fortune, chance

Dear word sommelier: At a recent graduation ceremony I attended, a speaker referred to “fortune and chance.” Aren’t they the same thing?

A person could be forgiven for thinking the two words are merely synonyms. After all, if we turn to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of fortune includes the word chance and vice-versa. But there are greater nuances. As I’ve often said, words are known by the company they keep. So let us have a look in another Oxford book, Oxford Collocations

Fortune has made an interesting trail from its transparent origin, the Latin word fortuna – which is related to fors “chance” and ferre “bear” (verb). Do you recognize the Latin phrase “O Fortuna”? It’s the opening words of Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana, and the song descants on fortune, which is visualized as a wheel, carrying people up high and casting them down. This is where we get Wheel of Fortune from.

And this image helped construct fortune as something that was not simply chance but fate. You can go to a fortune teller to see if you will be fortunate in life; you can go out to try your fortune or seek your fortune or make your fortune. Your fortune, originally, is your lot as represented by your standing in life; of course, from that it’s a small step to the sense “money, wealth” – because that’s generally how one makes one’s fortune.

So make your fortune and, even moreso, make a fortune now refer to riches. You can amass a fortune or build up a fortune, or you can inherit a fortune if someone leaves you a fortune. And Fortune is a magazine about money, which means about business; if you are on the Fortune 500 you have it made. It? Your fortune. Just as long as you do not encounter some unfortunate misfortune and suffer a reversal of fortunes as your company’s fortunes rise and fall and otherwise fluctuate, causing you to lose your fortune. You want fame and fortune; you do not want to be, as Shakespeare’s Romeo was, fortune’s fool.

Chance, on the other hand, has as a word been changed more by time and tide; it came by way of French from Latin cadentia “falling” (noun), from cadere “fall” – hmm, bear vs. fall. It is how things fall out, how the chips fall, how it all falls into place. But no one will tell your chance in the same way as they tell your fortune.

No, chance is typically purely stochastic, aleatory; we have games of chance. There may be a slight chance, perhaps a million-to-one chance, of winning, but you’ll chance it (note the verb form; fortune does not exist as a verb). You may succeed through sheer chance, but you’ll do what it takes to boost your chances, and you certainly don’t want to spoil your chance. But take your chance – you don’t want to lose your chance. Chance is opportunity. But not fully controllable; there is always an element of chance.

At the same time, chance can be subject to the decision of a person: Is there a chance you could – ? You can give someone a fighting chance or a sporting chance; there’s a fair chance you might even give them a second chance. After all, they deserve a chance; given a chance, they’ll jump at the chance if you’ll just take a chance on them.

If you look at the trees on Visual Thesaurus, you will see that chance has rather more connections – it is used more, generally – but while both words connect to a sense of “an unknown or unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another”, fortune also connects to a similar node but with positive outcome specified (as does luck), and to one for “your overall circumstances or condition in life”, and to one for wealth or prosperity. Chance, on the other hand, connects with possibilities, opportunities, threats, and measures of likelihood – plus the several senses of the verb: taking risks, happening upon something, occurring randomly.

Of these two words, then, fortune seems to be the banker in the bowtie, and chance the ragamuffin in the po’ boy cap. You get some of the feel of that, too, in the shapes of the words on the page and perhaps in their sound and feel. Fortune starts with that soft, lofty f; it moves to a smooth liquid /r/ and then breaks into a second syllable that has more of a bite and sound of coins to it. But that bite and sound of coins – the voiceless alveopalatal affricate, /tʃ/ “ch”, followed by a softer ring of a nasal /n/ – is what you get front and centre with chance, without the softening extra syllable to start with, but with a full-value vowel and an extra fricative /s/ at the end to leave off with a hiss, more strident than the soft opening /f/ in fortune.

Test all this out, sense, sound, feel. Swap the words in a few phrases. Obviously you do not amass a chance or look for fame and chance, but do you say your chances rise and fall or that you’ve had a reversal of chance? And you don’t take your fortune on games of fortune (though cards can be used for chance or fortune); you don’t talk about an element of fortune; obviously you don’t give someone a second fortune. And it would be odd indeed to say “Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer fortunes.” Or, on the other hand, to try to win on Wheel of Chance. ABBA may have made a fortune with “Take a Chance on Me,” but they wouldn’t have made a chance with “Take a Fortune on Me.”

Vichyssoise

Chop two leeks – just the pale part; toss the tough ends, which always come with the leeks and make them hard to stuff into your vegetable drawer but are inedible.

In a big pot, and I mean big enough to fit your head, melt a quarter cup of butter on medium. Yes, a quarter cup, and yes, butter. If you can’t eat butter, use olive oil, but by no means are you to use margarine. Especially avoid any product that has the words healthy, lifestyle, and/or choice on the package.

