Tag Archives: word tasting notes

tone

John Keats, on leaving some friends at an early hour, wrote, “Let me write down a line of glorious tone.” But one line of glorious tone – ! Why, this short word could merit much more than that!

The tone of Keats’s poetry was, of course, lofty, but, poor lad, the tone of his muscles – and his general health – was not. His days of late consumption were cut short by early consumption (and by the doctor who treated it – the TB, I mean – with a starvation diet and bloodletting); he did leave his friends at an early hour. But I do wonder if, when he was meditating on his Grecian urn (a tacit urn, we might note: “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard / Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on; Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d, / Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone” – no tone? no, not one), he might have observed the origin of this word. Or would that be a stretch?

Actually, it would be a stretch. Greek tenein, verb, “stretch”, gave birth to tonos, “tension, stretching, taut string”, and from that high-strung origin came the further musical sense (also in Greek, and then in Latin and on). You can still hear the plucking of a string when you say it: tone. But also harking back to the original came (as of the later 17th century) the muscle condition sense. This is also relevant to music, of course; a trombonist with dystonia would not tunefully intone diatonics. So, as they may say in Shropshire, what’s for the tone is for the tother.

Well, that version of tone is shortened from the one, of course, as in John Heywood’s “Went in at the tone eare and out at the tother” – but doesn’t that describe tone deafness? That and the inability to carry a tune. Of course, if you can’t handle a tone, you can’t handle a tune, not just because a note is a tone seen another way, but because tune is really tone as passed through Scots dialect. Yes, this tone has split into two words (tone and tune) in harmony with each other: if not a chord, then at least accord.

And so our accordion has tones, and tunes, but also the tone of the accordion is reedy, and its body may be painted with metallic tones, and the singer may sing words with a lively or sarcastic tone. This word has spread explosively, you see, as though detonated (which is not a cognate, by the way): it has denotated senses in not only music and muscles but meaning, colour, mood, the general elevation of society… what are the bon ton reading, and looking at, and listening to, after all?

And what are they speaking? In Toronto, cultural crossroads that it is, the speech may have not only different tones but different tones as well. Chinese, a very common language in Toronto, is well known to have tones – each syllable has a level or contour (changing-pitch) tone that identifies it just as much as its phonemes do. But the majority of the world’s tone languages are in fact in Africa, where lexical and grammatical tone can also be more mobile, shifting and altering across syllables according to context but still necessary for denotation. And why shouldn’t the tone be moving, when so many African tones get people moving, source as Africa is of so much music you want to dance to?

Of course, not everyone wants to get their Eton jacket dusty and sweaty. So be it: the tone may be more subdued, as you like. Let the bon ton pass the baton, then, to the ones who will tap the toe. Skin tone ought to be no bar (especially since skin tone is one of the most common collocations for this word); one need not tone down whether uptown or downtown. (Perhaps some worry that the tune will be taken to the whole-tone whole-notes of ring tones.)

Those of Eton, incidentally, were not attuned to young John Keats; he was seen by the upper-crust critics as too uncouth, too Cockney. One John Wilson Croker croaked, “He wanders from one subject to another, from the association, not of ideas, but of sounds.” The association of sounds! Why, it seems like a good name for an orchestra, no?

But also, why ought not sounds associate freely, to speak the truth as they may? If lie detectors may sense mendacious tension in one’s intonation, surely a link between tone and truth may be made, be that tone one of sound, or of colour, or of emotion, be it tone poem, or tone of poem, or flesh tone, conversational tone, moral tone, the gravelly tones of Tone Loc or the girly tones of Tone Damli Aaberge, the hortatory tone of the speeches of Wolfe Tone (martyred for Irish nationalism when Keats was 3 years old), or a sepia tone photograph of Franchot Tone or even the deconstructed “noise music” of Yasunao Tone? Why ought not the tone of one’s speech to signify its verity as well as its mellifluity? Or the colour tone of one’s hair be a truth or lie? Let us remember Keats’s Grecian formula: “‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’ – that is all / you know on earth, and all ye need to know.” The tone is the tother; they are tethered, “And full of many wonders of the spheres.”

