aubergine

I am taking a couple of weeks off and am happy to present tastings by some of the avid word tasters who regularly read my word tasting notes. Today’s tasting is by Tachybaptus.

What a luscious word, with three long vowels and soft consonants including a gentle -zh-. As luscious as the generously curved, glossy deep purple giant berry it describes, made into a meltingly delicious dish rich with olive oil, smilingly served to you in a wayside auberge by an aubergiste as generously proportioned as the aubergine itself. How sad that Americans call it by the arid name “eggplant”; they are missing a lot.

But wait a moment, why should a vegetable be called after an inn where, no doubt, carrots and broad beans are equally on the menu? The answer is that it isn’t. The name is very old, and has come a long way across Asia along with the aubergine itself.

It has been cultivated in India since before records began, and its first known name is the Middle Indo-Aryan *vātiñjaṇa or vātiṅgaṇa (the asterisk denotes a hypothetical reconstruction of a word not actually found). In Sanskrit it became vātiga-gama, and the modern word in Hindi is baiṅgana, while in Urdu it is baingan.

But long before that, the plant had started on its way westward. In Persia it acquired the name bādingān, and when it reached the Arab lands it became (al-)bāḏinjān. Well, with the addition of the Arabic definite article al-, you can see where this word is going, but there are more detours on the way.

When the Arabs took Spain, the aubergine marched with them, and its name went into Spanish as berenjena. From here it jumped sideways into Portugal as beringela a name that was later to travel east again through the Portuguese colonies and return to India as brinjal, familiar from the Indian English language of restaurant menus.

From Spain the plant and its name did not penetrate the rest of Europe until some decades after the Reconquista, in the early 16th century. It is found in Catalan as albergínia.

Farther east, there had been another deviation: a metathesis, or shifting of consonants, caused the name to get into medieval Greek as μελιτζάνα (melitzana) and then into botanical Latin as melongena, first seen in 1561. It is thought that the name was influenced by the Greek word μέλας (melas), “black”, because of the dark colour of its skin.

Not all aubergines are dark: they range from white, sometimes streaked with pale mauve, to the deepest purple, and in size from the tiny, bitter Thai “pea” aubergines to the great truncheons seen in the west. The English name “eggplant” was given to an egg-sized and -shaped white variety in 1767.

The modern botanical name of the plant is Solanum melongena, and that points to another obstacle in its path. It is related, and visibly similar, to the black nightshade, Solanum nigrum, whose little black fruits look like miniature aubergines, and are poisonous. It was feared that the aubergine was poisonous too. In Italy, where its name is melanzana, it is popularly said that this comes from the Latin mala insana, “mad apple”, because it drives those who eat it insane.

(The closely related potato, Solanum tuberosum, whose berries actually are poisonous, met equal resistance in Europe and in some regions was still shunned in the 18th century. When the American scientist Benjamin Thompson was employed by the Prince-Elector of Bavaria in 1785 to devise a cheap but nourishing soup for the inhabitants of workhouses, he found that it was necessary to boil the potatoes behind a screen until they fell apart, or the starving inmates would refuse to touch the soup. For this work he was awarded a title of the Holy Roman Empire, and became Count Rumford.)

Finally, after its long and circuitous journey, the noble fruit acquired its French name aubergine in 1750, from Catalan. In 1794 the word arrived in England, where the name “eggplant” was already current and had crossed the Atlantic.

In Turkey, where through a different metathesis its name has become patlıcan (c is pronounced like English j), the aubergine is made into the famous dish İmam bayıldı, which means “the imam fainted”. Some say that this dish of aubergine stuffed with onion, garlic and tomatoes and braised in oil is so delicious that it caused the cleric to collapse with pleasure; others that he keeled over in horror when he found out how much expensive olive oil had gone into its preparation. The aubergine’s sponge-like ability to absorb oil is sometimes mitigated by salting before cooking to wilt it, though it is hard to wipe enough salt off the slices before cooking.

According to the Free OnLine Dictionary of Computing, “aubergine” is “A secret term used to refer to computers in the presence of computerphobic third parties.” In French slang it means a traffic warden, from their purple uniforms.

