trinitite

This is a word for crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s – a trinity of each, t t t and i i i, three crosses and three candles (are any other letters left? yes – other letters left: r n e). It taps on the tip of the tongue, with three allophones of /t/: affricated, aspirated, unreleased. All that softens are one liquid (half voiceless) and one nasal. And the e at the end is written but we never hear it.

So what is it, in its entirety? It reminds me of trinitrotoluene, which is usually shortened to TNT. But that’s small-time compared with what we’re dealing with here. The echo of trinity is true and lasting, but we are now facing death, the destroyer of worlds.

July 16, 1945. Trinity nuclear test site, New Mexico. A nuclear bomb is tested, leaving a lasting echo in history. Robert Oppenheimer is reminded of a (not quite accurate) quotation from the Bhagavad Gita: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” After the fire has glowed in an enormous bright ball, a destroying angel trying to ascend to heaven but at last turned into an enormous toadstool of smoke, and all has cooled down, a layer of glassy rocks is found covering the area. Trinitite – the mineral (-ite) of Trinity.

It’s almost pure silica (quartz), of course: the sands of time, softened into a liquid, fused into a glass. It has unmelted sand stuck to the bottom, and it has many bubbles in it. It was thought at first that it was caused by the sand being melted in place by the blast. Now it is thought that the sand was taken up into the heavens with the fireball and rained back down from the cloud.

If we look into this bubbly dark glass, only lightly radioactive, what will we see? Will we see graveyards, or candles? Will the answer to our questions be on the tips of our tongues, tapping three times? Will we see our aspirations, or will they be unreleased? Our end may be written, but will we hear it?

Perhaps we will see the verse from the Bhagavad Gita, which in Barbara Stoler Miller’s translation is

I am time grown old,
creating world destruction,
set in motion
to annihilate the worlds;
even without you,
all these warriors
arrayed in hostile ranks
will cease to exist.

Or perhaps we will just see what there is to see, a rock that was the sand, for which the hourglass (or quartz watch) has run out, and now it is fused. The future is already here. And what colour is it, this rock of the future, this future in the rock?

Green, as it happens.

toad

One of my colleagues from the Editors’ Association of Canada, Daphne Davey, moved last fall to a town in P.E.I. with the charming name of Crapaud. Naturally, she named her residence Toad Hall.

For those who don’t know French, I’ll explain: crapaud, aside from having a taste of crap that can hardly be more pleasing than the odour of toad, is in fact French for “toad”. And toad is a word that does not bring a whole lot of charm… except in connection with Kenneth Grahame’s Wind in the Willows, in which a key character is a moneyed, mansion-owning, maniacal toad (named Mr. Toad) who goes on wild jags (his fanaticism for motor cars lands him in jail – I can’t remember if any car gets towed away, but Toad gets away with several). Toad Hall is the name of Mr. Toad’s abode.

But step away from that vehicle and you will find toads associated with little that is fun or appealing (save perhaps the band Toad the Wet Sprocket). Indeed, one might almost wonder whether toad stands for “take off and die”, given that it is commonly used by women as an epithet for unattractive men. (I am unaware of any similar use of it on women.) It also has a long literary history as a byword for a lowly, ugly, nasty, stupid person – Shakespeare used it several times, for instance.

What, after all, is a toad? An amphibian that appears to be covered in warts (they’re not really warts and you can’t catch warts from a toad) – a squat, croaking thing that is a byword for animal unattractiveness. Even the word plays into that; although the look of the written word toad is not abnormally homely (though, as Margaret Gibbs has pointed out, it’s “a short, fat, squat little word, sitting there with its mouth and eyes agape in the middle”), the word is capable of being said in a way that emphasizes the ugliness: the lips puckering out, possibly with the nostrils narrowing a little, as though expressing disapprobation at an unpleasant smell; the initial stop spits a little, and the final stop is voiced, so the vowel is held long enough that one may lower the voice to a croaky level, and it’s that round back vowel that is quite lacking in brightness.

