Q: Excuse me for inflicting my current bugbears – “robust” and “leafy.” Everything is “robust”: speeches, economies, food, campaign itineraries, etc. Very tired! As for "leafy," every time someone is murdered in the suburbs, the news media mention the "leafy streets." In the city, the victim is just murdered. I see this as a putdown – a suggestion that suburbanites are rubes for thinking they’re safe.
A: Where did this infatuation with "robust" come from? I wish I knew. But you're right – it's everywhere. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it comes from (or has a nose of) the world of wine reviewing.
It’s sad to see a sturdy old word like “robust” become wimpy from overuse. When it entered English in the 16th century, it meant (as it does today) strong and hardy.
The adjective began taking on figurative meanings in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, with published references for a “robust title of occupancy,” a “robust language,” and so on.
The first OED citation for the word used in a culinary sense is from a 1961 magazine article that refers to (you guessed it) wine: “There are also Spanish and Portuguese wines that go well with strongly flavoured food. The robust Spanish Chablis, the Rioja Burgundy, and the Portuguese Vila Real are examples.”
We got the word “robust” from the Latin robustus, meaning strong, hardy, or made of oak, which brings us to your second bugbear.
I'm sad to hear that you feel "leafy" is now being used as a slap at the suburbs. The word “leaf” itself is very, very old, dating from around the year 850, according to the OED. In fact the Old English of the first citation is so old that it would look like gibberish to most readers of this blog.
The adjective “leafy” first appeared in the mid-1500s. Here’s a 1697 citation from Dryden: “Soft Whispers run along the leafy Woods.” Nothing pejorative about that! What's not to like about leaves (aside from having to rake them in the autumn)?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Much or many noodles
Q: My mother and I have a running bet ($50 is at stake). Which is correct: "much" noodles or "many" noodles? I say "many" and she says "much." I hope you can settle this.
A: An interesting question! And a lot depends on whether “noodles” is singular or plural.
If you think of it as a pasta dish, the word is singular. So you can say, “Noodles is my favorite dish,” though I’d prefer “My favorite dish is noodles.”
If you think of “noodles” as ribbon-shaped pieces of pasta, the word is plural. So you can say, “The noodles are going to be ready in six minutes.”
Now on to the specifics of your question. The adjective “much” refers to a lot of something (singular) while the adjective “many” refers to a lot of things (plural).
If you think of “noodles” as a bunch of those ribbon-shaped things, you can say, “My diet won’t let me eat many noodles.” On the other hand, if you think of “noodles” as a pasta dish, you can say, “I left over much of the noodles.”
If you use “much” with a plural word (like “noodles”) that’s acting in a singular way, you have to put “of the” between them. But you don’t need “of the” if you use “much” with a singular collective noun that acts in a plural way: “I left over much pasta.”
So, you win, but your mom comes in a close second. Maybe you should split the $50 and take each other out to dinner!
A: An interesting question! And a lot depends on whether “noodles” is singular or plural.
If you think of it as a pasta dish, the word is singular. So you can say, “Noodles is my favorite dish,” though I’d prefer “My favorite dish is noodles.”
If you think of “noodles” as ribbon-shaped pieces of pasta, the word is plural. So you can say, “The noodles are going to be ready in six minutes.”
Now on to the specifics of your question. The adjective “much” refers to a lot of something (singular) while the adjective “many” refers to a lot of things (plural).
If you think of “noodles” as a bunch of those ribbon-shaped things, you can say, “My diet won’t let me eat many noodles.” On the other hand, if you think of “noodles” as a pasta dish, you can say, “I left over much of the noodles.”
If you use “much” with a plural word (like “noodles”) that’s acting in a singular way, you have to put “of the” between them. But you don’t need “of the” if you use “much” with a singular collective noun that acts in a plural way: “I left over much pasta.”
So, you win, but your mom comes in a close second. Maybe you should split the $50 and take each other out to dinner!
Catcher in the wry
Q: I’m curious about an expression that’s recently caught my eye: “a rye wit." I can't find anything in my dictionary on the word “rye” beyond its use as a noun for a grain, a whiskey, or a male gypsy. Am I misspelling it?
A: The adjective you want is spelled "wry." The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as meaning "dryly or obliquely humorous; sardonic, ironic."