Back in its native land, the aubergine has entered folklore. At tinyurl.com/bl7lrzh you will find the enchanting story of Princess Aubergine, who grew inside the fruit and was liberated from it to attract the eye of a king and the jealousy of a wicked queen. This story was collected by the indefatigable writer and folklorist Flora Annie Steel and published in her book Tales of the Punjab in 1894. It was, she said, told to her by “an old woman at Kasūr in the Lahore district.”

moksha

I am taking a couple of weeks off and am happy to present tastings by some of the avid word tasters who regularly read my word tasting notes. Today’s tasting is by Anand Shukla.

Moksha is the ultimate destination for all as far as Hindu philosophy goes. It’s the Hindu equivalent of Nirvana in Buddhism. You would find it most often with Karma, reincarnation, and Maya, because Maya is the tool by which the impersonal Self creates the illusion of separation, suffering (Karma) and ego (personal-self). Maya is inert but still holds key for the divine play called Lila, of which Moksha is just a part. Lila is the play in which illusion of suffering (Karma) and separation is created by Maya for the entertainment of impersonal self.

Moksha is also known as Jeevan-Mukti, Mukti, Arhata, Satori (glimpse of Samadhi), Samadhi, Emancipation, Uddhara, The Way, and Aum. Moksha is also name of a language. It’s a Russian language spoken in the Finnic branch of the Uralic language family, by about half a million people in the western and southern parts of Mordovia, a dependent republic within Russia, and in some of adjacent regions.

How do you pronounce Moksha? You stretch your lips out together in almost a circular shape, similar to the way you do when you want to kiss, and let the sound of “Mo” be created, and then your tongue touches your palate and creates the sound of “ksh” by cutting air out. It’s similar to the “k-Shhhhh” sound created with the one finger on your lips to hush someone, with the only difference that it’s slightly less stretched and you cut air out sharply.

As with most of the Hindi words, the Moksh became Moksha in English. Mumukshu is someone who has had enough of cycles of birth and death. Mumukshu is like Bodhisattva in Buddhism but the only difference is that Mumukshu is hell-bent on getting Moksha, which is perhaps still an achievement for him, whereas Bodhisattva postpones his own enlightenment and keeps helping everyone out of their suffering because of his immense compassion. Mumukshu is the one who works day and night for attaining liberation. Mumukshu is not the Mummu, the spirit of pure Chaos; it’s also not the Momos (A Nepali-Tibetan dish) or Momus, the Greek god of satire, criticism, and writers; rather, it’s a soul devoted to sole goal of ending suffering forever.

A Moksha in time saves two incarnations too many. I hope this is true, because Moksha takes its own time. Moksha is not Mocha, the dark coffee from selected beans from Arabia; neither is it moksa: various cycles of rebirth in various forms. Moksha might be something worth Monkish people, but it’s certainly not achievable if you remain too mawkish too long, because sensitivity helps in initial stages but then you need to transcend thoughts and emotions in order to get Moksha. It’s not related to Mosaic Laws given to the Israelites by Moses; neither is it related to Hindi Moja for socks.

The first recorded use of this word is in Upanishadas, which were written by Aryans in India. This was used in Adaivaita Vedanta Philosophy of Shankaracharya. Jeevan-Mukti, a compound of Jeevan (life) with Mukti, is also frequently used for Moksha.

The Sanskrit root muc, meaning “to let free”, is used in both Moksha and Mukti. Atma-jnana, which literally means “Self-Knowledge,” is a synonym of Moksha. The Moksha is the end of illusion of separation and suffering, it’s ultimate unity at which Yoga aims, it’s Henosis, it’s the true reality of all realities. Moksha, unlike Salvation, is final emancipation, the Uddhara of a soul.

It’s Fana in Sufism; Murquaba – the true death, the annihilation, the dissolution in the ultimate truth, after which there are no deaths. It’s also known as Kaivalya or Kaival-Jnana in Jainism. Abrahamic religions don’t have a concept of Moksha, because after-life is somewhat similar to the life here, only with the paradise or hell forever. Moksha is enlightenment, Atman, Self, Illumination, Buddhatva, Buddhahood, Bodha, Kensho, Prajna, Atmabodha, Bodhi, Jnana, Sambodhi, Jagriti, Tathata, Bramhan and Ananda.

