means of social control and exclusion. And we have a long and popular history of language complaining (the link is a PDF).

How about the spelling of chaff? That’s easy, isn’t it? Sure, no problem. We just take it as a given that [f] at the end of a word is represented by a double letter as a rule. Why? Because it is! Sshh! Look at the nice ff like heather in the breeze.

But of course it wasn’t always thus. The Old English spelling was ceaf, which for the pronunciation and spelling rules of the time was a perfectly phonetic spelling (they said it almost exactly as we do, but with the tongue moving towards the middle of the mouth during the vowel).

It’s such a nice word, in its way, isn’t it? It really has a sound rather like what I imagine winnowing would sound like, throwing up the grain and letting the wind blow away the undesired light bits while the grain falls to the floor to be collected. Or maybe like threshing, beating the grain to separate the useful from the useless.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could do that with language? Have the unnecessary crap and the silly fake rules blown away in the breeze, or flail it away? But, ah, what is and isn’t unnecessary, and why? How much of these assorted accretions lends flavour and interest, too? And what about the people who would like to keep the chaff in just so that fools can choke on it while the wise simply pick it out?

Such as our commenter. Yes, sure, let’s keep apostrophes just so we can see who has learned how to use them and exclude those who have not. But let’s make sure we extend that reasoning to every bit of English: all idioms, all grammar, all spelling… Our commenter would surely not be chuffed to find he’d given himself the shaft.

Well, let those without error thresh out the first chaff. (This is where, as with the biblical precedent, all should retreat, ashamed. In reality, several will charge forward… and give each other a good thrashing. Oh, by the way, thresh and thrash are in origin the same word.)

sloe-eyed, gamine

I am, as I write this, drinking a beer puckishly called Audrey Hopburn. It’s a fresh, pert item, engaging, complex, sweet and bitter, not transparent, and it comes in a taller-than-average bottle.

The name is, of course, a pun on one of the most charming and engaging leading ladies in Hollywood history, Audrey Hepburn, who – as we saw her in movies such as Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Roman Holiday, Funny Face, and My Fair Lady – was also a fresh, pert item, engaging, surprisingly complex, less transparent than she at first seemed, sweet but with little tart and bitter tinges. A New York Times piece once described her as “the prototypical sloe-eyed gamine.”

Does that sound flattering? Actually, how does it sound at all? I have seen the words sloe-eyed and gamine in print but I do not think I have ever heard them spoken. Sloe-eyed would be problematic, as it would sound just like slow-eyed; the issue with gamine is just that not everyone would know that it’s supposed to be said as “ga-meen” and not “gay-meen.” But, aside from “this writer is well read” and “this writer is talking about a young woman,” what do these words tell you?

I would say that the prototypical gamine of our time is Lisbeth Salander (of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo): a slight, tomboyish, pert young woman. The word gamine is a feminized form of French gamin meaning ‘street urchin (male)’. A gamine thus has something of the air or idea of a lean little street urchin, or at the very least she’s mischievous and perhaps a bit elfin. As the OED puts it, she’s “an attractively pert, mischievous, or elfish girl or young woman, usually small and slim and with short hair.” To take a cue from the word’s echoes, she’s game – that’s both game as in ‘ready for whatever’ and game as in ‘a wild animal who may be hunted’.

Well, that certainly sounds like fun. Does Audrey Hepburn really match it, though? I like this IMDB listing of her trademark qualities:

Her elegant beauty.

Often cast opposite leading men who were considerably older than she was.

Often played classy High Society women.

Charming characters who try to wear their troubles lightly

Wide, brown eyes.

Delicate, slender figure

She could easily seem young when playing against someone like Fred Astaire. The charm and insouciance might work with it, and the delicate, slender figure would play into it as well. And there’s nothing keeping a high-society girl from being a gamine – indeed, it’s almost a type.

And how about those eyes? A gamine will certain have quick eyes; will she have sloe eyes? What are sloe eyes?

The term takes sloe from the same sloe as is in sloe gin: a dark little oval-shaped plum with a pleasingly bitter taste (the word is probably cognate with the sliva that goes into slivovitz). Thus sloe-eyed can mean ‘dark-eyed’. But that’s not so often how it’s used, in my experience; usually people are going with the other sense: ‘almond-eyed’ or ‘slanted-eyed’ – in other words, rather the opposite of doe-eyed, and more in line with slope-eyed (a term which, however, is best avoided, as it has too often been used in racist ways). A person whose eyes make you think of an elf or a faun or some other magical being is a person you’re most likely to say is sloe-eyed. I can’t entirely shake the tinge of slur and slow and slough that sloe has, but at the same time I know that sloe-eyed is not an insult. Obviously.

