stifle

Who here used to watch All in the Family?

What did Archie Bunker say when he wanted someone else to be quiet?

I’m betting you just said “Stifle yourself!”

Now, some horsey people among the readers may wonder how a dislocated knee would cause someone to be quiet, but most of us are not familiar with that other word stifle, which as a noun refers to the joint on horses and similar animals that equates to the knee, and as a verb refers to dislocation of same. There’s no particular reason to think the two stifles have a common origin. But of course I wouldn’t want to stifle further etymological research. Especially since the origin of both words is entirely uncertain (French estouffer seems likely related to the non-horse [but not non-hoarse] one).

I also wouldn’t want to stifle innovation, dissent, competition, or creativity – or laughter. Maybe a yawn, though. All of these are things commonly spoken of as being subject to stifling. Or, more to the point, all these words are often seen after stifle – which itself may be preceded by trying to or could. The word stifling is actually a little different: the number one word to come after it, by a long chalk, at least in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, is heat.

And why would anyone want to stifle heat? They wouldn’t, of course. Nor would they want to be stifled by it, but it’s quite something how often people can speak of the heat as being stifling. Especially since you would think that if the heat is stifling them, they wouldn’t be able to speak. (And why are stifling creativity and stifling heat operating in opposite directions? One stifling is a present participle and the other is an adjective formed from the same.)

Well, figurative is figurative, eh? How often do people speak of stifling literally? As in causing the death of someone or something by depriving of oxygen? They may sometimes use smother or suffocate that way, but whereas He smothered the dog or He suffocated the dog might be taken to mean the dog had been killed, He stifled the dog would much more likely be taken to mean the dog had simply been silenced one way or another (but probably not by death).

And why do we need three words for basically the same thing? Well, in part because they have little differences of connotation and usage patterns – smother, for instance, generally produces an image of something soft being held over the face (and has the added flavour of its culinary use: steak smothered in mushrooms is acceptable; steak stifled in mushrooms or steak suffocated in mushrooms is not); suffocate seems to focus more on the sensation of asphyxiation; stifle, as we have seen, carries more of a sense of silencing or impairing.

But they also have different tastes from the feel and sound of them. True, they all start with /s/; two of them also have /f/. (And we think again of asphyxiation, which is the most literal of the bunch but does not automatically refer to an act of one person on another.) But suffocate has more of a gasping or coughing sound, and an echo of suffering; on the other hand, smother has a well-known rhyme in mother, and some other echoes too. Stifle has the cutting edge of the /aI/ central dipthong, which sounds like an exclamation of pain or woe and gives it a taste in the vein of rifle and knife, not to mention life, which may be ending. But probably not literally. (It also echoes Eiffel, as in Tower, but the different spelling attentuates that influence; those who hear it are more likely to think of a Bunker.)

skiving

“Alright,” I said to young Marcus Brattle, “let’s get down to work, and no skiving.”

We were at the dining room table at his house, my young mentee and I, and today’s topic was syntax. Marcus had not so far warmed very much to the syntax trees I was having him draw.

“Skiving,” Marcus said. “Sounds like good sport.”

“And you’re always game for good sport,” I said. “But let’s start by drawing a tree for that sentence: ‘Skiving sounds like good sport.'”

“No, but what I mean is, it sounds rather like skydiving.”

“Indeed it does,” I conceded. “With a little insertion. And looks like skindiving, with a little insertion.”

“In fact,” said Marcus, writing the word out, “it looks like skiing, with just a little v in the middle carving a snowplow through it. You know, I’d like to ski for a living. But of course if you do it for a living it’s not skiving. Sport is much more fun when you’re getting away from work to do it.”

“Getting away – but are you simply carving off, perhaps darting quickly and lightly as another meaning for skiving has it, or slinking away, as French esquiver – a possible source for skive – means?”

“Slinking away in something slinky?” Marcus said. “Perhaps your skivvies?”

“I would think that would be a short break.”

“But you know,” Marcus said, “this word conceals a horde of Vikings.”

