litany

“We’ll have to start burning words,” she said, and cold steam curled up from her mouth as she spoke. She hugged her knees to her chest as she sat in front of the dark fireplace, where a pot of ice hung above a forlorn grate. Her hair blazed red but gave no heat.

He nodded sadly and turned to look up at the walls. The room was a moonlit panopticon of bookshelves, a circle of walls insulated by thousands of volumes, a vertical city of language, millions of lexemes waiting only for their chance to breathe life in a reader’s mind. So much potential, so much cold potential, but here were two still-warm bodies that soon would be cold and still if they could have no heat and drink no water. And then whose eyes and minds would give life to the words anyway?

He turned his onyx eyes back to her. “I have never lit any on fire. Which words must die, that the rest might yet live?”

She unfolded, stood, walked to a wall, brushed her fingertips along the spines huddled there. Pulled one volume out. “The ones that are already dead.” 

She turned and held the sacrificial victim solemnly before her: a dictionary of obsolete words. His mouth opened, but the small sound that came out fell as snow to the floor.

“They have had their life,” she said. “They’re gone. This is Lenin’s tomb, relics of the saints, a display of zombies. No one will use these words in earnest again. Let them rest in peace.” She walked over the fireplace, sat down, and laid the book down in front of her, spatchcocked on its spine. She gripped the back flyleaf in her hand, pulled it and peeled it away from the binding, creased it and set it in the grate.

He watched as she peeled the next page, creased it, and laid it in the grate. “They have never had a funeral,” he said. “They have never had a memorial.” She peeled another, creased it, laid it in the grate. He reached forward and picked it up and read from it. “Yekth. Yarringle. Yark.” He turned to her. “Let us sing a litany.”

She raised a thin red eyebrow. “A litany of sorrows, a litany of complaints?”

“A litany of saints. A long responsive prayer, an entreaty. A litany on fire. That these words may one last time illuminate us.”

“That they may keep us warm,” she said. “Give us the breath of life. Melt the ice and sustain us.”

“Let us remember what they meant to someone at some time.” He looked over his shoulder at the thousands of books full of frozen meaning, silent in the late night moonlight that leaked down through the cupola clerestory to land on his page. He turned to the fireplace again, cleared his throat, raised his head, and sang in the tones of the Great Litany: “May all the words lost to the worlds… light and enliven us.” He looked at the page. “Yark, that meant to prepare…”

She joined in: “…light and enliven us.”

“Yarringle, a yard-winder…”

 “…light and enliven us.” She peeled another page and laid it creased in the grate.

“Yekth, that was itchiness…” he sang.

“…light and enliven us.” She peeled another page. 

He laid the page he had been holding into the grate and, as she peeled one more page, took it from her and looked. “Wyndre, that meant to embellish…”

“…light and enliven us.” Another page.

“Winx, to bray like an ass…”

“…light and enliven us.” Another page.

“Vectigal, taxation…”

“…light and enliven us.” One more page. Two.

“Umthink, to ponder…”

“…light and enliven us,” she sang, but he had paused. He glanced back for a moment, as if the word might be in one of those volumes, hearing its end announced. Who would know what it meant? But she kept peeling, a page, a page, a page, each one slowly and solemnly but without stop. The paper was thick and would burn well, and there were many pages still to go. Soon there would be enough to start.

He turned back and took another page and looked at it and chanted: “Stelligerate, that was exalted to the heavens…”

“…light and enliven us.”

“Sprunt, that meant short and hard to bend…”

“Unlike that definition,” she offered, but he was singing “…light and enliven us.” He looked at her, and for a moment his eyes sucked in light, but then he smiled and chuckled once. “A last breath for it,” he said.

Another page. “Shindle, that meant to scratch…”

“…light and enliven us.”

Another. He looked over it for a moment. “Scrute, that was scrutinize…”

“…light and enliven us.”

The pages kept coming, and it was a decent size of pile now. She handed him another page and put her hand into her pocket and pulled out a box of matches. She took one out and scratched it against the emery on the side and it awoke into flame. “Scratch,” she said. “What was that word?”

He shook his head sadly. Too late. She touched the match to light the papers and they quickly came to life.

