floordrobe

Even if you’ve never heard this word before, I bet you can recognize it and nod and smile. Not everyone has a floordrobe, but more people than will admit it have one at least part of the time, and pretty much anyone who was ever a teenager will have had one (and I worry about anyone who made it through adolescence without one).

If for some reason the meaning is not altogether self-evident (perhaps you’re just a really tidy person), or if perhaps you just want to amuse yourself by seeing other people’s floordrobes, have a look at all these Instagram photos tagged with floordrobe: statigr.am/tag/floordrobe.

Got the picture? It’s like a flood of robes (and other clothes) on your floorboards. You may even need to seek a ford to get over it. When I was 13 or 14, I had to clear three little gaps on the floor between my bedroom door and my bed: one at the door, one partway to the bed, and another at the bed. Step, step, there. Now, of course, I actually use my closet – except for when it would be too much bother just at bedtime, or something like that.

And no, it’s not just a guy thing. All the blogs and similar sites that have floordrobe in them, at least of the ones I’ve found, are by young women about clothes: The Floordrobe (on tumblr), lexiesfloordrobe.com, the floordrobe (on WordPress), Hannah’s fashion-floordrobe, Welcome To My Floordrobe… you get the idea. Oh, and she might not like my saying this, but my wife has a floordrobe too. So there.

And yet, for something that’s probably been around as long as there have been floors and wardrobes, this form of clothing storage appears to have gotten the name floordrobe only quite recently. Most instances you will find are in the last half-decade to decade, and the earliest citation I’ve seen is one Word Spy found from 1994, from the Washington Post.

Say, how long have floor and wardrobe been around? Well, both are old Germanic words. Floor was flor in Old English and meant what it means today. Wardrobe did come from Old Norman French warderobe, a variant of Old French garderobe – but Old French got it from Germanic roots. And ward is seen in Old English: weard, “a guard, or guarding”. Old French robe, meaning “long outer garment”, meant before that “plunder, booty” (somewhat like the acquisitions those floordrobe bloggers linked above show, only of course we assume they actually paid for their loot); it comes from a Germanic source that is also the source of rob. Morphologically, you may note that floordrobe is as sloppy as a floordrobe: it has that d hanging there that comes from the ward that’s been replaced. But this portmanteau word works by the amusement of rhyming.

The vocal gesture of saying floordrobe is very, very similar to that of wardrobe; the only difference is that the /w/, with the lips rounded and the back of the tongue raised, is now /f/ – lips occluded with teeth, so a narrower opening – and /l/, which touches the tongue tip, and raises it at the back. In short, where /w/ is suspended in the air, /fl/ comes into contact like clothes on the floor. And it has the voicelessness of the /f/.

From there the word hollows into a mid back round vowel, which leads into /r/; it touches again at the tongue tip, /d/ (affricated due to the following /r/); then the gesture is reversed, liquid /r/ to back round vowel to a stop at the lips. If you say wardrobe slowly a few times, you get a sense of your tongue and lips as like a camera lens focusing back and forth or zooming in and out; the floordrobe version complicates it and makes it messier.

All that back vowel, liquid, retroflex, et cetera articulation makes the word suitable for a somewhat slovenly locution. Say it slowly as though your mouth were moving in molasses: “fflllooorrrrdrrrooobe.” It almost sounds like HAL 9000 slowing down in its cybernetic dementia. But you can of course say the word quickly, too: a flip, a shrug, a toss, like a sweater being gripped and everted and shrugged and doffed and ejected onto the rug.

orrery

You are in the milieu of an oratory, the floor around you reeling in the half dark, warps of sunlight from the clerestory woven with the woof of a lyrical aria, no, not even that – not opera or oratory but a spiritual:

I wonder as I wander out under the sky
How Jesus the saviour did come for to die
For poor ornery people like you and like I…

Ornery… are you so inured to the universe? But what is this arrangement of orbs that rallies around the origin of the circle dominated by the dome? Is it an horarius, an horary rotator revealing the hour airily? No, it artfully represents the errant planets – planet, wanderer: they wander, these spheres, in the music, in no hurry, and if you handle the gears they turn with a sound that is as liquid as the movement, a rolling sound that names the object: orrery.

An orrery! A whirl of worlds around the sun. A set of orbs wandering wondrously, such as this small one here that represents our own sphere on which we all wander and wonder. We know a boilery is a place where they boil, and a brewery where they brew; owlery is owlish behaviour, an antonym to raillery; so is an orrery a place where we have or or or, or a tendency to find such options, such alternate universes to revel in, a choice between horror and hooray in every rearing hour? Or is it really an errory, so error-riddled even its error is erring?

An orrery, really, is this mechanical assembly that represents the solar system. Designs have been made for such apparatuses through the eras, and various erudite minds have endeavoured to plan it, but in modern times two horarists, clockmakers, George Graham and Thomas Tompion, made the first as we know it in 1704. They asked John Rowley (a nice rolling word, Rowley) to make a copy for Prince Eugene of Savoy. In all of this, are we hearing of it being called a graham or a tompion or a rowley or a savoy? Hardly. But Rowley made another for his patron, Charles Boyle, fourth earl of Orrery. When he rendered it, he declared it to be an orrery.