“And is raiding other towns and countries a way to shirk work, the ultimate laddish road trip,” I asked, “or is it work itself? I’m inclined to think the latter, since skiving is often used in the army to refer to dodging duty.”

“Dodging mopping and boring things like that,” Marcus said. “Everyone likes marauding and destroying. It’s fun.”

It occurred to me that Marcus had, in his little way, some direct knowledge of the enjoyability of marauding and destroying.

“Well,” I said, “but the point is that with skiving there’s no risking.” I wrote the rearranged letters and showed the v pinching together to become an r.

“There’s risking getting pinched,” Marcus said, meaning getting caught. “There’s risking your mentor noticing that you’re not doing any work.”

I paused and raised an eyebrow. He had succeeded in diverting the work he didn’t like for a couple of minutes already.

“But thanks,” Marcus added with a little smile, “for being a good sport.”

merlot

Ah, the Mel Tormé of wine grapes. It produces a smooth, luscious, thick red from its black grapes – when well made, its blackberry notes sing in your glass like a blackbird… which in French is merle. Oh, I know, French wines don’t traditionally go by the grape variety, and merlot is in the French context best known as one of the three varieties that go into red Bordeaux (or, as the British call it, claret). But in the New World, where wines quite often go by varietal name, many merlots have been made. And it is a wine that you can pour on a date as you murmur low, or with this blackbird (yes, merlot does come from merle) you can be singing in the dead of night…

But in recent years things have gone a bit Sideways for merlot. Ah, yes, that movie with Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh, wherein the lead character waxes poetic about pinot noir (the grape of the great Burgundies, true, but also a grape that has produced more overpriced crap wine than probably any other – you’re at the high-stakes table with pinot) and inveighs against – cannot abide – threatens to leave if anyone pours – merlot.

Well. That almost seemed to deal a coup mortel against merlot, at least among the mid-level wine snob set. The pretty-plumed blackbird gained the look of a molter; the merle was nudged closer to merde. And it will be some time before the word will be largely free of the taint it acquired from that movie. But merlot is not some harlot – nor does merlot rhyme with harlot. No, to quote a probably apocryphal bon mot from Margot Asquith speaking to Jean Harlow about the pronunciation of Margot, “the t is silent, as in Harlow.”

Indeed, one may rhyme it with Margaux, which just happens to be one of the best châteaux of Bordeaux – and, of course, Margaux wines contain merlot, along with cabernet sauvignon and cabernet franc. In Margaux the merlot sings beautifully, smoothly but not without tremolo.

And the word? Well, it depends in part on how New World or Old World you want the style. The most New World style – I really mean anglophone – starts it like murmur: smooth and quiet and without any real edge. But if you keep a taste of the French influence, it starts like mare, and then it can be a real dark horse. If you go with a Spanish way of speaking it – they do make rather nice merlots in Chile, for one – it gains just a touch of spice with the thrill of the trill. Say it in the Old World style – like the French – and you get the tongue gurgling a little in the back, but that deep tone is not of the gutter; it is shy but inviting, revealing depths that then come out to a pure finish, no contracting to a diphthong… a word best said by a beautiful Frenchwoman. And drunk with a beautiful person of whatever culture and sex.

childish and childlike

Someone who lives on the same floor as I do has discovered that the down-arrow button at the elevators can be rotated to point sideways or upwards. Practically every day now, I come to the elevators and find it pointing the wrong way. Just out of a habit of tidiness, I turn it to point down. But lately it doesn’t take long for it to be re-pointed. I have no idea who’s doing it; I’m not aware of any adolescent boys living on my floor of the building. Well, whoever is doing it is certainly a bit childish.

Does it do harm? No, but it’s disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. It aims to call attention to itself. Now, children love to play, and they are known for having open and inquisitive minds (although mothers of some picky eaters may snort at the idea); that’s not a bad thing at all. Simple joy and wonder is very engaging and something we ought not to lose; it is even recorded that Jesus enjoined his followers to be like children. But was he asking them to be childish? Or childlike?

