ESI @jennybrianesi13 - Tumblr Blog

Balderdash and Codswallop

Both these wonderful words sound as if their origins are steeped in history and their etymology could be most interesting. In fact, the origin of both words is obscure or uncertain, though essentially they both mean “Nonsense”. Both words have a sound form that lend themselves to a rendition full of scorn and disbelief that are so much more effective in transmitting the concept of final dismissal than the common word “Nonsense”, yet neither are in regular conversational use.

Balderdash [Bawl-der-dash; Noun] means “senseless, stupid, or exaggerated talk or writing; nonsense”. A now obsolete meaning, which better betrays its origin, is “a muddled mixture of liquors”. First arising in the 1590s, but of unknown origin, the word originally referred to a jumbled mix of liquors (milk and beer, beer and wine, etc.). It is thought that the word derived from “dash”, to mix or adulterate by adding another substance: to dash wine with water, the first element perhaps cognate with the Danish word “balder” which means “noise” or “clatter”. Roughly in the 1670’s the word became transferred to mean a "senseless jumble of words.”

Codswallop [Cods·wal·lop; Noun] is a word more shrouded in mystery. The story goes that a man by the name of Hiram Codd, in 1872, patented a bottle for fizzy drinks with a marble in the neck, which kept the bottle shut by pressure of the gas until it was pressed inwards. “Wallop” was a British slang term for beer, its origin perhaps related to the Old Northern French word “walop" (noun), “waloper" (verb), perhaps from a Germanic phrase meaning “run well” or “gallop”. The story is that “Codd's Wallop” came to be used by British beer drinkers as a derogatory term for weak or gassy beer, or for soft drinks. However, this origin is dubious. The word “Codswallop” is not recorded in written form until the mid-20th century, rather a long time after Codd's invention, and there are no examples of the spelling “Codd's wallop”, which might be expected as an early form. These problems do not disprove the theory since it is possible that the term circulated by word of mouth, like many slang terms, and that the connection with Codd's bottle had been forgotten by the time the term was written down. They do, however, shed doubt on the story.

The word “Codswallop” first appears in the script of a 1959 episode of the UK TV series “Hancock’s Half Hour”, featuring the British comedian Tony Hancock. The writers (Galton and Simpson) have subsequently stated that the word was in general use when the show was broadcast. A national TV appeal in the UK in 2006 failed to find earlier references. The word was used in the form of an idiom “a load of codswallop”, meaning a load of nonsense, sometimes abbreviated to “a load of cods”. Thus, despite its pretension to have an early origin, the word and idiom appear to be of relatively recent slang origin, unwritten until coined and more widely popularised by comedian Tony Hancock.

Both “Balderdash” and “Codswallop” share a similar list of synonyms, itself lengthy and demonstrating just how many ways of saying “Nonsense” exist in the English language. Synonyms include baloney, beans, bilge, blah, blarney, blather, blatherskite, blither, bosh, bull, bunk, crock, drivel, drool, fiddle, fiddle-faddle, fiddlesticks, flapdoodle, folderol, folly, foolishness, fudge, garbage, guff, hogwash, hokeypokey, hokum, hoodoo, hooey, horsefeathers, humbug, humbuggery, jazz, malarkey, moonshine, muck, nuts, piffle, poppycock, punk, rot, rubbish, senselessness, silliness, slush, stupidity, taradiddle, tommyrot, tosh, trash, trumpery and twaddle.

So, if there is a need to derisively express the fact that one considers something to be nonsense, there is a wealth of choices of word available. However, few phrases roll off the tongue so well as “That’s a right load of codswallop, mate.”

House and Home

In the jargon of the real-estate ('realtor' in N. America) industry, "homes" are constructed, bought and sold. However, it needs to be argued that a "home" cannot be bought or sold for any sum, and that the use of the term in this context is yet another example of the way in which meaningful words in English are downgraded and broadened in their meaning as a natural, if sometimes regrettable, development of language, even if not permanently adopted. "A house is a building that functions as a home for humans or other creatures, ..." This definition succinctly distinguishes the two words, the "house" being a place, whether bricks and mortar, a cave or a hollow in a tree trunk, and a "home" being the less tangible, familial environment created within that place. A "homeless" person is most likely to be "houseless ", though their cardboard box in the lee of an alleyway or under a bridge may serve as their 'house' in that it provides a degree of shelter in which they live, at least temporarily. If several "homeless" people regularly gather under a bridge at night with their meagre possessions in bags or a shopping cart, primarily for security, company and for sharing what little they have, they might have created a "home" of a sort. A "home" as distinct from a "house" seems to involve people and, furthermore, people in a cooperative relationship of some kind. That does not exclude a single person from creating a "home" for themselves in which their keepsakes, other possessions and, perhaps, pets, play an important role. There are several English phrases and idioms which maintain the distinction between "house" and "home", such that they should not be used as if synonymous. Though political correctness has now developed a number of euphemisms for the term, an "old people's home" is an institution for elderly people needing professional care or supervision. An "old people's house" would refer only to the building they occupy and not to the caring environment developed within it. A "home-maker" is one who creates and manages a home, where as a "house-maker", if the term is to be used at all, would refer to a person who builds houses. Ironically, a "home builder " is defined as "a company whose business it is to construct private houses", or, more suitably, a "house-builder", since we are presenting the argument that one cannot in fact build or construct a home. When one purchases a "home-cinema" or "home-theatre" one is buying television and audiovisual equipment that is capable of reproducing the experience of being in a real cinema or theatre in one's home. Though assembled in one's house, a "house-theatre" is not available for sale, the emphasis being not on the physical presence of the equipment in the house but on the effects and experiences it can reproduce. A "home-buyer" is defined as "a person who buys a house or condominium" (not a home), so the misleading term should be replaced by "house-buyer", since that is what it means. A "home-wrecker" is one who is blamed for breaking up a family or marriage. A "house-wrecker" is likely to be driving a bulldozer. One could belabour the point with many other words, but to end with, consider the words "housework" (regular housekeeping, such as cleaning and cooking) and "homework" (schoolwork or paid work carried out in one's own home), two activities which are thoroughly different and cannot be substituted one for the other. It is concluded that "homes" cannot be physically constructed, bought or sold. The use of the term "home" as a synonym for "house" is an aberration of English introduced by the construction and real estate industries and should be understood to be a part of their falsity in advertising and presentation and not a part of current and usual English usage.