Was Audrey Hepburn sloe-eyed? Maybe not quite as much as some, but do have a look at those wide almond eyes. Was she a gamine? If you overlook the fact that she was 5′ 6½” (1.7 m) tall, which is taller than the average woman (somehow she always looked shorter in the movies). She had just enough of the delightfully puckish little girl with flickering almond eyes (and maybe a little hint of pleasing bitterness) to allow a writer to justify trotting out a couple of favourite words from the lexicon of literary terms for young women. The writer could have called her a “magical little being” or “wood nymph” or “sprite,” but I guess sloe-eyed gamine will work fine for the image it conjures… for those people who know the words.

nado

Fadfix sighting! We’re heading for a fadfixpocalypse… Oh, wait, no, that faddish pseudomorpheme suffix is already so last season… We’re in for a fadfixnado!

Yes, we are in the middle of a whirling vortex of whirling vortices, or at least increasingly tenuous vortex metaphors, and they’re served, as coin-machine metaphors often are in English, by a pseudomorpheme suffix to make insta-portmanteaux!

OK, I’ll unpack that a little. A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of language – for instance, in reading there are two: read (the verb meaning ‘take in verbal information visually’) and ing (an inflectional suffix indicating either present participle or gerund). A pseudomorpheme is something that looks like a morpheme but isn’t really.

In the word helicopter, for instance, there are two morphemes in the Greek original (helico + pter) but arguably just one in modern English (because we don’t recognize its constituent bits as separate units), but we have reanalyzed it as having the parts heli (meaning unspecified) and copter (a hovering flying machine); likewise, we’ve reanalyzed alcoholic into alc (referring to drink) and oholic (referring to addiction, and in other places sometimes showing up as aholic), so we have chocoholic, shopaholic, et cetera. (After all, the reference would hardly be clear if we said chocolatic, shoppic, et cetera).

A portmanteau word is a blend – it takes part of one word and part of another to make a new word. That’s what’s really going on with all these words that are this-copter and that-aholic and the-other-pocalypse and now something-else-nado. It splits up words into pseudomorphemes, and sometimes those pseudomorphemes take on lives of their own.

So we have the word tornado. This comes from Spanish tronada ‘thunderstorm’ (an inflected form of tronar ‘thunder’ (verb)) with likely influence from tornar ‘turn’ for the change from ro to or. Thus originally the ado is from a suffix and the torn is from a root. But since we will always stick a consonant on the beginning of the next syllable rather than the end of the previous one if we can, we say it as tor-nado and borrow the nado for new words.

New words like what? Well, there have been a few references such as fish-nado for tornado-like movements of fish. But since the über-schlocky TV movie Sharknado hit, it has become a real cultural reference – it has found its vector (go figure). Miley Cyrus inspired twerknado, for instance, while American politics have given us things such as student-loan-nado and defundnado, the latter of which is notable for the lack of the hyphen (and for observing it I thank @mettle). We can see that the nado is now established well enough that it doesn’t need that hyphen to make it clear that this is a lexical wedding of convenience.

You will also find nado in a few places that aren’t references to tornados. Nado is a surname, for one. It’s also a nickname for Coronado, which is across the harbour from San Diego. And nado is also a word in Spanish, Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, and Asturian; it means ‘I swim’ – which is one way to get from San D to Nado. It’s also a Japanese word, meaning ‘and so on’ or ‘et cetera’ or ‘and whatnot’ and so on.

Actually, although the Japanese word is surely coincidence (especially since, as with Spanish nado, the a is pronounced as in “father” and not as in “fader”), I like the idea that it has, ninja-like, infiltrated English, so that this pseudomorpheme, formerly referring clearly to a wind vortex, now just adds a certain miscellany to the word, an intensification of piling on more than of swirling.

As further evidence of the ninja-creeping of this nado, I present evidence of its sneaking into the restaurant where I ate supper tonight. We had very good Mexican food (including Margaritas) at Fernando’s Hideaway, a well-established neighbourhoody place here Toronto. Like any decent one-off restaurant, it establishes its credibility with numerous spelling and typographical errors in its menus (only slick corporate restaurants can afford proofreaders). But unless I’m in for some visceral twisting consequent to my dinner, I think the ninjas have snuck in and are lurking:

fernado

iff

Last week in Toronto was tiff week.

By which I do not mean people were getting into lots of small spats. In Toronto everyone knows tiff – or TIFF – is the Toronto International Film Festival. And for a whole week, movies and long lines go together with a force of mutual implication: if there is one of them, there will be the other, and vice versa. To put it another way, there will be a movie if and only if there is a massive line in which people wait for hours. Which means, conversely, there will be a massive line iff there is a movie.

Iff? That’s logic shorthand for if and only if. Obviously when you’re speaking it doesn’t really work; we would have to hold the [f] for much longer to make it clear it was double, and a lot of people still wouldn’t get it, because that’s not the only place where we hold a [f] extra long. (We cannot say “we hear [f:] iff we hear ‘iff’.”) But in print, in books dealing with logic, it’s handy.