So what’s the difference? Both childish and childlike signify behaviour that recalls the behaviour of children. Why wouldn’t they mean the same thing? Why even have two words for it?

Well, we know why. Children are little angels and little devils all rolled into one – a child may be mild or wild, and we may stop and wonder whether it’s only coincidence that those three words (child, mild, wild) have come to be the three rhymes with that spelling. And adults who emulate some quality of a child may emulate a positive or a negative one. So the word we use varies accordingly. It’s a difference of tone, of connotation. There are even contexts in which one could safely use childlike but would risk tut-tuts or worse for using childish – it’s such a deprecatory term as to be itself a touch improper, because insulting.

It’s a sign of maturing linguistic understanding when a person comes to realize that denotation is not all there is to words. Words are known by the company they keep, for one – certain words for certain things are unacceptable in contexts where other words for the same things are perfectly allowable. And this is, of course, also related to the connotations and implications of words – which are bound together with the pragmatics of their usage. If I use a vulgarity where I might have used a polite Latinate word that denotes the same thing, it means that I am aware that I am being transgressive, impolite, and maybe a bit childish too. For that matter, if a mother calls to her son, “Stevie,” it simply means she wants him to come see her (though the tone of voice will certainly matter), but if she calls out “Stephen Maxwell Davidson,” the formality probably means she’s upset with him, even though the denoted object is the same and the required action is not per se different.

But, now, why negative ish and positive like? At this point we must wander into speculation. It would seem reasonable that like would be more likeable. It has shown up repeatedly in words such as godlike and gentlemanlike, after all – but also in such as devil-like and Brutus-like. Still, it has that light sound and the lick and kiss of /l/ and /k/. And it has been reinforced by usages in translations of the Bible and by such writers as Shakespeare (“I thought the remnant of mine age Should have been cherish’d by her child-like duty” —Two Gentlemen of Verona).

As for ish, it, too, has had its tone reinforced by Shakespeare (“What cannot be avoided, ‘Twere childish weakness to lament” —Henry VI part 3) and others. And while it may rhyme with wish, it is more wishy-washy in tone: things that are ish are imitations or are inclined towards something, and perhaps not something esteemed. We know foolish, of course; those opposed to Roman Catholics have over history referred to Popish people; even if it appends to something positive, ish may weaken it: “Is she pretty?” “Prettyish.” I can’t think its sloshing, hissing sound helps, either.

But can we find counter-instances? Would we find similar results with other words suffixed with the same pair? Hmmm… we know clownish; how would we receive clownlike? Mannish versus manlike? (Manlike, like gentlemanlike, appears more often in the related form with ly in place of like.) Some would produce semantic differences – bookish is not like booklike. The only one I can think of that would go the other way is one where the ish form has undergone amelioration: devilish shows up with words such as charm, where as devil-like, not commonly used, just means “like a devil”.

And how about other cases (not involving these suffixes) where a parallel denotation results in an opposite connotation? I leave this as an exercise to the reader. It should be easy. Or easyish, anyway.

blaspheme

A word like a blast of mephitic steam from the foul mouth of some demon. Its object is often lately somewhat blasé and ephemeral, at least in some cultures; in others, it can eventuate in blasts and fumes, and not necessarily just verbal ones.

The topic is currently a dodgy one. In truth, it has been dodgy through much of history, but as respect for freedom of speech has grown, and cultural insistence on piety (or at least religious observance) has waned, freedom to speak irreverently or even hostilely about religion – and sometimes about one or another specific religion or deity (most especially the religion that has been a dominant and sometimes oppressive force in Western cultures) – has been taken advantage of. It’s not at all difficult to find music, books, humour, movies, what have you, that engage in and perhaps even revel in what many would call blasphemy. In our culture now, we accept vigorous and not always respectful discourse on such subjects, and it is expected (and I will not say unreasonably so) that an all-powerful God won’t be hurt by it and that whatever religion is in question can just suck it up and speak for itself.