Moksha is not an achievement, therefore there is no competition. More realized souls are more realized because they were less realized in earlier incarnations and hence suffered, and less realized souls of today will be more realized souls of tomorrow because they are burning their Karma off today and so and so on. There are no timestamps in the dimension where Moksha happens, so contrary to what that Guru-next-door tells you, there is no urgency. Enjoy that cup of your coffee, or glass of wine and wait for the kick by Maya and you will get it!

pollex

This word makes me think of online polling, formal or informal – all those thumbs-ups (which, in a place like Facebook, can lead to useful cross-pollination). In fact, I could take it for the name of a polling company (like Pollara) or the charge card they put their expenses on (or the drug they take to deal with hay fever – sorry, that’s Pollinex). But you know it’s possible to push and pull with polling by expert pollution of the lexis; in a popularity poll of pollices, who polices the policies that, when you peel away the pixels, appal or appeal to hoi polloi?

Ah, push pollsters. I’d love to place those lickspittle pillocks on poles and express them out of the polis. But why pay the expense of the deportation? Let them thumb their way out of town, pollex by pollex on the turnpike.

So what is a pollex? Here’s another hint:

Jack Horner minor,
A corner-bound diner,
In pudding of Noel delighted;
Pollex introduced,
A gage he produced,
And thereby his goodness indited.

Indeed, that humble digital member, the toe of the hand (indeed its hallux), has this alternate name taken straight from the Latin unaltered. How important it sounds! Mark Mandel has marked it: “I’ve always wanted to write a story – preferably to be read aloud – specifically to include the line ‘He swore by Hallux and Pollex he would hang them’ – very painful indeed and quite possibly crippling, but neither a fatal punishment nor a godsbound oath.”

I find this a very stylish-looking word, that nice primped p in front, the clean o following, then the modernist or pin-stripe ll, and for a bit of variation the e; at last, that most eye-catching letter, x. And it starts with a clean pop of a /p/, runs through a tongue-tip liquid, then hits voiceless stop at the back and returns to fricative at tongue-tip. We will ignore just how similar it is to bollocks. Anyway, the plural of bollocks is not bollices (though the thought amuses me), but – in keeping with the Latin -ex pattern – the plural of pollex is pollices, because in English we just lurrrrve taking plural inflection undigested from soure languages.

Pollex is not a very frequently used word, to be sure, though Romance languages have cognates of it as standard. It happens, though, that as a I thumbed through the web looking for instances, I found that POLLEX is also the name of the Polynesian Lexicon Project, a website I shall surely return to to find out more about Gilbertese, Hawai‘ian, and most immediately Maori. Thumbs up for descriptive linguistics!

hallux

I won’t bother teasing you on this word, as everyone who read yesterday’s tasting of vamp knows already that it’s the big toe – or, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, “The innermost of the digits (normally five in number) of the hind foot of an air-breathing vertebrate; the great toe.”

Great toe? What’s so great about it, really? But, lowly though its object may be, this word does sound somehow darkly magical, perhaps a constellation on some mage’s tall hat – or a word from an incantation. It resounds with hollow echoes of hallows, horcrux, hex, Pollux, haruspex, helix, hallucinate, and fiat lux, but also a bit of halloumi and an Electrolux – and afflux, efflux, influx, reflux, flux, and Benelux.

The sound of the echoes collects and comes to collision much as the sound of the word itself does: first a breath, a simple sifflet of ruach, and then from it comes the voice of the vowel [æ]; it allows next the channel of a liquid, represented on the page with ll; but that pulls back to a central vowel and then it all collapses, front and back, a stop and a tight fricative: [ks].

That x also makes me think of a joint, just as the ll make me think of digits. And we must not forget that this is a word for that toad of the body, a toe: something you might stub on a lump of kjerulfine. Our word du jour is simply mystical because it’s classical; the mundane has been transmogrified.

Well, the Latin word for “big toe” was undoubtedly mundane to the ancient Romans too. Picture a Roman child wailing plaintively “Allex meus dolet!” (“My big toe hurts!”)

Oh, yeah: the Latin for “big toe” was actually allex. A variant was hallex, with an unpronounced h. But the English form is what Oxford calls “corrupted” – and I might call mutated. Transmogrified. A mystical change caused retroactively by the future incantation of its ex-chrysalid magical form. Or perhaps of that rhyme that I, like many, learned in my youngest years: in response to “So?” you recite “So, so, suck your toe all the way to Mexico.”

Hmmm… a luxury Mexican halluxigustation… a lexical hallucination of lickable halluces (that’s the plural of hallux), but perhaps an excellent elixir of relaxation… sounds great toe me.

New ebook, and send those guest tastings in

Just a little two-fer note:

1. Songs of Love and Grammar is now available as an ebook as well as in a print edition. (The print edition is prettier but the ebook is cheaper.)