Oh, and toads were formerly thought to be poisonous (now we know of some poison frogs, but frogs are much cuter). Charlatans and mountebanks hawking snake-oil nostrums for the cure of poisoning would have an assistant who would pretend to eat a poisonous toad so that he could be cured by the elixir. From this, someone in a servile or sycophantic role was called a toad-eater, and this was shortened later to toady (as in fawning lickspittle toady).

This word and its imagery lend their flavour, in fact, to an assortment of different compounds. After all, it’s a convenient, short word (straight from Anglo-Saxon tadige; the Latin is, incidentally, bufo – that seems somehow suited, too, doesn’t it?), naming a common enough creature that may be associated with various things. So the OED gives us, among others, toad-fish, toad-flax, toad-back, toad-bellied, toad-blind, toad-cheese, toad-flower, toad-grass, toad-head, toad-housing, toad in the hole, toad-legged, toad-marl, toad-poison, toad-pond, toad-pool, toad-rush, toad’s bread, toad’s eye tin, toad’s-guts, toadskin, toad-snatcher, toad-spawn, toad-spit, toad-sticker, toad-strangler, toad-swollen, toad under a harrow, and toadwise. Among others.

Including, of course, toadstool. Which is not the tool of a toad, but rather (as you likely know) a mushroom. It’s also, in my personal history, an object lesson in getting what you pay for.

I’ll explain: at one time I was looking at some French translations that had been done by an agency which was, I believe, chosen for its, uh, fiscal efficiency. In an article on food poisoning, I noticed that toadstools had been translated as excréments de crapaud. Which would be “toad stools” (that’s stools in the medical sense).

Um, well, yes, crapaud crap would give you food poisoning, but, no, that’s not what we had in mind.

Thanks to Margaret Gibbs for suggesting toad in honour of Daphne Davey.

Introducing the article index

At long last, and well overdue, I have made an index page for all the articles I have on this site that aren’t word tasting notes. It is not a beautiful, well-made index in the grand old indexing tradition; it is a listing by title (linked, of course), with the keyword tags for each one so you can get a clearer idea of what each article is about and so you can do a keyword search on the page.

It’s at sesquiotic.wordpress.com/article-index/ (or click on ARTICLE INDEX in the header bar below the banner photo).

There are some topics of considerable interest for editing and linguistics that are covered in one or another of my word tasting notes. For those, aside from searching through the Word Tasting Note Index, you can always use the search box on the right side (SEARCH SESQUIOTICA). To avoid redundancy, I haven’t listed any word tasting notes in the article index.

Well Begun Is Nearly Done: Desktop publishing workflow at warp speed

Presented at the 32nd annual Editors’ Association of Canada conference, Vancouver, May 29, 2011

It’s a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. The three humans, two droids, and one wookiee on the Millennium Falcon are being attacked by Imperial cruisers. They can escape by jumping into hyperspace. But the pilot, Han Solo, is taking time getting coordinates from the navi-computer. As laser blasts hit, Luke Skywalker shouts, “Are you kidding? At the rate they’re gaining…”

And Solo replies, “Traveling through hyperspace isn’t like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that’d end your trip real quick, wouldn’t it?”

 

It’s this week, in an office all too close to home. A project is on a tight deadline. You have the workflow and the people lined up, but you’re taking time making sure that everything is set up the right way in the layout… and the source file… As the telephone is ringing off its hook, your project manager shouts, “Are you kidding? We don’t have time for niceties like that! Just make it happen!”

And you reply, “Desktop publishing isn’t like using a typewriter. Without setting it up the right way, we could get nailed and waste hours redoing everything when the client wants to change some element of the look late in the game. And you know they will. And that would take us way over time and budget, wouldn’t it?”

 

You’ve probably heard your mother or teacher or some similar person say, “Well begun is half done.”

Well, when it comes to desktop publishing, well begun is really a lot more than half done. Continue reading

chipmunk

This is a word from my childhood, in more ways than one.