But of course we know that there are many people who are very, very, very touchy about the topic, especially people from cultures that do not prize free speech as highly as they prize ideological conformity. (In particular, they are likely touchy about blasphemy of their own religion but at the same time not inclined to recognize any utterances about another religion as blasphemy.) And, honestly, it is somewhat outside the ambit of these notes to wander very far into what is really a very large debate (others have covered it quite well anyway, discussing both freedom and responsibility of speech – the same good manners that tell you not to call someone “ugly” should tell you to be reasonably civil when disagreeing with their religious beliefs; see Interfaith panel on freedom of speech expresses hope about a recent panel on the subject, for instance).

But it is germane to note that when one person’s words are labelled “blasphemous” by another person, and when that other person reacts with not just ordinary words but death threats, sometimes acted on, the word blaspheme (and blasphemous and blasphemy) is clearly associated with a strong negative reaction: not just the strong negative reaction by those threatening or performing violence but a strong negative reaction against the intolerance and threat of violence. I certainly think I know more people who will be upset by blaspheme because of the image of others using it against them (or those they empathize with) in conjunction with threats than I know people who will be upset by it for the idea of someone blaspheming.

So this word has, from either side, a threatening, malevolent tone, perhaps of some blatant Mephistopheles, or perhaps of some brutal Polyphemus: scheming or raging, goat-horned or one-eyed. And who is to blame?

Indeed, blame is inescapably related to blaspheme. You see, the Greek word βλασφημος blasphémos “evil-speaking” (the phem root refers to speaking – but, by the way, ephemeral is not related; it comes from epi+hemera) has come down to us in two forms: the one still resemblant to the source, the other sanded down by time and usage through forms such as blasmar to our modern blame. The perfect companion to blaspheme… so to speak.

Roxanne

Does this name put on a red light in your head? No need to call the police. But it does have something sexy about it, doesn’t it? For one thing, there’s that central x, /ks/, a sound a little reminiscent of a kiss (though feeling somewhat like Pop Rocks on your tongue), represented by a mark that can indicate a kiss… or, in multiples, something rather more explicit. There’s also the rich /r/ (which, in its capital letter R, looks a bit like the profile of a courtesan from the neck down). The effect of the anne may vary from person to person.

The name Roxanne, to me, bespeaks luxury and red lipstick – no doubt aided by the nickname Roxy, which may be a name for a theatre with red velvet all over, or a glam rock band (Roxy Music), or a glam rock song (Roxy Roller). Those more into literature than music may think sooner of the love interest of Cyrano de Bergerac, of course – the luminous beauty wooed by a noble, intelligent, but visually disadvantaged poet through the proxy of a good-looking airhead dude. (Steve Martin did a modern take on the theme with the movie Roxanne, featuring Daryl Hannah as the starlet.)

The name in Edmond Rostand’s original play is actually spelled Roxane, which is also the spelling used for the heroine of a novel by Daniel Defoe – a beautiful adventuress who, deserted by her husband, becomes a courtesan and enjoys a glittering career… but repents in the end, having felt the sting of debt. (One might wonder if Sting’s song is indebted to Defoe.)

But the original name is Roxana. Well, no, actually, that’s not quite true. Roxana is the Latin version of the Greek version (Roxané) of the name of the wife of Alexander the Great (and do not the names Roxana and Alexander – or Roxané and Alexandros – sound great together?). But she was not Greek; she was Persian.

As it happens, there is disagreement and uncertainty as to the Persian original of the name. It may be from a word meaning “dawn”; it may be from a word meaning “little star”; or it may be from a name meaning “luminous beauty”. One may wonder whether it could be a name for a beautiful, luminous little star of dawn… But that would be either Aurora (the personification of the dawn; a radiant name, but one associated in Toronto with an exurb, and one I personally associate with a wicked good Scrabble player of my acquaintance) or the planet that is called the morning star when it shows just before sunrise: Venus. Ah, Venus. Speaking of sex…

guduchi

This word packs an interesting punch in its three syllables – starting at the back of the mouth, the almost-guttural /gu/, then moving to the tip of the tongue but keeping the voice and the round vowel for /du/, and then finishing with with the voiceless affricate and front vowel, like a sneeze or a quick kick. It’s almost like a three-step sequence in a martial art, culminating in a sharp blow.