By the light of the growing fire he looked at the next page that she peeled. He gasped a little and darted his glance once more over his shoulder. Then he steamed a short breath of resignation and sang. “Philobiblist, that meant bibliophile…”

“…light and enliven us,” they sang together. He placed the page with its obsolete word for book-lover in the flames. The fire burned a short time, and then she peeled a few more pages. He took one. He read it, and his eyes lost focus and he gazed at the fire through it.

She took the page from him; he surrendered it lightly. She saw what he had seen, and she cleared her throat and sang: “Owsell, meaning unknown, origin unknown…”

“…light and enliven us,” he joined in with her. She fed the page into the fire. Oh well.

They warmed themselves for a few minutes, and he lifted the pot from its hook. A bit of the ice was melted. He offered it to her, she drank a little, then he drank a little and put it back. She peeled out a few more pages and looked at one. “Lutarious, living in mud,” she sang.

“…light and enliven us.” To the fire.

A pause, a page, a page. “Labant, that meant sliding…”

“…light and enliven us.”

A page, a page. “Kneck, the twisting of a running rope…”

“…light and enliven us.”

A page. “Kenodoxy, the study of vainglory…”

“…light and enliven us.” She placed the page in the fire; the oxygen combusted the oxy and, as they watched, the last letters to go into ashes were no.

The next: “Javel, that meant vagabond,” she sang, and “light and enliven us” they intoned together.

And so it went, by page, by quire, as the cold night drew on: 

“Gowl, weep with anger… light and enliven us.”

“Gorm, a gormless fool… light and enliven us.”

“Genge, that meant valid… light and enliven us.”

“Furchure, where the legs fork… light and enliven us.” 

“Fulculency, dreggy refuse… light and enliven us.”

“Fletiferous, causing weeping…” 

As he sang “light and enliven us” she looked at the glowing ashes of thousands of lost words, lost to all time, no one ever to utter or think them again, and she laid the page to add to the pyre and wept for a moment. He took the pot and served her water, and some for himself.

At the next time of peeling, she handed the page to him. He looked at it, and looked up at the clerestory, where the pre-dawn glow was starting to grow, and sang, “Fenester, that meant window…”

“…light and enliven us.” The word joined the flames, burnt down to nest, flew away.

There was not so much left now, of the book or of the night, and the ice was mostly water. But they kept on.

“Ewage, a waterway toll… light and enliven us.”

“Eslargish, extend the range or scope… light and enliven us.”

“Empyre, that meant worsen… light and enliven us.” The page ignited; the pyre became smoke and the em fluttered up in the flame.

“Catamidiate, put to open shame and punishment… light and enliven us.”

“Brattice, ventilation partition in a mineshaft… light and enliven us.”

Pages, pages, pages. At last they were almost through. She peeled one and handed it to him, and peeled the last few and fed them in, and then, after a moment’s hesitation, she lifted the book’s cover and set it at the side of the fire, so it might burn at its own rate without smothering it all.

He looked at the page he held, and as the first rays of the sunrise began to bless the cupola dome, he handed it to her with his thumb at one word. She read it, and then, in a quiet voice, intoned the last of their litany:

“Apricity, warmth of the sun in wintertime…”

“…light and enliven us,” he joined in.

She started to reach the page into the fire, but then she stopped. And then she drew it back, and folded it neatly, and folded it again, and one more time, and put it in her pocket, next to the matchbox.

The last black flakes of pages of lost words glowed in the grate with the little worms of fire, and the faint remaining heat rose to meet the resurgent apricity.

———

All of these words are ones I’ve written about here over the years, and yes, they’re all at least supposedly obsolete:

yark

yarringle

yekth

wyndre

winx

vectigal

umthink

stelligerate

sprunt

shindle

scrute

philobiblist

owsell

lutarious

labant

kneck

kenodoxy

javel

gowl

gorm

genge

furchure

fulculency

fletiferous

fenester

ewage

eslargish

empyre

catamidiate

brattice

apricity

flit

What flits?

Does a hippo flit?

Does a cow flit? Could a calf? 

How about a ship? Perhaps a little light boat? If it floats, can it flit? Flying fish flit, don’t they?

Our feathered friends, fleet of flight, flap their wings and flit. A hummingbird flits. A sparrow flutters and flits. A crow could flit, perhaps. But a raptor? Can a hawk, a goshawk, an osprey, an eagle flit?