This one is for Bill Aide, who suggested this word and whose tunes, tones, and notes on the piano encouraged my writing.

pidgin

Let me try a few sentences from a foreign language on you (from tpi.wikipedia.org):

Kanada emi wanpela kantri long Not Amerika. Em i stap long noten sait bilong Yunaitet Stets. Em i gat 10 provins, na 32 milien manmeri. Kapitol bilong kantri emi Ottawa na ol bikpela taun i Toronto, Montreal na Vancouver. Kantri igat tupela tokples bilong gavman: Tok Inglis na Tok Pranis.

Here’s a translation:

Canada is a country in North America. It is on the northern side of the United States. It has 10 provinces and a population of 32 million. The country’s capitol is Ottawa and its large cities are Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. It has two official languages: English and French.

Now look at this:

Canada him is one fella country along North America. Him is stop along northern side belong United States. Him is got 10 province, and 32 million man Mary. Capitol belong country him he Ottawa and all bigfella town is Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Country he got two fella talk place belong government: Talk English and Talk French.

And look back at the first passage. See the connection?

So what is that first passage? Tok Pisin, also known as Pidgin or Pidgin English.

But that’s misleading for a few reasons. First of all, there are many pidgins in many places in the world, and Tok Pisin isn’t even the first one so to be called – that credit goes to Chinese Pidgin English, about which more below. Second, though it appears to be a version of English, that’s not quite accurate. Third, Tok Pisin, for many of its speakers, isn’t even a pidgin anymore.

First things first. What is a pidgin? The word pidgin comes from the pronunciation of the word business in Chinese Pidgin English, and not because it’s for the birds or because it’s a carrier of meaning. A pidgin is a trade language that has come into being in a situation where speakers of two or more different languages are in regular contact for a limited set of purposes (generally business, naturally) but do not have a common language to communicate in: there is not enough contact to give reason for general fluency in one of the groups’ languages, and there is not another language in common use (as, for instance, English is often today used for commerce between speakers of two other languages).

So they communicate with a simplified grammar – typically based mainly on one of the languages – and a simplified sound system that both sides can pronounce well enough (since one language may have various sounds that are not used in the other), and words are taken often more from one language (if there are two languages involved, one will typically supply grammar and the other – often the more prestigious one – will supply vocabulary), but generally every language spoken in that commercial context will pitch in at least a bit. Which means it’s not simply a variety of one language. It’s a language of its own, albeit a comparatively basic one.

A pidgin is thus inevitably something with a limited vocabulary and a fairly simple structure, basically meant for functional purposes. Think about what kind of exchanges you have with people on the other side of the counter in the mall, after all! And it has no native speakers.

Which is why Tok Pisin, for many speakers, is not a pidgin anymore. There are now more than a million first-language speakers of it. And it’s not so limited anymore. Have a look at its section on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s website.

Of course, if a pidgin is to be used for all the things of general life, it inevitably develops more detailed grammar and vocabulary, and becomes what is called a creole.

Not all pidgins involve English, either. There are, around the world, various ones involving Spanish, Portuguese, French, Arabic… you will notice that all of these have in common being colonial powers. There’s a reason for that!

Pidgins have also supplied English with some phrases now in common use. Chinese Pidgin English, spoken from the 17th to the 19th centuries in southern China, produced a number of phrases that are basically calques of Chinese phrases – Chinese idiom, Chinese word order, English words: for instance, long time no see, look-see, lose face, no can do. Hawai’ian Pidgin has also given a few words and phrases. For instance, the word quick changed to its onset and reduplicated to make wiki-wiki, which has reappeared in English unreduplicated as wiki, for a website that allows open collaboration. As in Wikipedia.