Around and About

In regards to how each of these words can be used to mean “approximate”, there is little to distinguish them and certainly no hard and fast rule. It is customary to say “I will be at your house to pick you up around 6.30pm.” the word “around” here referring to an approximate time, perhaps within ten minutes either way, an exact time being unreasonable to state or promise (perhaps because of unknown traffic conditions). The same sentence could use “about” in place of “around” without inducing correction.

If two friends are due to meet together at the coffee shop “around” ten, the person arriving last may ask how long the other has been waiting. The answer might be “I have only been here for about five minutes.” Oddly enough, the word “about” better describes an approximate duration of time than “around”, though, again, if the person had said “around five minutes”, it would neither be uncommon nor incorrect.

Both “around” and “about” can be used in other contexts. “I am going to walk around the shopping mall and see what sales are on.” or “I have been driving around the neighbourhood trying to find your house.” In neither case would the substitution of “about” be as commonly used, but, again, it would not be considered incorrect.

Though not a certain explanation, it is relevant that Scottish English has the phrase “out and about”, often spoken as sounding like “oot n aboot”. Thus “I was walking out and about this afternoon and saw a ….”. One could equally well have said “I was walking around this afternoon and saw a ….” and to say “I was walking about this afternoon …” would also be acceptable. Whether historical documentation would really connect the Scottish phrase with the now common use of either “around” or “about” in English usage in these contexts, I could not establish.

There are contexts in which the words “about” and “around” cannot easily be substituted. One might say “The book I have been reading is about an explorer who…” , the use of “around” here making no sense. If one said “I have just run around the track three times.” there is an implication of having run a circular route, whereas “I have just run about the track three times.” implies that on three closely spaced occasions this person ran aimlessly back and forth on the track, which would be very odd. On the other hand (to muddy the issue) the association of some circular concept with “around” would hold true in the sentence “She wore a shawl around her shoulders to keep warm.” Although it would now be considered an older usage, the sentence “To keep warm, she wore a shawl about her shoulders.” might well be found in a classic novel, “about” still implying that the shawl was wrapped around her in a circular manner. in contrast, if the shawl was for fashionable appearance only, it might be said that “She wore a shawl draped over her shoulders”. Implicit here is a lack of the circle being closed.

Other contexts are no more clear. In saying “I have been in and around the house all weekend.” there is the implication that one has been both indoors and outdoors, but never far from the house. It would be much less common to say “in and about” in this context, but ,again, not incorrect.

In a related situation, the British road system, in particular, often uses a “roundabout” (not an “aroundabout” but close) at four (or more) way intersections as a way of maintaining traffic flow. Also, at the annual Fair on the village green, people have fun on the swings and roundabouts, the latter usually being circular rides, also called “carousels” or “merry-go-rounds”. Though straying a little from the central discussion, the word “roundabout” reiterates the common association of the two key words “around” and “about”.

In talking about “around” and “about” it is a matter of “six of one and a half dozen of the other”, to use a common English idiom.

PS This piece of writing, of around 700 words, took about an hour to complete.

PS This piece of writing, of about 700 words, took around an hour to complete.

Contemporary

It is absolutely fair to argue that language is a fluid medium in which changes of usage occur over time. Thus, at any one time in the history of a language it is difficult to define what is “correct usage” other than to admit that it is, in effect, “current usage”, or what is deemed acceptable at the time.

However, one baulks at changes in word meaning and use that trend towards less precise definition and increased confusion as to what is meant.

A particular complaint of mine is the word “contemporary” which means “belonging to the same age or time. The word is used both as an adjective and a noun. Thus it can be written that “This historic meeting is documented by two contemporary sources.” Or it can be written that “Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.” In both uses the meaning of “belonging to the same age as” is clear.