And where is Orrery? Some rural area? In fact, it’s in Eire (Ireland), in the south – Cork. The peerage was created for the soldier Roger Boyle in 1660. The name is an anglicization of a place name, originally a tribe name: Orbhraighe. “Orb’s people.”

Wander around this orrery. Watch as the world turns; hear the wrangling gears of the music of the spheres, “orrery, orrery.” You are on the earth, one of our orb’s people, and this rounding ball is a representation of it all: in that spot there you are, regarding your earth, hearing this air. You wonder and you wander, whether you plan it or not, but you are always around this planetarium, this orrery, with all the ornery people, and all these ors to turn again.

bookstore, bookshop

Most ordinary kinds of stores and shops (e.g., grocery stores, auto body shops) do not have the dignity of a one-word designation. Purveyors of books have not one but two. Of course, that is a privilege of being a favoured haunt of those who plant, grow, and harvest words – the lexiculturists, the word gardeners and the wordyard owners, the noun brewers and verb distillers.

But while having two words is a luxury, it is not absolutely redundant. Just as two bottles of wines from neighbouring vineyards or different years of the same vineyard are different, so are two synonyms.

So… What is the difference between a bookstore and a bookshop?

Actually, the better question is, What is the difference between bookstore and bookshop?

The first difference is of course the shape and sound. The book is the same in both, a staple word in English; shop on the page is more angular than store, and so it matches book more forthrightly. Store has a sound as of a hobbyist’s rocket going off: small hiss, éclat, then a fading roar. Shop is more like a sliding door, for instance on the starship Enterprise: a rich hiss and then a stop.

But words are known by the company they keep, and these two words – store and shop – keep different company.

We see store more with ordinary commercial establishments: grocery store, department store, convenience store, hardware store, general store, liquor store, corner store, quartermaster store; it has a utilitarian tone and an image of massing set by the verb store, and you think of shelves laden with dry goods in storage (and then there’s cold storage), and you know – or don’t know – what’s in store.

On the other hand, shop has different aspects. It can be a machine shop or auto body shop, or it can be one of those great old staple focused establishments: butcher shop, barber shop, flower shop. That air of the old fashioned results in its getting the faux-archaic spelling in places such as chocolate shoppe and antique shoppe. Higher-toned establishments like it; a place like Body Shop is not a discount store. It seems to encourage spending; after all, who doesn’t like shopping? (Obviously a thrift shop is a bit of an exception.) While a store is a place you go to get stuff, a shop can be a place to go to be in and interact – definitely true of a coffee shop. (It is a coincidence, but a nice one, that it has an old homophone in scop, an Old English storyteller, poet or minstrel.)

Would you like to make a guess as to which of these two comes from old Germanic roots and which from Latin? Newer loans tend to be more precise and less value-toned, while words that have grown up with the language tend to have richer meanings and associations and more nuances of use. So it should not be so surprising that on the one hand we have a clipped-down mutation from Latin instaurare “restore” and on the other we have a word that in Old English meant about the same thing but was written sceoppa.

So, faced with a word on one side that smacks of tore and star and perhaps Boxster, and one on the other side that could make you think of butcher and chop and make you see books hop, but given those associations, which do you prefer?

Twenty years ago, I worked in a bookstore. Well, it was actually a Classic Bookshop, but I usually referred to it as a bookstore. It was in West Edmonton Mall; it was a large store, with lots of variety, but not that cozy, friendly feel you may expect from a bookshop. Nonetheless, when I wrote a little piece about it, I decided I liked bookshop better. Here’s what I wrote. You decide whether it’s a bookshop or a boosktore – or suitably either.

A Bookshop

by James Harbeck

The books are arranged in rank and file on the shelves, row upon row, some turning a shoulder to the customer in deference, others exposing themselves to full view. Many new ones stand eagerly in place, shining, ready to be taken home and read; elsewhere, veterans lounge in less tidy condition, their pages separating, their backs swerving, on top of them a fuzz of dust for blowing off into a ghost of a cloud, or sometimes even requiring wiping with the finger. The shelves accumulate dust, too, especially the lower ones; one may, in many places, use the bottom edge of a book to scrape a little roll of it, and blow it back onto the floor whence it came.

