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.

Words we use to speak to animals (an etymology)

Much as I dislike Westerns, when I heard one cowboy tell his horse to 'Whoa', the etymologist wondered where on earth this word came from. It also saw me searching for other commands used by humans to non-humans.

Whoa is first recorded in 1843, seen as a variant on the earlier 'ho', itself merely reinforcing the physical pull back on the reins and calling the horse's attention to the rider. (Apparently just saying 'whoa' is highly unlikely to stop the horse - or so a horsey friend told me.) Note 'whoa' is also listed as a variant of 'who', and also a word recently replacing 'wow'.

Giddy-up is used to get the horse moving or go faster, itself from giddap, gee-up and, predictably, from 'get up'. Amazing to find it in Western films, for 'giddy-up' is unrecorded until 1909, long after the Wild West went..... well, west. Note, the word won't work alone, there is the physical command, too.

Mush is that word used to make sled dogs get going. First recorded as late as 1897 and recorded as mouche in 1862, it is thought to come from the French marchons 'advance'. Clearly related to the French marcher 'to march'.

Most commands to animals are those used to keep the pet pooch in order. However, the dog doesn't understand a word - as evidenced when the little mutt belonging to the old dear decided to shed half its body weight directly in front of me while I was reading on a park bench. She apologised and, after clearing up, made a fuss of it and told me the dog understood every word she said. When I suggested telling it to shit in the bag next time, she responded with "He's only a dog!"

For a laugh try issuing commands to your dog in German: platz 'down'; bleib 'stay'; fuss 'heel'; and, my personal favourite, brummen 'growl' will eventually be just as understood as the English versions, but only by you and the dog, of course. Does this suggest dogs only sprechen ze Deutsch?

An etymologist's look at everyday 20th century words no longer used

Note it is often said the OED not only adds words each year but removes others. This is not the case, the OED merely marks some as 'obsolete' or 'no longer in use'. Here are some which you may or may not remember.

Regulo was a number used to give a setting on a temperature scale in gas ovens in Britain. It would often be heard or seen on television and in recipes: "Preheat the oven to 200 degrees, regulo 6" or "220 degrees, regulo 7". Today we hear the phrase "gas mark" but the scale is the same. The term 'regulo', while not specifically a trade name, was used by manufacturers for many years. It is clearly derived from 'regulate', itself from Latin regula 'a straight piece of wood' and Proto-Indo-European reg 'move in a straight line'.

Fuzzle is a word meaning 'to make drunk, the confuse' and likely a mispronunciation of fuddle also meaning 'to get drunk' and today still seen in 'befuddle'.

Resistentialism was a theory that inanimate objects showed spiteful behaviour. Confused? (Or even fuzzled?) The idea being that such things as a ball refused to bounce correctly and would have to be chased - when really the ball had been bounced incorrectly; or keys would deliberately hide - and not that the owner had forgotten where they had put them. No wonder the word fell out of use.Clearly derived from 'resist', as in not doing what is expected, this verb came to English through Old French and Latin from Proto-Indo-European sta 'to stand, make firm'.

Lumming spoke of how gentlemen would go for a walk after a meal and smoke (usually a pipe). This has its origins in the slang term 'lum', a reference to the flue drawing smoke from an open fire into the chimney and away from the house.

Aerodrome began to give way to 'airport' from 1909 and has now disappeared entirely. It comes from the Greek aerodromos 'running through the air', and first used as a name for an early flying machine.

Overmorrow is not tomorrow but the day after tomorrow. Clearly from 'morrow', a word sharing an origin with 'morning' in coming to English through the Germanic languages and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European mer 'to blink, twinkle', and a reference to the breaking of the new day.

Groak is to 'stare at someone eating', presumably in the hope of being offered a share. Origins are obscure, although it is tempting to suggest it is related to 'gaek' and 'gawp'.

Thrape is to punish, beat, to thrash. Latterly rarely used in the physical sense, but more likely used to describe a verbal tirade, and also a heavy defeat in a sporting contest.

Isle of Man Place Names

One definition you will not find in my Isle of Man Place Names book, is that of Ham and Egg Terrace.

The unlikely name of Ham and Egg Terrace was first coined when visitors came to the Great Laxey Wheel. Women living in the terrrace saw the opportunity to offer ham and eggs (and presumably other snacks and drinks) to tourists. The nickname was quickly adopted locally and now known as such instead of the official Dumbell’s Row. The official name is after George William Dumbell, a major shareholder and chairman of the Great Laxey Mining Company.

An Etymologist's look at Celtic Mythology.

Continuing on after my recent course on ancient languages, I thought it would be interesting to examine a selection of Celtic mythological figures and examine the etymologies for their names. Some of these would have been understood by Boudica.

Caturix is of Gaulish origins and means either 'battle king' or 'battle lord'.

Cunomaglus is the Celtic version of Apollo, his name meaning 'hound lord'.

Grannus gets his name from the Proto-Celtic granno, an element which combines with others to speak of the sun, its heat, and its healing properties.

Virotutis is another with associations with Apollo, this name has been interpreted as 'benefactor of humanity'.

Ancasta may be from the Proto-Celtic kasto 'swift' which would also fit with her association with the river Itchen.

Andrasta is the goddess invoked by Boudica in her fight against the Romans, with a name meaning 'indestructible' or 'unconquerable' perhaps she hoped for more than annhiliation for her Iceni tribe.

Divona means 'divine', unsurprisingly, and is derived from the Gaulish deous 'god'.

Bricta is from brixta the Gaulish word for 'magic', this goddess is one of many associated with springs.

Litavis is 'the broad one', an earth-goddess who seems to have been very popular in Gaul.

Rosmerta, a goddess of fertility and abundance, takes the element smert 'provider' or 'carer', and adds the prefix for 'great'.

Sabrina, the goddess associated with the river Severn, has virtually no other reference. Some consider her to be the same person as Hafren, a legendary British princess who drowned in the Severn.

Sirona was lauded chiefly in the area drained by the Danube, her name coming from Proto-Celtic ster with the suffix no or 'belonging', thus the name referring to her as 'stellar' or 'astral'.