Is there a filter for flitting? What is and isn’t fitting? If you can shoo it, can it flit? Can a cat flit? A rat?

Insects flit, sometimes. Bees may flit. Do butterflies flit, or are they too floppy and chaotic? Ticks never flit, but do mosquitos?

Can your fingers flit? Do they flit when you fillet a fish, or chiffonade a leaf of fresh basil? Do they flit over the keyboard when you type? Have your fingers flitted when they felt felt or fluffed a throw pillow?

Do your eyes flit? Does your glance? Your attention? Your little liquid flicking tongue, licking lips or enunciating lexical items?

The issue is this: formerly, many things flitted. And we flitted things, too. You could flit your boxes, your books, your friends, your cattle; it was nothing more than the act of moving from one place to another. And, intransitively, to make any shift was to flit: you could flit from where you sit, or flit to another home, another job, another life. To flee was to flit.

The trick is that flit is not like, say, flap or flip or flick; it didn’t come about from simple imitative sound symbolism. It traces back through Old Germanic roots and on to Proto-Indo-European and is related to fleet and float and flood and flow and even flutter, not to mention so many words in so many other languages. 

We do, it is true, see a certain similarity of sense in so many of the fl- words, and it’s unsurprising: once enough words with a certain sound gain a sense association, it’s more likely to be inferred with further words. And with flit, the quick sharp sound similar to flip and flick has also likely guided the narrowing of its usage. 

So where, four centuries ago, you could flit your cattle from one farm or field to another, now flitting is just for light, fleet things. A blue whale will never flit anymore, nor will a cruise ship or even, probably, a tour bus. But a motorcycle? Perhaps. A camera drone? Certainly. A clownfish? Why not. Any social butterfly or flibbertigibbet? You bet. You can flit through life, flit through time. But does time flit? Does life? How about the meanings of words?

voluptuate

Draw a hot bath and add lavender suds. Chill a bottle of Taittinger. Bake an angel food cake, compile a trifle, create an Eton mess. Arrange hydrangeas. Set out the cushion you bought in Vienna, and the other that’s large and shaped like a book. Make a playlist of Ravel and Vaughan Williams, or of John Williams, or of Lana Del Rey, or of Beyoncé. Prepare a Sazerac. Perhaps – perhaps – put out a bowl of sweet, meaty sauerkraut, if that pleases, or a bassinet of crawdads, or a little watermelon gazpacho. Create pleasures. Make luxurious. Voluptuate.

Or sink into the hot bath with lavender suds, and drink a glass or two or three of Taittinger. Eat the angel food cake, eat and mess with the trifle, trifle with the Eton mess. Admire the hydrangeas and inhale their aroma. Lean against the cushions. Let the music play. Knock back the Sazerac and reach for another. Relish the sauerkraut, peel through the crawdads, slurp the gazpacho. Take pleasure. Luxuriate. Voluptuate.

It’s a good word, voluptuate, and it means both ways: make voluptuous, or enjoy voluptuously.

But wait. Voluptuous? In the world of today, that’s mainly a word for a buxom, curvaceous woman. But that is so limited and limiting. Voluptuous means ‘luxurious, sensuous, indulgent, hedonistic, delicious’; from that it includes ‘replete with gorgeousness’. We also have the word voluptuary, which means a sybarite, one who has given over to sensuous pleasures. All of these words come from Latin voluptas ‘pleasure’, which in turn comes from volup (earlier volupte) ‘with pleasure, pleasurably’, which traces to Proto-Indo-European *welh₁-, ‘choose, want’, a word that also has among its progeny well, will, voluntarily, and many more in various languages.

Well. Do you as you will, and do it voluntarily, and enjoy it voluptuously. And, in turn, set the scene: voluptuate so that others may voluptuate. 

Each of us has different tastes, of course. Many treats of the senses are best kept to moderation, lest we end up with headaches, shakes, and assorted scleroses. But there are some that can be enjoyed endlessly. Music, for one. And words for another. For those of us who savour words volubly erupting on our tongues and in our minds, language is an endless smorgasbord of verses and conversation without the vitiation of vice. And so here on Sesquiotica I voluptuate that you may voluptuate, and perhaps even vice versa.

