Feet Idioms

Several words have found themselves used in a number of phrases. 'Spring' being an example, and seen in expressions such as 'spring fever', 'spring upon', 'spring chicken', 'spring cleaning', etc. This etymologist thought about looking at some of these and see what usage, origin, and beginnings can reveal. This time we start with 'foot'.

On foot is the earliest, at around 1300.

Hot foot is first seen in English around the same period of the early 14th century, but received a boost as American slang in 1896 to mean 'hastily', and saw a third revival around 1934 as a prank involving matches.

Put one's foot in it dates from 1823.

One foot in the grave is first seen in 1844.

We put our best foot forward for the first time in 1849, although Shakespeare did speak of 'the better foot before' in 1596.

Cold feet, for it is only used in the plural, first appears in 1893 and some sources suggest this is a bad rendition of an Italian phrase, avegh minga frecc i pee meaning 'to have no money', although this seems somewhat contrived.

Got off on the wrong foot is first seen in print in 1905, two years earlier than anyone ever got off on the right foot.

My foot, an expression of contempt, is first seen in 1923.

Put one's foot in one's mouth is not seen in writing until 1942.

One no longer used is 'foot' meaning 'a person' and thus 'non-foot' meant 'nobody'.

Trial by Combat

Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 is an English criminal case in the Court of King's Bench which upheld the right of the defendant to trial by battle on a private appeal from an acquittal for murder.. In 1817, Abraham Thornton was charged with the murder of Mary Ashford. Thornton had met Ashford at a dance and had walked with her from the event. Next morning, she was found drowned in a local pit, although there was little evidence of her having died a violent death. Charged with rape and murder, public opinion would have condemned Thornton, but the jury could not see any evidence to convict him and he was acquitted.

But that was not the end of the story, for William Ashford, Mary's brother, launched an appeal and when Thornton was rearrested, he claimed the right to trial by battle or combat. This medieval solution was still on the stature books and therefore quite legal. Back to court they went, with Ashford claiming the evidence against Thornton was overwhelming. The court disagreed and trial by battle was Ashford's sole remaining option. Ashford did not take up the option and Thornton was released. In 1819 appeals of this nature were abolished by the state, but too late for Thornton's reputation and he had already departed for a new life in the United States of America.

The last recorded trial by battle to come to a conclusion dates from 1597. In Scotland Adam Butterfield accused James Carmichael of murder and exacted revenge by killing the latter. Other cases in 1631 and 1638 were stopped by the king's intervention.

Attempts to abolish the law came in the 17th century and twice in the 18th century, all proving unsuccessful. Of course, in 1819 it did disappear from the statute books, but that did not prevent the law being cited in 2002. Unemployed 60-year-old mechanic Leon Humphreys appeared in Ipswich court, charged with failing to tell the DVLA his motorcycle was off road and thus liable to pay the Road Fund Licence. The DVLA were attempting to fine him £25. But the man from Bury St Edmunds did not agree. Indeed, he told the court he would not enter a plea but demanded the DVLA nominate a champion whom he would fight to the death to prove his innocence. He also claimed the new Human Rights laws meant ordinary folk like him could use the law for their own purposes. Traditionally these battles were fought with swords, lances, shields, staves, and the like - but Mr Humphreys was happy to wield Japanese samurai swords, Ghurka knives, or even a blacksmith's hammer.

Mr Humphreys was forced to pay the fine.

Pete, Jack, Minnie, et al.

Last time I looked at the origins of 'even-steven' and I started thinking of other phrases with names. Here's the result of my searches, starting with ....

For Pete’s sake - which is simply an alternative to 'For Christ's sake', which could be seen as blasphemy. It is not overly clear when Pete, a reference to St Peter, began to replace the Lord.

Jack of all trades is seen from the 17th century. Almost two hundred years earlier, Jack was a term used to describe the lower classes. Perhaps this came from the French, where Jacque was used to refer to peasants - and their very basic short coat was called a "jacket". As the phrase ends "and master of none" the original inference described one with no specific skill.

Moaning Minnie is one with a rather more interesting story. Indeed, we can even date it to a specific year and a known individual. The year is 1846 and the man is Captain Claude Etienne Minie, and he introduces a soft lead bullet for use in his army's rifles. On firing, the bullet would distort and the bullet made a distinct sound as it flew through the air toward its target. Hence the moaning Minne was originally a bullet - or so one story would have us. There is also the thought of a German mortar, but there is no record of the phrase Moaning Minnie being used during World War I, the phrase only becoming popular during WWII.