Toss in the leeks. Smash, peel, and mince a clove of garlic. Toss that in too. Stir it as it fries. Don’t let it burn.

Chop into reasonably small pieces about a half pound of bacon. Yes, bacon. I know it’s not in the original Vichyssoise recipe. I don’t actually care. Bacon is yummy and it works great with this. I especially prefer the Danish kind.

Look, if you’re going to be all on about tradition and authenticity, I think you need to know that this soup was invented at the Ritz Hotel in New York City about a century ago. Yes, the chef who invented it, Louis Diat, was French, and yes, he based it on a soup his mother and grandmother made. But they served it hot. He added cream and made it cold. And there are currently quite a lot of variations on it. I don’t know about you, but I eat for enjoyment, not ethnography. So, unless you can’t eat bacon, put that bacon in there.

Fry the bacon with the leeks and garlic. Toss in a bit of thyme. You can really add whatever herbs you think will flavour it nicely, but don’t go crazy. Heed the advice of Annie Wei-Yu Kan about emptying your spice cupboard. If you use bay leaves, take them out before blenderizing the soup. They make nasty little flakes otherwise. But just a bit of thyme is sufficient in my view. Also some black pepper, but not too much. You can also add that later or even grind it on your soup fresh when you serve it. Or skip it if you don’t like it.

And you won’t need to add salt. Trust me.

While that’s frying, wash and dice a pound and a half of potatoes. Notice I did not say peel. Just cut out any eyes or dodgy bits. The peel adds flavour, texture, and vitamins, and removing it is a waste of good food and good time. What kind of potatoes? Pick your favourite. Russet should be nice. Yukon gold could be pretty good too. Heck, you could even use purple ones if you want. I really don’t know what kind of potatoes they grow around Vichy. You know, where Diat grew up – actually, he grew up in Montmarault, but Vichy was the nearby big town, so he used the adjectival form of that for the name. Vichy is in the Auvergne, right in the heart of France.

Pour in four cups of chicken stock (vegetable stock is in my view an acceptable substitute; don’t use beef stock, you don’t want your soup to taste like gravy) and toss in the potatoes and get them boiling. While that’s going on, let’s return to the whole Vichy thing for a moment. The name of the town may sound like fishy but don’t confuse Vichyssoise with bouillabaisse. You’ve probably seen Vichy on some skin care products. This is because Vichy is a spa resort town. Another place you may have seen it is in World War II history. Vichy is where the Nazis set up their occupation government of France. The word Vichyssoise may even make you think of Vichy swastika, but that is not where the name of this soup comes from, and I’d better not see anyone sending around emails saying this is Nazi soup. In fact, some chefs tried to change the name of it in the 1940s so it wouldn’t be associated with the Nazis. But it was already well established.

Now add some fresh peas. I mean, yes, you can use frozen ones, but if you happen to shop somewhere where they sell nice half-pound bags of fresh peas, I’d go with those.

Yes, I know peas aren’t an original ingredient of Vichyssoise. See above about I don’t care. You don’t have to add them, but I like the effect. And it gets you your greens so this soup is a meal all in one. Some people use leafy greens instead. I don’t happen to like that as much, but whatever you fancy.

Cook that all until the potatoes and peas are soft. Let it start cooling and then add at least a cup of whipping cream. Yes, the full 35% fat kind. Do not wimp out on this. If I hear you’ve been adding whole milk, I’ll send someone to scratch your fridge with their car keys. If I hear you’ve been adding skim milk, I’ll come over and do it myself. And while I’m there I’ll pour some cream in your Vichyssoise so you can actually enjoy it.

If you’re a vegan, by the way, I’m really sorry to hear that, and there’s not a whole lot you can do to match up to the flavour of the cream, but maybe you could throw in some oil or shortening to up the fat content. You’re really going to need it, since you haven’t added the bacon.

Now here comes the part that really makes the name Vichyssoise appropriate. In batches (unless you have an incredibly large blender), purée it in your blender. You will hear the blender, as it slowly sucks the liquid down into a V and then a y and then swirls it as ss and s, make the sound “Vichyssoise.” That’s like “vish ee swaz.” Don’t forget that final /z/. This word is spelled with an e after the last s, so you know that the s isn’t silent.

Make sure, after you’ve emptied the last blender-full into whatever you’re going to refrigerate the soup in, to stir the soup so it is of uniform consistency.

Now chill it.

You may find that it is of a very thick consistency when it’s fully chilled. If you don’t like this, add some more cream or a little cold chicken stock when you serve it. But just because it’s soup doesn’t mean it has to be runny. It’s not like you’re going to try to drink it through a straw.

Top it with chopped chives when you serve it. Unless you forgot to buy any.