For linguists, pidgin thus has a clear technical sense and a developed sphere of reference, and many linguists find pidgins fascinating. For most other English speakers, however, pidgin goes very often with English and is thought of as a debased sort of English, the pidgin being thought of perhaps as a misspelling of pigeon (by which it may have been influenced – bidgin might have been the first form of the word), and “pigeon English” like dog Latin – and perhaps lolcat speak – an animalized version, or a deformity like being pigeon-toed.

One suspects there may even be an undercurrent of thinking of the speakers as being bird-brained. In fact, the generally low view of Chinese Pidgin English and its speakers is why Cantonese traders finally decided to just use English. Why didn’t they before? Well, they had a low opinion of English and disdained kowtowing to an English standard (didja notice the Chinese loan word there?). And of course Cantonese was just too difficult for the English traders to learn. So that set the tone… until, in the end, business won out over pidgin.

mentor

“Well,” I said to young Marcus Brattle with a touch of trepidation, “I am to be your mentor.” I picked up the cup of tea his mother had poured for me just before she disapparated to another part of the house.

Marcus, relishing the lankiness of early adolescence, had strewn himself along and across the chesterfield, a bottle of Coke in arm’s reach. “Mum wants to cement our relationship, does she? Tell me, are you to be commentor, implementor, or tormentor?”

The last role’s likely yours, I thought. I looked around to see if his mother seemed to be anywhere in earshot, and saw no evidence. “Think of me as just the sort of bad influence you need,” I said.

“A dementor, then,” he said then, almost looking interested. “But is that what you meant, or…”

“Well, more like staving off dementia, now that demention it. Not to worry; you are no hirsute ceramicist, and I will not eat your soul. No, you are to play the part of Telemachus.”

“Who’s he?”

“The student of Mentor. From the Odyssey. And, more recently, the lead character in Mothe-Fénelon’s 1699 book Les Aventures de Télémaque, from which the persona of Mentor came to be popularly known. Our word came up as a reference as much to that book as to the Odyssey.”

“And here I thought it had to do with mental,” Marcus said. “If you’re no good, like, that would make me mentor-ly handicapped.”

“Well, there is a sense of mentation, ” I said, and thought, Probably a little mentition (lying) too, as occasion demands.

“So who was this Telemetry bloke, anyway?”

“The son of Odysseus and Penelope. No doubt you’ve read James Joyce’s Ulysses,” I said, hoping that he certainly had not, because after all he was only in grade 9. “Stephen Dedalus was the Telemachus type in that. In the Odyssey, Mentor was Telemachus’s tutor, but actually Mentor was Athena in disguise.”

“Athena!” Marcus got up and dumped himself into a chair at the table, setting his Coke next to my tea. “Athena was a female. (I think I knew a girl called Athena…) Are you saying this Mentor was really a Womentor?”

“Better that than a Minotaur, anyway.”

“Oh, with a nice girl, you always want more than a minotaur two,” Marcus said, and had a slug of his Coke. “So what you’re saying is that mentee is not a real word.”

“It’s a real word,” I said, “because people use it and understand it, but it’s a backformation. Like tase from Taser.”

“Shocking. So you’re the minotaur and I’m the manatee. Oh, the huge manatee!” He threw his arms in the air in mock tragedy.

“Well, at least you’ll have mentee-fresh breath,” I said.

This seemed to provoke a recollection of something; Marcus started checking his pockets. As he did so, he asked, “And where, then, did this name Mentor come from?”

“It seems it came from the Greek word for ‘intent, spirit, purpose, action,’ that sort of thing: mentos.”

“Marvellous!” Marcus said with an evil little smile, producing something from his pocket that I only too late identified as a roll of Mentos. Before I could stop him, he emptied it into his still-mostly-full bottle of Coke. A geyser of foam shot towards the ceiling. As it drenched me and my tea, he shouted, “A fountain of knowledge!”