Plain Jane first appears in print in the play Doing for the Best by M. Rophino Lacy in 1861. It was once thought to be a reference to Jane Eyre but, while there are some plot similarities, it has latterly been dismissed as coincidental. As a stand-alone phrase it first appears in 1912, which appears to have been coined simply because of its rhyme.

Contrary Mary is another rhyme, but this undoubtedly originated in the nursery rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. The oldest known version dates from 1744 in Tommy Thumb's Pretty Song Book, which tends to refute suggestions this is a reference to Queen Mary or Mary, Queen of Scots who were both alive in the 16th century and no known written versions of the rhyme date from anywhere near the Tudor period.

Jack the lad is likely dateable back to the early 18th century and Jack Sheppard, a notorious thief who managed to escape from gaol no less than four times. Eventually, when imprisoned for the fifth time, he was hanged at Tyburn. This hardened criminal, he was just 22 years old at the time, had a career in crime lasting just two years.

Johnny on the spot is first recorded in the April 1896 issue of the New York Sun. In that piece, the writer speaks of how the phrase had suddenly become very popular in the New York area, but had no idea where it originated.

Jack Robinson, a figure who appears and disappears very quickly, is first referred to as such around 1700 and even has an entry in a dictionary in 1785.

Even-steven

At university my tutor corrected my 'even-steven' to 'even-Steven'. I objected and pointed to a dictionary. She said she didn't need a dictionary, she knew better. I won't bother with the resulting emails flying back and forth - I wasn't happy, but I was right it is even-steven (and I would never have posted this had I been wrong, obviously).

It did make me wonder whether an etymologist could answer the question and so I did a little digging. It seems there are no less than three explanations and I shall start with the most recent, which dates from 1962. Australians use the phrase 'Even-Stevens', reputedly the name of a racehorse which was so good the best odds you could ever get were evens.

Older is the American version of 'even-Steven', although that must have been borrowed from the United Kingdom as it concerns none other than Jonathan Swift. It is held to be from a character in his Journal to Stella. There is a line stating "Now we are even, quote Steven, when he gave his wife six blows to one." Stella was a real person named Esther Johnson, reputedly his lover and they were buried alongside one another.

And finally the British explanation, where 'steven' is a slang term for money. Hence the phrase tells us the monies were distributed equally.

Which is the correct explanation? Obviously the Australian explanation is too late as the phrase was in use rather earlier. Jonathan Swift is a possibility but, and I've said this often, the first use known in print will almost certainly follow the word and/or phrase being already in use. Which leaves us with the British slang for money and, yet again, this hardly rings true as I could find no other reference to this slang term.

The best clue comes from Jonathan Swift's writings, for that shows the phrase was in use. It probably also shows the term has seen a change of meaning as there is no parity between the six blows given for the one received. Thus, perhaps the original rhyming referred to inequality, rather than the modern use.

Words of disputed usage

Following on from last time, I also found a list of words commonly misused on Wikipedia. Again I thought it might be an interesting exercise to look at this through my etymologist eyes. I opted for an alphabetical list as much as I could.

Around is in the dictionary to mean 'in the vicinity' or perhaps 'encircling'. It is also used as a synonym for 'about' and also 'on'. Historically, the correct usage is seen from around 1600, prior to that it appears as 'on round' which might seem bad grammar but does make more sense.

Barter is so often wrongly used to mean 'negotiate' when bartering is correctly an exchange of goods. Interesting to note the word came from Old French barater where other meanings included 'cheat, deceive' and is related to Irish brath or 'treachery'.

Canvas is a strong fabric used as protection, it is not a way of judging or gathering support, that word is 'canvass'. The former comes from Old French chanevaz and Latin cannapaceus, both meaning 'made from hemp' - the word is also related to 'cannabis'. Canvass has an identical origin, probably due to a sheet of canvas being used to sift or examine something.

Discreet, meaning 'circumspect', is often confused with 'discrete' meaning 'separate from'. Both spellings were used for the first meaning until 1600, and both come from the Latin discretus 'separated'.

Eponymous refers to something which gives its name to something else, such as the eponymous hero of the novel Jane Eyre is the character Jane Eyre. Yet this is often reversed, such as when people refer to their vacuum cleaner (a Dyson, or Electrolux) and having done the 'hoovering' with it. It first appears in English in 1833. Clearly from Greek, it originated as eponymos, where it referred to the title of magistrates who had given their name to the years when they held office.

Forego is often mixed up with 'forgo'. The former means 'to precede' and the latter 'to go without'. Etymology does not help with these compound words.

Gone is the past participle of 'go', traceable to Proto-Indo-European ghe to release'. Went, which is the simple past tense of 'go', began as 'wend' and became the past tense of 'go' around the beginning of the 17th century.

