The Vagaries of the English Language

A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.

Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with The Vagaries of the English Language. English is an odd language. Those on the west of the Atlantic Ocean will look bemused at their counterparts washed by the waters on the eastern side of the ocean and vice versa. In truth both forms are oddly different from other languages. Not just the words but the grammar, syntax and usage which seemingly have no fixed rules.

English has acquired the largest vocabulary of all the world's languages, perhaps as many as two million words, and has generated one of the noblest bodies of literature in the annals of the human race. Nonetheless, it is now time to face the fact that English is a crazy language.

I mean ‘flammable’ means ‘burns readily’ but ‘inflammable’ doesn’t mean the opposite it means the same thing.

Why does night fall but never break and day break but never fall?

Send something by land it’s called a shipment, but send it by ship and it’s cargo.

Men get HERnias and women HISterectomies

We pack suits in a garment bag – but garments go in your suitcase.

Anyone in the army? Privates eat in the General Mess and Generals in the Private Mess.

Why do we call it ‘newsprint’ when it contains no printing but when we put print on it we call it ‘newspaper’.

If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.

Not Politically Correct

A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.

Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with Not Politically Correct. Few will not have heard the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." In the modern world of political correctness many words and phrases are considered hurtful in the extreme. Curses and more base language are heard described as 'Anglo-Saxon'. In truth these more than likely began in this Old English language but had quite innocent meanings. Here the origins and original use of the words are examined and analysed to show how these terms began quite innocently. This talk is intended for an adult audience and some may find some parts offensive. There is a PowerPoint presentation to accompany this talk if required.

Now the most common no-no is the unacceptable terms for those of a different nationality. And why not start with those across the channel, the French. The French have been known as Frogs – and as we all know this is down to the French delicacy of frog’s legs. But it isn’t. And it was coined by the English. But it wasn’t. And it’s a racist comment. But it isn’t. This dates from the 16th or 17th century when the city of Paris had on its coat of arms toads. As with all capital cities the residents and officials thought themselves above the rest of the nation and thus it was originally the rest of France who referred to the Parisians as ‘Frogs’ (when it should have been ‘toads’). This caught on and by the 18th century the Belgians, who did not like the French, were certainly using it and it seems we got it from the Belgians.

British have been called Limies ever since naval men were given a ration of citrus fruit to ward off scurvy. Limes would have been eaten but only because these citrus fruit had a longer shelf life. I’m sure the ratings would have loved to have them replaced by a nice ripe avocado – incidentally the Aztec word ‘avocado’ meant ‘testicle’, as they saw it as an aphrodisiac and thought the fruit resembled the testicle. No wonder they died out. Australians call us Poms or Pommies, apparently they are convinced we dine on pomegranates a lot. Can’t say I’ve ever knowingly eaten a single pomegranate. It is NOT an acronym for Prisoner of Her (or His) Majesty nor is it Permit Of Migration.

Enough of the race words and off to insults. To me this is where political correctness goes completely insane. As we have already shown so-called racial slurs have, for the most part, quite innocent beginnings – now surely to describe someone as ‘bald’, ‘short’, ‘fat’ (all used to describe kings of France named Charles, please note) is simply true. Whilst I accept they shouldn’t be the sole identifying feature, if you have three people named Charles who were all French monarchs, how would you know which one was which without the additional information? So let’s have a look at the origins of some of these words. And we’ll start with ‘fat’. Now clearly any insult is using the word as an adjective, while the word began as a noun. Not so, it began as an adjective, then used as a verb ‘to fatten’ and finally as a noun. The word is ultimately from Proto-Indo-European poid which meant ‘fat, swell, grow’ particularly with milk, fat or water. Now I could be wrong here but I can’t see milk or water ever being insulting and fat in this context is surely a bonus. Thin – is unacceptable while ‘slim’ is a compliment. Now historically this might be more of an insult for it began as ‘stretched out, diluted, lacking body’ – much as we describe gravy, soup or sauce.

If not yet appalled and might want to hear me take the etymologist’s view of these terms, drop me a line. Note the words are not the problem, it’s the usage. If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.

The Letter H

A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.

Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with The Letter H. The eighth letter of the English alphabet has the distinction of being the first letter to have its own listing in the dictionary, doing so many years before the second. Look up 'H' and discover the recommended pronunciation is 'aitch' although the dictionary concedes the increased use of 'haitch' is an alternative. Hear, too, how the letter came to English, of its changing usage throughout history and just how the letter's upper case rugby posts-like image and corresponding lower case form came about. Yet this is not just a talk about a single letter but a look at the development, changing usage and beginnings of our all-too familiar alphabet.