What wine to have with it? I think it will play nicely with any of a variety of whites, especially of the chardonnay or riesling sort. Perhaps a nice Mâcon. They also make some nice chardonnays in the Auvergne. Be leery of overoaked chards such as you may get from some American or Australian producers; between that and the soup you could be found on the floor in a stupor.

Because, honestly, this soup is killa. Your eyes will spring out of your head. It’s not vicious – it’s just possessed of a certain virtuous richesse.

rag-tag

Aye, we was a rag-tag bunch, us. A bunch a loose ends like torn an tattered fabric, odds an sods, this one from here, that one from there. We was mop chauffeurs, playin tag with our rags like a bunch a bobtail nags. Oh, “tag, rag, and bobtail” – yep, that was an old way of referrin to motley lots like we was. Guys in the sixteen-hundreds an on to the eighteen-hundreds used that phrase, or just “tag-rag.” “Rag-tag,” you know, it dint come round till the seventeen-hundreds. Seems like even then they couldn’t keep their tags an rags straight. Hell, I’d bet my money on the bobtail anyways, just long as someone put bells on it, and somebody bet on the bay, otherwise we get upsot.

But what was I sayin. Well, you know, you come into this world brand new like a bit a clothin in a store with the tag all on it. Now, you think I’m sayin price tag here, but that’s a newer thing we mean with “tag.” First off a tag was one a them bits like you get from slashin the hem a somethin. Sorta like them sheets with phone numbers on it, seen this stray cat, call me, wanna buy this car, call me, want guitar lessons, call me. An so from that it was any loose bit a fabric hangin offa somethin, maybe if you tug on a rug you get a little loose end. Sorta like a skin tag, you know, them little things you got hangin maybe off the back a yer neck or somethin. And that’s the way it is: even the newest garment is comin inta the world with a tag here or there on it. An people too. We all got loose ends from the start. Tag: you’re it.

Loose ends, that’s what we all was. Jimmy, he was a tight end once, like a football player I mean. But then that’s over. You start nice and crisp, like the “t” on “tag,” an then over time you jus wear down till yer soft an smooth an don’t put up no resistance, like the “r” on “rag.” So “tag-rag” was how it was, first off, cause it was from the two words, “tag and rag,” an then later someone swapped em. Like somehow you start smooth an then you get crispy. I guess maybe the tag ends on yer clothes get that way if you let em get real dirty, but I think it’s kinda the wrong way for the most part.

So we was rags. Not raggèd like jaggèd, ya know, but just the things that was once nice clothes an then became stuff you use to mop up with. What makes the mess clean. Takes away the sins. The spills an the dirt people brought in with em an all that. But that didn’t make us junk. We still had our use, we was needed, and we had some beauty with us, too. And some hope.

Cuz that’s how it is with “rag-tag,” ya know. What does it show up with? “Ragtag army, ragtag band, ragtag bunch, ragtag group,” an if you see a movie an the guys in it is a ragtag band a somethin, you know they’re not just scraps, they’re scrappy, they got spunk. Sure, they’re the lowest a the low, but funny how it is that the floor rags clean up, eh? The ragtag bands, they’re those loose ends that come together to make somethin happen. It’s like as if all the bits worn off the telomeres in yer DNA came together an made a whole new beautiful an unexpected person.

Hey, ya think I was a janitor my whole life? I useta work in genetics. But nuff about me.

I think a Siobhan. (That’s pronounced “shove on,” so ya know, so you don’t sound dumb or miss the point.) She was like a whole new beautiful person made a them scraps. Oh, yeah, and she had scraps hangin off her, too, she was a real disorganized ball of everything. But you almost didn’t want ta use “rag-tag” with her, cause although she was rags an tags, them words end with that thick sorta “g” sound, like a plug a earwax.

So I liked ta use the French word for “rag” with her. Worked real well for her. It’s such a fine soundin word, an it makes me think a cake an pie as well as fancy of fancy clothes. It’s “chiffon.”

Sorta like Grizabella the glamour cat, come back from her days of glory, covered in rags an tags, an she sings the most beautiful song in the whole show, “Midnight, not a sound from the pavement,” ya know. An then she is reborn. Imperfection ta imperfection, glamour to rags to, I dunno, some kinda apotheosis or somethin. An like “chiffon,” it’s how ya see it.

And Siobhan, she went up to heaven, an left the world a shinier cleaner nicer place than she found it, an Jimmy the tight end caught his pass, and the rest of us jus kinda frittered away, picked up our bags an swag an kinda zig-zagged on away. An now we get cleaned up after too. We passed it on, like tag with a rag. Now you’re it.

funambulist

I don’t know about you, but I just finished watching the broadcast of Nik Wallenda crossing Niagara Falls on a tightrope. Quite an admirable feat of focus, self-control, and endurance.