2. If you’re writing a guest word tasting for me to post next week or the week after, send it in! I’d like to get them all ready before I leave.

 

vamp

I decided to revamp my footwear a little, so I bought a new pair of shoes. I wore them today, and they’re nice, but they do need some more wearing. The vamp keeps biting down on the metatarsophalangeal joints, especially of the hallux. Sucks a little.

Whoa! Did you feel like you just took a sudden turn into fantasy fiction? Perhaps I broke into a little free extemporization? Is it a vamplified text?

I should explain that your hallux is your big toe (boy, that’s a word I need to taste, and soon). The metatarsophalangeal joint is the joint where a toe joins the foot – or individuates from it, if you see it the other way. And the vamp? Female readers probably know this already; my wife sure does. (Guys may pay less attention to the construction of their footwear.) It’s the part of a shoe covering the top front of the foot up to the toe cap (if there is one).

But why vamp? I get an image of Dracula as a foot fetishist. Or perhaps of some husky-voiced Jessica Rabbit type, a real maneater (va-va-voom). This is a quick bite of vampire, which comes from the Hungarian vampir. My shoes may be black and grey, but vampires come with lots of black and red. The very v of the word brings to mind the widow’s peak of the vampire’s hairline – or the plunging neckline on the vamp’s dress.

But no: etymologically, something’s afoot. Something’s a forefoot, in fact: French avant-pied, which – way back in Old French – was avantpié, becoming in Norman French vampé, and in English vampe, ultimately vamp. The beginning and end got bitten off – after all, the word starts with the teeth biting the lip, and ends shortly thereafter with the lips pressed together; how could any of it on either side of those constrictions not fall away?

But never mind that. It could still get around. In fact, that word, which referred first to the part of a stocking that covered the ankle and foot, and then came to refer to the piece of a shoe covering the top front of the foot, has come also to refer to patching, repairing, renovating, furbishing, and from there to improvising – particularly musical extemporizing. And of course the verb revamp comes from the “renovate” sense.

Come to think of it, all those new vampire books and movies and TV shows are sort of revamping the whole vampire idea. But I’d just as soon give them the boot. Not with my new shoes, though.

kjerulfine

This word caught my eye first because of its opening kj. That seems a rather hard juxtaposition, no? But it’s really a sign of a Scandinavian origin – in this case Norwegian. In fact, it represents the consonant sound heard in German ich: a voiceless alveopalatal fricative. Anglophones are more likely to say the kjer as like “care” with a “y” before the vowel (in other words, a sort of stereotypically “American” pronunciation). But as long as you’re reasonably careful, you’ll be fine.

Speaking of being reasonably careful, is it just me, or does this word seem to you, too, like a depiction of someone stumbling over a rock, almost going for a header but catching themself and carrying on? The kj stubbing the toe of the shoe, the er falling forward, the ulf catching the fall and stumbling, and the fine being, well, fine…

And what kind of rock would they be stumbling over? Perhaps a piece of kjerulfine. Yes, this is another Scandinavian mineral (see ytterbium for more). Funny – if we see a word from many a modern language showing up in English – such as Afrikaans, Greek, Italian, French, Spanish – there’s not a bad chance it’s for some food item. But so far I keep running into minerals when the words are Scandinavian.

Well, that’s fine. The other thing I get lots of from Scandinavia is rock. Not rocks as in minerals; I mean rock music. A fair amount of metal, actually. Again I mean the music. But if you think heavy metal is frightful, here’s news for you: the mineral that is called kjerulfine is actually just a variety of wagnerite.

Wagnerite! Well, that’s a name for a person who is an adherent of the music of Richard Wagner. Which is surer to take the paint off an old fridge (and scare the fridge right into the junkyard) than any folk death metal to come creeping out of Norway.

So this generally ugly rock (a sort of Alberich of minerals, a combined phosphate and fluoride of iron and magnesium, light tawny in colour) is named after the forger of the Ring?

Whew. No. It’s named after F.M. von Wagner, a mining official from 19th-century Germany. (Those Valkyries were harrowingly close there.)

But wait. What about Kjerulf? If we have kjerulfine, there must be a kjerulf. Who was he?

Theodor Kjerulf, a 19th-century professor of mineralogy. He also has a glacier named after him way down on South Georgia (near Antarctica). But of course this rock has such a dual and misleadingly musical nature, wouldn’t it be nice if there were a composer named Kjerulf?

