Halls of ivy

[Victoria Neufeldt]

"origin unknown" -- but *perhaps* derives from a 19th-century Brit noun
'posh' meaning "a dandy".  Origin of that noun is also not known.  For those
who haven't heard it, the mythological explanation that won't die is that
the word is an acronym from "port outward, starboard home", referring to
travel by ship between Britain and India, the idea being that the most
expensive cabins (protected from the tropical sun) were on port side sailing
out to India and on the starboard sailing home.  But there is absolutely NO
evidence of these letters ever being used, say to label baggage or identify
passengers' accommodation, or whatever.  (Besides, it seems to me that the
port outward stuff is backwards anyway, since south of the equator, the sun
would be to the north and shining in on the port side sailing east;
actually, come to think of it, in the equatorial regions it's more straight
overhead . . .)

Victoria

Merriam-Webster, Inc. P.O. Box 281
Springfield, MA 01102
Tel: 413-734-3134  ext 124
Fax: 413-827-7262

> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Anne Lambert
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 11:38 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Halls of ivy
>
>
> Anyone have any explanations on the real origin of "posh"?
>
> Grant Barrett wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2000, James E. Clapp <jeclapp at WANS.NET> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes.  How do people come up with these things?  And why do
> others give them
> > >credence?  I think the phenomenon is related to general
> popular paranoia:
> > >The obvious explanation for something must be a cover-up for a
> much more
> > >complicated (and usually sinister) truth, and the more self-evident the
> > >explanation the more devious and dangerous the plotters are.
[SNIP]
> > The most bothersome thing, to me, about these unverified
> theories (even in
> > etymology), is that there is a gradation from true to false and
> these theories run the gamut.
> > Some are no more slightly off than a bad if-then statement, so
> though still false,
> > they may seem plausible.
>