patio

This is a nice warm-weather word. Where I live, summer is patio season – meaning that the local bars put out boulevard seating (or backyard seating, or rooftop seating) and people eat and drink outside because it’s warm enough to do that for up to a third of the year, and boy does everyone look forward to it. And of course people who have houses with patios may like to sit out on them too (though some people have decks rather than patios, and some just have lawns, and then there are those of us who live in apartments).

Canadians who were around in 1986 will surely think of Kim Mitchell’s hit song “Patio Lanterns.” Common collocations for patio include back patio, patio furniture, patio door, outdoor patio (which I think is rather redundant, no?), patio table, brick patio, concrete patio, and that general ilk of descriptive phrase from catalogue, narrative, and real estate. It’s a well-ensconced word, though it’s been in the language for less than a century.

It’s also a very good word for illustrating some important factors in the relation of spelling to pronunciation in English. I think it’s safe to say that the ratio of words with atio pronounced with a “sh” rather than a “t” is quite high. Especially if you bring in all the words that end in ation. Well, all except cation.

Here’s how it is: ratio and some other words ending in atio and all those words with the suffix ation come from Latin but have been in the language a long time (or at least the ation suffix has), so they’ve had lots of time to be subjected to nativizing phonological processes – in this case, palatalization and frication of the stop. They’re fully assimilated into the language. We have a few words from Latin such as consolatio (a consolatory piece of writing) and occupatio (a rhetorical tactic wherein one pretends not to mention something but in fact focuses on it – also known as preterition, with the usual pronunciation of ition) that are rarely used and can still be said as quoted from Latin (more or less); they’re not assimilated. And we have cation, which is a kind of ion (a positively charged one, as opposed to a negative anion), so we keep the full value of ion and treat the cat as a prefix (from Greek kata, as it happens; nothing to do with felines, though, as my high school chemistry teacher Mr. Stutz said, “cats have pos”).

And then there’s patio. It’s a Spanish word for a kind of courtyard. It was borrowed into English in the early 20th century – you can see it in a story by P.G. Wodehouse in 1931. A patio for Anglophones is sometimes concrete, sometimes brick, sometimes asphalt, but always paved, and adjoining the house or building on the exterior. (Except for with restaurants and bars, for which a patio is generally any outdoor seating, including on the rooftop. There are plenty of rooftop patios in Toronto. And that usage is not just local patois.) The Spanish pronunciation has been kept, because it’s a new borrowing and we most often keep the pronunciation fairly close to the source in our more recent borrowings.

Fairly close. Generally as close as a patio is to a house. The Spanish pronunciation won’t have any aspiration on the voiceless stops: no puff of air on the /p/ or /t/. And the a is said as [a] in Spanish. In standard British English, the stops are crisp (though unavoidably aspirated – that’s so standard in English most speakers don’t even know they’re doing it) and the vowel is still [a]. (Of course some dialects would turn the /t/ into a glottal stop.) But in North American English, that a moves forward to [æ], and the t is reduced to a tap, [ɾ], which is not aspirated or devoiced and so sounds more like a [d] (it’s not a [d], but the phoneme /d/ in the same place would be said the same way, [ɾ]). In order to get the same pronunciation in standard British English, you would have to write the word as pario, because [ɾ] for that dialect is an allophone of /r/. So the pronunciation is not entirely concrete; standard phonological processes and common phonotactics have paved the way for this word being an outlying annex in our spelling and pronunciation, and yet fully assimilated to the common property of English.

Oh, yes, common property. That may be where the word originally comes from. The Spanish word patio traces back through Catalan or Occitan to a word for common grazing pasture or uncultivated land; the Latin origin is either pactum ‘agreement’ or patere ‘lie open’. But scholars can’t entirely agree on which it is, so we’ll have to let that question lie open. And repair to the patio for refreshments.

usurp

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Barack Obama said, “there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency.”

So tell me, r u surp-rised to see usurp used in that way? “Usurp my authority” – as opposed to usurping someone else’s authority, or simply usurping authority? It sounds slightly odd to at least some people, perhaps even spurious. What does usurp refer to? Taking something that you are not entitled to – typically a place, a power, an ownership, or some similar position of right or prerogative – usually by depriving the entitled person of it. Most often a usurper is someone who deposes a rightful ruler.

So some fellows in congress feel that Obama is claiming authority that he is not entitled to. But who is rightly entitled to it? If it’s congress, many people would say that he’s usurping congress’s authority, not his own.

Funny, though. If a guy is driving a car and someone else thinks it’s stolen, can he say “That guy thinks I stole my car”? Or does he need to say “That guy thinks I stole my car from someone else”? The argument structure may be the same – or may not, depending on your personal experience and use of the word. But many people would expect that a posessive in a case such as this expresses the original or proper owner unless there is further assignment of that role. So… when the posessive is expressing the new possessor, not the original, is it usurping its role, or the original’s role, or, um, what?