Which of course there is: Halfdan Kjerulf. He was born 10 years before Theodor and died 20 years before him, and they both lived in Oslo (at the time called Christiania). I don’t know if they were close relatives. He put effort into cultivating classical music in Norway (he introduced the public there to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony), and was much admired by Edvard Grieg. Here, here’s a lovely little piece of his called “Spring Song,” which you can listen to while looking at pictures of rocks and glaciers: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHZAtQdxjmg. I think it has a certain lapidary quality.

leveret, levirate

A few of us were lounging around in Domus Logogustationis (the local headquarters of the Order of Logogustation), mostly reading, occasionally exchanging comments on various words.

Elisa Lively looked up from her book. “What’s a levirate?”

“A leveret?” said Maury, barely glancing up from his magazine. “A young hare.” He returned to his reading.

“Oh, thanks,” Elisa said. Pause while she looked back at her book. “Huh.” Another pause. “Huh.” She looked up again. “Because this book uses the term all the time but doesn’t define it. But that doesn’t really clear things up all that much. Young hair.”

“No?” Maury looked over the top of his magazine and peered over at Elisa’s book, but the title of it was not visible at his angle. “There are some other senses based on that, though they are not really in current use.”

“Such as?”

“Oh, a spiritless person. Or a mistress.”

“Oh. That must be what it is. Hm.” Another pause. “So a levirate is a mistress because of the link between hair and tresses?”

“Hair and…” Maury was fleetingly confused, and then realized the confusion, or at least part of it. “Hare as in like a rabbit. H-a-r-e.”

“But… so… OK. I thought maybe it was some kind of game or an instrument or something. But I can see some relation to keeping a mistress.”

“Well, rabbits are a kind of game. As are hares. You can hunt them.”

“But can you practise them?”

“Can you what?”

“I guess when they say practise the levirate they mean they’re in the practice of keeping mistresses. I mean, I don’t see where little animals really come into this.”

“What are you reading?” Maury was straining forward in his seat trying to see the book. “I take it it’s not lagomorphology.” Elisa opened her mouth to ask a question, which Maury anticipated. “The study of rabbits, hares, and pikas, and such like.”

“Oooh, I love pikas!” Elisa said. “But no, it’s anthropology. They’re talking about some cultures in New Guinea.”

“They have hares there?”

“Well, the thing is, I thought maybe they were more interested in heirs. Because they’ve been talking about marital customs and widows and…”

Maury, finally cluing in, cut her off. “Lee-virate! That,” he said, holding his finger in the air, “is what you want.”

“Leave her at that? What, as a widow? She gets a hare for an heir? Or they want to get her out of their hair? Or does she become someone’s mistress?”

“No, it’s a different word,” Maury said. “I thought you said leveret, l-e-v-e-r-e-t. Which is a small hare. It comes from Old French, and ultimately from Latin lepus, ‘hare’. But you mean levirate” – here he pronounced the first syllable as “lee” again – “which comes from Latin levir, ‘husband’s brother’.”

“So I was saying it wrong?”

“No,” Maury said, “the way you were saying is also acceptable. But ambiguous.”

“So neither word has to do with Levites or French lips,” Elisa said. (French for “lips” is lèvres.) “Or lovers. But I’m still confused. They practise the brother-in-law?”

“A widow marries her husband’s brother. This is actually in Mosaic law, in Deuteronomy: if a man dies before his wife has a child, she has to marry the man’s brother to have a child with him. But there is an escape clause: they can renounce the right to marry and the woman is free to marry someone else. Obviously the latter is the norm today, where that law is observed at all. It alleviates the lover-and-levirate problem.”

“It’s like the brother is the reliever,” Elisa said. “So these people in New Guinea are Jewish? Talk about lost tribes.”

“No. Other cultures also do it.”

Elisa sounded out the word silently. “It’s a nice word, anyway. Even if a bit pretentious to use it without defining it.”

“It’s a lovely word, I’m sure,” Maury said. “C’est la vérité. At least as long as it’s more about love than leverage.”

“I wonder what the ceremony would be…” Elisa said, canting her eyes up toward the ceiling in thought. “‘I hare-by take you, Elvira, as my in-law-fully wedded wife.’” She tittered.

woof

“My dog,” Jim Taylor writes, “a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, says ‘woof’ or perhaps ‘wuff’ – I’m not completely sure of the central vowel. But I’m quite sure there is an opening diphthong ‘woo’ and a closing fricative ‘ff’.