Why, then, do we now read text such as “Contemporary furniture for sale.” or read of a gallery that purports to specialize in “Contemporary painters”. My immediate query is “contemporary with what?” Sadly, the word ‘contemporary’ is increasingly used to mean “modern”, perhaps particularly in advertising language. I say “sadly” not because I am against continuing change in language but because this use of the word introduces a confusion that is not resolved. Furthermore, the word is sometimes seen in the form of “More contemporary” or “less contemporary” this sounding shockingly incorrect, since one cannot conceive of something being more or less “belonging to the same age or time”. If, however, the meaning is intended to be “modern”, then, given that “modern” is a span of time rather than a moment in time, something could indeed be “more modern” or “less modern” than something else.

Let us take the sentence “Contemporary critics of Shakespeare argued that he was often in error in his historical chronology but ….” Now, does this mean that critics belonging to the same age or time as Shakespeare were critical of his historical accuracy or does it mean that modern critics are now critical of his historical accuracy? One cannot tell. Confusion reigns. The only recourse is to modify the sentence to read ” Critics of the time of Shakespeare argued that…” or “Modern critics of Shakespeare argued that…” Note that both these alternatives dispense with the word “contemporary” simply because the word is now used to convey sufficiently different meanings that confusion results.

Right now, the word “contemporary” is in an awkward transitional state, through which many words have gone. As a result of the confusion now created, in time the word will either cease to be used as a synonym for “modern” or it will acquire the meaning of “modern”, the “belonging to the same age or time” becoming less used and ultimately deemed archaic.

Since “modern” is a word of clear meaning and no other word is particularly needed to replace it at this time, my inclination is to spurn the use of “contemporary” as meaning “modern” and continue to use the word in its older form of meaning “belonging to the same age or time”. Language does not progress along a single path. There are branches that develop on the way, and as with a growing tree, some become a major part of the tree and some just wither and die.

In conclusion, if I wish to do so I will buy “modern furniture” and I may visit a gallery specializing in “modern painters”. I cannot, of course, do both contemporaneously.

See?

As I entered the doctor's office, I only half noticed some quizzical looks towards the door from some of the seated patients in the waiting room. I joined the short queue at the reception desk, holding the piece of paper on which my appointment was written. When my turn came, I was a little miffed that the receptionist proceeded to type on her computer and ignore me. I shifted and by moving hoped to attract her attention, but she did not look up. Then it dawned on me. I glanced down at my appointment sheet and reread the instructions. I had forgotten to bring my Health Card. I was invisible!

YOU MUST HAVE A VALID HEALTH CARD IN ORDER TO BE SEEN

The word "see" is, of course, about vision. One 'sees' and one is 'seen' by others. One can 'see' a movie, 'see' the passing scenery and 'see' a road sign. However, if one says "I am going to 'see' my friend", though one certainly expects to 'see' the friend as a recognizable image, the word 'see' in this context has the subsidiary meaning of 'visit'. Thus, the receptionist in the doctor's office will say to a waiting patient, "Mrs Smith, the doctor will 'see' you now", and that patient will be shown into an examination room to await the doctor. Of course, both the doctor and the patient will 'see' each other, but in this context 'see' is being used to infer 'visit with' rather than as a direct reference to vision. 'Seeing' one's friend is more a matter of 'visiting with' the friend.

The word 'see' can be used when 'vision', as such, is all but irrelevant. If someone is explaining a rather difficult concept and does so successfully, the listener is likely to exclaim at some point "Oh, I see now". There is nothing for the listener to 'see', but in this context the word 'see' is being used to mean 'understand'.

One is trying to find where to go to find a specific destination (an address, perhaps) One might say to those with you "Let's 'see' if the people in the tourist office can tell us how to get there". Again, there is no 'vision' involved here, the word 'see' in this context being used to mean 'find out'. Having said the above sentence, a person with you might say in agreement "Yes, let's 'see' if we can find out at the tourist office". In effect, the person is saying "Yes, let's find out if we can find out at the tourist office", a double use of the phrase making the statement rather an unlikely, though not incorrect, one to use.

The florist, in speaking to an anxious customer, says "Don't worry, sir, I will 'see' that your order is delivered on time". Again it is not a matter of 'vision', for in this context the word 'see' is being used to mean 'ensure'. A father might say to a teenager "Passing your exams will 'see' you in a position to get a better job". Though, here, one cannot directly substitute the word 'ensure' in the statement, the implied meaning of 'see' is of ensuring.

So, now you should 'see' that the word 'see' can be used in other ways than those that actually involve 'vision'. See?

Some Confused Words

When words look and sound similar there can be some understandable confusion about their use, but, sometimes, words that are not at all similar are also confused in their use. A person may exclaim "I literally died of embarrassment". Since "literally" means 'exactly truthful' or 'to be taken at face value', that speaker should be dead. What was meant was "I figuratively died of embarrassment", '"figurative" meaning 'not literal' and is a figure of speech or metaphor. Using both words, one could exclaim "I figuratively died of embarrassment and literally felt so weak that I had to sit down." When one "flaunts" something one makes a display of it and shows it off. Thus, "At the party she flaunted her new dress that flattered her ample figure." To "flout" something means to 'scorn' or 'refuse to comply with'. Thus, "He flouted the 'no parking' sign and brazenly parked his vehicle across the entrance way." To "exalt" is to 'glorify' or 'hold in high esteem', to 'venerate' or 'promote to a higher position'. Thus, "The church choir rose and sang the anthem 'Father, We Exalt You'". To "exult" is to 'rejoice'. Thus, "He exulted in the fact that his favourite hockey team had won enough games to reach the finals this season". To be "loath" is to be 'reluctant' or 'averse' to doing something. Thus, "He was loath to pay such a high price for the shoes but had found no others that fitted so well". To "loathe" is to 'hate'. Thus, "She loathed the thought of having to meet and be polite to her obnoxious cousin". If something is "luxuriant" it is 'growing thickly' or 'plentifully'. It is an adjective usually applied to the growth of vegetation or hair. Thus, "She untied her ribbon and her luxuriant red hair cascaded down her back." If something is "luxurious" it is 'extravagant', 'expensive', 'lavish' or 'of rich quality'. Thus, "Though he would dearly liked to have stayed in a luxurious waterfront resort, he opted for a modest family hotel near the bus station".