Aina voluptuating in sauerkraut

subfusc

The secret treat of the long days of summer is the ending descent into the subfusc dusk. There are few things more quietly delighting than the quiet de-lighting.

Ironically, it does not stand on ceremony. I say “ironically” because subfusc has a certain ceremonious undertone; at Oxford, it is a word for the prescribed style of clothing with a formal tone: dark, not utterly dark but dark enough, colourless, desaturated – dark suit, black shoes, white shirt. It’s an in-group understanding of ‘dark’ – the casual formality of formal casualness. Something that stops just short of going the whole distance, smart but not so smart that it’s not smart.

Which, really, is this word: subfusc. How dare it end with a c like that. It ought to be either subfusk or subfuscous. But there you have it: it won’t go all in one way or the other. There is fusk, yes, and fuscous, and indeed there is even subfuscous (that long form, for the same sort who would say “champagne” rather than “champers”). But none of those are sufficiently brisk.

What is all this, anyway? Fusk and fuscous come from Latin fuscus, which means ‘dark’. It traces back through the dim mists of time to Proto-Indo-European *dʰewh₂-, which is also the progenitor of English dusk. English fusk means ‘dark brown’ or ‘dusky’; fuscous means about the same. You understand that sub- means ‘under’, but what stands under ‘dark’? Is it more dark or less dark? 

The answer, originally, is less: subfuscus is ‘moderately dark’. Except… in Latin, they would have assimilated the prefix; the more proper form is suffuscus. That b is a bit too bright. The assimilation suffuses it (suffuse is not related to suffuscus, but it will suffice).

So. Subfusc. A grey study. More soft than funk. A good word for nearly the entirety of the photographic œuvre of Josef Sudek. Of course I won’t include any of his photos here; copyright is a real thing. But perhaps a few of my own will suit – a window onto the warm embrace of the post-dusk subfusc.

impromptu

I was listening to the radio the other day and I heard the host of a classical music program (during the program, not in a promo) say, unprompted, “imprompti” as a plural for impromptu.

What! Imprompti? Pre-empting the familiar impromptus? I promptly looked it up to make sure I was not mistaken. But I was not: the English plural is impromptus. Some sources say we got it via French, wherein the plural is impromptus. But impromptu ultimately comes from Latin, where it is in promptu (Latin did not implement the /n/-to-/m/ place assimilation before /p/ in this instance, interestingly; it was left to French and English to do that). And the plural of Latin in promptu is…

Well, before I tell you, I need to give you a bit of background and context. Otherwise it won’t make enough sense. Let’s start, briefly, with that in. Often when we see in- or im- as a prefix in words from Latin, it’s a negator: immovable, indecent. Other times it’s an intensifier: invaluable. Sometimes it’s an intensifier later mistaken as a negator: inflammable, infamous. But sometimes it just means ‘in’, as in the same kind of thing as English in. Like in insert. And that’s what it is here – impromptu does not mean ‘not promptu’, nor does it mean ‘very promptu’; it means ‘in promptus’ (we will get to the question of promptus becoming promptu shortly). And what is promptus?

You might recognize prompt there, and you’ll be right if you do. Promptus is the source of that. As a noun, promptus means ‘readiness’ or ‘an exposing to view’; the noun is formed from the past participle of promo – which, amusingly, is not related to English promotion. No, this is pro ‘for, forward’ plus emo ‘I buy, I take’ (and no relation to emotion – sorry!). You may know the Latin phrase caveat emptor, ‘buyer beware’; that emptor is from the same root. And the past participle of emo is emptus, as in pre-empt (but not empty, which is a Germanic word).

So pro plus emo makes promo ‘I bring forth’, which formed promptus ‘brought forth’, which makes the noun promptus ‘readiness’ or ‘exposing to view’. So the plural of promptus is prompti, right? Ha ha, no. Latin is less simple than we might want; if given the chance to learn all the Latin word forms, we might want to decline, but they already have declined, and this is a fourth declension noun, which forms its forms differently. Let me add the scholarly macrons to mark length (not written in Latin of the time but useful to us today to distinguish vowel length): singular prōmptus in the nominative becomes plural prōmptūs, and in the accusative it’s singular prōmptum and plural prōmptūs. But, as noted, it’s in promptu and not in promptus. That’s because in in this case governs the ablative case (ablative comes from Latin for ‘taking away’, probably because many people wish it would be taken away). And singular in prōmptū pluralizes to in prōmptibus.