Hoard is 'a collection of items deposited together', while a 'horde' is a 'collection of people'. The former comes from Proto-Indo-European ske 'to cover, conceal', the latter is a word coming from several Middle East languages meaning 'camp, army'.

Imply and infer are often reversed, when correctly 'imply' refers to the speaker and infer to the listener. Etymology does not help at all for these compound words, as we can see when we realise the Proto-Indo-European roots for these are words meaning 'plait', when it comes to imply, and 'to bear children' in the case of infer.

Levee and levy, where 'levee' is from a French word which has also given us 'lever' and meaning 'a raising', while 'levy' is a tax or surcharge but also comes from the Proto-Indo-European root ;eghw 'a raising'.

Myself or, as Joan Armatrading once sang, >My, Myself, I are often confused and yet there are very clear rules for the use of each. 'I' is only used as a subject; 'me' only used as an object; and 'myself' only as a reflexive object. In recent times 'myself' has also been used, and incorrectly so, as a form of hypercorrection - this as in "I myself saw it with my own eyes". Interesting to note that 'I' has only been used since the middle of the twelfth century, it came to English from Old Frisian ik and Proto-Germanic ek. 'Me' is found in just about every root language and goes right back to Proto-Indo-European me which is always used to mean 'I'. 'Myself' did not appear until the early sixteen century, and even then began as 'meself' and changed through misunderstanding of 'herself' and 'hisself' being gender based, when the latter is simply the early version of 'meself' and 'herself' a misunderstanding of the apparent gender reference of 'hisself'.

Novitiate is often used incorrectly. A novice is a trainee, but it is when used to refer to a trainee in a religious order that problems occur. Novitiate refers to the period when one was a novice or the time spent as a novice. It is not, as so often said, a description of a novice monk or nun. 'Novice' came from Old French novice (with the same meaning) and Latin novicus meaning 'newly arrived, inexperienced'. 'Novitiate' is not seen until the early seventeen centruty, and is also from the same root of novicius.

Of is only included because I have often heard 'should've', 'would've', and 'could've' used, especially when emphasised, as 'should of', 'would of', and 'could of' when clearly then suffix is not 'of' but 'have'. One of the worst characters I ever heard repeating this error was that former bastion of daytime morning television Jeremy Kyle, who so often gently warned the individual perceived as the less able parent "WELL YOU SHOULD OF!" Perhaps Mr Kyle would be interested to learn the etymology of 'of' takes us back to Proto-Indo-European apo meaning both 'off' and 'away', while 'have' is ultimately from Proto-Indo-European kap 'to grasp'.

Perquisite is 'an extra privilege' and does not mean the same as 'prerequisite' or 'a predetermined condition'. Etymologically 'perquisite' appears in the fifteen century to mean 'property acquired by means other than inheritance', while 'prerequisite' is seen from 1630 and is from 'requisite', itself seen from the late foorteenth century when it was used to mean 'to inquire or ask a question'.

Regimen and regiment (and if you think that's implausible I did read 'regiment' in a book a couple of months ago when 'regimen' was clearly the correct word - and I won't mention the book or author or she might ignore me again) - are used to mean 'a system of order' while a regiment is a military unit. 'Regiment' came to English from Old French regiment 'government. rule' and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European reg 'move in a straight line. 'Regimen' has exactly the same origins. The two words came into usage in English at almost the same moment and thus have likely always been confused.

Suit and suite are 'an article of clothing' and 'a series or set', respectively. Both share an identical in etymological terms, each from Old French suite, albeit appearing at difference times, around 1300 and 1670, respectively, and are ultimately from Proto-Indo-European sekw 'to follow'.

Throw is sometimes given when 'throe' is correct. Etymologically 'throw' as in 'to toss, lob' comes from Proto-Indo-European tere originally meant 'rub, turn'; and 'throe' as in 'pang' if first seen in English as throwe meaning 'pain. pain of childbirth, agony of death' and is a;so thought to go back to the same Proto-Indo-European root'.

Wave instead of waive is ludicrously common - (I even saw it used on a mock exam question!) - and, as we all know, 'wave' is a hand gesture (no, not that one) and 'waive' means 'to refrain from insisting upon or using (a right or claim)'. The former is from Old English waefre 'restless, unstable' and ultimately from Proto-Indo-Germanic uebh meaning 'to move to and fro' (weave has the same origin) and the use as 'wave of the hand' not seen until the mid-fifteen century. What began as a legal term in Anglo-French weyver, to be precise 'deprive of legal protection', came from Old French guevr 'to abandon, give back' and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European weip 'to turn, tremble ecstatically'.