Oddly, though, the word wasn't used in precisely this way until the 20th century. The OED's first citation for this meaning is from Eugene O'Neill's Strange Interlude (1928): "He smiles with a wry amusement for a second."
Previously, a "wry" smile was one made with a facial expression of distaste or dislike. But the adjective was used in different senses when it first entered English in the 16th century. It originally meant bent or twisted or distorted from the straight and narrow.
The adjective can be traced to a very old and mostly obsolete verb from old Germanic sources: "wry," first used in the 800s. It originally meant to turn or wend, and later to swerve or turn aside or twist. This is where we get the adjective and adverb "awry," as in "Everything went awry."
Some other words believed to be related are "writhe," "wrist," "wrench," and "wriggle."
The word "rye" (the food grain) has been traced all the way back to the year 725! We get it from Old Norse.
A: The adjective you want is spelled "wry." The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as meaning "dryly or obliquely humorous; sardonic, ironic."
Oddly, though, the word wasn't used in precisely this way until the 20th century. The OED's first citation for this meaning is from Eugene O'Neill's Strange Interlude (1928): "He smiles with a wry amusement for a second."
Previously, a "wry" smile was one made with a facial expression of distaste or dislike. But the adjective was used in different senses when it first entered English in the 16th century. It originally meant bent or twisted or distorted from the straight and narrow.
The adjective can be traced to a very old and mostly obsolete verb from old Germanic sources: "wry," first used in the 800s. It originally meant to turn or wend, and later to swerve or turn aside or twist. This is where we get the adjective and adverb "awry," as in "Everything went awry."
Some other words believed to be related are "writhe," "wrist," "wrench," and "wriggle."
The word "rye" (the food grain) has been traced all the way back to the year 725! We get it from Old Norse.
Grotty or grotesque?
Q: Perhaps this is a shot in the dark, but I wonder if you have any information on the use of the word “grotesque” in the mid-19th century in reference to a costume or a “fancy dress.” I'm doing research on a series of masquerades in Brooklyn during the Civil War, and newspapers of the day often use the term “grotesque.” Does it just mean elaborate, strange, and operatic? Or might there be a more specific connotation? Any thoughts would be very welcome.
A: The word "grotesque" (as both a noun and an adjective) got its start in the 16th century. It literally meant "grotto style" (as in "grotto-esque"), and comes from the style of painting on the walls of grottoes (once a popular term for the ruins of ancient Roman buildings that had been excavated).
That sense of the word is defined this way in the Oxford English Dictionary: "A kind of decorative painting or sculpture, consisting of representations of portions of human and animal forms, fantastically combined and interwoven with foliage and flowers."
Works of art done in this style were called "grotesques," and were sometimes referred to in the Italian form, grottesco (singular) or grotteschi (plural).
The Restoration poet Sir William Davenant wrote many court masques. In his Works (about 1668) is a piece called simply "Masque" that has the line: "And in the midst was placed a large compartiment composed of Groteske work."
A little later, the meaning was widened to include representations that were so elaborate as to be distorted or unnatural. And eventually the word came to be used not just for artworks, but also for anything fantastical or wildly ornamental.
One of the later meanings common in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to the OED, was "ludicrous from incongruity; fantastically absurd."
I can't find any 19th-century citations in the OED for “grotesque” that specifically mention costume or fancy-dress balls.
But I did find this reference from an 1860 book or publication (don't know which) called Heads & Hats: "The women wore absurdly high coiffures; and the men vied with them in their height, if not in their grotesqueness."
And here's one from Fanny Kemble's Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation 1838-1839 (published in 1863): "You can conceive nothing more grotesque than the Sunday trim of the poor people." She probably meant something like "absurdly overdone."
And the OED has a couple of 19th-century references to the use of "grotesque" as a noun meaning a clown or buffoon.
Oxford didn't pick up many of its early citations from popular sources like newspapers and broadsides, unfortunately. So it may have missed this sense of "grotesque" as applied to exaggeratedly fanciful or elaborate costumes.
The big Webster's New International Dictionary (unabridged 2d ed.), from the 1950s, has some interesting comments on the meaning of "grotesque." An excerpt:
"The grotesque is distinguished from the ugly in that it affords a positive aesthetic satisfaction. The ugly is the opposite of the beautiful; the grotesque is the complement of physical beauty representing in the material world a distortion of aesthetic relations."