A Nosey "His or Her" Question

It is the winter semester and the class is full of men and women, many of whom are suffering from seasonal colds. Thus, there is an undue addition to the usual class noises as people sniff, reach for their handkerchiefs and hold them against their already red noses and blow them frequently. What sentence could be written to describe this scene?

"Everyone in the class was blowing his nose." - This sentence implies that there were no females in the class who were suffering from a cold.

"Everyone in the class was blowing his or her nose." - This sentence at least clarifies that both male and female class members are suffering from a cold, but it is a bit awkward to have to say "his or her".

"Everyone in the class was blowing their nose." - This sentence avoids "his and hers", but could be construed as implying that the nose belonged to more than person (just as "their apartment" could be one owned by one or several people).

" Everyone in the class was blowing their noses." - This sentence implies that some or all of the class members had more than one nose each.

Over the years, several suggestions have been made for circumventing this difficulty by using a word that means "his or hers". One suggestion has been "hesh" (plural "heesh"), so the sentence would read "Everyone in the class was blowing hesh nose." Unfortunately the similarity of sound with "hush" has had listeners think that the sentence had something to do with "shut-up"/"be quiet". In any event, mainstream spoken English has not embraced any of a number of well intentioned suggestions.

There is no currently accepted solution to the 'his and her' problem and the ambiguities of the sentences quoted above. The speaker and the listener are left to use "common sense" in divining the intended meaning. We "know" that people do not share noses or have more than one, and, in this example, it is unlikely that the runny noses are really all of one gender as the 'his' or "hers" in fact implies.

(Acknowledgements to Jocelyn Classey, of Toronto, quoted by William Sherk in his book "500 Years of New Words", Doubleday Canada Ltd., 1983.)

The "Brush-off" or "Put-down".

A man walked into a gloomy, smoky nightclub, took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. Attracted to a woman already seated there, he asked the barman to add a drink for her, moved down a couple of seats and started trying to chat to her. She was not very receptive, but he rambled on, becoming increasingly morose and self-pitying.

" I don't get no respect at home", the man whined, hoping to elicit a sympathetic response.

" With grammar like that you don't deserve any respect anywhere", the woman calmly retorted, and stood up to leave.

Of all the one-liners used by women to fend off unwanted attention, that particular one has special literary merit.

An Update

We have uploaded a new Theme to our blog. It will show on your laptops or desk computers but not on phones or ipods etc. The ‘Ask us’ button is more clearly placed and there is a ‘Like’ and ‘Reblog’ symbol at the base of each post. We hope that the non-white background and less than black text will make it easier on the eyes to read. Brian and Jenny.

Signs of Ambiguity

A remarkable number of signs do not mean what they say. Here is one such sign.

So where do those who are habitually impatient park their vehicles? The sign would lose its ambiguity if worded "Parking for Patients Only" - but that would take four more letters.

CULTURE AND LANGUAGE: ENGLISH FROM ARABIC

The following article is reproduced from 'RALU NEWS', August 2013 issue, the newsletter of the Retiree's Association of Lakehead University, by kind permission of Dr. Abdul Mamoojee, Professor Emeritus, Department of Languages. He readily agreed with us that our ESI students might find it interesting.

English speakers are well acquainted with ‘emir’ (Muslim prince), ‘sultan’ (Turkish monarch), ‘sheik(h)’ (Arab chief) and ‘caliph’ (supreme leader of the umma or Islamic world community). So are they with ‘harem’ (women’s quarters or their occupants), ‘henna’ (cosmetic reddish dye) and ‘kohl’ (eye makeup). ‘Kebab’ (skewered meat), ‘hummus’ (mashed chickpea dip), ‘couscous’ (spicy North African dish), ‘hookah’ (smoker’s water-pipe) and ‘souk’ (Oriental bazaar) sound familiar. So do ‘mufti’ (Muslim cleric or his dress), ‘jinn’ or ‘genie’ (mythological spirit) and ‘mummy’ (embalmed Egyptian corpse). These words are firmly established in the English language but still have in common an exotic flavor reminiscent of their Middle-Eastern provenance. But what about ‘coffee’, ‘sugar’, ‘candy’, ‘syrup’ and ‘soda’; or ‘lemon’, ‘lime’, ‘orange’ and ‘tangerine’; not to mention ‘spinach’, ‘aubergine’, ‘saffron’ and ‘tuna’? How about ‘cotton’, ‘muslin’, ‘mattress’ and ‘sofa’; or ‘giraffe’ and ‘gazelle’? What English speaker is not conversant with ‘algebra’, ‘zero’, ‘average’, ‘tariff’ and ‘carat’, if not ‘zenith’ and ‘nadir’? ‘Admiral’, ‘arsenal’ and ‘magazine’ ring familiar, and so do ‘assassin’ and ‘hashish’. Add ‘jar’, ‘racket’, ‘chess’, ‘talc’, ‘amber’, ‘azure’, ‘elixir’, probably ‘jumper’, possibly ‘guitar’, perhaps ‘amalgam’ and arguably ‘massage’, and the list could continue with more.