Thanks to David Moody for suggesting mentor.

crazy, insane

The Daryl-and-Margot Show was at it again, back at the table in the food court overlooking Yonge Street.

“Here,” Daryl said, proffering an article from the New York Times on his iPhone. “This is emblematic. New York Assemblyman Keith Wright, speaking of the chaos in the state government in Albany, says ‘Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom planned for crazy. But this week we moved to insane.'”

“But that’s just nonsense!” Margot protested. “He’s simply inarticulate. Obviously crazy and insane mean the same thing exactly. One is simply a more colloquial, less respectful version of the other.”

“You mean,” I interjected, “one’s from Anglo-Saxon and one’s from Latin.”

“You’re crazy,” Daryl said (in Margot’s direction). “Or perhaps insane. But above all you’re inattentive.”

“I do not take my lead from the myriad of popular abuses,” Margot replied.

“Riiight. And you’re the only one in the orchestra who’s not off beat,” Daryl said. “Meaning is by common agreement, forged through usage. And these two have different usage patterns.”

Margot was rummaging through her bag. Evidently she had been tutoring someone who was learning English as a foreign language, as she had the Oxford Collocations Dictionary with her. She flipped a few pages and read out. “Crazy: be, seem, sound; go; drive somebody; really, absolutely, completely, totally…” The she flipped some more. “Insane: be, look, become, go; drive; certify somebody, declare somebody; completely, totally…” She looked up. “The main difference is that there are technical uses with insane: certify, declare, also criminally, clinically, et cetera.”

“So it’s OK to say insane like a fox?” Daryl asked with a disingenuous smile.

“That’s a cliché,” Margot replied. “You can’t just play around with clichés.”

“Clichés give words flavour,” I said. “As do popular titles and other common uses.”

Daryl had been pulling up some web results on his iPhone while Margot had been rummaging. “Like Crazy Train,” he said, “Crazy Horse, Crazy for You, crazy quilt, crazy eights, a wild and crazy guy, dig that crazy cat, man dat some crazy sh—”

Margot cut him off. “Yes, but those all could have been insane except for matters of euphony and formality.”

Insane Train?” I chuckled.

Insane for You?” Daryl added, arching an eyebrow. “Insane eights?”

“There’s no question,” I said, “that crazy is less formal. After all, aside from being Anglo-Saxon, it originally meant ‘cracked.’ We still talk about crazing in pottery and glasses. There’s even a French cognate, écraser – a gift from the Normans, who knew crazy. But the point is that the greater formality and clinicality give insane a tone of respect, or awe, or fear, that also gives it a greater degree of severity if one puts one word against the other.”

Insane is also unhealthy,” Daryl said. “Latin in ‘not’ plus sanus ‘healthy.’ And…” He was tapping on his iPhone as he spoke: “insane asylum, insane rageInsane Clown Posse!”

“As opposed to crazy clown, which is what that coyote is really,” I said. At long last all those Saturday mornings of cartoons were paying off. “The coyote isn’t dangerous. Is dangerously insane in your collocations dictionary?”

Margot flipped back. “…Yes… But that’s because law enforcement officials don’t use the word crazy, I’d say.”

“Right, insane is trouble with the law, whereas crazy is not; it’s just stressful.” I abruptly burst into a Billy Joel rendition: “You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for…”

Margot waved her hand as though to dispel smoke. “OK, fine, never mind, stop. You’re driving me nuts.”

Daryl and I looked at each other and smiled.

Nuts. Lesser degree than crazy?” I said.

“Yes, I think so…” Daryl said.

Margot winced. “My afternoon headache has arrived.”

horseshoer

Have fun looking at this word, and then have fun saying it.

If it snags your eyes, it’s with good reason: the second half of it is just the first half rearranged… in the spelling, that is. The pronunciation is almost completely different – /r/ is the only phoneme the two halves have in common, and it’s a mere glide in the first half and a full syllable in the second.

