World Wide Words -- 12 Nov 11
Michael Quinion
wordseditor at WORLDWIDEWORDS.ORG
Fri Nov 11 16:28:07 UTC 2011
WORLD WIDE WORDS ISSUE 762 Saturday 12 November 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Author/editor: Michael Quinion US advisory editor: Julane Marx
Website: http://www.worldwidewords.org ISSN 1470-1448
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A formatted version of this e-magazine is available
online at http://www.worldwidewords.org/nl/drnk.htm
Now on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wwwordseditor
This e-magazine is best viewed in a fixed-pitch font
For a key to phonetic symbols, see http://wwwords.org?PRON
Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Weird Words: Siccity.
2. Wordface.
3. Q and A: Wrack or rack?
4. Sic!
A. Subscription information.
B. E-mail contact addresses.
C. Ways to support World Wide Words.
1. Weird Words: Siccity /'sIkItI/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If a weather forecaster were to predict a period of siccity, his
audience would be unlikely to understand that he meant a drought was
on its way. This ancient word for a state of extreme dryness has
long ago been abandoned by English speakers.
That might be because it's odd-looking, made odder by its being said
with a "k" in the middle (not as "sissity") and that people have
preferred the native English "dryness". A century ago, it was
already marked as "probably obsolete" in the first edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary. But it has never been popular. Eighteen-
century chemists might have referred to evaporating a liquid to
siccity, to dryness, geographers might have described an area as
characterised by extreme siccity when they meant it was a desert,
learned men might make a little joke about the siccity of a sermon,
but otherwise it had small use and limited circulation. When this
item appeared in Scotland a century and a half ago it must even then
have seemed curiously old-fashioned and obscure:
The siccity of the weather is already so marked that a
scarcity of water is beginning to be felt.
[The Dundee Courier & Argus, 27 May 1865.]
"Siccity" comes from Latin "siccus", dry. A browse through the OED
shows that we've lost more than one word from this source. Who now
speaks or writes of something being "siccaneous", or of "siccating"
something, that is, making it dry? In a specialist arena, the noun
"siccative" remains in use for a substance that's added to a liquid
such as paint to promote its drying. However, we do retain
"desiccate" and its relatives from the same source.
By the way, the mainly American verb "sic", to attack or provoke
into attacking ("He sicced his dog on them") is quite separate in
origin, being a variation on "seek". And "sic", in the sense in
which I use it in the title of one of these sections, is the Latin
word "thus".
2. Wordface
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NAY! I was intrigued to come across NEIGHSAYER in a book review
recently. There are lots of examples in newspapers but they're
almost always dreadful sub-editorial headline puns on some horse-
related controversy. Not in every case, however. A minority - like
the one I spotted - show their writers have lost the etymological
plot. "Naysayer", for a person who denies or opposes some matter or
who is often negative in his views, comes from the ancient "nay",
one of two words of negation, the other being "no". Which you used
depended on the way in which the question was put to you. If it was
framed affirmatively but you wanted to deny its truth, you used
"nay", much as we might today respond with "definitely not" or "on
the contrary". If it was framed in the negative and you agreed with
it, you used "no". This agrees with its origin from "ne aye", not
yes. The reverse used "yea" and "yes". Confusingly, "yea" was the
simple term of agreement, while "yes" was the equivalent of "nay",
meaning "it is so". So somebody who asked you "Is he an honest man?"
needed the reply "nay" if you thought that, on the contrary, he was
a crook but "yea" if you agreed that he was indeed trustworthy. If
the query was framed in reverse, "Is he a dishonest man?", the
answers would be either "no" or "yes". We have long ago lost this
extended system, though it survives in other languages, such as the
French "si", which like "oui" means "yes", but emphatically
contradicts a question posed in negative form. "Nay" survives in
Scotland and northern England as an alternative to "no". (The adverb
"nay" in the sense of "moreover" - "He grips my hand in public, nay
brandishes it" - is archaic or humorous.) But the verb "naysay"
(similar in sense to "gainsay", which was discussed here last month
- see http://wwwords.org?GNSY) and noun "naysayer" have survived. We
must hope they continue to be spelled like that and avoid those
equine implications.
3. Q and A: Wrack or rack?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Recently I had a discussion about "rack your brains" and "wrack
your brains". The spelling seems to depend on whether one thinks the
phrase derives from the rack, the medieval torture device, or from a
variant of "wreak" or "wreck", to destroy. I side with the former,
though I realize I have no evidence. And it seems "wrack and ruin"
has a similar confusion. I've been painfully stretching my brains
over this question. Help! [Scott Underwood]
A. These expressions certainly cause confusion. Some style guides,
such as Garner's Modern American Usage, argue that the correct forms
are "rack one's brains" and "wrack and ruin". The current edition of
Fowler says equally positively that, at least in British English,
"rack" is correct in both cases. Etymologists know that the various
forms of "rack" and "wrack" (and "wreak" and "wreck") have become
inextricably confused down the centuries and have identified so many
historical examples of "wrack one's brains" and "rack and ruin" that
to insist on one over the other is etymologically insupportable. Dr
Robert Burchfield, editor of the current Fowler, comments that "nine
homonymous nouns and seven homonymous verbs" exist and despairingly
adds "All the complexities of this exceedingly complicated word
cannot be set down here; spare an hour (at least) to consult a large
dictionary, especially the OED". I can tell you from experience that
doing so can leave you even more confused.