By which I don’t mean Wallenda’s feat – well, that too, to be sure – but the ability of the talking heads hosting the broadcast not to use the word funambulist even once the whole time (at least that I heard). I mean, they had a lot of space to fill with chit-chat – apparently it’s not OK just to let us watch the dude walk in silence for a while, they had to load it up with the safety harness of vapid prattle just as they required Wallenda to wear a safety harness, which he has never done before, and he sure didn’t like it – a lot of space to fill with chit-chat, as I was saying, and they seem to have gone to their cheap paperback thesauruses for a little help. Not too much: I heard maelstrom used at least three or four times to refer to the swirling mist and/or the roaring falls below. Clearly they should have gone to Visual Thesaurus. But somehow no one mumbled funambulist.

So, yes, a funambulist is a tightrope walker. You may well recognize the ambulist part of it, perhaps from amble and ambulate “walk”, maybe from ambulance – which Wallenda didn’t need, and which has long since ceased to involve a walking conveyance. Yes, Latin ambulare meant “walk”. (Never mind volare, cantare; the ability just to walk above those falls on that rope and talk while doing it was in some ways much better than flying and singing.)

But what about all this is fun? Do we mean to say they’re doing it for fun? Or it’s fun to watch them? Actually, the fun in this word is from Latin funis “rope” – which you see also in funicular, a railway that is pulled uphill (or lowered downhill) by a rope. A funicular that was opened on the slopes of Vesuvius provided material for the song “Funiculì, funiculà.”

But you can’t escape the sense of fun in funambulist – it’s such a strong taste right up front. It doesn’t have the tension carried by tightrope walker; it doesn’t have the burlesque air of the now-disused term rope dancer (which referred particularly to entertainers, usually female, who would dance and do other such stunts on a tightrope). It is not namby-pamby, but it may be a little humbler; however, it has the fancy Latin sound that the others lack. It carries minor swirling echoes of a variety of words with related sounds, such as finagle, shamble, ampule, fumble, finalist, nimblest… It also has a little echo of fundamentalist, which may or may not be relevant in today’s instance – Wallenda is quite evidently a devout Christian, and he talks like an evangelical, but I don’t know whether he’s a fundamentalist.

Funambulists have been around quite a while; in fact, I couldn’t really say when and where it was first done, because quite a few cultures around the world have traditions of that sort of entertainment stunt. But funambulism became very popular in America and England and similar lands in the 1800s. The Great Blondin in particular achieved his greatest fame with his tightrope crossings of the Niagara gorge – downstream from the falls – sometimes stopping to do such things and cook and eat an omelet, sometimes carrying his manager on his back.

The word funambulist has been in English since at least the late 1700s, anyway. But it had a predecessor, funambule, which is recorded from 1697, and funambuling and funambuler are attested from the 1650s. They are all long words, vaguely reiminscent in that respect of the balance pole funambulists typically carry. But other aspects of the words are, to my eyes, not so reminiscent of tightrope walking. They don’t have an even line of x-height letters; it’s broken up by the three ascenders on f, b, and l. The cross bar on the f is really rather short, too. And the softness of the word – that pillowy /f/ first, and then nasals and a voiced stop followed by a liquid, and only at the end the crisper /st/ – doesn’t really convey the tension of the topic.

On the other hand, Nik Wallenda didn’t really convey the tension so much either. He was amazingly calm and relaxed. Which is more than I can say for the hairsprays-with-mouths who were doing the commentary.

Thanks to Jim Taylor for nudging me to do this one now.

dubious

One of my colleagues reported having heard, yesterday, a politician introducing her boss (the premier) with the words “and so now it is my dubious honour to present…” – and saying it in such a way as to give the sense that she was not making a joke, but actually seemed to think it was a positive thing to say.

Well! That’s a dubious introduction. Was she smoking something doobie-ous? Of course, she might have grabbed the wrong word en passant. But I suspect she had picked up the phrase at some point without actually knowing the word dubious and had made an incorrect inference about it. Sort of like the veteran I once heard at a school assembly in the 1980s referring to World War II as “four score years ago” – he knew four score but didn’t know it meant eighty, not forty.

I do like the word dubious. It’s one of those words, like nauseous or doubtful – that can refer to the subject or object: you are dubious about something that is dubious. It doubles up! It goes two ways in the mouth, too: lips forward on the /u/ and back on the /i/, with tongue in counterpoint, and the consonants bounce between tongue-tip and lips. Likewise, the d and b seem like someone looking both ways, either dubious about something or up to something dubious. Perhaps an IOU is involved.