There are all kinds of customers: men in comfortable grey business suits who plop down a management book onto the counter next to their cellular telephones, and pay with a credit card; women, some of them younger than you would think, wearing Zellers’ blue shirts over early cellulite buildups and stacking $2.79 romances like pancakes; computer jockeys in a wide variety of attire, either earnest-looking young men, intelligent in aspect and unmoderated in enthusiasm, often casually dressed, or men in their forties, who bring the books up like one doing a duty, but either way, it’s one book at a time, almost always by credit card, and it’s always men – more women buy Playboy than buy computer books; young mothers, happy but tired, or sometimes just plain fed up, usually buying a few inexpensive hardcover children’s books and one or two easy paperbacks for themselves – and their children always want to ring the bell; tourists, all shapes and sizes, and once in a month or two one will get to speak French or even have to try one’s rusty German; people who plunk down ponderous piles of bargain-priced books, ranging from the quiet, greybearded gentleman who sorts through the “hurt” paperback bin, list in hand, to the occasional 12-year-old boy buying a gift for his father in the form of a very large and very inexpensive book, who cares what about; boys from 13 to 30 who inspect carefully the contents of the science fiction section, and girls of the same ages buying all nature of serialized, romantic and intriguing material; future – or present – Miss Marples (and the odd Sherlock wannabe, but no V. I. Warshawskis), with one or two carefully selected mysteries; and so on and so forth, most polite, many pleasant, only one or two in a year so rude as to make one beat a hasty exit to the back room for a vent-out and cool-off session. The rude ones are generally people of unclear thought and expression, who seem to expect a sort of E.S.P. on the part of a clerk and who automatically assume that this tie-bedecked specimen peering confusedly at them through glasses is an inferior sort of being.

There are kinds of pollution here, too, even aside from the omnipresent dust which can tend to ingrain itself into one’s fingertips. There are wax paper soft drink containers left sitting, used, on the shelves and displays; there are odd bits of gum (a curse on the placers!) and small wrappers; there was, once, the lady who used the previous day’s newspapers to clean up her child’s mess; and there is noise pollution. The roar of the fountains, 15 feet out from the storefront, is omnipresent, to the extent that, when they are inoperative, the store seems wrapped in an eerie, almost oppressive stillness. There are voices, too; rarely is one treated to the crisp chocolatey tones of whispered conversation, so common in libraries. On occasion, infants too young to know better – or not – scream incessantly. And then there is the bell.

The bell, like the bookstore, is big, a good six inches in diameter and four inches high. It looks like any other counter bell, but overgrown. It’s shiny but fingerprinted and a bit smirched, and it sits slightly askew on its black base. Behind it is the latest in a long line of signs, a cardboard rectangle bearing a request, neatly lettered in black with pink, to PLEASE RING THE BELL FOR SERVICE. (Few people who do not work in the store see the less tidy legend on the back: BELL SIGN DO NOT THROW OUT, and, in different lettering, RING THIS.) And ring it they do: from timid tings to wrestling-bell bings (accomplished with a rolled-up newspaper). Its tone is nice, not louder, as most expect, but simply lower than average. The amount of fiddling, bending and bolstering which has been enacted upon it by sedulous clerks in order to facilitate such sound – for its internal workings were faultily construed – is never appreciated by those who ring it.

A note on the ringing: it is mostly done when not necessary, frequently while purchases are being run through. If a clerk is actually unable to see the customers as they stand at the counter, the customers will often wait up to half a minute before following the instructions so tidily displayed before their eyes. People are less shy when a clerk is actually there, although most prefer merely to comment that it’s the biggest bell they’ve ever seen.

Every day, except weekends, two or more trolleys loaded with brown cardboard boxes come trundling down the wide left aisle and deposit their loads in a small area of cleared carpet near the back, and once a week a very large trolley, a sort of manually operated forklift, rumbles imposingly straight to the back room, stacked six feet high with cardboard cubes containing bargain books. These boxes stay in the back; the smaller daily loads usually return severally, in twos and threes, to the front, where they are dealt with next to the cash registers. Twice a week, also, boxes stuffed with magazines are trafficked, and once a week, a large, heavy package wrapped in brown paper is pounded onto the floor with the boxes of books: the British magazines.

A special method has been developed by one clerk for the unpacking of large boxes of paperbacks: a clipboard is placed over the open top, the works are inverted and the books are unmolded into four or six neat stacks as the cardboard is lifted away. Not all procedures are so tidy, though, especially if involving a box with an unsealed bottom. More than once, a hapless clerk has found his feet surrounded by heaps of books which have chosen the back way out. But the sound of falling books is usually met with restrained laughter.

There are plenty of falling books to be heard, too, for some demonic designer decided to construe shelves for this store which, while versatile, rest at an acute angle to their backing wall. Gravity thus feeds the bottoms of books into the tight corner formed, and the volumes, no longer being perpendicular to their shelves, lean forward and somersault onto the rug. More spectacular mishaps are managed by the bargain displays, which are in the form of pyramids: the volumes standing on the top, if unbalanced, will fall onto the next level, and, combining with the books there, will proceed to the next, and so forth, producing an almost-lethal avalanche of reading material. The closest customers will either guiltily attempt a hurried tidying of the mess, or remove themselves from the scene instantly.

Fallen books are always replaced eventually, if not always with great dispatch; when they’re on the floor, after all, they’re not going anywhere, are they? And sometimes employees will glance in passing at a dislocated book, but leave it untouched for an hour or more. They almost always have something else to do.