Or perhaps it’s the sound you utter while executing that sequence. Or maybe it’s the name of the martial art itself Or, on the other hand, it might be the name of some Mexican food, perhaps a guacamole from Guadalajara. Or is it a brand of handbags? Or the name of some douchebag? Is it a hoodoo with voodoo? Is it good or cheesy?

In fact, it’s a plant: Tinospora cordifolia. If you’ve seen the word guduchi anywhere before, it’s likely on the side of a box of some pill or tea or similar thing, for the plant is used in Ayurvedic and other South Asian medicine, mainly for its hepatoprotective qualities – it helps look after your liver. Take something toxic (amanita, perhaps? or simply a shot or six of hooch? or a shot in the liver from some martial artist?) and it will help save your bacon.

The plant, by the way, is a climbing shrub with heart-shaped leaves. It grows yellow flowers and produces a red drupe fruit. It has a host of other names in various South Asian languages, most of which start with or at least involve /g/. It also has an entirely English name: heartleaf moonseed (sounds a bit like the daughter of hippies, doesn’t it?).

Hedda

This word has a special meaning for me.

Of course, all words to some extent have special meanings for each person who knows and uses them. Every person’s individual experiences and aesthetic proclivities are different, so meanings always have specific tinges. But some words are more variable by individual experience than others, and for any given person some words are more special than others.

Hedda is, of course, a name, specifically a female name. You probably already knew that. It’s Germanic, and in particular Scandinavian; it’s a diminutive of Hedvig (the German version, Hedwig, has an Anglicized diminutive Hedy, which has a somewhat different taste to it, thanks in no small part to Hedy Lamarr). The name comes originally from old Germanic hadu “battle” and wiga “fight”.

So if the name seems like a name for a headstrong or bellicose woman, it comes by it honestly. You might think of it as a name for a Wagnerian heroine, a sort of he-woman with DD cups and a type A personality, but there’s nothing about Hedda that requires massiveness, just a certain strength of will or character. Perhaps it’s the echoes of headstrong and head-butt and so forth. Perhaps it’s the drumbeat impact of the name. Or perhaps it’s who it’s associated with.

And who do you think of when you see it? There are three Heddas that come to my mind.

The first is a headstrong, bossy little girl from a comic strip I remember reading in my youth. I can’t remember what the strip was, but I think that was the first place I saw the name.

The second is Hedda Hopper. My junior high school library had a nice set of books about the different decades of the 20th century (stopping at the 1960s, I think, or perhaps there was a freshly finished 1970s volume as well), and the mid-century volumes of those, as well as some other books on Hollywood, could not fail to mention Hedda Hopper, an actress-turned-gossip-columnist. Hedda Hopper had had some middling success as a pretty young thing in the early days of movies, but her career was over by the 1930s, at which point she found great success in being a pretty nasty old thing – with a taste for huge hats. Her gossip column, “Hedda Hopper’s Hollywood,” debuted in 1938, and she was a presence also on TV through the 1940s and 1950s. As it happens, she was born Elda Furry. Hopper was her husband’s name, and she was his fifth wife; the previous four were Ella, Ida, Edna, and Nella, so Elda was not very distinctive. She asked a numerologist what name to use, and was told Hedda.

The third Hedda is one I think I first became aware of through a New Yorker cartoon (or was it Writer’s Digest?). It had the caption “Ibsen wrestles with his muse,” and it showed a playwright angrily chasing an imp, which was shouting, “Then again, Hedda Gobbledegook!” I didn’t really get it until a couple of years later, when I was a drama undergraduate student and was introduced to Henrik Ibsen’s play Hedda Gabler.