The letter ‘H’, the eighth letter of the alphabet, is also listed in the OED under the first letter of the alphabet – ie ‘A’. This is because the letter ‘H’ is unique as it is the only letter in the OED to be listed as a word. Why on earth would this be I hear you cry – well no, I don’t but you’re finding out anyway. It is because of the plural, a plural found in the phrase (sadly not used anywhere near enough these days) “to drop one’s aitches”.

Now dropping one’s aitches is the reason why some refer not to AITCH but to HAITCH. Remember Parker the chauffeur in Thunderbirds? He was your archetypal cockney, his speech saw him drop the aitch at the beginning of words such as ‘appy, ‘elp, ‘erring, and ‘enry, but include an erroneous ‘h’ at the beginning of words such as h’easter, h’avenue, h’artist, and h’England. Now somewhere along the way someone thought the letter ‘aitch’ began with an ‘aitch’ when it doesn’t but it does end in an ‘aitch’

Now the OED base their rules very much on usage. Thus the more people get it wrong and say HAITCH the more likely it will be that HAITCH will lose its listing under ‘A’. Indeed the OED already recognise both forms, so the rot has probably already set in so far it is impossible to reverse

Not only do we add an ‘h’ at the beginning when none is present, but we also pronounce the ‘h’ at the beginning of words where the ‘h’ is present but accepted pronunciation is without. Perhaps the best known of these is ‘hotel’ which, being of French derivation, should be said to be ‘otel and thus we should say ‘an hotel’ not ‘a hotel’. There are others: such as ‘hour’, ‘heir’ and ‘honest’ which have also come to English from French.

We also need to look at the origin of the letter for, like all letters and symbols, they were not simply invented but developed. To do so it is probably easier to work back from the present era rather than forward from the beginning of writing. During the last thousand years the letter has become harsher in languages such as Portuguese and Spanish; while Romance languages, such as Romanian, had lost the sound completely until re-borrowed from neighbouring Slavic languages. All these come from Etruscan ‘H’ and this comes, in turn, from archaic Greek alphabets the letter became a long vowel, borrowed directly from the earliest known form as a letter. While the Greek version is eta early forms give this as heta, itself also seen in the Phoenician heth. The Phoenician alphabet had two forms, one clearly very similar to a modern capital ‘H’ and the other related to Old Semitic which appears as the ‘H’ but with a bar at both top and bottom. This in turn clearly represents a part of the Egyptian hieroglyph known as ‘fence’. Both of these are referred to as a ‘voiceless pharyngeal fricative’ and undoubtedly stood for a fence or posts.

If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.

Gobbledegook

A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.

Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with Gobbledegook. Gobbledegook describes speech which is not clear and a term coined around the 16th century when said to be imitative of the turkey. Gobbledegook from yesteryear is not readily seen for the terminology has become ingrained in the English language. Those featured may not be realised as having been created to describe something in an unusual way. The focus is on those words we are less likely to understand, the modern terms coined to be 'buzz words' and the so-called 'new speak' featured in offices across the country.

Balderdash – first seen in the 1590s the origin is officially said to be ‘unknown’. This early use was quite different in referring to ‘a jumbled mix of liquors’ and not until the 1670s was the modern meaning first seen.

Hogwash – first seen in the middle of the 15th century as two Middle English words hogges and wash. At the time it referred to slops fed to pigs, be it refuse from the kitchen or from a brewery. By 1712 this referred to ‘cheap alcoholic drink’ and fifty years later to ‘inferior writing’. At the time the term was coined, ‘hog’ referred to a castrated male, hence one reared for slaughter and encouraged to eat anything it could to fatten it up; while ‘wash’ was used here to refer more to that skimmed off, such as the cuttings from vegetables or the waste left over from brewing.

Poppycock – is seen as so very twee isn’t it? Almost has to be followed by some chinless wonder asking “anyone for tennis?” Yet the origin is anything but innocent. It comes from the Dutch dialect pappekak where pappe means ‘soft food’ and kak ‘dung’.

Tosh – as British slang it meant ‘rubbish, nonsense’ and there is no known earlier form and thus the origins are unknown. However, it could be a loan word for there is also an earlier Scottish word ‘tosh’ from 1776 and used to mean ‘neat, clean, trim’. We also find another English use dating from 1852 and slang used very much in the capital from 1852 to speak of, somewhat extraordinarily, ‘valuables collected from drains’.

Mullet – now nobody uses mullet-head any more, even though the Beastie Boys recorded Mullet Head – of which we all recall the wonderful lyric “Number one on the side and don’t touch the back; number six on the top and don’t cut it wack, Jack.” However the insult ‘mullet-head’ existed from 1866 (130 years before the haircut) and even nine years before the fish is first recorded (although doubtless the name was in use at least at the same time and probably before). Hence ‘mullet’ originally meant something or someone stupid.

If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.