The employees may be seen: walking in between two points; encouraging the concise arrangement of their product; on occasion, surrounded by huge stacks of books and looking ruminatively at a bare pyramid, deciding how to build it; or standing, clipboard and pencil in hand, gazing at the shelves, looking for that one book out of the 35,000 in stock, the existence of which they must verify. If you approach them, they will be characteristically modestly polite, sometimes quite helpful, sometimes unenthusiastic. Their minds are to the task at hand, liked or hated. And if the till is the responsibility of a clerk, he or she will, at the ring of the bell, post with dispatch to the cash desk. This is usually the time when customers seem to stop them on their way, requiring some obscure title; the phone seems to ring more often at this point, too. Things happen in clusters around here. Breaks to the back room are always welcome.

In the back room ,which is smaller than your living-room but likely a bit bigger than your bedroom, the manager and assistant manager take up residence among the array of boxes, shelves and heaped books. A desk, a filing cabinet and various necessary papers, messily piled, may also be found. The clerks who take refuge there from time to time will read, eat, or, more often, swap rude jokes and irreverent insights. Conversation ranging from the benign to the potentially extremely offensive is slightly muffled by the door bearing the legend EMPLOYEES ONLY. Its open or closed state depends on the degree of secrecy desired by those within, on the frequency of traffic in and out of the room at that time, or on the amount of heat accumulated from the large electrical transformer which sits under a makeshift counter. The back room is the inner sanctum, where marketing secrets are kept, attitudes are let into the open, the odd cigarette is smoked. And it is here, with the door closed, that employees will take cartloads of paperback books, lifted of late from the shelves and the dust puffed away from them, and, bending the card-paper back, will grasp the books in two hands and rip, denuding them of their covers, and consigning glued packets of naked pulp paper by the hundreds to reused boxes, to be taken out to the trash compactor.

procrastination

Please forgive this divagation
but I have a little question
prompted by a blog
’s poetical suggestion:
Are you pro or anti crastination?

You know, there’s so much nastiness,
such pain and stress and sorrow
and mental haze and fog
you can bequeath to tomorrow –
in Latin, that’s pro crastinus.

There is one thing you’ll likely say:
why is tomorrow so crass
(as we learn from the Latin)?
Well, if it’s a pain in the ass,
we’ll find a way not to do it today.

It’s like a crunchy mastication
of the kind of mental food
that functions but to fatten,
a potato-chip attitude,
this word procrastination.

Frankie said “Relax, don’t do it,”
but I say be the master
and get the bad things done:
rip off the sticking-plaster
and then you’ve gotten through it.

I think if you weigh the pros and cons
when all is done and said,
it’s best to end with fun
and – whoops, it’s time for bed.

Thanks to Blue Moon Huntress and her lyrical and thoughtful poem “Consequences of Procrastinating about the Batteries” for inspiring today’s silliness.

monadnock

Spring comes thickly to this monadnock, this aboriginal inselberg. It sits solitary, a lush carbuncle, a furry emerald under a rug of green. There are no ranges of monadnocks as of Adirondacks and Monashees; a monadnock is a monad cnoc (there’s an Erse word for you, cnoc for hill), penetrating the peneplain, an instance of a type of which the archetype is Mount Monadnock in New Hampshire, grandee of Algonquian name: Mount Isolated-Mountain.

So sits this, as remote as Maunganui, as grand as Mount Doom, but no volcano. Still it erupts: the verdure effloresces, and the clines of this eminence are a riot of inflorescence: raceme, corymb, umbel, panicle, thyrse, spadix, verticillaster, spikelet, ament, catkin, strobile, elating side by each. Waxwing, chickadee, and nuthatch flit and peck in this boreal forest; in the crepuscule and accreting dark the spike-billed woodcock rasps its froglike call. And in the syntax trees we catch the scrape of the claws of the nesting clause, which builds its inset breeding ground by weaving twigs, sprigs, fronds, scions, and tendrils as it delectates the lexis that everywhere expresses itself.

For we are in word country. This monadnock of manic thickets is no mere geologic rampike nor escaped esker or spring-gone pingo. Every kind of syntax tree grows here. There are short sentences. Sentence fragments. Passives can be seen. Look for the imperatives. You may find following a vine of a sentence you discover yourself down a garden path.

The ten thousand things revel in their names here, grow juicy nasals and voiced stops and succulent liquids, crisp aspirated plosives, fricatives with stridor that outstrips susurrus and cicadas, and vowels, oh, ah, ay, vowels so long a cuckoo may exhaust itself flying singing along them, and curious diphthongs twining out aside and around, and short sounds that skitter and rattle as quickly as a woodpecker’s chips. The monadnock’s mossy boulders hum with the richness of /m/ and /n/ and turn the ear quickly with the unexpected post-nasalized stop /dn/, and then you crack the rock itself.

This is all fertilized by millennia of quotations and citations and attestations and instances. As you traverse the base of our inselberg you step over Melville: “His great, Monadnock hump.” You embark on the trail, your foot upon Emerson: “Monadnoc is a mountain strong.” The plants clustered by the spring, the source, the fons et origo of the brook that parts this forest, are nourished by W.M. Davis from an 1870 National Geographic: “In my teaching, Monadnock has come to be recognized as an example of a distinct group of forms, and its name is used as having a generic value. A long paragraph of explanation is packed away when describing some other mountain as a ‘monadnock’ of greater or less height.”