There is of course that hoary old chestnut about a monastery opening a fish-and-chip shop with a fish friar and a chip monk; I’m sure I first heard that somewhere in elementary school.

But there’s also the actual animal, the chipmunk. I saw them often when we were hiking in the hinterlands (e.g., up to Lake Agnes, above Lake Louise). Cute little things, always darting and chattering and trying to get seeds and nuts (maybe not hoary old chestnuts) with which to stuff their cheeks.

And then there’s this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l5ap0p_3-o – that great old TV vignette series, Hinterland Who’s Who, in this case on the chipmunk. It has that wandering, wondering, almost haunting flute music. A more emblematic piece of Canadiana from the seventies could hardly be imagined. (But Hinterland Who’s Who has not gone away – it’s gone on web: learn more about the chipmunk at www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=86.)

And, of course, there’s that Christmas song from Alvin and the Chipmunks, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dnrosVyamY, featuring the step-out solo “Me, I want a hula hoop” (which in my younger years I couldn’t understand at all – “Mi, a waa na ooooo la oooo”?!). I regret to have to inform you that that, too, was more recently brought “up to date” – see www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjz8lG-SsnY , and I’m not surprised if, like me, you hit stop within a half minute.

I mean, seriously, the music is a trite guitar-heavy “rock” arrangement (the polar opposite of the Hinterland Who’s Who theme), and the chipmunks are dressed up like hip-hop homeys or something equally inane. Crap rock with hip-hop getup? Come on – if you want cute rodents with hip-hop, try this Kia ad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=miC1VZ9UVCQ.

And if you want a hip-hop singer named Chipmunk, by the way, there’s a bloke from Tottenham who will fill your bill: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDwI7KQAlD8.

But that of course has nothing to do with my childhood. Other people’s for sure, such as the ones writing the comments on the YouTube video. I might say, though, Chipmunk’s rapid rap has a certain chipmunkiness to it, and is about as immediately comprehensible to me as what I was hearing from those little seed- and scene-stealers in the hinterlands.

The rodent in question is of course not a monk, nor does it eat chips (well, OK, I think it ate some of mine at least once, but usually it goes for seeds and nuts). The present form of its name is almost certainly an English reconstrual of an Algonquian word – the Ojibwa word ajidamoonh “squirrel” (literally “headfirst”, because that’s how it goes down trees) is a very likely cognate.

The word chipmunk also has a quick and chattery feel to it, doesn’t it? It has two quick syllables and darts from one to the other. And hey, do this: say chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk chipmunk as fast as you can. Look in the mirror and tell me it doesn’t look like a chipmunk chewing its seeds. Stuff your cheeks with snacks for an even more impressive effect.

Okanagan

A few weeks ago I was in the Tasting Tower at Summerhill liquor store in Toronto, an excellent place to give oneself an education in whiskey and wine (and to help pass the time, but don’t cause no accidents – after two samples, it’s “Baby, step back” with a light foot). I was rather amused, and my curiosity was piqued, at the sight of a bottle of Irish whiskey named O’Kanagan.

Oh! Come again? The name on the bottle is in all caps, too (see http://www.vinexx.com/Vinexx/Toorank_Distilleries.html), so the visual connection is immediate for most Canadians (especially western Canadians): Okanagan. As in the Okanagan valley in British Columbia.

Now, Okanagan sounds like “oak a noggin,” and since a noggin is (aside from being one’s head, in a usage parallel to mug for the same) a small cup or a small amount of alcoholic beverage, and since whiskey is often aged in oak (I believe O’Kanagan is, but I’d have to go back and taste it again to say for sure), this may seem appropriate enough. But, on the other hand, make it O’Kanagan and you’re most likely to shift the accent – to make the rhythm like that of “O Canada.”

But, hey, that’s the name, right? There’s an Irish family named O’Kanagan, so…

No, actually, it doesn’t seem there is. O’Kanagan Irish Whiskey is made in Ireland, true, but made for and branded by a Dutch company, Toorank. And it seems to be targeted at the Canadian market. And I can’t find any evidence of any actual Irish family named O’Kanagan.