In the first half, the o is made with the tongue lower than with, say, over, and higher than with, say, on. The s is voiceless, as indicated by the e, which is not pronounced and is just there to keep the word looking like a plural of hor and having the s said [z] – originally there was no e written on horse.

In the second half, neither s nor h is said with individual value; although we have, and have always had, the “sh” sound in English, classical Latin didn’t have the sound, and so our alphabet didn’t come with a symbol for it. In Old English it was written sc; now it’s sh. The o has always been there in this word, and used to be said [o]; the e has not always been there, though in shoer it would be there anyway as part of the er suffix. And again the e is not said; we just go straight to the r (if you’re British and glide the r, you’re still not saying the e as you would if giving it normal value; you’re saying a sound reserved for er, farther back in the mouth).

If you’re just learning English, you may well think that this word was invented by the devil, or at any rate, its referent notwithstanding, that it is quite unlucky. It stands as evidence against the silly assertion that English is a logical language. It also forces you to make a sound remarkably like that of a dishwasher in action (and nothing at all like the clank of a horseshoe). But, better still, it forces the speaker to do something rather unusual: follow an alveolar fricative with an alveopalatal fricative – you start with that [s] and then immediately have to slide the tongue back a little off the ridge. It’s just screaming for the first sound to be assimilated into the second. And it probably would come to be thus if it were a common word.

Now, it is made of two common words, both great old Anglo-Saxon words emerging from the mists of time little altered. And its referent is nothing new – someone who makes horseshoes or shoes horses. But even though there is still work (if less of it) for such tradespeople, they are not commonly called by the plain (if horse-whispering) word we have here. No, fittingly for a line of work that persists mainly in rather upscale milieux, it gets a Latinate denomination: farrier.

fungible, fungi

We were setting out some refreshments at Domus Logogustationis for our monthly Words, Wines, and Whatever tasting event. Maury had paused to scrutinize a piece of truffled Gorgonzola.

“I believe this is a bit mouldy.”

I peered over. Elisa, ready to hand, made a funny face. “It’s supposed to be! It’s blue cheese!” she said.

“Yes,” said Maury, holding up the offending wedge, “but there is the mould in the cheese and the mould on the cheese. Moulds are not fungible.”

“Ironically,” I said.

“Why ironically?” Elisa asked.

“Because they’re fungi,” Maury said, pronouncing it “fun-jye.”

“Fungi?” Elisa said, saying it “fun-guy.”

“I am often thought one such, thank you,” Maury replied.

Elisa was about to say something, the caught herself and gave Maury a light swat. “Ha ha. But you said ‘fun-jye.'”

“Well, yes,” said Maury, “I was going with the usual way of saying anglicized Latin terms. We don’t, after all, say fungible with a velar g. Or pretty much any other similar Latin-derived word, except for fungi, which has both options available.”

“They’re fungible,” I said.

Fungible,” Elisa said, pondering. “That’s a fun word. Sounds a bit like spongeable.”

“Fittingly,” said Maury, “since the word fungus comes from the same Greek word that gives us sponge.”

“But fungi aren’t sponges,” Elisa said.

“Nope,” I said, “sponges are part of the animal kingdom. Fungi are their own kingdom.”

“So does fungible relate to fungus?” Elisa asked.

“No,” Maury replied, “it’s just a coincidence of sound, though it might have been the basis for various Latin puns. Fungible comes from fungi vice.” Maury gave the classical pronunciation – like “foonghee weekeh” – and then repeated the term with the old British-style version, like “fun-jye vie-see.”

“To take the place of or fill the office of,” I translated. “For things that are fudgeable. Break one glass and you can use another similar one in its stead. A dollar is a dollar. And so on. If any item of the type will do, it’s fungible.”

Fungi vice!” Elisa giggled, saying it like the name of a mushroom cop show. “Maybe we should call the fungi vice squad on this piece of cheese.”

“It might gorgonize them,” Maury said.

“They might gorge on it,” Elisa riposted.