But beware the population of poppies on the pool’s perimeter. Their seeds are the very seeds of words themselves, but you may relax and be lax as you drink in and find your self drink ing on till you are under the in flu ence of morphemes. No, you must stay clear of mind, for today we stalk that prehistorical theriomorph that fertilizes, enriches, fructifies, fecundates, prolificates this forest and its undergrowth, the monadnock’s eudaemonic thesaurus.

guyot

“Guyot,” he said, raising his glass slightly in salute. “I’m doing some vine training.” He chuckled slightly as he sipped his Burgundy. “Ah, c’est beau,” he said. “En fait, c’est Beaune. Savigny-les-Beaune.”

“I say,” I said, “that’s a rather good Burgundy. Guyot, you said?” I pronounced it as he had, /gi o/.

“Not as in guillotine,” he said. “Like you got rearranged without the o. Like Jules Guyot, the French agronomist who invented the vine training method named after him. It’s a version of cane pruning.”

Guyot, whatever his first name was, did not elaborate, leaving me to look it up later. Leaning on his cane, he turned his flat-top brush-cut head (a military man?) to the nearby table, which was covered with glasses variously part empty, part full.

“Ah, look,” he said, “my namesake. As it were.” He started moving himself slowly towards the nearest chair.

It took me a moment to guess what he meant by his namesake. “A tabletop under water,” I said.

“Oui,” he said. “That is what a guyot is. It is an underwater volcanic mountain – of some size, at least 3000 metres above the sea floor and typically at least 10 kilometres across the top – isolated, and flat-topped, and at least 200 metres below the sea surface. Probably originally an island, worn flat by wave action and then gradually sunk by plate tectonics.” He set down his glass, pushed an empty dinner plate aside, and gripped the table edge as he eased himself almost glacially into his chair. “It was named by Harry Hammond Hess,” he said with a grunt, “whose theory of underwater seafloor spreading helped gain acceptance for plate tectonics.”

“I’m going to assume he didn’t name it after the viticulturist,” I said.

“No,” Guyot said, “after Arnold Henry Guyot. A Swiss geologist who taught at Princeton in the 1800s. Guyot figured out how glaciers move – flowing rather than sliding, and faster in the middle.”

I paused, trying to see the connection.

“Some have pointed out that Guyot Hall, at Princeton, housing the Department of Guyotsciences – ah, sorry, Geosciences – named after Guyot, has a flat top,” he said. He added, with a slight air of confidentiality, “This may not be coincidence.” He sat back. “But it is more of a castle-type building, and not so very much like a mesa in the ocean.”

He leaned his cane against the table and looked at his right foot, which he had extended forward. “Gouty,” he said. “I am sentenced to it by my name, it seems, though I had always hoped there was some sort of mix-up. I suppose it is better than a problem with the gut – oy. Then I would have to eat yogurt.”

I smiled. “Indeed. But Guyot is a nice, smooth name, and moves the tongue in a way similar to how one does when tasting wine.”

He smiled and picked up his glass. “Ah, wine. A pleasure, but –” he nodded to his foot – “a bit of a curse too. My volcanic toe, I would like it to be cut off some days.” He sipped. “Oh, dear. You know, I must not forget. Jules Guyot died at Savigny-les-Beaune.”

cormorant

The significance of this word to you will vary depending on your context and interests.

If you are a lover of Canadian literary fiction, you may think of the publisher Cormorant Books.

If you follow military aircraft, you may think first of the CH-149 Cormorant, a Canadian Forces helicopter, or you might think of a cancelled project by Lockheed Martin for a drone that was to be launched from submarines’ missile tubes. Which would be a funny reversal of direction for cormorants. I’ll explain in a moment.

If you follow ships, you may know that both the Royal Navy and the US Navy have had several named Cormorant.

If you follow Monty Python, you will surely recall this address by a headmaster (played by John Cleese) to his students in The Meaning of Life:

Now two boys have been found rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant. Now some of you may feel that the cormorant does not play an important part in the life of the school but I remind you that it was presented to us by the Corporation of the town of Sudbury to commemorate Empire Day, when we try to remember the names of all those from the Sudbury area who so gallantly gave their lives to keep China British. So from now on the cormorant is strictly out of bounds. Oh… and Jenkins… apparently your mother died this morning.

If you are a Biblical scholar, you may know that it is mentioned twice in the Mosaic law of the Pentateuch (Torah) as one of the birds that one must not eat. Here’s from Leviticus 11:17 (in the King James Version):

These are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

It’s also in Deuteronomy in a slight variation on the same. The Hebrew word here is shalak, which refers to its plunging. The translation to cormorant is sometimes questioned, but it’s reasonable enough.

So, oh, yes, by the way, it’s a bird that plunges. Dives, in fact. Quite deep at times. More on that in a moment.