Dubious may put one in mind of a singer with dubious lyrics – doobie-doobie-doo – or perhaps of someone called Dubya. For me, it brings to mind an early encounter with it in – can you guess? – an Asterix comic. There was a Roman (naturally) character named Dubius Status. He was one of two centurions in Asterix the Legionary – the other was Nefarius Purpus. (I mean in the English translation by Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge, of course.)

Dubious does come from Latin, of course: dubiousus, dubium, dubius, all “doubtful”. (That b in doubt, by the way, was stuffed in by certain Englishmen who found that doute had come from dubitare and so added the b – as they also did in debt – just as a little reminder of the Latin origin.) In modern English, dubious is a word that most often tends to pair up with a short list of common words.

Status isn’t actually high on the list. But dubious most often modifies positive words that it is there to undermine: distinction (first by a long measure in the Corpus of Contemporary American English), honor (or honour outside of the US), value; less frequently, proposition, claims, assumption, reputation, character. And some more past that, in dwindling number.

And there are also some other teams you will see our questionable word du jour in. For instance, if a Wikipedia article contains claims that seem a bit iffy, it may have the admonition “[dubious – discuss]” put on it. Well, that’s lovely: we have just discussed dubious. Does that mean that Wikipedia is now fully reliable?

quagga

I am happy to report that this word is not yet another of those execrable nicknames the British press come up with for well-known figures (e.g. Macca for Paul McCartney and Gazza for Paul Gascoigne, a footballer). No, it’s a word you can play in Scrabble. Alas, it’s a word for an animal that doesn’t exist anymore.

A quagga is – was – a sort of zebra, but with stripes only on the front half; the back half was a solid colour (as though in a quagmire?). The shape of the word itself is only vaguely reminiscent of this for me – the vertical lines in the front-end qu followed by the rounder, non-stripey agga. These beasties were common enough in South Africa for eons, but the farmers didn’t like sharing grassland with them, so they were hunted as pests – and also for meat and hides.

But these beasties were thought to be just a slightly different-looking version of the zebra. So no one really thought about their possibly becoming extinct. A law was finally passed banning hunting for them – about three years after the last one died, in a zoo in 1883, and likely more than a decade after the last one was hunted in the wild. Cue Joni Mitchell: “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” And the quagga becomes quiet.

The name quagga comes from Khoekhoe – that’s the language, though Khoekhoe does look like it’s related to to quagga, with the paired velars and the unrounding vowels, doesn’t it? The Khoekhoe word was ||koaah, which starts with a velar-coarticulated lateral click – coincidentally the kind of sound many people of European origin use to get a horse to start moving – and, after moving through a diphthong that opens from rounded, ends with a velar or other dorsal fricative. It is apparently imitative of the sound the animal makes. I mean made. It came to be brought into Afrikaans, which added a vowel at the end and converted the opening /||k/ into just a /k/. The letter g – or a double g – in this, as in most, cases in Afrikaans is a voiceless velar fricative, as in ach and loch and so on. In English, we change it further, making the gg just a /g/, as we will. So the click and the fricative are gone, and most of us wouldn’t even have known they were there. The wild bray is become something more like a half-submerged duck’s call.

But the animal named by ||koaah and, originally, quagga wasn’t the quagga in specific; it was the zebra generally. Indeed, the plains zebra, one of several species of zebra in existence, is Equus quagga (boy, do I love the look of that term! such a beautiful pattern on the page!). The quagga is – was – a subspecies, †Equus quagga quagga (oh, please stop, I’m having a word-nerd-gasm – everyone please say “equus quagga quagga” five times, and the world will turn backwards). Notice the obelisk at the beginning of the Latin name, that orthographic tombstone: it says “There ain’t no more.”

But some people beg to differ. Just as there are still Khoekhoe and Afrikaans speakers maintaining the phonological originals of this word, there may be the genes of the quagga roaming around the grasslands of South Africa. Some people think the quagga’s genes – or anyway genes that would express its phenotype – may be available, unexpressed, recessive, in related subspecies of the plains zebra. A selective breeding program is underway to turn back the spin of time and bring back the Equus quagga quagga. See The Quagga Project’s website.

And why? Why bother bringing back what is really just another type of zebra? What’s the business case?

What business case? Why does there need to be a financial justification? Money is a means, not an end; it is just a medium of storage and transfer of value; we use it to get ourselves things that we value. Do you like the incessant, infinite variety of life? Do you delight in seeing a word such as quagga? Why would you not delight in seeing such a beast as a quagga, then? Another, and different, beautiful pattern on the grassland, eking out its hardscrabble existence, more than just a hard Scrabble word.

You know, sometimes we just don’t feel like having yet another too-late-realized loss to sing about.

corroborate, corroboree

I’m sure you know the word corroborate. Generally it’s used for accounts or evidence that strengthen a case. It’s from Latin cor (intensifier) and roborare “strengthen”; you may remember the word roborant, which I tasted about three months ago. So you would expect a corroboree to be someone or something that is corroborated, right?