Unlike the predecessors in the opening paragraph, these English words in ordinary use hardly evoke a Middle-Eastern context or connotation in a layman not curious about etymology. Yet they are among hundreds that hark back to Arabic as either their ultimate source or the decisive conduit of their entry into Europe. ‘Admiral’ is an eye-opener. English on the surface, its semantic and morphological rationale is rooted in its Arabic origin. The word appeared in earlier English as ‘amiral’, the same as its modern French equivalent, without the intrusive ‘d’ later inserted in an assimilation of this initially foreign noun with ‘admire’, a verb already incorporated from the Latin admirari. The European ‘amiral’ came straight from the title of a naval commander in 15th century Arabian Sicily, amir-al-bahr, 'commander of the sea’. Amir, a variant of emir, remains visible in the first two syllables of the English derivative, while the third syllable is a vestige of the Arabic connecting article al meaning ‘the’. The complementary bahr, which has dropped out, can be recognized, for instance, in ‘Bahrain’ (‘of two seas’), the name of the oil-rich island which is nowadays the focus of American naval presence in the Gulf. Thus the Arabic antecedent is indispensable to explain why the English word exists in its present form and means what it does. ‘Algebra’, the investigation of numerical relations by means of letter symbols, reached Europe in the 12th century with the introduction of a branch of mathematics through Medieval Latin translations of the first treatise on the subject known to the West, composed three centuries earlier. The term ‘algebra’ was lifted from the long title of this original work which contained, among others, the Arabic words al-kitab…al-jabr, meaning ‘The Book…on Equations’. The Arab author’s name, on the other hand, Al-Khwarizmi (from his birthplace, Khwarazm, now Khiva in Uzbekistan), being associated also with the so-called ‘Arabic’ but actually Indian-conceived decimal system, got distorted to produce the expression ‘algorism’ for the non-Roman arithmetic new to Europe, subsequently ‘algorithm’ as a result of assimilation with arithmos, the existing Greek word for ‘number’. As in ‘admiral’ and ‘algebra’, the article al can be seen forming part of other English words, intelligible in the Arabic forerunner but devoid of any real sense in the receiving language, where it survives as a morphological relic. ‘Alcove’ (vaulted recess in a wall) came from al-kobba (vault or cupola); ‘alembic’ from al-anbiq (a distillation apparatus); ‘alchemy’ from al-kimiya (pseudo-science of transmutation of base metals into gold); ‘elixir’ (secret of eternal life) from al-iksir (the alchemist’s substance). Al-kohl (refined powder for the production of mascara) evolved through a Medieval Latin meaning of ‘quintessence’ to yield the present sense of distilled spirit as ‘alcohol’, while also abandoning the prefix to retain the original sense of eye-shadow as plain ‘kohl’. In other English derivatives, the Arabic al is less transparent, concealed behind an alteration of sorts, usually a phonetic shift to the recipient language, with little or no change to the meaning. Thus the vegetable ‘aubergine’ from al-badinjan; ‘artichoke’ from al-kharshuf; ‘apricot’ from al-barquq; ‘adobe’ from al-tuba (sun-dried brick); ‘azimuth’ from al-sumut, a term in astronomy designating an arc from the summit of heaven to the horizon. In a separate development comparable to alkohl, al-sumut left out the introductory article to give ‘zenith’ with its general application to any highest peak.