The cormorant is also mentioned – at least in the King James Version – in Isaiah and Zephaniah, again in two similar contexts. But this cormorant is Hebrew ka’ath (“vomiter”), which is probably a pelican or perhaps something else entirely, such as a desert owl. Here’s the bit from Isaiah 34:11 (yes, I did notice the numerical relation to the Leviticus passage):

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever; from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it; and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

If you’re an ornithologist, or a common birder for that matter, a cormorant is not necessarily so portentous. It’s something you see by the sea, diving into the sea, emerging having grabbed a fish. In some places cormorants have been used for catching fish – the owner ties a snare around the base of the bird’s throat to keep it from swallowing large fish. So the bird gets the fish, comes back, and the owner pulls the fish out – prestifishitates it, as it were.

They are, indeed, birds known to have prodigious appetites. This leads to a figurative use of cormorant to refer to a greedy or rapacious person, and it’s something Warren Clements (he of The Globe and Mail) highlights in his recent book Bird Doggerel (Nestlings Press, printed by Coach House Press, available at better bookstores in the Toronto orbit), in a brief poem:

The Double-Crested Cormorant
by Warren Clements

I wish I were a cormorant.
I’d gobble all the fish I saw
And fishermen would find they can’t
Compete with me, so great’s my craw.
I’d kill the trees I nested in
And have a family so huge
We wouldn’t leave a single fin.
Après le cormorant, le déluge.

(The closing line is not a reference to the cormorant’s presence with respect to Noah, but rather a reference to a quotation attributed to Louis XV or Marie Antoinette.)

You may infer from the title of the poem that there is more than one kind of cormorant. In fact, there are quite a lot of them in its family, the Phalacrocoracidae. Some of them are called shags, evidently from their plumage. But they’re all Phalacrocorax one thing or another. They’re related to pelicans but don’t have the pouchy beaks. They actually vary in appearance quite a bit, and in size somewhat too but they’re generally not too small (the OED calls the cormorant “a large and voracious sea-bird”).

One nice thing about the word cormorant is that one doesn’t have to say phalacrocorax (a fun word, to be sure, but a nuisance even to type); another is that it is less subject to misunderstanding than shag (which also makes it less fun, though). The word doesn’t seem especially delicious or appealing to me generally, however; although it has overtones of korma (a kind of curry), Cor! More? (a British exclamation), Coruscant (a planet in the Star Wars movies), and marine corps, it also brings to mind moron and rant and ant. And although it has a smooth core made with liquids and nasals, and crisp voiceless stops sandwiching that like crackers, those two /or/ sounds have a rather lugubrious echo.

Lugubrious like Poe’s raven – and his whole poem about it, which uses that /or/ sound quite heavily for baleful and doleful effect. But, say, what is a raven? Corvus corax. Hmm… that corax… as in Phalacrocorax? Yes, the cormorant has been thought of as like a sort of sea raven (and not just because ravenous) or sea crow: corvus marinus. Which passed through some French and English mutations to become our word du jour, cormorant. I guess the rest got eaten – like half of the middle syllable when many people say it.

boson

The news is all abuzz with the confirmation (at the 5-sigma level, which is enough certainty for most people) of the Higgs boson. This is particle physics, so of course it’s pretty much Greek or Sanskrit to most people. But even if they’re all at sea, people still want to stay abreast of these things.

So… first, boson is not related to bosun (which is from boatswain, which is what you call the guy who’s in charge of the equipment and the crew work on deck on a ship). And it is not related to bosom, which has old Germanic roots. (It’s also not related to bazongas.) Nope, it’s from… wait for it… Sanskrit and Greek.

There are two classes of elementary particles: fermions and bosons. They are named after two pioneering physicists: Enrico Fermi and Satyendra Nath Bose. Fermions include electrons, quarks (some of which combine to make protons and neutrons), and a few other particles (neutrinos and mesons). No two fermions can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously; that’s a defining characteristic, and leads to the differentiations that have created matter as we know it.

Bosons, on the other hand, can occupy the same state. They’re fungible and you can herd them like sheep – into lasers, for instance: photons are bosons. There are three other elementary bosons – whoops, four. There are three that fill in the tidy grid that classifies elementary particles – they mediate the strong force and the weak force, and I think if I start explaining all these terms for noobs we’ll be here for a while (“o snob,” you think) – and then there’s the Higgs boson. Which is needed just because there’s nothing in the model for all those other particles that requires any of them to have mass. So there needs to be some all-embracing – catholic – particle that celebrates, I mean gives, mass. (You may know they call it the “God particle.”)

I’m not going to give a long explanation of the function and nature of the Higgs boson here when other people do it so well – for instance, this great video made from an interview with Daniel Whiteson of CERN, and even this tidy little article from the BBC. I want to get back to this word boson. This is, after all, a word tasting note. Knowing all about what the word signifies is an important part of that, but brevity is the soul of notes, eh?