It would be a funny coincidence if there were, anyway. Okanagan is not an Irish word. It’s from the First Nation (aboriginal, American Indian) people who were there first (and still are there, along with lots of other people by now). There’s some debate over its etymology, but it seems that (like oak a noggin, by coincidence) the source word contains a root meaning “head” – or “top end”. It may be “looking towards the upper end”, “seeing the top”, “transport towards the top end”, or something like that. It could refer to a local mountain, but it could also refer to the point on the Okanagan river, just below Okanagan Falls, that is the farthest up the river that salmon go when spawning.

Anyway, the current word is somewhat altered from the source (and the spelling Okanagan was set to differentiate it from the American place names spelled Okanogan). But its original sense and form are immaterial to most people who go there now. The word is agreeable as it is (OK and then some, a real AAA piece of work), with its opening O! like Oklahoma and the tongue then doing a double back-front touch, and it brings clear images to the minds of those who know it. Going up to the Okanagan is a retreat to a sunny vacationland with beautiful scenery, watersports, and lots of luscious things.

I mean fruits and berries. When I was a kid, it was a place for peaches (there’s even a town called Peachland) and similar succulents. It still is, but, as Wikipedia somewhat bitterly misphrases it, one of the fastest-growing industries in the Okanagan is “the ripping up of orchards and their replacement by wineries and vinyards” (I’m fairly sure that ripping out the orchards is not itself the fast-growing industry). Yes, if you’re having an oaky noggin in the Okanagan, it will most likely be a taste of one of the region’s many wines (not whiskeys), some of which are outstanding and most of which are at least quite good.

Indeed, not only wine production but wine touring as well is a staple of the economy there. And ever since I showed my wife Aina the region a few years ago, she’s been saying, “Oh, can we go again?” But gladly. So we made sure to stop through there on our latest trip west and visit a few more wineries. (See http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesquiotic/sets/72157626748240883/.)

But you do have to be careful – the wine can go right to your head! (And you might knock your noggin.)

spatchcock

Comic books have quite the variety of means of communicating violent sounds. They’re always in capitals, of course: WHAAAM, SLISH, THUNK, KHWOORMF, AKA-AKA-AKA… really a nearly endless variety of nonce onomatopoeia. It’s the print equivalent of the Foley artist’s job.

You know what Foley artists are, right? They’re those guys who create the sounds you hear in movies and TV shows when assorted things happen – a door is slammed, a person walks up stairs, someone gets punched, a slasher rips someone open… They accomplish some of this with little doors, pairs of shoes on wooden platforms, pieces of wood and/or leather; they also use more organic matter when it produces the best sound. Like in some horror flick. That disgusting sound made when a person is ripped apart might have come from, say, a chicken (ready for cooking) being roughly handled. Imagine the scene of gross horror that could take its sound from a chicken having its backbone ripped out and then slapped flat on a grill.

And now imagine what sound a comic book might use for that sound. Even a comic about a Foley artist. Or perhaps a comic book about a chef. After all, that is a way of preparing a chicken – ripping (or, well, cutting) the backbone out and laying the chicken flat on its inside for roasting. Do it in violent kung-fu style, and you’ll get quite the sound effect:

SPATCHCOCK.

Which just happens also to be the word for doing that to a chicken. (Butterfly is also used, and what a different word that is!) It’s a kind of preparation method that can produce quick results, since the chicken is flat – you can grill it rather more quickly than you could roast it intact. The whole thing may have a sort of quick-and-messy air to it. Certainly the word does, with the same kind of effect as slapdash or hatchet job. The incoming hiss /s/ has the effect of something speeding towards a surface, and the remaining consonants are all percussive, with a rebounding second syllable, but there’s that affricate right in the middle suggesting a mess…

Small wonder that spatchcock is also used to mean a quick stitch or patch job on something, a slap-together hackle-schmackle – an inappropriate interpolation of material in a text. Slapping it in like slapping a spatchcocked chicken on a grill.