No. That story is very much uncorroborated. The Latinate morphology may have had some influence on the English form of this word, but the word corroboree is borrowed (with small phonological changes) from an Aborigine word – a word from a group who lived near Port Jackson, NSW, and whose language does not exist anymore.

Or perhaps I should say it doesn’t exist in our here and now. There are other times, other places, other realms, other realities, in which we cannot rule out its existence. We tend to think only in terms of the constitutive framing of our lives: the narratives of our daily lives, the coherent threads we weave out of them. Interrupting these threads are other threads that are in separate frames, separate realities: we dream, and when we wake up we see that that was all in its own separate box. We go to the theatre, and we see a performance that is done by real people in real space, but it is representing an action that we process as part of a separate narrative in a separate reality with separate rules, almost like a waking dream. Even in a religious ceremony, you may in a more or less literal way reenact some happening from the past, from the binding mythos of your credo; its connection and its reality in the moment are matters of doctrinal dispute.

When you have these different stories in their different frames, are they like actors in different inertial frames of reference in relativistic motion, dilated in time and contracted in space but still part of one reality? Do they have traces in our own reality that corroborate them? Or are they more like peeks into other branches of a many-worlds view of reality? And will performing stories corroborate them?

Corroborate, I don’t know. But strengthen them, yes. And what is the occasion of this strengthening by performing? It can be a corroboree.

A corroboree, you see, is (originally) a nighttime gathering among Aborigines for performance – dance, music, costume – of narratives from the Dreamtime. They may be for celebration or similar gathering occasions. They are more than just theatre for entertainment, but they are not exactly religious ritual per se. They are beyond the quotidian – they are extra-daily, to use a performance studies term favoured by, among others, Richard Schechner (I did my dissertation on him) – and the audience for them may be restricted. This restriction can be a question of maintaining not just the frame (the set of rules by which that particular set of narrative threads is interpreted) but also its numinosity, its significance, its perceived power with relation to the constitutive (“real world”) and to group identity and cohesion. By keeping it more of a secret, and thus less corroborable in the sense we would think of, one may strengthen it: stronger because less, not more, widely known – but strongly reinforced in those who know. And these stories relate to things that have left their traces on the physical reality of the here and now. If you know the story, the reality it refers to corroborates it.

The word corroboree has a wider usage now. It can name tourist performances, for instance – cutely packaged representations that have the appearance but not the numinosity or other deep personal and cultural significance for the tourist viewers, who instead project their own fantasies and expectations on it; their search for “authenticity” leads them to something that, by very dint of their being the ones there seeing it, makes it irredeemably inauthentic, the far side of a divide with no ties in between, not two inertial frames of reference but completely different systems. The perceived possibility for corroboration leads to vitiation.

It can also name more general cultural performances where they still do have cultural significance. And it has come to be used more broadly, too, as for instance for a lively party – perhaps a cross between a jamboree and a shivaree (charivari). The sound of the word surely carries some of the rhubarbery of a hurly-burly. But it may be a disservice to its origins to use it so broadly, heedlessly.

And then there is the corroboree frog. You can see one at arkive.org. It gets its name from its striking yellow-and-black striped coloration. As it happens, striking striped body paint is a common feature of the corroboree, and the markings of this frog are reminiscent of that. I won’t say that its markings are quite reminiscent of the look of this word, but there is a certain pattern in the repetitions of letters: corroboree – three r’s, three o’s, two e’s and a c (which is like an e that hasn’t quite closed yet), and the lone b reaching above and giving a solid central support, like a tree with a thick base. The curves of the c, e’s, and o’s give it a repeating cyclic feel.

Repetition strengthens. If the very source of what is being presented is the performance and repetition of it, if that is its interface with our everyday reality, then repetition is its real corroboration, isn’t it? And if it is something we have produced out of our individual and cultural imaginations, then our own minds are not only the corroborators but the corroborees. As it were.

marquetry, parquetry

These words put me in mind of a ma-and-pa store, let’s say Ma and Pa Arquette. Both of them work with pieces of wood to make flat designs, but whereas Pa makes geometric designs, usually repeating, and typically (but not exclusively) for flooring, Ma makes intricate pictures with pieces of all shapes and a few other materials too, for box lids, table tops, and many other purposes.

The interesting thing is that although the techniques are very similar, to an extent variations on the same theme, the words for them – parquetry and marquetry – although varying only in one letter (and, phonologically, only in voice and quality of one phoneme, not even in place), are not variations on the same origin.

They do both come from French. Marquetry comes from marqueter “variegate”, from marque “mark”. Parquetry comes from parquet, which in this case meant “collection of blocks forming a floor” but which has had a variety of different senses relating to floors and enclosures, especially in courts and theatres, and which ultimately comes from parc “park”.