“Hey,” I said in a tough-guy voice, “We ain’t lookin’ for truffle.”

“Another kind of fungus,” Maury pointed out. “Also not fungible.”

“We ought to have mushrooms here to add to the fun, guys!” Elisa said. She tittered a bit at her pun.

“I’m always leery of mushrooms,” Maury said.

“Timothy Leary?” I asked.

“His kind of fungus was more ergot than psilocybin, I think,” Maury said (ergot is a mould related to LSD), “but it was the latter kind that struck home to me just how fungible fungi aren’t. I knew a fellow in my college days –” (I interjected “Mycology?” but Maury continued) “– who wished to procure some of it for hallucinatory adventures, but he found it unavailable. Someone he knew said he could get him some Amanita muscaria instead, another mushroom for trips. Unfortunately, the Amanita he got was phalloides.”

“Ooo,” I said.

“Fotunately for him,” Maury continued, “he realized soon enough that he wasn’t tripping, and so he took a trip instead to the emergency ward. Saved his life. If he had waited until he had developed cramps a couple of days later, he would likely have died of liver failure within the week.”

We paused. Then looked at the truffled Gorgonzola. There was indeed a small spot of surface mold. “Keep or toss, then?” I asked.

Maury took a cheese knife and sliced off the offending part, then placed the rest on the tray. “It won’t kill us.”

hopefully

Ah! You see this word, controversial in the past century, and look hopefully. Will the dispute that has brought such despair to an ostensibly bright-eyed word be resolved, or at least addressed enlighteningly? I write this note hopefully; hopefully, it will sort out some key points. The word and its uses will be fully examined, and, I hope, fully tasted.

Let us start with a morphological decomposition: hope+ful+ly.

The ly comes from a Germanic root meaning “appearance, form” that is also the root of like (all forms of the word like are related and have this origin). In this case it makes the word an adverb, but there is an identical and cognate suffix that makes adjectives: kingly, early, leisurely, etc.

The ful is just full written with one l instead of two. And the hope is, of course, hope. Both hope and full come from Germanic roots and have always meant what they mean now (though their forms have modified over time – full is cognate with forms throughout the Indo-European languages, all having a labial and a liquid, as in plenum in Latin and plérés and pléthos in Greek).

So this word is, like, full of hope! It was assembled in stages, historically: though its parts date back into the mists of time, hopeful is first cited by the Oxford English Dictionary from 1594 (in Shakespeare’s Richard III, not the most hopeful play in the canon), and hopefully from 1639.

Say it now, slowly: hope – your mouth is in a shape to swallow something, a gulp of liquid perhaps; you sure hope it’s good! – ful – now your mouth is full with your tongue, as it arches like a stretching cat, tip and tail high – ly – the tongue is now pressing its mid part forward and up, as the tip and tail drop back. The motion your tongue makes is a little reminiscent of the sun salutation, a common yoga routine. Ah, greet the morning hopefully! Hopefully it will be a nice day.

But there it is: the bitter twinge, the fly in the ointment. Can you say hopefully like that, setting the tone of a sentence without modifying the main verb? Ignoring for a moment how long people have been doing so, isn’t it illogical?

Ah, logic, logic, logic. In the sciences, you see how something works, and you make a hypothesis. If it is further confirmed, it is a theory. But if you find data that contradict your theory, you need to revise or discard it; it’s considered rather bad form to simply declare the data wrong. Not that it’s never been done, but when it’s done it doesn’t generally last. Biologists refused to believe that a platypus could lay eggs and yet be a mammal. It simply didn’t fit within their tidy taxonomies. It really was a hopeless case. But in the end the physical fact was indisputable.

But in language, because we do have the opportunity to influence its use, and it is a form of behaviour susceptible to having “correct” and “incorrect” forms, platypus denial can persist for a long, long time. Failure to analyze grammatical functions correctly is presented not as a defect, which it is, but as a virtue: you have logic on your side, so all those people who are saying things in a way that does not match your analysis must be wrong, wrong, wrong! Well, garbage in, garbage out: if your assumptions are wrong or your logic is incomplete, your conclusions will be rubbish.