And where do we get this sloppy word? Seems reasonable enough that the cock should refer to a chicken, and, come to think of it, spatch is short for dispatch, isn’t it… Such an easy surmise, so it’s no surprise that it was the commonly given etymology for a long time. But there is no conclusive trail of evidence to prove it. And there’s an older term (at least 200 years older), spitchcock, which is a means of preparing an eel (cutting it into short pieces and dressing it with bread crumbs and herbs). It’s very unlikely that the two words are unrelated, and no one really knows (yet) what the origin of spitchcock was. It’s kind of a mystery – a sort of horror mystery, really. Like from Hitchcock.

daft & daffy

Dear word sommelier, if my friend suggests something like, say, matching cabernet sauvignon with canned tuna, do I call him daft or daffy?

You’re so polite. I probably wouldn’t think of either of those words first, but if I had to choose one, it would be daft. To my palate, daft has fewer positive overtones; it bespeaks an insufficient grip on reality, and gives a sort of sense of a draft blowing from one ear to the other. It also has a strong British flavour. North Americans would be more likely to say crazy or insane; crazy has too much of a positive tone, however – no one says a wild and daft guy, for instance – and even insane can have a sort of admiring tone, whereas daft is more likely to be dismissive and, at the very least, not edgy or admirable. (For much more on crazy versus insane, see sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/crazy-insane/.)

Daffy, for its part, is just too, well, silly. Daffy Duck names a cartoon character prone to fits of “woo-woo”; daffy is also the name of a ski jump move (a sort of flying front-and-back split). And it sounds like taffy. You may also get an image of someone cavorting in daffodils. It’s possibly loveable and at the very least deliberately amusing. None of which seems appropriate for cabernet sauvignon with canned tuna. Eiswein with pancakes, perhaps, but there’s a difference between, well, cute and disgusting.

It’s ironic, actually, that daffy is the word with more of a silly flavour. Silly actually has more in common with daft in their histories. Both have undergone considerable pejoration. Silly started off as a word meaning “blessed” (compare German selig) and shifted through “innocent” to “inane”. Daft started off as a word meaning “meek” and “mild” and passed through “innocent” to “irrational” and thence to the present sense. It may have had a nudge from the apparently etymologically unrelated word daff, which means “simpleton” or “fool”. Daff, for its part, took on a lighter tone with the addition of the y suffix to make daffy – in other words, it underwent amelioration, the opposite of the pejoration of daft.

I can’t say with any certainty that the softer sound of daffy helped it to a softer sense, though the y, as I hinted, likely helped in that direction with its diminutive effect. The stop at the end of daft sharpens it a bit, makes it a bit more deft on the tongue, and I suspect that the single f in the spelling gives it less of a sense of a featherweight puff.

Again, though, faced with someone proffering a glass of cabernet sauvignon with canned tuna, I’d probably say something other than “You’re daft” (let alone “You’re daffy”). If I were really trying to be nice, I might say “No tuna for me, thanks,” or, more frankly, “Um. I’m not sure that’s a good idea,” but otherwise I would probably use something rather spicier and more full-bodied. I mean the word, not the wine. (For the wine, I suppose I’d lean towards a chardonnay or a riesling, depending on presentation. Or perhaps a grüner veltliner.)

subgum

You have to figure this is something you stick in your mouth. But what? If you don’t know, there are a few possible guesses.

You’ll most likely proceed first on the basis of sub + gum. Is it something you put under your gums? How would you do that – would it be like that nasty Skoal tobacco that you (or someone you’d rather not stand too close to) stick between cheek and gum, provoking excessive expectoration? Or is it something that simply seems to support your gums? Perhaps something toothsome? Or is it like a gum but less so? Or a substrate for a gum? Or is it a gangster chew (as in submachine gum)?