Few of these Arabic imports passed directly into English. One such example is the quaint expression ‘serendipity’ (miraculous discoveries), coined in 1754 from Serendib (Island of the Sinhala or Ceylon people), the Arabs’ name, obtained from the neighbors, for Sri Lanka, once a fairy-tale island to the West. ‘Henna’ is likely another simple transfer, dated about 1600, from Arabic hinna. Typically, however, European intermediaries channeled the passage into English, for the most part Medieval Latin and the Latin-generated ‘Romance’ languages (Old French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan). Arabic za-faran mutated into Latin safranum (1156) and then French safran before appearing in English as ‘saffron’. ‘Arsenal’ (storage or manufacture of weapons and ammunition) figured in English in the 16th century after going through tarcenale and miscellaneous alternates in 14th century Italy drawn from the Arabic dar-sinaa (house of military and naval manufacturing). Later entrants might make their way by a more circuitous route of the British Raj. ‘Attar’ (rose water) was brought from India in the 18th century, a Hindi or Urdu source that owed its own ultimate origin to the Arabic itr (perfume). ‘Safari’ (hunting or exploring expedition) emerged in the 19th century, made up from Arabic safar = journey in Swahili, the Bantubased lingua franca of commerce along Africa’s east coast (Arab. sahil = coast). Arabic-derived words are not necessarily indigenous Arabic. ‘Coffee’ almost certainly is, first brewed as qahwa in Yemen in the 15th century, turned into Turkish kahveh, thence into Italian caffe in the 17th century, its European progenitor. So is ‘syrup’, from sharab (beverage), which entered English via Latinized siroppus to become ‘syrup’, and via Turkish sherbet to become ‘sherbet’ and ‘sorbet’, leaving behind sharab itself to be demonized in Islamic culture with the implication of liquor as opposed to sharbat, its non-alcoholic version. In contrast, ‘talisman’ (amulet) can be traced through Arabic tilsam (incantation) to its true ancestor in ancient Greek telesma (consecration rite). ‘Chess’ and ‘checkmate’ make full sense only if they are followed beyond the Arabic intermediaries to the original source in the Persian shah (king) and shah-mat (king dies). ‘Sugar’, produce of the tropical cane native to India, came to the West from Arabic sukkar which itself descended ultimately from ancient Sanskrit s(h)arkara. Sanskrit khanda (granulated), on the other hand, generated Persian qand and Arabic qandi (sugared), parent of English ‘candy’. ‘Orange’, taken by way of Arabic naranj from Persian narang, goes back, like contemporary Urdu and Hindi narangi, to the Sanskritic prototype naranga. ‘Tuna’, a remarkable globetrotter, crossed from ancient Greek thynnos and Classical Latin thunnus to Arabic al-tun to medieval Spanish atun to Latin American tuna, whence California English and therefore international English ‘tuna’.

Whether as prime originator or as strategic intermediary, the Arabic word has played a seminal role in the transmission of a fair amount of vocabulary to modern Europe and Britain, both geographically from East to West and historically from past to present.

Dr. Abdul Mamoojee Professor Emeritus Department of Languages Lakehead University

#by permission

Conundrum

The word has a Latin sound, but has a much more recent history. It is first recorded in the hallowed halls of Oxford University in the 1590's, being used as a slang word for a “whim” or “pedant”. In the subsequent two hundred years, the word became applied more specifically to a word “riddle” or “puzzle”. At an earlier point spelled “quonundrum”, the word is characteristic of the affected pseudo-Latin used in humourous talk in the learned circles of Oxford students and faculty.

Two definitions can be given. 1.) A conundrum is a logical postulation that evades resolution, and as such, is an intricate and difficult problem.

Three examples illustrate this use:- “The conundrum of how an ancient people were able to build such massive structures without the benefit of today's knowledge and technolog.” “In this case, the conundrum is how to keep your water from freezing in the narrow tube between your pack and the mouthpiece.” “Whether talking about addiction, taxation on cigarettes, or education about smoking, there is always at the center of the conversation an essential conundrum: How come we are selling this dangerous stuff, in the first place?” 2.) A second use of the word defines it as “A riddle whose answer is or involves a pun or an unexpected twist.” Examples of this use are many:- One form is that of a Question and Answer, Q: What is it that leaps and runs and has no feet? A: A ball. Q: What is round, hard, and sticks so far out of a man's pajamas that you can hang a hat on it? A: His head. Q: What four-letter word ending in K means "intercourse"? A: The word “Talk”. Q: What is it that a man can do standing up, a women sitting down, and a dog on three legs? A: Shake hands. Q: What is it that a cow has four of and a woman has only two of? A: Legs. Another form uses the sound of words to create the pun, Q: "Why do the French only have one egg for breakfast?" A: "Because one egg is un oeuf." (enough). Q; “Why can't one starve in the desert? A: “Because of all the sand which is there.” (sandwiches) Q: “How much does a pirate pay to get his ears pierced?” A: “A buck an ear.” (buccaneer). One of the most famous conundrum riddles was that of the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll's “Alice in Wonderland” (1865). Q: “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” The riddle is not answered, and years later, in the 1896 edition, Lewis Carroll says in the preface, “Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, as to whether any answer to the Hatter's riddle can be imagined, that I may as well put on record here what seems to be a fairly appropriate answer, viz: 'Because it can produce few notes, tho [sic] they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!' This, however, is merely an afterthought; the Riddle, as originally invented, had no answer at all."The early issues of the revision spell "never" as "nevar", ie "raven" with the wrong end in front. The unanswered riddle has since been the topic of much discussion and competitions have been held to find answers. In 1991, The Spectator held a competition for new answers, among the prize winners were: A: "Because one has flapping fits and the other fitting flaps"; A: "Because one is good for writing books and the other better for biting rooks"; and A: "Because a writing desk is a rest for pens and a raven is a pest for wrens".

A Challenge of English Translation

During the ESI, when faced with the question of why things were said in a particular way we frequently resorted to saying "but that is just English". In Derzhavin's work, below, the translator has used a phrase that could be read by the reader as having more than one meaning.

Ode To The Deity

Oh! Thou Eternal One! Whose presence bright All space doth occupy - all motion guide; Unchang'd through time's All-devastating flight, Thou, only God! There is no God beside. Being above all beings! Mighty One, Whom none can comprehend and none explore; Who fill'st existence with Thyself alone; Embracing, all-supporting, ruling o'er - Being whom we call God - and know no more.