And the usage always comes first. Natural languages are not constructed; they arise spontaneously and are analyzed after the fact. They can be influenced, but one does well to consider what sort of influence to exert and why. That’s the pragmatic side of the question – does a given usage enhance or detract from the expressive potential of the language? Well, let us examine the one at hand. Frankly, I don’t see what the fuss is about. But, sadly, there is a fuss, so, clearly, I need to address it.

The “logical” analysis that leads to rejection goes as follows: “Hopefully is an adverb meaning ‘with hope,’ so it must apply to the verb. If you say ‘Hopefully, I am going,’ it means ‘I am going hopefully.’ To use it otherwise is wrong.” The problem is that it is used that way, is used that way clearly and effectively, and thereby adds to the expressive potential of English. But that’s not the only problem with that analysis.

You see, the contested use of hopefully is as a sentence adverb, i.e., an adverb that sets the mood for a sentence, and it’s far from being the only word we use in that way. It’s an established and well-understood usage. If I say “frankly, I don’t see what the fuss is about,” it’s not the seeing that’s frank; if I say “sadly, there is a fuss, so, clearly, I need to address it,” I’m not saying that the fuss occurs sadly or that the address is what will be clear – although I hope the address is reasonably clear.

Seriously, sentence adverbs have been around at least since the 17th century – “seriously” was used as one in 1644. The animus towards them has only been around since the 20th century, and only really caught on in the 1960s, and has been focused mostly on hopefully, which is a bit of a latecomer to the sentence adverb game, showing up in the early 20th century – but well before many usages that are now commonly accepted.

So, really, why should there be any question about it? It’s obviously a perfectly viable usage. And I certainly do hope that the eyes of the grammaticasters will open fully; if they can learn to like it, I will be full of hope for the language.

doldrums

Do life and work in late winter seem especially sluggish? As though, if life were an orchestra, you were not the concertmaster or even the oboe but merely the second timpanist, stuck back in the corner beating dull drums slowly? This incessant tedium… it’s enough to make one throw a tantrum if one weren’t so listless. It’s like being a sailor on a becalmed boat.

Or, more to the point, being a sailor on a becalmed boat is like it. You know how we tend to get words for internal states – mental and emotional dispositions – from words for concrete physical things? Well, guess what. Here’s one that goes the other way. Doldrums referred first to mental dullness, drowsiness, and depression; it was later transferred to the areas of the ocean where one could be becalmed (and thus in the doldrums as far as mood and activity went, too).

Doldrum comes in turn from dull plus an ending imitative of tantrum (a kind of deliberate opposite formation, like craptacular formed from spectacular). And guess what about dull (drum roll, please)… It’s also a word that referred to mental state first and then later to physical nature! Yes, that’s right; it comes from and old Germanic root meaning “foolish” or “stupid”. From there it extended to sluggish spirits and blunted moods. And only from there, and a half a millennium after the first instance we have recorded of it in English (but still before Shakespeare), do we see it used to refer to knives, light, etc.

So doldrums, with its echo of ho-hum, really is a perfect word for the late winter blues, when the superintendent of your spirits is become slumlord, and perhaps, like a bored and stagnating sailor, you get into the rums and just plop upside-down (plop upside-down? dold… just lie on your back in your state of stupefaction and look at it).

Thanks to Margaret Gibbs for suggesting doldrums.

pschent

In case you were wondering whether we have any words in English that can’t be pronounced according to English phonotactics, well, yes, of course we do. English is rapacious and will take words from anywhere if it sees them as suitable and desirable.