I said boson comes from Sanskrit and Greek. Satyendra Nath Bose was Bengali, and his name – a fairly high-caste family name that’s been around for a millennium in Bengal – is descended from Sanskrit, and means (I am told) “forest dweller”. It’s a very common name in Bengal, and now around the world; another bearer is Amar Bose, an MIT professor who started a company that’s become pretty famous for making stereophonic equipment.

Where’s the Greek from? The on, which is the same on you see on electron – just the Greek neuter nominative suffix (various particles have this on ending, all modelled on electron, which for its part comes from the Greek word for “amber”, a substance that sparks when you rub it). Does that make on an elementary particle of English? Depends on how you spin it, I guess. Morphemes – which this on is in the etymological sense – are the smallest meaningful units, but then there are phonemes, the pseudo-individual sounds we stream together to say morphemes (pseudo-individual because, as I say, they run together when we say them, more like waves than particles, but when we hear them we identify them as separate: it’s our own linguistic version of the collapse of the wave function).

Not that all bosons are elementary particles. Any compound particle with integer charge spin (fermions have fractional charge spin) is a boson too, and is subject to a lot of the same rules. This is why, at temperatures near absolute zero, matter can start to become one incoherent mass just hanging together like a bunch of dopers at an extremely packed rave – a thing called Bose-Einstein condensate.

So you can tell the bosons by their charge and their fungibility. You don’t need to stick bows on them. They’re like the s and s in bosons – both are /z/ (though some people will say the one in the middle as /s/, with no buzz on it). They’re not like the o and o, which look the same but are said differently.

They also occupy symmetric quantum states, which is not quite like oso – though that has rotational symmetry. But in the strange and charmed world of particle physics, for all I know some kind of rotational symmetry will turn out to be important too, and the rotational-symmetrical pair of a boson will be a uosoq. You know, it has such a geeky charm to it that someone’s probably tried to make a theory that allows the use of that word.

But rotated letters don’t match up with rotated sounds. Boson has a springtime, bee-buzzing-in-a-blossom kind of sound; uosoq is rather harsher and more wintry, and looks like it comes from Inuktitut or Klingon. So let’s just stick with our boson buddy here, and not go for the bonus round. This matter is heavy enough as it is.

melisma

It’s Independence Day in the US, so Americans will be hearing their national anthem sung perhaps even more often than usual. And I’m willing to bet that, with current fads in singing, many will have heard it (as also at baseball and football games and so on) sung in a manner sometimes lately described as oversouled – a miasmal malaise of melisma: “O-oh, sa…ayee-ay-ayyy, ca-uh-aw-ah-uhn yoo-ee-uh-ew-oo-oo-hoo seeheee…” Oh, I smell a wannabe…

Even worse when you accidentally stumble into some “reality” music contest show or other, and they’re all trying to jam as many frills and trills in as they can, some of them (I swear I have seen this) tracing the air in squiggly lines with their index fingers as they do this. Talk about rhythm and bruise.

But while I have a dislike of pretentious oversouling, it would not be fair to tar all melisma with the same brush. Indeed, melisma is a foundation of western (and much non-western) music (with the exception of certain Finnish groups who seem to fit about seven syllables into the same note). At base, it’s just the practice of singing a single syllable over multiple notes. It can range from the long meditative but lifting lines of Gregorian chant (for instance in a Kyrie – click link for a video example) to the wail of a flamenco singer to practically every piece of Arabic song out there to Handel and Mozart and Hall and Oates to… well, take your pick. Not too many songs keep to one note per syllable. Not all have long and involved ornamentation, but I challenge you to find me a popular song (I don’t mean a kindergarten song) that has no instance of melisma: a syllable held over several notes.

Hardly seems even to need a word in that broadest definition, does it? And indeed the word melisma has only been in English since the 1880s, brought over from German (where Felix Mendelssohn used it in 1831), which took it from Greek – Hellenistic Greek melisma μέλισμα “song, air, melody”, from Ancient Greek melos μέλος “song, melody”. (Oh, yes, Greek music has it too. And long lines of melisma were apparently favoured in the ritual music of the Eleusinian mysteries.)

But it’s a lovely word, warm and friendly and lithe and, well, melodic. I feel certain that at this very moment there are hundreds of girls and women walking this earth with the first name Melisma. Why not? Warmer than Melissa, softer than Melody, longer than Lisa or Emma… It has not one phoneme in it that cannot by itself be sung for a long passage: /m/, /ɛ/, /l/, /ɪ/, /z/ (probably the least likeable, musically), /m/ again, /a/ (for singing, or /ʌ/ or /ə/). Reminiscent of mellifluous – which (cognate with French miel) refers to honey – and the Eleusinians and the Elysian Fields and perhaps Irish milseán “sweet, candy” and a smile and perhaps something lissome… And the isma could have been an ism like so many other isms, but the added a makes it so much more singable.

So while you may with justification dislike the many imitators of Whitney, Mariah, Christina, et al., I enjoin you to put them out of your head for a time and listen to Mohamed Khaznadji show how it’s done. Think of him singing the word melisma on one of his myriad-noted melodies…

Thanks to Doug Linzey for suggesting melisma.

preposition, position

I’ll start this word tasting note with a poem from Songs of Love and Grammar (71 poems with this sensibility, nicely laid out and illustrated, just $12 on lulu.com, or $3.99 for the ebook). It’s about something just about everyone has a position on.