Do be careful, whatever you determine, not to use up this word as you slurp it in your mouth over and over. It’s already worn down some. It comes, you see, from a Latin word usurpare which is formed from usus ‘use’ and a crunched version of rapere ‘seize’ (whence raptor, rapid, and some similar words). So ‘seize the use of something’. As perhaps some other word usurped the e and the s when usus and rapere met. And if one pursues the usurper, one should be careful lest he or she usurp the e and s again and leave one mixed up.

Thanks to Barb Adamski for suggesting usurp and directing me to the Obama quote.

supercilious

A friend recommended I look at the Brooks Brothers site for some style ideas. But ignore the models. They’re kinda…

Well, as I observed when I looked, they’re standard glamour catalogue models trying to look high-class or intellectual and they just come off supercilious.

And then I said, “Supercilious. Must use that for my blog.”

It is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, isn’t it? A word for people who look at things with the arch eyebrows and droopy eyelids of cool superiority, dryly commenting with minimal enthusiasm: “Super. Delicious.” They may want to seem super serious, though if they don’t pull it off they can look a little silly. But they’re always annoying. They may think themselves supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, but everybody else sees them as something quite atrocious.

I think supercilious is a good word for it. Five syllables in a two-plus-three rhythm: already demanding and overfull of itself just for that. Three hisses, one at each end and one in the middle; between all that, a pop on the lips and a licking liquid. Aside from the /p/ and the the back vowel /u/, it’s all on or near the tip of the tongue – rather superficial. Ah, superficial: a word that likely echoes an effect on the sense of supercilious. And then, to add to the effete sound of the enunciation, there is an echo of the weak-brained from superstitious. And a little bit of the sound of shilly-shallying.

Actually, look at the sounds of the words that Visual Thesaurus gives as synonyms: sneering, snide, sniffy, swaggering, imperious, prideful, overbearing, lordly, haughty, disdainful. Count all the s’s and l’s in there… Could be coincidence, of course. But doesn’t that parselmouth sound seem appropriate for these Slytherins in the school of life?

So… not so super, per se. More a piece of parsley (French persil) on the plate of society, but not as good for you. We know that super is from Latin for ‘above’… but what about cilious? Is it a kind of wispy cloud? Nope, that’s cirrus. Think back to your biology classes. What are those little eyebrow-like hairs on paramecia? Not Scylla as in and Charybdis, though the supercilious may seem as inviting an option as those creatures. And not Cecilia, who may be supercilious. No, just cilia. From Latin for ‘eyelashes’. But actually the Latin word cilium originally meant ‘eyelid’ – it’s related to celare ‘cover, conceal’ (and the ceal in conceal is from celare).

Sooo… Latin supercilium means what? Yes, ‘eyebrow’. As in the raised eyebrow of haughtiness. So there: it has been revealed. But you had that all figured out already, didn’t you.

skink

This must be the present tense of something smelly, right? You know, skink, skank, skunk – just like stink, stank, stunk? Funny, when you have sink, sank, sunk, you’re in fluid, probably water, nothing necessarily fetid. But add that voiceless stop and the smell kicks in. (Less so with p: spink, spank, spunk? More punkish. And then there’s the musty recollection of Leon Spinks, for those who remember that he beat Muhammad Ali in 1978.)

Except that unlike skunks (and, imputedly, skanks), skinks aren’t notably malodorous. You might do better to kick off the second k and see the skin. What skin? A squamous one, no fur in sight. A skink is not like skunk or mink; it is a kind of lizard. Actually about 1200 kinds of lizards, if by kind you mean ‘species’. They vary quite a bit in size, appearance, the length (and even presence) of legs (usually short, though), and a host of other details, including how they give birth to their young (live? with eggs?).

But skink is such a nice and ready formation of sounds and letters, it’s not so surprising that there are several kinds of skink the word, too. The lizard gets its name via Latin scincus from Greek skigkos σκίγκος (note that gk is pronounced in Greek as we would pronounce nk – the actual sound is [ŋk], so we have the same manner of articulation in a different place, and the Greeks have the same place of articulation with a different manner). But there’s nothing keeping such a word from showing up in a Germanic origin too.

Such as a word for the shank (and indeed cognate with shank). It has come to refer to a kind of soup. And then there is another skink cognate with Middle Dutch schenk ‘cup-bearer’ and schenken ‘bear a cup; serve alcoholic beverage’. In fact, it’s two skinks: one a verb meaning ‘pour or serve alcholic beverage’, the other a noun referring to not the server but the beverage itself – often a weak, poor, or, um, thin kind. (There used to be a skink that referred to the server, but it’s obsolete.)