Gabriel Derzhavin

Translation by Dr. Bowring

It is a remarkable challenge to translate poetry from one language to another, and far more difficult than translating prose. To retain the meter and meaning of the original is an awesome achievement. In "Ode To The Deity" , the translation to English reads beautifully - except for the final words "and know no more". Despite the disadvantage of not being able to read the original Russian, I feel sure that the intent of those four words is to say that 'we know no more about this Being whom we call God.' Unfortunately, the four words could equally well mean 'God, whom we no longer know', a much more tragic and negative ending to the Ode. That meaning is likely not intended, but nonetheless is an option for the reader. English is tricky!

Summary of Classes 5 to 8

Class 5. – Where is St. Petersburg?

The limitation of 'relative location' is that the location of one point is 'dependent' upon knowing the location of another point. What is needed is a system of 'absolute location' by which all point locations are referenced to a single location or 'origin'. A 'rectangular coordinate' system is the answer, the simplest example of which is the well known sytem of 'graphical axes'. With the Y axis oriented south-north and the X axis oriented west-east, the location of any point to the north and east of the zero origin can be determined as the distance east of the origin and the distance north of the origin, a pair of values that are the 'coordinates' of the location. All locations can be 'independently' defined by two coordinates referenced to the origin. Applying this concept to a spherical earth is a little more difficult, but the equator is the obvious X axis. After much debate, the 'meridian' running through Greenwich was agreed upon as the Y axis. With this system of 'earth coordinates', location is measured from 0-180 degrees east and west of Greenwich, and 0-90 degrees north and south of the equator. The location of St. Petersburg (a central point) is 59° 57′ 0″ N, 30° 18′ 0″ E or 59.933151° N, 30.306089° E. While adequate for some uses, the system suffers from the need to use the suffixes N, S, E and W, and with 1” of arc being 30.92 metres on the earth's surface, it lacks the accuracy required by modern 'sub-metre' location.

The 'UTM Coordinate System' is based on the Universal Transverse Mercator projection of the earth, a 'cylindrical' and 'orthomorphic' projection that reasonably preserves shape between 84°N and 80°S, but not area. This area is divided into 60 north-south, 6° longitude wide numbered zones, and 20 east-west, 8° latitude wide lettered bands. Every rectangular zone has a 'unique' 'alphanumeric' code, e.g. 21T. In each zone, the zero origin is imagined as west of the zone, and location within the zone is defined as the number of metres east of the 'false origin' and the number of metres north of the equator. The location of the same central point of St. Petersburg is UTM 36V 349201 6648919. This conveniently dispenses with N, S, E and W and is a measurement in metres rather than in 60th's of arc.

Location becomes still more tricky when one admits that we do not live on a spherical earth but actually on an 'oblate' spheroid that is 'egg-like' in equatorial shape. On such a lumpy object, any parallel of latitude would be a different distance from the equator at different locations – an impossibly difficult situation. So, the actual shape of the earth has to be substituted by a 'model'. Being 'ellipsoidal' rather than spherical, there is now international agreement on an ellipsoidal model that is the 'best-fit' to actual earth shape, and the UTM system is superimposed upon it.

Related and equally problematic is the measurement of elevation. Historically, 'mean sea level' seemed a logical 'datum' to use as zero, but on a world scale, mean sea level is far from horizontal, the earth's rotation piling oceans up to higher levels on west coasts than east coasts. A model surface, the 'geiodal surface' represents mean sea level as if the oceans could run through and under the continents. Elevation is measured as above or below a selected point or datum on this theoretical surface.

So, defining the location and elevation of St. Petersburg is by no means easy. In reality, when we define where we are, it is only in relation to an agreed upon model of the earth, not actually where we are on a 'lumpy-bumpy' earth.

Class 6. – Networks

A close look at the natural world, at all scales, reveals the most common type of network to be a 'branching' network. The 'vascular' systems of many plants and animals is a branching network, as is the form of many living forms (such as trees, corals). Stream networks drain 'run-off' from every square cm of the continental surfaces. Are stream and other natural branching networks 'chaotic', 'random' or 'ordered'?

A stream or river network has the specific task of draining a particular area of the earth's surface termed a 'drainage basin'. The boundary between drainage basins is a line along the locally highest ground and is termed a 'divide' or 'watershed'. A look at maps will show that where there is much water to be drained, there is a more dense network of drainage 'channels' than in a basin where there is less water to be drained. Such systems or networks tend to operate on the principal of 'least-work', that is, they are designed to do the task in the most efficient manner possible. Though there are natural influences that can disturb a network and render it less efficient (at least temporarily), one can argue that every metre of stream channel is there for a purpose.