But that really doesn’t matter, because when we’re talking about several instances of improvisations (an impromptu is an improvisation, as you know) we’re not talking about being in several instances of readiness or exposing to view. No, it’s another case – like omnibus, rebus, ignoramus, and vade mecum – of a word being made into an English noun that might seem like it’s a direct borrowing of a Latin noun but is in fact grammatically different in the original source. So the plural of impromptu is impromptus, and there’s no alternative. 

But because we have long learned that simple regular English plurals are to be dispreferred whenever possible, and especially that Latin words absolutely must be pluralized in an ostentatiously Latin way, darlings, lest we sound like utter ignorami… well, some of us are sometimes prone to produce spurious Latin-style plurals impromptu.

knoll

Some things have clear definitions, or at least seem to. Linguists will point out that you can come up with a definition of chair that will match most but not all chairs and will exclude most but not all things that aren’t chairs, for instance, but you can’t come up with a definition that covers all chairs and no other things, partly because there will always be some edge cases that people will disagree about (you may find some such in art galleries), and partly because chairness is a matter of common functional knowledge rather than strict definition. And yet there is rarely any confusion about whether something is a chair. Most people would agree that chair is much less vague than, say, cup, let alone art

Contrast this with knoll.

Now, you know what a knoll is, right? You’ve heard the term. You likely have this general image in your mind: a kind of rounded little hill, or something of that order – more than a mound, but much less than a mountain. You might in particular know the phrase grassy knoll. You might (probably not, but you could) even know that knoll comes from an old Germanic root that also descended to words in other languages for ‘lump’, ‘ball’, or ‘turnip’. So, though a knoll can’t roll, it’s rounded. But how big is it? And how big isn’t it? I was driving with my dad recently in the Okanagan region and he pointed at a long, rounded, grassy, lightly treed prominence in the middle of the valley and said, “Would you call that a knoll?” And I wasn’t sure whether or not I would.

Now, if we had been oceanographers, the question could have been resolved by checking some measurements, because in oceanography knoll means ‘rounded fully underwater hill with a prominence of less than 1000 metres’. They’ve set an in-group definition, as one does in the sciences. It’s the same kind of taxonomic imposition as one encounters when someone tells you that a strawberry is not a berry but a banana is: that’s true when you’re speaking in botanical terms, but it’s different from the common-knowledge usages that communicate to ordinary people in ordinary contexts. So the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, does not at all meet the oceanographic definition of knoll, and yet.

And yet it also might not meet every ordinary speaker’s definition of a knoll either. It’s not pointy-topped, true, but it’s also barely prominent at all in its surroundings. It’s several times the height of a person, but less than the height of any of the trees on it. If you were to ask a person “Would you call that a knoll?” they wouldn’t necessarily say so. But it’s the term that Albert Merriman Smith used when describing the location in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and so it stuck. So we have an established and accepted precedent for calling a low rounded earth form with a prominence of less than ten metres a knoll, for what that’s worth. (Most people who have heard of the grassy knoll probably don’t have a clear picture in their minds of what it looks like. It’s smaller than I expected, I’ll tell you that.)

OK, so what’s the upper size limit of a knoll? How are we even supposed to know? Some people do seem to use the term loosely. In a recent Robb Report article quoted by Merriam-Webster, we see “Built over 25 years ago, the 50,000-square-foot domed dwelling is perched atop a 2,400-foot-high knoll, offering up 60 miles of sprawling coastal vistas.” I think that’s rather high for a knoll, and I have to wonder whether the author is the same kind of thesaurus-scraper who would say “we munched oatmeal” or “Chumbawamba crooned ‘Tubthumping.’” But it does convey the idea that the hill in question is rounded (at least I hope it is).