Things changed a lot in the following 10 years. During the Beatlemania era, "grotty" (formed from "grotesque") became a slang word meaning disgusting, ugly, or just plain bad.
A: The word "grotesque" (as both a noun and an adjective) got its start in the 16th century. It literally meant "grotto style" (as in "grotto-esque"), and comes from the style of painting on the walls of grottoes (once a popular term for the ruins of ancient Roman buildings that had been excavated).
That sense of the word is defined this way in the Oxford English Dictionary: "A kind of decorative painting or sculpture, consisting of representations of portions of human and animal forms, fantastically combined and interwoven with foliage and flowers."
Works of art done in this style were called "grotesques," and were sometimes referred to in the Italian form, grottesco (singular) or grotteschi (plural).
The Restoration poet Sir William Davenant wrote many court masques. In his Works (about 1668) is a piece called simply "Masque" that has the line: "And in the midst was placed a large compartiment composed of Groteske work."
A little later, the meaning was widened to include representations that were so elaborate as to be distorted or unnatural. And eventually the word came to be used not just for artworks, but also for anything fantastical or wildly ornamental.
One of the later meanings common in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to the OED, was "ludicrous from incongruity; fantastically absurd."
I can't find any 19th-century citations in the OED for “grotesque” that specifically mention costume or fancy-dress balls.
But I did find this reference from an 1860 book or publication (don't know which) called Heads & Hats: "The women wore absurdly high coiffures; and the men vied with them in their height, if not in their grotesqueness."
And here's one from Fanny Kemble's Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation 1838-1839 (published in 1863): "You can conceive nothing more grotesque than the Sunday trim of the poor people." She probably meant something like "absurdly overdone."
And the OED has a couple of 19th-century references to the use of "grotesque" as a noun meaning a clown or buffoon.
Oxford didn't pick up many of its early citations from popular sources like newspapers and broadsides, unfortunately. So it may have missed this sense of "grotesque" as applied to exaggeratedly fanciful or elaborate costumes.
The big Webster's New International Dictionary (unabridged 2d ed.), from the 1950s, has some interesting comments on the meaning of "grotesque." An excerpt:
"The grotesque is distinguished from the ugly in that it affords a positive aesthetic satisfaction. The ugly is the opposite of the beautiful; the grotesque is the complement of physical beauty representing in the material world a distortion of aesthetic relations."
Things changed a lot in the following 10 years. During the Beatlemania era, "grotty" (formed from "grotesque") became a slang word meaning disgusting, ugly, or just plain bad.
Talking the talk
Q: If you give a talk with no audience participation, are you giving a monologue or a discourse?
A: I wouldn't use either word.
"Monologue," according to both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), would imply a dramatic soliloquy, a series of comic stories or jokes delivered by a comedian, a performance by a single actor, or a long speech given by a windbag who's monopolizing a conversation.
And "discourse" doesn't have to mean a talk by one person. It can be a conversation, a long discussion, or simply verbal expression in speech or writing.
How about a "lecture" or perhaps even a "talk"?
The noun “talk,” by the way, comes from talu, the Old English word for “tale.” That, in turn, comes from an even older Old English word, tellan, which gave us the verb “tell.”
A: I wouldn't use either word.
"Monologue," according to both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), would imply a dramatic soliloquy, a series of comic stories or jokes delivered by a comedian, a performance by a single actor, or a long speech given by a windbag who's monopolizing a conversation.
And "discourse" doesn't have to mean a talk by one person. It can be a conversation, a long discussion, or simply verbal expression in speech or writing.
How about a "lecture" or perhaps even a "talk"?
The noun “talk,” by the way, comes from talu, the Old English word for “tale.” That, in turn, comes from an even older Old English word, tellan, which gave us the verb “tell.”
Ambi and amphi
Q: I was on a hike in Manhattan with the Urban Rangers and had a dispute about the word “amphibian.” I said “amphi” means both, so an amphibian is comfortable on land and water. Another hiker insisted “ambi” (as in “ambidextrous”) means both, so “amphi” couldn’t. I dropped the subject, since I wanted to hear the guide discuss the geology of Inwood Hill Park. An interesting note: Fordham in the Bronx has a lot of gneiss and Inwood Hill a lot of schist. Or, as the guide put it, “Fordham is gneiss, but Manhattan is full of schist.”