“But physically, anatomically, I don’t understand how a dog can make those sounds. The fricative requires an upper lip against the lower teeth; a dog doesn’t have an upper lip. The ‘woo’ should require pursed lips; a dog doesn’t have lips it can purse.

“So how does it make those sounds?”

Ah, acoustic phonetics. It’s a fascinating area, and one that can make many people nervous and confused pretty quickly (see my note on cepstrum for a wee taste). But the language we speak and hear is a complex fabric woven of many threads. And actually it’s amazing that we can understand what we hear, in fast speech and slow, casual and careful, spoken and sung, in different voices and different accents; a lot of it has to do with what we expect to hear, and what sounds are reasonable combinations in a given language and context.

But first: It’s obvious that a big dog says woof, right? You can hear them say it. People have been writing it down as woof since… well, at least since the mid-1800s. Hmm, and what did dogs of that sort say before then? Well, there are some slightly older whooghs attested. And, uh… hmm… well, some other things before that.

The thing is, in any given language, there are phonemes – sounds that are recognized as being distinct sounds. And these aren’t crisply defined things; they’re more like regions, buckets, circles, subdivisions of the possible sound from the articulatory space of the mouth. Any two languages will divide the articulatory space up at least slightly differently. Sounds that are heard as different in one language may be heard as the same in another, and vice versa.

One of the first things we do when we start to learn language in our infancy is to learn what the buckets are to sort sounds into. We come to understand that one pair of sounds are treated as different sounds, while another pair no less different are treated as the same sound. And we come to actually hear them as the same, especially if we’re not paying close attention; we also tend to expect certain sounds in certain places, as some words will be more likely than others in any given place. This is why speakers of some languages have so much trouble distinguishing between English pairs such as bit and beat.

And it’s why Shakespeare represented the Welsh name Llywelyn as Fluellen. And partly why when the voiceless velar fricative (that we hear in German ach) disappeared from English, in some words it was just dropped but in others it became a [f] sound (think of the words that end in gh). And why the voiceless bilabial fricative in Maori, which is spelled as wh, sounds like [f] to us. And why some Anglophones have so much trouble with the vowel in German Tür and French tu. And so on.

And, of course, why a sound that seems so clearly [f] to your ears and mine might sound like something else to someone else. We sort it into the buckets available, and if it doesn’t fit neatly into one or another there may be differences of opinion on what bucket it best fits into. So the spelling of animals’ sounds varies from time to time and from place to place.

And then there’s the question of how a dog, which can’t round its lips, can make a pretty clear [w] sound and a certainly distinguishable mid-high back rounded vowel [ʊ] sound.

But, really, what about a sound conveys roundness of lips? In the shape of the sound wave, what do you suppose it might be? When we think about it, we must acknowledge that speakers (as in the ones on your stereo) make all these sounds without lips to round, and you can make a saw sound like a human singing, and then there’s the wah-wah pedal you can use for an electric guitar…

The number one thing to understand about the sounds we make is that they are not simple even sound waves. A violin, a piano, and a voice all sound different because of the shapes of the sound waves and the different resonances they have. Those resonances involve structures of harmonics. If you hear an A at 880 Hertz, unless it’s produced by some electronic sound generator and heard in a non-resonant environment, you will also be hearing a structure of resonances at various multiples of 880 Hertz. Any resonating space that can fit one sound wave of a given length can fit two of half the length, three of a third the length, and so on.

The shape of the resonating space has an important effect on what resonances come through. Now, what affects the shape of the space in your mouth? The movement of your tongue and your lips. There are two main resonating areas, determined by where your tongue constricts your mouth: one is between the larynx (voice box) and the point of constriction, and the other is between the point of constriction and the lips.

If you take a speech sound and analyze it acoustically, you can get a thing called a spectrogram. It looks a bit like an unevenly made fabric, a rather blurry one; the x axis is time, and the y axis is frequency, and what you see is areas of certain frequencies that are very dark, meaning strong, and others that are very light, meaning weak. They look like bands of fuzzy threads going across at certain points. There will be two main ones you will see, and more above them. The lower one is called formant 1, or F1, and is mainly the resonance from behind the tongue. The higher the tongue is, the larger that space is and so the lower the F1 is. The one above it is of course formant 2 (F2), and is mainly the resonance in front of the tongue. The farther forward the point of constriction is, the smaller the space, and the higher the F2 is.