To help establish an upper limit for knollness, I’ve looked up a few things that have Knoll in their names. As you might expect, they’re more prominent than many knolls you might think of (because why would we have articles about insignificant knolls?). There’s Long Knoll (not to be confused with the former prime minister of Cambodia, Lon Nol), which is in Wiltshire, England, and has a prominence – in the topographic sense – of 171 metres. There’s Brent Knoll (which is probably also the name of one or more persons), in Somerset, England, a significant local land feature near the Bristol Channel with a prominence of 137 metres. There is The Knoll, on Ross Island, Antarctica, which rises 370 metres above the sea. There’s Cave Knoll, in Utah, which is more hard and lumpy looking and with pointy bits on top but has a prominence of just 95 metres. There’s Grindslow Knoll, in Derbyshire, which actually stands (or sits) a few hundred metres above its surrounds but has a high col connection to a neighbouring peak that makes its topographic prominence a mere 15 metres. And then there’s Bluff Knoll, in Western Australia. 

I think Bluff Knoll tests the limits of common knoll-edge. Or perhaps it’s just bluffing. It’s the highest peak in its range, has a prominence of 650 metres, and has cliff edges on one side of its summit – a questionable kind of knoll-edge, to my mind. Granted, much of its overall form is rolling and even grassy, but come on. I’ve seen smaller things called “mountains.” I feel that Governor James Stirling, who named it Bluff Knoll (and after whom the range it’s in has been named), was rather pushing it. It might be better to call it what it has been called for much longer by the people who were there long before Sterling showed up: Pualaar Miial, which means ‘great many-faced hill’. Which, incidentally, seems inconsistent with what I would think of as a knoll.

But then what do I knoll? I wasn’t even sure about that long hill in the Okanagan. Knowing what I knoll now, I would call it one. Or I might just call it a hill, albeit a little one. Anyway, “mountain” would be right out.

linchpin

Most people who use linchpin these days use it figuratively, to mean someone or something without which the wheels would come off the machine, so to speak. In a pinch, they’ll make it a cinch, even if it’s inch by inch. But what kind of thing might the linchpin of a word be?

Some people will say that it’s the spelling. Take linchpin for example: many people write it as lynchpin. Why? Not because we usually spell the sound that way; all the rhymes are spelled -inch. But there’s one word we have that’s spelled with a y, and it’s lynch, which, of course, is exactly the same sound as linch. The problem being that the verb lynch means ‘execute extrajudicially’ and most often refers to the hanging of black men by white mobs in the American South.

Which, I can assure you, has nothing to do with linchpin. The verb lynch comes from a surname, Lynch, which in England derived from a Kentish word meaning ‘hill’ but was also used as an Anglicized – and modified – form of Irish Loingsigh and related names, which originally named someone who had a fleet of ships. And since neither mob executions nor hills nor ships have anything to do with linchpins, it seems important not to misspell it, less there be a misconstrual.

But in truth, even people who spell it lynchpin don’t seem to consciously relate it to the mob hangings. I suppose they might, if asked about it, speculate that the thing it names was invented by someone named Lynch. But it wasn’t.

In fact, no one knows who invented the linchpin, because it’s been around since time immemorial – pretty much as long as there have been wheels mounted on axles. When you mount a wheel on an axle, you need to hold it in place so it doesn’t come off. And for that, people historically used what in Proto-Germanic was called *lunaz (the asterisk means we’ve reconstructed it from historical evidence), and in Old English was called lynis, and then in Middle English became lynce or lince: a pin inserted through the axle on the outside of the wheel. By Early Modern English, its spelling had settled on linch (and it’s safe to say that modern people who spell it with a y are unaware of its etymology), but by that time, it had come to be called a linchpin.

Which, given that linch refers to the pin, seems sort of like the number in PIN number or the tea (or chai) in chai tea or the free in free gift. But perhaps it’s more like the berry in cranberry: we could just call the thing a cran because there’s no other cran thing (leaving aside juice blends like cranapple), but somehow we have decided that we want to specify cranberry, just like you’ll sometimes see tuna fish – as though if we didn’t name the kind of thing it is, it would come off its axle and roll loose through the language. So we add the berry in cranberry and the pin in linchpin for a kind of security. 

In fact, for linchpin there is a case to be made for the clarification: the meaning of lynis and lynce and linch had, it appears, spread so that it could also refer to the whole axle. It’s like how originally tuxedo referred specifically to a kind of jacket without tails (named after the place it originated), and then the sense spread to the whole suit that included the jacket, and now the jacket itself is called a tuxedo jacket. So why not pin it down with the added specification? Meaning that the ostensibly redundant addition is the linchpin of the word.