A: Thanks for the interesting geology lesson.
As for "ambi" and "amphi," the two of them are Latin prefixes meaning both, around (that is, both sides), or about. They're derived from the Greek prefix amphi, which has the same meanings.
So, for example, "amphibian" means having two kinds existence, and "ambidextrous" means able to use both hands with equal ease.
Interestingly, the first citation for “amphibian” in the OED, from 1637, uses the term in a figurative way to refer to some doubtful characters in ancient Rome: “A certaine Amphibian brood, sprung out of the stem of the Neronian tyranny.” The term wasn’t used for reptiles until the mid-19th century.
The first published reference for “ambidextrous,” from 1646, is a comment about “ambi-dextrous and left handed men.”
A: Thanks for the interesting geology lesson.
As for "ambi" and "amphi," the two of them are Latin prefixes meaning both, around (that is, both sides), or about. They're derived from the Greek prefix amphi, which has the same meanings.
So, for example, "amphibian" means having two kinds existence, and "ambidextrous" means able to use both hands with equal ease.
Interestingly, the first citation for “amphibian” in the OED, from 1637, uses the term in a figurative way to refer to some doubtful characters in ancient Rome: “A certaine Amphibian brood, sprung out of the stem of the Neronian tyranny.” The term wasn’t used for reptiles until the mid-19th century.
The first published reference for “ambidextrous,” from 1646, is a comment about “ambi-dextrous and left handed men.”
Dude the obscure
Q: A few of my friends and I wondered if you could address this question: Where did the word "dude" come from? When did people start using it in everyday language to refer to either a woman or a man? Thanks!
A: "Dude," meaning a swell or a fop or a dandy (in other words, an overdressed, showy person), originated in the US in the latter part of the 19th century.
Its first appearance in writing, as far as we know, was in an 1877 letter by the artist Frederick Remington: "Don't send me any more [drawings of] women or any more dudes." This is according to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.
"The etymology is a mystery," according to Eric Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. But Partridge suggests it may be from the word "dud" (a weakling or a useless person), with some influence by the word "attitude."
It's also been suggested that "dude" may have come from "Yankee Doodle." Or perhaps the use of "duds" to mean clothes could play a part. After all, to "dude up" was to dress up. A "dude wrangler" was a cowboy on a "dude ranch" who entertained the "dude" tourists.
At any rate, "dude" has changed a lot over the years, and in more modern times has shed its pejorative beginnings.
A 1993 addition to the Oxford English Dictionary has nine citations since 1918 for “dude” in the sense of “any man who catches the attention in some way; a fellow or chap, a guy. Hence also approvingly, esp. (through Black English) applied to a member of one’s own circle or group.”
These days the word is generally used to refer to a male person, though the plural "dudes" has been used on college campuses to refer to people of both sexes, much the way "guys" is sometimes used today.
I hope this sheds a little light, dude!
A: "Dude," meaning a swell or a fop or a dandy (in other words, an overdressed, showy person), originated in the US in the latter part of the 19th century.
Its first appearance in writing, as far as we know, was in an 1877 letter by the artist Frederick Remington: "Don't send me any more [drawings of] women or any more dudes." This is according to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.
"The etymology is a mystery," according to Eric Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. But Partridge suggests it may be from the word "dud" (a weakling or a useless person), with some influence by the word "attitude."
It's also been suggested that "dude" may have come from "Yankee Doodle." Or perhaps the use of "duds" to mean clothes could play a part. After all, to "dude up" was to dress up. A "dude wrangler" was a cowboy on a "dude ranch" who entertained the "dude" tourists.
At any rate, "dude" has changed a lot over the years, and in more modern times has shed its pejorative beginnings.
A 1993 addition to the Oxford English Dictionary has nine citations since 1918 for “dude” in the sense of “any man who catches the attention in some way; a fellow or chap, a guy. Hence also approvingly, esp. (through Black English) applied to a member of one’s own circle or group.”
These days the word is generally used to refer to a male person, though the plural "dudes" has been used on college campuses to refer to people of both sexes, much the way "guys" is sometimes used today.
I hope this sheds a little light, dude!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)