If one takes any natural, undisturbed drainage basin, one can demonstrate that these branching networks reveal a high degree of order in their arrangement. Horton (xx) proposed a scheme of steam numbering by which the smallest 'tributaries' draining the divide are termed '1st order'. Where two 1st order streams join they become 2nd order streams, etc. If a stream of one order joins a stream of a higher order, no change occurs. Thus every stream 'segment' is 'labelled'. There will obviously be many 1st order streams and only one of the highest order where it reaches a lake or the sea. Counting the number of streams of each order provides a string of numbers such as 60, 13, 9, 4, 1. Plotting these numbers against order will reveal that the numbers are a 'logarithmic progression'. If plotted on 'semi-logarithmic' graph paper, a straight line can likely be fitted through the plotted points. This shows that the two variables, one arithmetic, one logarithmic are 'correlated' to a high degree. If one took on the task of measuring the length of every stream segment and calculated the 'average' length of a segment of each order, one might develop a string of numbers such as 2, 5, 13, 20, 55 (km). Again, plotting these numbers on semi-log paper would show them to fall close to a straight line, demonstrating that there is a correlation, stream segment length increasing logarithmically downstream. Each stream segment drains a specific area or basin and if one took on the immense task of measuring the area of each basin and calculating the average area of each order of basin, one might develop a string of numbers such as 5, 12, 40, 110, 330 (sq km). Again, a close to straight line will likely be plotted.

Though sometimes referred to as 'laws' of stream drainage basin analysis, the word is more loosely applied than in the physical sciences. It would be fairer to say that if one took a representative sample of world drainage basin networks, it would be found that the degree of correlation between these variables would vary but would generally be high. Such analysis tells us that the branching stream network is not chaotic or random but in fact well ordered in its arrangement. Stream networks design themselves to do the work that has to be done. Should that work change, such as with climate change, stream networks will abandon channels or build new ones, will lengthen or shorten, widen or deepen their channels such that they efficiently meet the new challenge.

Other natural branching networks will be found to similarly arrange themselves in an ordered manner, designing themselves to perform 'least work' in completing their tasks.

Class 7. – Palimpsests

Not a word that one is likely to use often, a 'palimpsest' is a parchment which has been reused such that several layers of writing may be discerned beneath the most recent. The concept of a palimpsest can be applied to both 'physical and cultural landscapes', each in different ways being composed of layers of history applied to the same area. Layers of 'strata', laid at different times in geological history, are subsequently sculpted by the forces of erosion to form the present topography of the earth's surface. Strata of many ages are left 'outcropping' on the surface, each perhaps holding evidence of the life forms of the time of formation as 'fossils' within them. Particularly in 'dome-like' ('anticline') or 'basin-like' ('syncline') formations, older strata may outcrop with younger strata exposed around it – an 'inlier', or younger strata be exposed with older strata around it – 'an outlier'. In the former case, the old strata forms a window through younger strata into the past, and in the latter case, the younger strata is the latest surviving addition to a much older history.

The same principal can be applied to cultural landscapes, as is well demonstrated by looking closely at a 'large scale' 'topographic map' of an area that has seen much history. Maps are published at a point in time, such that landscapes can contain new 'elements' that are not shown on the dated map, but will be shown when the map sheet is 'revised' at a later date. These new features of the cultural landscape can be thought of as 'outliers'. The map may show layer after layer of cultural features, many of more recent time and perhaps progressively fewer as older features are less likely preserved. The oldest feature in the present cultural landscape may be a single feature, poking through the more recent cultural 'fabric' as an 'inlier', a window into a distant past. Thus on a map of the 'chalk' 'downs' of southern England, one can find new roads, older, narrow 'lanes' and 'bridle paths', canals, 'hydro' lines, the site of the Battle of Roundway Down, 1643, the site of a 200AD Roman 'Villa', an 800BC 'Iron Age' 'Fort', 'Bronze Age' 'Barrows' or 'Tumuli' dating from 1200BC and a 'White Horse' cut into the chalk downs before 2000BC by people unknown and for purpose unknown.

The concept of a palimpsest is applied in the fields of architecture and in the fine arts, the theme always being the 'superimposition' of layer upon layer.

Class 8. – Opinion.

An 'opinion' is a belief or judgement that is personal and held on grounds insufficient to prove certainty. As such, an opinion cannot be said to be 'right' or 'wrong'. One can agree or disagree, perhaps strongly. 'Debate' is a discussion involving opposing viewpoints. Sometimes, for the purpose of debate, a speaker will deliberately take an opposing viewpoint, this being to take the part of 'devil's advocate'. A 'moderator' presides over a discussion or debate, and does not express his or her own opinion.

In this class, opinion was sought on a number of contentious issues, Brian attempting to act both as moderator and occasionally as 'devil's advocate', which are conflicting roles. Shoplifting is wrong but is it less so if done by someone in need or someone suffering from kleptomania? Is taking a paperclip from the workplace stealing? Is wasting food in a 'foodfight' excuseable? What is your opinion of same sex marriage? Is there a case for voluntary active euthanasia? All cultures are faced with difficult ethical dilemmas in which decisions must ultimately be made and, when revisited, perhaps later modified.

In every case, opinions are central to the difficult task of deciding where to draw lines between that which is acceptable and not acceptable. Ideally, the opinion of the majority should define the line, there always being extreme views to right and left. Different cultures, with different histories, experiences, religions, morals and customs, may make the ethical decision to draw the line in different places. We may agree or disagree with those decisions, depending on our opinion, but cannot declare them to be right or wrong. Essential, however, is the freedom to express one's opinion in a well moderated forum, and to participate in discussion and debate.

#class summaries

Brian's Blog - "Learning All The Time"

Rather than use a Search engine, go to the 'Open' box on your browser and type in senior70.tumblr.com

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

ESI