And that should hold it – at least until such time as the figurative use becomes the primary one and any literal use is taken as a reference to the figurative sense, at which time we might yet hear “and this is the linchpin pin.” Or we might not – after all, wheels are usually held on by more than a pin these days.

boondoggle

A gravedigger, a squid-jigger, and Mick Jagger were smuggling boomerangs and goggles in a dune buggy, juggling the boombox and jiggling and wiggling and snuggling as it squiggled on the dunes. Hah! What a boondoggle!

Wait, what was a boondoggle?

The little braided ring holding Mick’s scarf on, of course.

Those who know the word boondoggle almost certainly know it as a word for a wasteful project, a government make-work or junket – a way to hornswoggle the taxpayer. This got its start with an article on the front page of the New York Times on April 4, 1935, with the headlines “$3,187,000 RELIEF IS SPENT TO TEACH JOBLESS TO PLAY; $19,658,512 VOTED FOR APRIL | ‘BOON DOGGLES’ MADE | Aldermen Find These Are Gadgets—Hear of Eurythmic Dances.” The article explains:

The Board of Estimate voted an April relief appropriation of $19,658,512 yesterday, following disclosures by the Aldermanic committee investigating relief that $3,187,000 a year was being spent on providing dancing lessons and other recreation for the unemployed.

In the course of the day the Aldermen learned that the making of “boon doggles” was being taught to relief recipients. “Boon doggles” is a colloquial term meaning gadgets. Eurythmic dancing was covered in another work project, and there was a staff at work teaching the unemployed hobbies, the testimony disclosed. . . . Lloyd Paul Stryker, counsel for the committee, characterized the research projects in one word—“bunk.”

Stryker, as it happens, was a well-known lawyer, and one who cut quite a figure. He seems to have been especially important in the spread of boondoggle for the “wasteful project” use. (Eurythmic dancing, by the way, is a kind of expressive movement invented by Rudolf Steiner in 1911; the 1980s musical duo named themselves after it.) Further down in the article, we read a bit more information on the subject given by the mayor of New York City at the time:

Commenting yesterday on the Aldermanic investigation headed by Mr. Deutsch, Mayor La Guardia said:

“Educated persons and college graduates must eat, and when these projects were established by the Federal Government, there was a real crisis, particularly among the college groups and so-called white collar classes. Many things were done to give these people work, and it is quite possible that people do not understand some of these projects set up to give college people relief.

“If any one responsible will say that college people and white collar workers should not be continued on relief, I will be ready to take that recommendation, if they will take the responsibility.

“If the law was changed to permit us to use white collar workers on necessary city work, we would be glad to use them. But the law prevents this. I see nothing to ridicule in giving relief to people who need it. College graduates are going to get the same consideration as others in need of employment.”

Well. It’s always the way: what government does to benefit one set of citizens will (rightly or wrongly) appear wasteful to at least some of those whom it does not directly benefit. I won’t go into the further details of the social circumstances and obvious class distinctions evinced in the article, but I do need to correct one misapprehension: “boon doggles” (boondoggles, as we spell them most typically) are not gadgets. They are braided lanyards and similar items braided of leather or fabric. As the New York Herald Tribune noted about a visit of the Prince of Wales in 1929 (six years earlier),

The Prince also wore around his scout hat a “boondoggle,” which is a bright leather braided lanyard worn much in the manner of the hat cord used by the United States Army.

Thanks to Michael Quinion, I learn of a mention in the British magazine Punch a week and a half later, where it says that boondoggle is

a word to conjure with, to roll around the tongue; an expressive word to set the fancy moving in strange and comforting channels; and it rhymes with “goggle,” “boggle,” and “woggle,” three of the most lighthearted words in the English language.

The word was originally coined out of thin air – but obviously on the basis of what sounded good to an English speaker – by one Robert H. Link. He at first used it to refer to something else (I don’t know what) but, as he was an Eagle Scout, he put it to use to refer to the braided lanyards and braided leather neckerchief slides and similar things that the scouts had. It was a word he made up for fun, and it has been a boon to many – the mind boggles.