So much meaning, and in a word that isn’t really seen that often in common usage. Just like the lizard: variety, but short legs.

Royal baby names

My most recent two articles for TheWeek.com have been about the British royal baby name book – a rather slim volume. The first article talks about which names have been used and which are most popular:

A brief history of royal baby names

Will and Kate’s wee one will be the seventh British king to be called George

The second talks about where those names come from and what they originally meant:

What do the names of British kings and queens actually mean?

King Wealth-Guard, Queen Bitterness, and King Desire-Helmet, for starters

 

A synaesthete’s letter tastings

Mary Hildebrandt tastes words more literally than most of us do. She writes the following:

The first time I heard about synaesthesia was in Vladimir Nabokov’s book Speak, Memory. He associates letters, on the printed page and in his mind’s eye, with colours. I can remember how he describes the various blue tones of different “sh” sounds in Russian and in English. I am not sure if I made the connection between my own synaesthesia right away, but I was very interested, and I read about it on Wikipedia. I noticed there was an entry on “Lexical-Gustatory Synaesthesia.” I wondered, before clicking on the link, whether it was about the experience I have of taste-sensations with words, and indeed it was.

Some of my own tasting-notes of words and letters:

Ks, are hard and dry, like tannins, or like chalk. I remember being a child and thinking that the yolk of hard-boiled eggs never felt quite as pleasant as the tannic feeling of the word itself

Ls are chewy, like chewing gum, or sometimes soft… like a thick layer of melted cheddar cheese. “Chelsea” overwhelmingly, extremely reminds me of cheese, because of the “l” and how it’s offset by those vowels, even evoking a cheesy smell.

“Tortellini,” a word like “Minelli” (as in Liza), is very soft, and you could compare it to pasta.

Rs are similar to Ks and other hard consonants. But when offset with a soft “p,” hard vowels can also be very pleasant. I remember a glimmer of my unconscious synaesthesia when I had a teenage conversation with a friend about the “creamiest” word, which I thought was “prepare,” like liquid cream being stirred, almost like the soft Ps are being stirred by the hard Rs.

Yes, my tasting notes of “P” are certainly soft. A word like “petal” is like the soft, supple, juicy petal of an exotic flower, like how it would be to bite into it, or the mouth-feel of its thick, soft shape.

I never really thought about it until I was older, but I think I assumed that everyone “tasted words.” To me, it seems natural – you say letters with your mouth, the same place where you have different taste and texture sensations with your mouth while you’re eating.

I’m always interested to learn more about lexical-gustatory synesthesia if any of your readers have any tips for further information, or comments.

Thanks, Mary!

verecund

Unless you know Latin, this word is not very forthcoming about its meaning. It’s rather shy, or perhaps coy. You see that cund and probably think of rubicund and jocund and fecund – all adjectives describing tendencies or states: reddishness, humour, fertility. But what is this vere? Has it to do with truth, springtime, worms?

It seems so shifty. The v is a v-neck, revealing some, concealing the rest, leading the eyes to a point where they must be cut off. The e and e seem like the shifty, peering, evading eyes. The r somehow looks to me not like a nose between the eyes but like a pistol holstered. Right in the middle! What could it mean? The c gets a line and stops up as d; the open u flips and becomes the closed n (unless you look from beneath). You thought this would be easy but this word wants to throw you a curve to the end.

So you say it. You start by biting the lip – such a shy or coy gesture – and then the tongue lolls up and down but knocks at the back before finally ending on the tip. Ah, what is on the tip of your tongue? It may be verecund but it is not very kind!

Well, here is the key: the Latin etymon is vereri, verb, ‘fear, reverence’. So this word means tending to fear? Close enough… what it means is ‘shy, bashful, modest’. Or – and this is to the others as a kitten is to a baby bunny – ‘coy’. Coy indeed… making people run to a dictionary to find out what you, in your ostentatiously erudite way, are saying.

marlock

Is this a warlock with wings folded? A witchy marlin? One of H.G. Wells’s morlocks? A place like Porlock, whence an importunate visitor supposedly came to Coleridge and interrupted the composition of “Kubla Khan”? Some mixture of Moriarty and Sherlock? Or the device with which one or the other conserves his preserves? Is it a mackerel? Or is it just a red herring, a mockery?

With each successive look, the sense seems to pull back and vanish, like Eurydice falling back into Hades or – more pertinently – like the enunciation of this word, starting cushiony at the lips /m/, rolling through liquids at the front and middle of the tongue /rl/, and then knocking quickly at the back /k/ on its way out.

Do you clamour for the sense? Do you hope you will have more luck with etymology than with sound? It depends on which tree you bark up. If you bark up the Austronesian tree, you will get an Australian Aborigine word marlok for a kind of eucalyptus tree, small and shrubby, similar to a mallee and having a smooth-bark version called a moort. Marlok is anglicized to marlock by those who have reason to call it anything.