I was immediately impressed by the play, even though there were subtleties in it that my 17-year-old mind did not grasp. Its heroine seemed like a strong woman trapped in circumstances; I didn’t at first take notice of which of the circumstances were of her own choosing. She liked to play with pistols – ooh! “My pistols, George” always seemed like such a great zing line. She liked fire! She could be vengeful! And in the end… well, it was all candy for my not-really-post-adolescent brain.

I still think it’s a brilliant play, though I see it in a different light 26 years later. Hedda is certainly in part a victim of circumstance, but she is also neurotic and insecure – and very impulsive. Her romantic hero, Eilert Lovborg (Ejlert Løvborg), is smart but truly someone who uses others and lacks real self-discipline. The sweet Thea is quite cunning. The judge, seemingly in control, makes one miscalculation after another. And that dork, Hedda’s husband George (Jørgen), may not be the kind of dangerously charming guy susceptible women fall for, but he’s smart – if not creative – and genuinely nice. And the main lesson of the play, as of some other plays by Ibsen (notably The Master Builder), is that romantic idealists make horrible messes of things. (Ibsen had another play with a lead character of the same given name – but in The Wild Duck, the heroine is a young girl, and she goes by the full name Hedvig. Quite different, really.)

But whatever your view of the play and its characters, thanks to it, Hedda brings forth the image of a dark and dominant woman, a woman associated with guns and fire, a truly romantic heroine in her tragic way. And, honestly, I never tire of the play.

Perhaps if the 17-year-old me had read noted Canadian playwright Judith Thompson’s adaptation, which is a bit more overt about some aspects, I would have understood it better quicker.

Well, Thompson hadn’t written it yet then. In fact, it’s still not published. So how have I had a chance to read it?

That’s the main thing that now gives Hedda a special meaning for me: I’m in it. The Alumnae Theatre’s production of Thompson’s adaptation of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler is running from November 12 to November 27, 2010, and I’m playing Hedda’s husband, George Tesman. It’s the first play I’ve been in in about a dozen years. For more details, see www.alumnaetheatre.com/1011hedda.html.

Is she more knowledgeable than him?

A fellow editor and email columnist has been upbraided by a reader for using the form “smaller than me” rather than “smaller than I”. She reminded him that she was taught that both nouns must always be subjects, and it aggrieves her greatly whenever she sees it done “wrong,” as she so often does. He asked me for backup. Here’s what I sent him.

Continue reading

fream

What does this word look like it might be? Some kind of foam, perhaps? An archaic typesetting of scream without the c? (Of course, those tall s’s weren’t f’s; they lacked the crossbars. But they do look like them to our eyes.) A full ream of paper? A disorderly frame? Or perhaps a misspelling of Frean, as in Peek Frean, that brand of cookies founded in 1857 in Bermondsey, London, by Messrs. Peek and Frean and, as it happens, operating a bakery in East York (now Toronto) since 1949 on Bermondsey Road (near where my mother-in-law lives)? Or maybe a kind of fudge cream – either cookie or ice cream?

Well, sorry to be a crashing bore, but no. Actually, why apologize for being a crashing bore? A crashing boar doesn’t apologize. In fact, a boar, as it crashes through the woods, especially if it has a good head of steam, is likely to fream.

That’s right. Horses neigh, cattle low, wolves howl, boars fream. Or, as James Puckly put it in 1711, “an hart bellows, a buck groyns, a roe bells, a goat rats, a boar freams, a hare tapps, a fox barks, a badger shrieks, an otter whines, a wolf howls, &c.” What is meant is the roaring or growling noise boars make when raging. I guess you could imitate it with fream – if you said it as loudly as possible while inhaling. It’s uncertain, though, where this word comes from – it’s not necessarily imitative; it could come from Latin fremere “roar” or from old Saxon hríeman “cry out”.

Not that there’s likely to be a lot of research done on it. It’s not much used anymore. Urban Dictionary has a definition for fream as 1950s slang for someone who doesn’t fit in, for what that’s worth (which is variable with Urban Dictionary), but that was the 1950s. And we don’t meet boars too often.

We do meet bores and similar misfits, though. And when one goes on a tear about some pet peeve, you can always sigh, “Free me from your freaming.”