So… if you park a tree, do you need a lot? If you mark a tree, is it because you have designs on it? How about your marketing? I imagine most of us are most familiar with parquet, as in parquet flooring, which I have long thought of as Parkay flooring – a sort of oleo, I mean olio, of wood. (If that’s opaque, I’ll explain: Parkay is a brand of margarine; oleo is another word for margarine; olio is a crossword-puzzle-favourite word for a mixture of heterogeneous elements.) Actually, that’s not quite fair; marquetry uses more heterogeneous elements. The parquet floors one sees in apartments of a certain age (especially in Toronto, where there are squillions of them) are made of identical short pieces of identical wood, set down in squares (three, four, or five to a square) of alternating orientation.

The two words trace, as I have already mentioned, the same pattern in the mouth: from the lips, they bounce back (with a retroflex liquid on the way) to the velum, which cracks forward to the tongue tip, which breaks off with another liquid and then it all fades with a high front vowel. This could be seen as a design from one or the other, though not quite par for the course; it could be seen as like one of the little grooves one of my chairs has made in my “hardwood” veneer floor, marring it without easy replacement (as parquet flooring might allow); or it could be seen as a bit of lingual coquetry.

Oh, yes, coquetry. Another quetry word: par, mar, co. Of course it has a different origin again, though again French. That makes a neat trio! Any others? Oh, blast, yes – musquetry. Which is rather antithetic to coquetry. And then there’s raquetry.

But, though there is raquetry, there are only two words that share arquetry (which is an anagram of quartery, which, however, is just quarter with a y or quarterly misspelled), or, for that matter, rquetry. Wooden you know it.

frenzy, phrensy, frenetic, phrenitic, frantic

In Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick, he occasionally uses the word phrensies.

Well, now, that just seems like a fancy way to spell frenzies, doesn’t it? With that posh classical ph that shows up in scientific terms and assorted BS, not to mention slang here and there. It sort of makes the user look like he’s got a swollen head, so to speak. And the s in place of the z – it makes it look more like pansies or perhaps a bit of palsies, and perhaps phrases and nephritis and…

But it also makes it look like it’s related to the Greek root ϕρεν phren “heart, mind”, from which we get the once-popular phrenology “study of the mind through the shape of the brain and cranium”. Is it? Could our wild, fuzzy, crazy frenzy come somehow from a pretentious-looking Greek root?

Oh yes. It did all start with the Greeks. In the beginning was ϕρενῖτις phrenitis, “delirium”, literally “mind disease” – I’m sure you recognize the itis, which now normally refers to swelling. But we don’t think of a swollen head as being the same as delirium! A swollen brain, on the other hand, may cause delirium… that’s the modern use of phrenitis.

From that, anyway, we get the adjective form phrenitic, which English has had since the 1600s. But we had a cognate term rather sooner – a person afflicted with phrenitis was, in Latin, phreneticus, which passed through French to become, by the 1300s, English frenetic.

You know that word, of course! It may have originally meant “delirious, temporarily mad”, but it came to refer to particularly energetic bursts of madness, mania, wild excitation… and from that it was applied more loosely to over-rapid activity generally: the kind of fever-pitched hectic energetic flurry that leaves you frazzled. It may be an overstatement to match that to a scrambled brain infecter, but exaggeration is the mode of such things.

And if you’re so wild with busy distraction that you don’t even have time for that extra et in frenetic, you go with its sister term, also brought to us by way of French from phreneticus: frantic. That energetic /ε/ opens wider to an almost-wailing /æ/. Frantic sounds more like panting and hand-waving and calamity and can’t handle it. Also more like France, but I’m sure that’s just coincidence…

Phrensy and frenzy, for their part, are from a pseudo-Greek formation in Latin, phrenesis, again by way of French; the original meaning is “delirium; temporary insanity; mental derangement”. The phormer, the phancy spelling, is rarely used now, typically just phor prophetic ecstasy or demonic possession.

All of these words have that opening /fr/ sound that you get in frustration and fright and, on the other hand, frig and frottage. It reminds me of the rocket-taking-off sound that my Mac Mail makes when I send an email, all friction and liquid, fading into the blue, but when you say it your mouth is tight and clutched up: lips biting, tongue curled. A tense sound. And on the other hand they all also have the /n/, that nasal on the tongue-tip, a sound capable of sustained personal intensity.

And they are all, as a group, emblematic of English word formation and derivation. It can drive a person frantic. Not that it’s usually all that frenetic or frenzied – it takes place over time: a delirium, yes, but a tremendous delirium as words are gradually withdrawn from their origins and made – I was going to say our friends, for the frenzy echo, but do friends treat friends as we treat our words? or as our words treat us?

get

It was just after Montgomery’s and Elisa’s discussion of get-go and gecko that things almost came to blows.