You also can’t say you see iff in print iff it means ‘iff’. It shows up in many words – indeed, it has almost a pseudo-morpheme status: it looks like an ending like ing or ed or est, but it’s just the way we write words that end with [ɪf], and those come from all sorts of places – some from Germanic sources, many from French words that end in if that may in turn come from Latin ivus or ifex or similar.

I do like the look of iff. It presents wheat stalks blowing in the wind, or perhaps alfalfa – or feathers and a candle, or even three candles of which two have been blown out. All of these images suggest the susurrus of the sound, with that second-softest of consonants, a bit stiffer than the breath of /h/ but still a mere whiffle as of corduroys shuffling down a hall at night.

Perhaps they suggest a movie too, some offering at the latest tiff. If If was a flick at one time (as it was), why not Iff? Now, what might the plot involve?

Perhaps it is set in Cardiff. A plaintiff, a sheriff, and a bailiff set off after a caitiff. The plaintiff is a bit of a Pecksniff and prone to take a niff (have a fit of pique) when all is not oojah-cum-spiff. The caitiff is a squiff (base fellow) who stiffed the plaintiff on a tariff and left in a jiff – jumped off a cliff and landed in a skiff and just took off. They sniff the goniff out – he’s smoking a spliff with a really spiff lass whose midriff would discomfit a pontiff – but as they’re about to biff him on the quiff they encounter his mastiff, which is as big as a hippogriff. It’s caught a whiff of them and it’s miffed. The ending is a riff on an old cliffhanger, a real standoff: the boat is headed for a reef and the plaintiff, sheriff, and bailiff will survive iff they let the caitiff dive off, leaving them with the mastiff. Sounds terrif, yes?

Hmm. Or maybe a little iffy.

Summa contra apostrophes

Apostrophes are an invasive species in English: imported from France to serve a specific useful purpose, but quickly getting into places they don’t belong – first mistakenly added to possessives, then spreading unbidden into plurals. English would likely be better off with no apostrophes at all than it is in the current state. Is that likely to happen? Of course not. Would a more moderate solution – say, limiting them to places where letters have actually been omitted and could be added back in – perhaps be better? Likely. But what the heck. Sometimes you just want to take the most extreme position for the sake of argument. Heh heh. Thus I present my latest article for TheWeek.com:

Kill the apostrophe!

We would all be better off without it

🙂

parbuckle

Does this word have just a faintly familiar ring to it somehow? If so, it’s not likely that you were watching Fatty Arbuckle as a parochial swashbuckler parboiling a carbuncle (or a barnacle). You probably heard or read it in a story about the salvage of the Costa Concordia. It’s what they’re calling the technique by which the ship was rolled rightside-up.

Well, it does have a sound suitable for nautical use, anyway. There’s that “arr” near the start, and the “buckle” right after it, and all those echoes I already used above. But it’s not actually originally a nautical term. After all, it’s not all that often that you need to roll a capsized ship back upright by pulling it with ropes.

And actually, what they’re doing to the Costa Concordia isn’t really quite the same as the original use of parbuckle. You see, they have the cables attached to the nearer side and are pulling directly on it. A parbuckle in the original sense would involve running the cables under the ship and then pulling them across the top.

Need a clearer image of what a parbuckle is? (Yes, it’s a noun first, and the verb was derived from that.) If you have shoji blinds on your windows, parbuckle is a good way to describe the way the ropes pull them up. If you don’t, well, do this: Get your significant other to lie on the middle of the bed. Flip up one side of the bedspread and lay it over him or her. Then go around to the other side and pull on that top edge so that your increasingly unimpressed s.o. rolls towards you and off the bed, thump.

The basic definition is thus that a parbuckle is a means of moving objects (usually lifting them up an inclined plane) by using a sling-type arrangement, usually of ropes or cables, so that the object is playing the part of the movable pulley. It also means that for every two metres you pull, the object moves one metre (thus you need only half the power that simpy lifting or pulling it would take). So it’s a way of moving heavy barrels up a slope, for instance.

The looser definition, used with the Concordia, is to roll a ship upright by pulling on the side (and making sure it rolls rather than just sliding). Well, it’s a fun word to say and at the same time sounds kinda technical – it’s not a word most people have heard before – so why not. And we know that newscasters just love, love, love to introduce an item with “It’s called ____.” In this case, “It’s called parbuckling.” And then you wait with bated breath to find out if parbuckling is more like twerking, more like tweeting, more like huffing, more like abseiling, or… more like pulling.

Where do we get this word? It’s not entirely clear. What we know is that it showed up in English in the 1600s as parbuncle, and a century or so later started being used as parbuckle because, well, belts and buckles and so on. It just sounded righter. Where did it come to English from? Maybe a Scandinavian word with bits referring to a pair of loops, but no one has seen an actual instance of such a word.

But what the heck. It’s a fun word. Enjoy it. You probably won’t get that many chances to use it. Polish it and stick it in your silverword drawer to bring out about as often as the runcible spoons.