Let's start by finding you the evidence that you lack for "rack your
brains", an idiom that has been known with "wit" and "memory"
instead of "brains". The earliest example known is in this poem:
Care for the world to do thy bodie right;
Racke not thy wit to winne by wicked waies.
[Care For Thy Soule, by William Byrd, in his Medius,
published in 1583 and republished in Select poetry ... of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, by Edward Farr, 1845.]
"Rack" as a verb derives from the Middle English noun for a frame on
which materials were stretched for drying, so similar in sense and
application to a tenter (see http://wwwords.org?TNTRH). The modern
sense of rack retains this spelling. A century before William Byrd
was writing, the noun had shifted to mean the torture frame and more
generally something that causes physical or mental suffering. The
verb appeared about the same time, initially in senses that were
associated with the stretching of cloth. By the middle of the next
century it had extended to mean being racked with the pain of an
illness, to twisting the meaning of words, and extorting money by
outrageously increasing the amount demanded.
These historical sources might lead us to argue for "rack one's
brain". However, by the seventeenth century, "wrack" was already
being used; indeed, my non-scientific investigations suggest that it
was more common than "rack". Both are used today, with "wrack" more
usual in the US and "rack" in Britain.
In your other expression, often spelled "wrack and ruin", "wrack" is
from a different source, Old English "wrecan", to drive. In early
usage, it meant vengeance or revenge; by the fifteenth century, it
had taken on the idea of damage, disaster, or severe injury caused
by violence. It is linked to "wreak", as in "to wreak havoc", and
"wreck", in the ship sense. ("Wrack" for seaweed is also a member of
the set, as is the sense of high, fast-moving cloud, thought to be
torn by the wind.)
The earliest example of "wrack and ruin" in the OED is dated 1659,
but confusion between the spellings "wrack" and "rack" had already
begun, because the form "rack and ruin" is known from a document of
1599 quoted in Thomas Fowler's History of Corpus Christi College.
If you're not totally confused by now, you surely should be. The
best that I can do is to quote from another guide, which gives the
standard US advice:
Probably the most sensible attitude would be to ignore
the etymologies of rack and wrack (which, of course, is
exactly what most people do) and regard them simply as
spelling variants of one word. If you choose to toe the
line drawn by the commentators, however, you will want to
write nerve-racking, rack one's brains, storm-wracked, and
for good measure wrack and ruin. Then you will have
nothing to worry about being criticized for - except, of
course, for using too many clichés.
[Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage,
1994.]
4. Sic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An award in the MTV Europe Music Awards reported in the Guardian
last Monday might be disputed by many. "While Lady Gaga won the most
awards, it was Justin Bieber who caused the biggest commotion. The
17-year-old won best pop act and best male."
"I'd like to see them take it away!" Colin Hall remarked, having
read the What's News section of the Wall Street Journal dated 2
November: "The president-elect of Kyrgyzstan said the U.S. should
leave its air base there when the lease expires in 2014".
"Not the best way to get more customers," commented Len Blomstrand
about a news report on BBC News Wales on 7 November, "A climbing
wall is built in a swimming pool that was recently threatened with
closure to try to attract more visitors."
"Headline of the week!" announced Howard Sinberg, in reference to
one over a story dated 9 November on the website of WDSU in New
Orleans: "Unmarried Couples Find Divorce Difficult."
A caption to a photo of Elton John on the Telegraph website was sent
in by Frank Trumper: "Unfortunately, his efforts to make it on
Australian TV have not been particularly unsuccessful."
A. Subscription information
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave the list, change your subscription address or resubscribe,
please visit http://www.worldwidewords.org/maillist/index.htm
You can also maintain your subscription by e-mail. For a list of
commands, send this message to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org:
INFO WORLDWIDEWORDS
This e-magazine is also available as an RSS feed, whose source is at
http://www.worldwidewords.org/rss/newsletter.xml .
Back issues are at http://www.worldwidewords.org/backissues/ .
B. E-mail contact addresses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Comments on e-magazine mailings are always welcome. They should
be sent to me at wordseditor at worldwidewords.org . I do try to
respond, but pressures of time often prevent me from doing so.
* Items for "Sic!" should go to wordsclangers at worldwidewords.org .
Submissions will usually be acknowledged.
* Questions intended to be answered in the Q and A section should
be addressed to wordsquestions at worldwidewords.org (please don't
use this address to respond to published answers to questions -
e-mail the comment address instead).
* Problems with subscriptions that cannot be handled by the list
server should be addressed to wordssubs at worldwidewords.org . To
allow me more time for researching material, please don't e-mail
me asking for simple subscription changes you can do yourself.
C. Ways to support World Wide Words
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Wide Words e-magazine and website are free, but if you
would like to help with their costs, there are several ways to do
so. Visit http://www.worldwidewords.org/support.htm for details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2011. All rights
reserved. The Words website is at http://www.worldwidewords.org .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You may reproduce brief extracts from this e-magazine in mailing
lists, newsletters or newsgroups online, provided that you include
the copyright notice given above. Reproduction of substantial parts
of items in printed publications or websites needs permission from
the editor beforehand (wordseditor at worldwidewords.org).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the WorldWideWords
mailing list