Not between Elisa and Montgomery, to be sure; rather, the issue was with a prospective member who had joined us at the restaurant, a rather self-important specimen named Will Knott. He caught the end of the discussion on get-go and commented, to no one in particular, “I had thought that this was a society for people who valued the English language and knew how to use it well.”

“It is for people who love the language and wish to handle its words as fine ingredients in excellent dishes,” Montgomery said.

“So how did this one become a member?” he said, jerking his thumb at Elisa. “That’s not very good English. Get-go.” Elisa looked hurt and focused her attention on her wine glass and its emptying and refilling.

“You need to be sensitive to context,” I said, my hair starting to stand up on the back of my neck. “I’m not quite sure you got it. It was a colloquial recounting.”

He waved me off with his hand before I was done speaking and turned to Montgomery. “I suppose everyone enjoys a bit of slumming now and then, but I certainly wouldn’t allow such common – almost vulgar – words in my workplace. I handle important documents.”

Montgomery’s left eyebrow was arching ever so slightly higher and higher. “Vulgar?”

Get. Got. That’s not good English.”

Get is not good English?!” I exclaimed, almost disbelieving (I say “almost” because I have once or twice heard of others having the same view).

Will Knott sighed slightly and looked upwards for a moment. Then he continued speaking to Montgomery. “It’s a bit discouraging that you have members who are surprised to hear this.”

“Perhaps,” Montgomery said, “it’s that they wonder at your placing yourself above Shakespeare, Pope, Dickens, Thackeray, Emerson…”

“Shakespeare had terrible grammar,” Will Knott said. “Everyone knows that. Many supposedly great authors were sloppy with their usage.”

“You don’t like ‘Get thee to a nunnery’?”

“He was just trying to fit his meter. He could have said ‘Take thou holy orders’ or ‘Enter the novitiate’ or any of several better options. It doesn’t even make sense as it is. Get means ‘receive’. Receive thee to a nunnery?”

Get has a rather broader range of use than that,” Montgomery said.

“I’m talking about the proper definition,” Will said.

“I thought you said it wasn’t a proper word,” I said. Will made an eye roll worthy of a fourteen-year-old girl and returned to ignoring me.

“The Germanic root it comes from,” Montgomery said, “is one referring to seizing, taking hold of, grasping, obtaining, and such like. The word get has, of course, been in the English language as long as there has been an English language to be in.”

“A weak defence,” Will said. “There are always better words, just as with many other old Anglo-Saxon words. I hope you grasp my meaning. Not get, grasp.”

“I don’t know that you can always get away with such substitutions,” Montgomery said.

“Would you use that sentence in a government report?” said Will. “It would be better as ‘Such substitutions may not always be allowed.’ Or, to avoid the passive, ‘You may not always succeed in making such substitutions.’”

“They don’t mean the same thing,” I said.

“Could you be quiet?” Will said. “The adults are speaking.”

“Get over yourself,” I said.

He gave me a condescending look over the tops of his glasses. “Be less impressed with yourself.”

“You might want to try to get along with others,” Montgomery said.

Agree is a better word than get along with,” Will replied.

Elisa broke her silence. “Even I know that those don’t mean the same thing.”

“You do not know all the meanings of the word agree,” Will said.

You don’t know all the meanings of the word get,” I said. “And you get your back up too readily.”

“I am too readily irritated, you mean,” he said. “However, it seems to me that you are the one with a temper here.”

Montgomery gestured towards me and Elisa. “It is from members such as these that you must get permission to get into the Order of Logogustation.”

“Obtain permission,” Will said. “Obtain is a much better word. And join or enter, not get into.”

“You truly feel that this is the way to get ahead?”

“To advance, I believe you mean?”

Montgomery paused and glanced at his watch. “Well, it’s getting on.”

“The hour is advancing,” Will corrected him.

“Let’s get this over with,” Montgomery said, glancing at me.

“Draw it to a conclusion,” Will said.

“Get up,” Montgomery said.

“Arise,” Will said.

“And get out,” Montgomery said.

“Leave, exit, depart,” Will said.

“I mean you,” Montgomery said. “Do you get it now?”

“Understand it, you mean,” Will said.

“We mean get out,” I said, positioning myself behind him with two of the waiters, whom I had signalled to come over. “You will never get in. You need to get a clue.”

“The door is this way, sir,” said one of the waiters. “Don’t make us exert ourselves.”

Will Knott looked at us distastefully and drew himself up to standing. He looked for moment more and made a bee-line for the door, muttering “Disappointing!” loudly enough for all to hear.

“You ignorant git,” I said after him as he left, exited, departed.