Whereas what we more commonly call boondoggles now aren’t necessarily made up for fun – more often for profit. And they are less boon and more dog. They are most often wastefully expensive projects that add little to no value or are inferior to alternatives. It could be destroying a public good such as a park to put in a large, outrageously overpriced, comically badly designed, and quite inappropriately sited private enterprise that has no hope of succeeding, just because of some side benefit for the politicians pushing it through. It could be building a badly designed airport that takes far too long to put in and doesn’t function well – there are a few that are seen that way, although, I note, not the one named after Mayor La Guardia. It could be some other construction project or similar make-work that drains money needlessly into the pockets of a select few. 

All of these cases have two things in common, though: unlike the case cited in the 1935 New York Times, the people they benefit the most are people who already have plenty of money and means; and the people involved are no boy scouts.

Love, Desire, and Tension: Structural Editing of Nonfiction

Here’s the video of my presentation at the Editors Canada conference in Toronto, June 17, 2023. This is an updated version of the presentation of the same name I gave at the ACES conference in San Antonio in 2022.

nuptials

It’s June, the month commonly seen as most conducive to nuptials. (Also to nuptuals, but that’s just because so many of us are used to words like conceptual and actual that nuptial just seems like it’s too easy and must really be nuptual. It’s not.) Nuptials, as we know, is used as just a fancy way of saying weddings (or wedding – we seldom see nuptial as a singular noun, and not often as an adjective, either, though it has been an adjective longer than it’s been a noun). But, historically, it’s more one-sided than that.

As you probably know, weddings in our culture (as in many) have long been focused more on the bride than on the groom. Prospective brides will hear “It’s your day!” and “It’s the best day of your life!” and the wedding dress is typically a huge production. Prospective grooms will not hear all of the same things, and are expected to wear some variation on a standard suit – don’t try to pull attention. Because historically it just hasn’t been the same life-altering thing for the man. The woman was getting her whole new name, identity, and career! The man was “taking a wife.” There’s still some of this, though it has diminished a little with widespread acknowledgment that women are equal human beings and deserve to be treated as such. But back in Roman times, where this word comes from, well…

Well, it’s like this. If I pull my Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary off the shelf and look up “marry vt” I get the following: “(of a priest) conubio iungo; (as the man) uxorem duco; (as the woman) viro nubo.” So while in English I can say “I wed Aina, Aina wed me, and Reverend Taul wed us” or “I married Aina, Aina married me, and Reverend Taul married us,” in Latin there are three different verbs. 

What the priest does is conubio iungo, which has the verb iungo (ancestor of English join) and the noun conubio (nominative conubium, often but less correctly seen as connubium), which is from con ‘with’ plus nubium, which is from nubo plus -ium

That nubo is the same verb that the woman uses, and it means “I wed” – but a man would not use that verb, and not just because viro nubo means ‘I wed a man’ (a thing that men were not supposed to do in Rome). The Latin noun conubium for ‘wedding’ is – like, say, adoption or victory – based on what one side of the action does. And the same goes for nuptial(s), which comes from Latin nuptialis ‘pertaining to marriage’, which is from nuptiæ ‘wedding’ (note that it’s a plural, like nuptials), which is from nupta ‘married’ or ‘married woman’, which is the past participle of nubo. It’s the occasion of her wedding. The other person getting married is there by implication, but mentioned? Nope.

Nubo also shows up in another word we know: nubile. You may know that as an adjective for an attractive young woman. Its Latin source, nubilis, literally means ‘marriageable’ – referring to a woman, not a man. You can see how it maps out the life course for a woman: “that young lady is very attractive, which I will express by saying she is fit for marrying.” Ripe like a peach, and ready for plucking, so to speak. And if she wanted other things? Pshaw.

And what does the man’s version mean, uxorem duco? Well, uxorem is the accusative case of uxor, which means ‘wife’ (you may know the adjective uxorious, meaning ‘very – perhaps too – devoted to one’s wife’; note that we lack a corresponding adjective in the other direction, because it has never been thought of as a fault for a woman to be extremely devoted to her husband). And duco? It has many meanings and many descendants – yes, including duke, but also deduct, conducive, production, ductile, and so many more. Its most basic meaning it ‘lead’ or ‘take’. From which you may deduce that uxorem duco translates pretty much exactly to I take a wife.