So, in brief, low F1 and F2 means the sound is like [u]. High F1 and F2 means the sound is like [æ]. High F2 and low F1? That’s [i]. And so on. Yup, we follow the thread of speech sounds by following the dark threads woven across the tapestry of harmonics.

Oh, and the effect of rounding the lips? Well, that constricts the sound wave at the opening, where it would normally be fullest, and so it lowers all of the formants, including the ones above F1 and F2. The higher formants are much fainter, but F3 does have something of a role to play too – otherwise lip rounding would be entirely equivalent to shifting the tongue up and back.

The point being, anything that produces that harmonic profile will seem to have that sound. How does a wah-wah pedal work? Basically by varying between emphasizing lower harmonics and higher ones. It’s really just an adjustment of the equalization (you know, like fiddling with the sliders on a higher-end stereo or sound board). It’s really the contrast between the sounds (as it slides in a “wah”) that leads you to hear it as a contrastive vowel sound.

And how does the dog’s mouth produce the “woof”? Well, I can’t say exactly what, in the shape of a dog’s mouth, would produce that sound. Alexander Graham Bell probably knew. He used to demonstrate speech sound articulation and production by manipulating a dog’s mouth with his hands.

Woof isn’t just the sound a big dog makes, by the way. Nor may we limit ourselves to adding the sound a saw makes (when sawing wood, not when singing), or the noise a pile of gas-soaked rags makes when ignited, or the sound of a strong gust of wind through a window. We may move quite away from onomatopoeia, to weaving.

On a loom, you see, there are two sets of threads. The ones that are perpendicular to the weaver, attached to the frame, are the warp, a word that used to mean “throw” (the word that throw comes from originally meant “twist”, so the two words have pretty much changed places semantically – how they did so is a tale for a whole other note). The ones that run cross-wise, like the formants on a spectrogram, are called the woof, a word coming from the same old Germanic root as weave.

And the weaving is done with the aid of a shuttle, which is thrown back and forth between the threads. You might or might not see something in common between it and the gesture your mouth makes when saying “woof”. Say it a few times and you’ll see how it starts with the tongue tense and the lips forward, and then the lips pull back and spread and the tongue at the same time lowers. As you repeat the word, the whole assembly of your mouth moves back and forth like a shuttle or a saw.

Whatever a dog’s mouth is doing, though, I guarantee it isn’t that. But it doesn’t really need to be, either.

redaction

In certain circles and particular topics, there can come times when you want to read a document, and you find a radical detraction: someone has given direction to make a reduction by red pen action, deleting or obliterating words and passages that might have been used for indoctrination or perhaps action by reds – or just classified or obscene content. This anti-educational deduction – which gets to be a bit of an addiction for parties of certain political bents – is delicately called redaction, and the ablated parts said to be redacted, presumably because people get incensed by the word censored.

But I have to say, the first time I saw redaction used for that, I thought it was almost immoderately euphemistic, coy, even doublespeaky: a deliberate redirection of sense. This word, you see, with its square-timbered sound that makes me think of hammers and nails and construction, is a word more of building, of taking what was inchoate or incoherent and finding a form for it, putting it into focus, tightening and strengthening it. It is like what good photographers do: find, frame, focus, expose, crop, adjust, so that pieces of the stream of ordinary life can manifest their latent glory.

Redaction is, yes, in the main a crisp-suited word for “editing”. And just as many people think editing is just a process of cutting and correcting, so too do people often see redaction as action with a red axe. But really editing is like gardening: it is nurturing and forming, and even every bit of pruning is done to improve the overall vigour of the plant.

The source of redaction is the past participle of Latin redigere “send back, return, bring back, restore”, from re plus agere “drive” (cognate with act). This word is indeed related to reaction, but while the censorious kind of redaction is certainly a reaction, opposite and unequal, the first sense of redaction in English was “bringing into a definite form” – as in making suitably ready for publication. (I will not take this opportunity to plug my just-published Songs of Love and Grammar, available from Lulu.)

It still means readying for publication, and also revision – of a work already published, or of a work to make it ready for publication. Of course, making a new version is not the same as reversion, nor is it necessarily reversing the process of creation, Swiss-cheesing the text as if with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We know why that is done: to keep those who read from taking action. The redaction I prefer and practice daily gives text – and people – direction. All communication is behaviour designed to cause behaviour in response – the agent reading is a reagent; good redaction does not neutralize, it catalyzes.