Indecent prepositions

by James Harbeck

I met a buxom grammatician
and said I’d like her out to take;
back she came with proposition:
in let’s stay and out let’s make.

I proceeded with elation
her proposal up to take,
and so prepared my habitation –
out put cat, up bed did make.

In she came and, around stalking,
switfly over she did take
and declared, with eyebrow cocking,
that me over she would make.

Up she tied me then and there
and smoothly off my clothes did take
and while I lay with syntax bare
she with my wallet off did make.

The upshot of my disquisition?
It is how down not to be shaken:
accept indecent preposition
and you might well in be taken.

The poem’s actually a bit of cheat, in that many of the ostensible prepositions are actually parts of phrasal verbs: take out, make out, take up, make up, take over, make over, tie up, take off, make off, shake down, take in. And some of the remainder are really adverbial uses. But I’m not of the disposition to reposition my composition in the face of opposition; the central proposition remains, that such transpositions are unnecessary impositions.

What is a preposition, anyway? It’s not something that pre-positions something as you would, say, a cushion near someone prone to passing out. It just comes before (pre) a noun phrase and says something about the position, physical or conceptual, of the things on either side of the preposition. (Sometimes the following noun phrase is moved and/or deleted. The preposition doesn’t have to move. You may not like it, but you have to put up with it. It’s just something you have to put up with. There is no rule against it, just a common superstition with no basis in actual authoritative usage.)

Oh, for the record, since there are actually many people who think this (some of them giving “answers” at online “answer” forums): is is not a preposition. It’s a verb.

There are also postpositions. The difference between a preposition and a postposition is the position, of course – a postposition comes at the end of a word (or noun phrase), whereas a preposition comes at the beginning. One might say that a postposition is the positron to a preposition’s electron. We don’t have postpositions in English; if we did, we might say things like your head above or this table on rather than above your head or on this table.

But, on the other hand, what postposition and preposition have in common is, of course, position. This word, originating in the Latin positio “act of placing”, which comes from the past participial stem of ponere “put” (which is also the fons et origo of all those words with pose in them, plus some pon words such as exponent), occupies a central position in English – actually a final position in the at least 40 words formed on it, but the point is that, in spite of its obvious morphology (pos+ition), it is effectively a basic word in modern English.

Did I say at least 40 words have the form [x]position? Yep. Here’s a list I’ve made with help from the Oxford English Dictionary:

adposition
anteposition
apposition
circumposition
composition
contraposition
counterposition
decomposition
deposition
disposition
electrodeposition
exposition
extraposition
imposition
indisposition
interposition
juxtaposition
malposition
opposition
out-position
oviposition
photocomposition
postposition
predisposition
preposition
pre-position
presupposition
proposition
recomposition
redeposition
redisposition
reimposition
reposition
retroposition
subterposition
superimposition
superposition
supposition
supraposition
transposition

And then there are all the common collocations of position, among which are these:

starting position
scoring position
geographical position
defensive position
take up position
jostle for position
in position
into position
out of position
sleeping position
fetal position
strong position
favourable position
precarious position
bargaining position
trading position
put you in an awkward position
in a position to help
philosophical position
official position
first position, second position, third position, fourth position, fifth position
privileged position
social position
full-time position, part-time position, salaried position, senior position, junior position
sex position
apply for the position, the position has been filled
in a unique position

Possession may be nine points of the law, but position is a pretty good fraction of the language. In Visual Thesaurus, it’s connected to no fewer than 16 nodes – that’s 16 different valences of meaning, though they’re all connected to the same basic sense of being somewhere. No other word can fill in for it in every position: not place (you may adjust your position in a chair, but not your place), not posture (you can’t ascend to a high posture in an organization), not point or situation or role.

And what position does position take in your mouth? Mostly a frontal one. It starts on the lips, and the other three consonants are on or near the tip of the tongue; of the three vowels, one (the stressed one in the middle) is high front, one is reduced mid central, and the other – the first one – may be a back vowel when given full value, but, like the final vowel, it’s almost always reduced to a neutral mid front-central one or sometimes deleted entirely (“pzishn”). The consonants alternate between voiceless and voiced; the middle two are fricatives, but in slightly different places, one buzzing and one shushing; it ends in the nasal, which also nasalizes the preceding vowel and sometimes pretty much merges with it. (Try this: say “sh” and hold it, and while holding it open your nose and add voice so it’s basically a “n” with the tongue not quite touching the tip – you see how you can shift the sound without really shifting position, if you’re lazy enough.)

And the shape of the word? Eight letters; one descender, one ascender, two dots; almost-mirroring o i io letters. It’s not an especially fast word to write, what with the dots and cross. And yet this borrowing from Latin has become a staple of English – on wordcount.org, which counts frequencies in the British National Corpus, it’s the 395th most common word in the language, just after woman and real and just before centre and south. Pretty decent, eh?