But if you bark up the Indo-European tree, you get a verb meaning ‘frolic, dance, play around’ and an apparently related noun meaning ‘joke, prank, caper’ but also ‘flirtatious glance’. The origin of this word is unknown, but it’s a regional usage in northern England, which suggests to me that it may have a Scandinavian origin (northern England has a fair bit of this, as it was under Danish rule or influence for a fair while a millennium ago), or it could be a toponym (like Donnybrook and Bedlam)… except that there is no place called Marlock or anything like it in northern England.

Well, we may marlock all we want with this word, but in the end we have an etymological marlock. The question that then remains is whether by that we mean a prank… or a flirtatious glance?

ecphore

What does this word bring to mind?

The e and c seem jammed together at the beginning, perhaps a sequence from half-closed e to open c, causing the p to release, raising its stem and opening its loop to h, but after that it’s different – the o may be the open eye of surprise, the r the realization, and then e… the return to the beginning, perhaps?

What is “ec”? Hmm. That question is posed by the psychologist in Equus. He at one point enters as the young protagonist is incanting “equus, equus, eq—” (stopping abruptly on seeing the doctor) and in a later therapy session he asks, “What is eq?” The beginning of equus, ‘horse’. But what is ec? The beginning of ecstatic, eclogue, eczema, eccentric, ec cetera… sorry, et cetera.

Which is what? A certain éclat? A burst of éclair? It is actually from the Greek root ἐκ for ‘away’.

And phore? As in semaphore, chromatophore, and many others, including the pher in such things as the name Christopher. It is from Greek ϕέρειν pherein ‘carry, bear, bring forth, disclose’. But those words are nouns. This word, ecphore, is a verb.

I don’t want to get carried away here, but it does look like ecphore means ‘get carried away’. Or perhaps ‘carry away’.

Hmm, or ‘take back’? Oh, that takes me back. Song cues have a way of doing that for me. I immediately think of the end of “Cry, Baby, Cry,” from the white album by the Beatles: “Can you take me back where I came from, can you take me back…” Ah, yes, song cues are to me as the madeleine (actually toast dipped in tea) was to Marcel Proust. (Has any of you actually read that book? I haven’t. I just know the triggering moment. The rest looks awful long.)

And I won’t take back ‘take back’. Nor should I. What the heck phore? It’s apposite: ecphore, the verb, means (per Oxford) “To evoke or revive (an emotion, a memory, or the like) by means of a stimulus.” Just as the sound /ɛ/ at the front of the mouth leads to a knock at the back /k/ and then a sudden puff and opening out the front /fɔ/ before pulling back again into an echo /r/, the taste or touch or thought of one little thing can ecphore a feeling or image of an experience.

Yes, that’s true, get it right: a stimulus takes you back to the memory, but it ecphores the memory, not you. It carries it, and deposits it on you. The word truly does seem like the explosion or sneeze (“Ecphore!”) of a thought, a memory, a subroutine of feelings and entailments from the dark, musty storage basement of your brain. And the related noun is ecphory, not ecphoria. I don’t know why.

So there it is, all of a sudden. A smell, a taste, a song, a sound releases a flood of memory. You stand or sit, carried away, your shoulders twitching or fingers twiddling or head flicking back: such is the power of an eructation from the gastric tract of rumination and recollection. And I find words often have that power.

phronesis

Well you may ask whether it would be wise to use this word in ordinary discourse. It seems an affront, phonier than phrenology. What are we to make of it? Pick at its form and you may come up with an assortment bits that look like they make nephritis or sphere or rephrase, but nope. Well, yes, there is nope, and spore and hope and posher and quite a few others. But all of that will leave you none the wiser.

You can see that ph at the start, long a mark of a classical (specifically Greek) origin but also seen in recent times on some slang terms. We can assume this is not slang, since it’s not a respelling of an English word and it has Greek morphology, specifically the esis ending, which is common on words such as catachresis and hysteresis that only grad-school dweebs know or care about. (I was one. I know.) So what did it mean in Greek?

The Greek original, ϕρόνησις, meant ‘thought, judgement, wisdom, prudence’, et cetera and all that good stuff. It was taken into Latin to mean ‘wisdom’. In English, it first named a personification of wisdom. Now, when it’s used, it’s generally used to mean ‘practical wisdom, good judgement, sound understanding’.

So you can use this word as a hidden dagger if you want. “I feel that this proposal demonstrates an intriguing lack of phronesis.” You can generally take it on trust that your hearers will make an assumption about a word they don’t know. However, one or two of them might call your bluff – ask you or look in the dictionary. So perhaps don’t use it. I counsel phronesis.