Take, for example, pschent. This is not a typo for Paschen or psyche or anything else, not even James Joyce’s pftjschute. It is also not pronounced like pshaw but with an ent in place of the aw. No, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it begins with a voiceless bilabial stop, which is followed by a voiceless alveolar fricative – /ps/, already a forbidden onset in English, even though we have tons of words starting with the letters ps thanks to /ps/ being so common in Greek as to have its own letter – and that in turn is followed by a voiceless velar fricative, as in German ach (and written [x] in the International Phonetic Alphabet), a sound we no longer even have in English, officially. And then, then, then, finally then, you get to say the same sounds as the end of went. It seems like some pop-bottle explosion: “Man, someone musta shook that Coke, cuz it just pschent!” No wonder some other dictionaries allow this word an onset of just /sk/.

So, ah, what is it really, this pschent? Well, Torontonians have lately had a chance to see plenty of pictures and sculptures of it, if they’ve visited the King Tut exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario. You probably thought of it as a double crown (which sounds like a coin or a brand of beer). The pharaoh of unified Egypt was a man who wore two hats, you see. At the same time. One was the milk-bottle-shaped white crown of Upper (southern) Egypt; the other was the more rakish red crown of Lower (northern) Egypt, which just so happened to fit around the white crown like a zarf (or one of those jugs one puts ones milk bags into, if one drinks milk from bags). The pschent was, in its way, Egypt’s answer to the Union Jack. Only worn on the king’s head.

This word was one of the ones on the Rosetta Stone, that parallel text that first allowed the hieroglyphs to be deciphered. Pschent was in the Greek and in the Egyptian demotic script; it comes from p “the” and skhnt “sekhemti”. Oh, I should say that sekhemti was the hieroglyph for this crown; it meant “two powerful ones”. But we couldn’t borrow that word! Where would be the fun in that? Be happy at least that we took the Greek version, with the e in it; skhnt can only be said when one is sound asleep. Not that one has many occasions to speak of pschents in daily life, of course.

aplomb

What picture do you get when you see or hear this word? Perhaps a cool customer, one with chin up and chest out but as calm as Jeeves, someone who, when pitted against a problem, does not take things lying down but does not throw his (or her) weight around, someone who surveys the situation, senses the gravity of the circumstance but always keeps head on shoulders, takes the lead, and gives a measured response? And perhaps someone with a plummy accent?

The look and sound of the word seem to go well with the sense. The pl is seen in calm, measured words such as please, pleasant, plan, and plush, as well as weighty words such as plot, plop, plug, and plough, along with an assortment of other kinds of words such as pluck, plural, and plight. The calm /m/ of the end with its thoughtful nasal hum can also be seen to be leaving something unsaid – that b there. Ah, that b. Look: first you see it hanging upside down p, then it is right side up but in two pieces lo, and with the calm hand of intervention m it ends up as it should be, but tamed. Yes, this word gets from a to b so calmly you don’t even notice you’re at b.

And where did that b come from? Originally from Latin plumbum, which is the reason the chemical symbol for lead is Pb. If, like a surveyor, you take a properly shaped piece of plumbum and dangle it from a string as a weight, you will find it will find gravity for you quite nicely and tell you exactly which way is up. We may call such a device a plumb bob (sounds like a Hallowe’en game) or a plummet. If you happen to be French, however, “lead” is plomb and if you follow the lead of the lead – not throwing it around, but just being as upright as it is – you are à plomb. So this French prepositional phrase meaning “in vertical position” is now a noun in English meaning, roughly, “as cool as a cucumber”.

This noun, incidentally, is found most of the time with the word with usually two or three words before it: with grace and aplomb, with equal aplomb, with as much aplomb, with considerable aplomb, with characteristic aplomb, with the same bleary-eyed aplomb, et cetera. This is not so surprising, since it expresses a manner of doing things (and doing things with manners). It could have been an adjective (like adroit) or an adverb, but somehow it ended up a noun. Perhaps because it expresses such stability. And perhaps because a plum is, after all, a noun.

Thanks to Jens Wiechers for asking for aplomb.