But, then, what if it’s not sub + gum? Perhaps it’s like gumbo. Or perhaps it’s like sorghum. Maybe it’s a kind of backwards humbug. Where is this word from, anyway? It could be from Latin, if it’s sub + gum, but perhaps it’s from Hindi – it has that sort of sound. Or is it from an African language? The /bg/ could be a coarticulation… This word, so simple-looking, really does seem to have a whole mix of possibles in its soft, quick two-syllable double bump.

The clue that will help solve it for you is that it is typically followed by one of the following pairs of words: chow mein, lo mein, or chop suey.

Yes, if you’ve seen this word, it’s probably been on a Chinese restaurant menu, in particular an Americanized one. It comes from Cantonese sap gam “numerous and varied” or “mixture” – one might say “bits ’n’ bites”, “allsorts”, “this ’n’ that”… The dish it names has a mixture of various vegetables. There’s often also some kind of formerly animate stuff (that’s the word that comes before subgum: chicken subgum, pork subgum, seafood subgum, etc.). And you may expect some noodles if, for instance, it’s chicken subgum chow mein.

But, now, just tell me the truth: doesn’t it seem a bit like it’s somehow substandard or insufficiently something or other? When I see sub somewhere, that’s the default expectation in the absence of some root that makes it something else (substance, submit, submarine, etc.). It’s either that or it’s under something. And the gum gives it that soft feeling. You almost feel like it should be some suspicious glutinous mass. And instead you get crispy mixed vegetables (and nary a slice of gumbo in sight). Ah, dumb-dumb, it’s yum-yum! So num-num!

manticore

This word is metal from the rich romantic ore of myth. It names a magical beastie indeed, but not like a unicorn, though the words share a phonological core. No, there are no dreamy books and smeary posters of this critter marketed at the not-quite-post-fluffy-bunny set of girls – though, given the current popularity of vampires, perhaps we should wait for it.

It’s a courtly enough word, after all (even if looking a bit like a British version of a name of a city in India), starting with a mannered pair of nasals, then hardening to a pair of stops, and in all this moving from the front of the mouth to the back; it then finishes with a round vowel and a liquid consonant, and the flourish of an orthographic e. It may not have the plunging neckline of vampire, but it has such a savour to it, of a romantic man, cordial but with a mysterious core.

Well, young girls do swoon over amazingly inappropriate targets betimes, so why not this one? A manticore is a creature that comes to us from Persian legend (as does its name, changed by way of Greek and Latin). It has the body of a lion (or similar animal), the head of a man (but with a mouth with extra rows of sharp teeth), and a barbed tail that can shoot poisonous arrows. Sounds like something from Dungeons and Dragons, really.

Manticore may make you think of mantis, but this beast doesn’t pray, it just preys. It doesn’t eat manicotti, either; rather, it eats any man it’s caught, and it doesn’t waste time with riddles, either – it just kills them (through a-sphynx-iation?) and eats them entirely, leaving no trace. I’m inclined to cue Hall and Oates – “Who-oa, here she comes, she’s a man-eater” – but it seems that (unlike the sphynx) this one is a man to the core. Or anyway it’s male.

Because it ate even the clothes, disappearances of persons were taken as evidence of its existence (making it like a Windigo, for instance). The very absence of evidence is the evidence of presence. Clever beastie, able to swallow not just people but logical reasoning whole (and leave a kind of logical reasoning that is more than a little hard to swallow). Who could ask for more antics!

At least in some ancient accounts, it is thought that the manticore was really a tiger with embellishments in the telling. In the modern world, perhaps by coincidence, the manticora (note the last letter) is a kind of tiger beetle – a big black bug with massive mandibles, known in African legend as an evil doombringer. But Canadians are most likely to see manticore in a more novel form: the second novel in Robertson Davies’s Deptford Trilogy, The Manticore. The book follows a Jungian psychoanalysis wherein elements of the subconscious are manifested in mythical form – the obvious eponymous.

Manticore was also the name of the tiger that attacked Roy of Siegfried and Roy. One must be on one’s guard with real beasties; they can be prone to myth-behaviour.

I will be on vacation for the next two weeks. I will try to write a few word tasting notes, but they will be sporadic.