Words of disputed usage

I found a list of disputed words on Wikipedia and thought it might be an interesting exercise to look at this through my etymological eyes. Note this will help the would-be writer, as some editors will be irked if authors use what they perceive as a word in the wrong sense. Best to steer clear, I say. I opted for an alphabetical list as much as I could.

Aggravate is used to mean 'to make worse' and also 'to annoy', but the latter usage is disputed by many. Early usage of this word, from the 16th century, would mean 'to burden, make heavy' and this comes from the Proto-Indo-European root gwere 'heavy'. This would tend to support the idea that it should only be used in the sense 'to make worse'.

Barbaric is rarely used in a positive sense, and yet it really only describes those showing attributes of a barbarian culture. Historically the word would be applied to all who were not from the classical cultures of Rome or Greece, said to be imitative of the unintelligible gabble of foreigners. (It's all Greek to me.)

Contact has become used as a synonym for 'touch', not only in the physical sense but also in the communication sense. As the communication is inevitably remote - text, telephone, email, letter, etc - it hardly involves touching and some still maintain it is wrong. Coming to English from Latin contactus 'a touching', it is ultimately from Proto-Indo-European tag 'to touch, handle'. If this idea of physical contact is the only true sense, then we will all have to abandon making eye contact.

Different in the United Kingdom is given as 'different to', it being likened to the opposite 'similar to'. In America it is 'different from' as in 'to differ from' and 'other than'. This is seen in Latin differentem 'to set apart' and Proto-Indo-European bher 'to carry'. Hence, etymology here is of no help whatsoever.

Enormity is today used to describe great size, but only from around 1800. Prior to that, and also after, the word meant 'transgression, crime' and likely only took on the other meaning because it was seen as related to the word 'enormous'.

Farther or further? Many still adhere to the idea that 'farther' should only be used in terms of distance or proximity, while 'further' should be used in terms of time. Etymologically speaking this distance/time argument is absolutely correct in both cases.

Gender is today used as a synonym for 'sex', yet for most of its existence it was solely an expression used in connection with grammar. It comes, as does 'gene' and 'generation', ultimately from Proto-Indo-European gene meaning 'birth, beget'.

Hopefully should only be used in the sense of expressing confidence, according to some. While others will also use it as a replacement for 'frankly' or 'unfortunately'. The etymologist tends to agree with the former idea, and many writers and editors will change the word when used in the other sense.

Ironic is nearly always used to refer to that which is seen as coincidental, improbable, or unfortunate. This is wrong, for irony describes the incongruity between what is expected and what happens. The etymologist will tell you 'irony' comes from Proto-Indo-European wer-yo 'to speak', which would somewhat support what is seen as the correct usage.

Less should not be used as a synonym for 'fewer', is the argument. The etymologist will tell you it comes from Proto-Indo-European leis 'small', and thus should be used to refer to size and not number - at least historically it should.

Meet is 'to come together', and thus the increasingly common 'to meet with' is poor grammar. The Proto-Indo-European root of mod or 'assemble' would agree.

Nauseous should only be used to mean 'causing nausea' and not the feeling of nausea. Intriguing to note the Proto-Indo-European root nau means 'boat' and, while clearly related to 'nautical', has never been used solely to refer to seasickness.

Overly is seen as an American influence, and is completely pointless as 'over' can be used instead.

People is now seen as the norm, although historically 'persons' was preferred. 'Persons' has been seen as a known number, perhaps not accurately but generally, while 'people' refers to an indeterminate number and replaced 'folk' in English around the 14th century.

Raise or rear children? Rear is correct, while 'raise' should perhaps only be used in the sense of 'lifting'.

Seek has always been used to mean 'look for', but has latterly been used to mean 'try, want' and some frown upon what they perceive as a new meaning. As the Proto-Indo-European root sag-yo meant 'to track down, to seek out', the former seems to be the correct usage.

Than - the argument is simply is it a preposition or a conjunction? The OED has it as a conjunction, but that is not the end of the story, for the word has only been around since 1700, prior to that it was 'then', which probably explains the confusion as to the modern usage.

Urgent as in 'urgently required' is the norm, it comes from Proto-Indo-European wreg meaning 'to follow a track' and is first seen on our shores in Old English wrecan 'drive, hunt, pursue'. This early use has almost come back in the recent use of 'urgent' meaning 'happening very soon'.

Whose, it is argued, should only be used in connection with a person or persons. However, the word has taken on the possessive form of 'which', something English had lacked. For some, and that includes me, sentences like "That's the car whose alarm keeps waking us up at night" is abysmal grammar, but it does seem it is here to stay.

Whilst I have often said the earlier form is 'correct', I fully accept that usage changes and the examples given are (largely) seen as in transit. One day the old meaning may well be lost and the new the accepted truth.