1 of 2
1
HD: 1945 Words
Posted: 28 November 2011 03:59 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

Starting the post-war phase

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

bebop, n. The style of jazz known as bebop developed immediately following the war.

It became famous after the war, but was developed during it—“in the early 1940s,” to quote Gunther Schuller’s magisterial The Swing Era (and where is the sequel he promised “in a few years” back in 1988??).  The recording ban of 1942-43 retarded knowledge of the new form, but not its development.  (It also, of course, deprived us of priceless documentation.)

Chad, n.1 Chad or Mr. Chad was a British cartoon graffito who protested various shortages with the phrase “Wot, no _____?” In American usage, the cartoon became conflated with Kilroy.

Eric Shackle traces the history of Mr Chad and Kilroy.

hassle, n. A surprisingly late addition. I bet it can be antedated.

You’d think, but I was unable to do so.  (I was, however, briefly excited by “Mommsen hassled me” from 1912, before I clicked and discovered it was a scanning error for “has led”!)

necrophiliac, n. The first citation of necrophiliac in the OED is from a 1945 letter by Jack Kerouac. I bet a thorough search of psychological literature can turn up earlier uses. The word necrophilia dates to the nineteenth century.

This one I antedated pretty substantially; Harold Moyer, in “Is Sexual Perversion Insanity?” (Alienist and Neurologist, May, 1907), writes: “Necrophilism is a symbolism whereby the necrophiliac symbolizes pain to secure excitement by desecrating the dead” (p. 198) and “The bloody combination of vengeful violence and morbidly extreme passion appear in this ghastly incident of history as a truthful revolting picture of the nymphomaniac erotopath transformed into a victim of violent necrophiliac passion” (p. 383).

snogging, n. A favorite activity of returning soldiers.

You might want to define this for non-UK readers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3451
Joined  2007-01-31

“Necrophilism is a symbolism whereby the necrophiliac symbolizes pain to secure excitement by desecrating the dead” (p. 198) and “The bloody combination of vengeful violence and morbidly extreme passion appear in this ghastly incident of history as a truthful revolting picture of the nymphomaniac erotopath transformed into a victim of violent necrophiliac passion”

The second sentence is not an instance of usage as a noun.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  401
Joined  2007-02-13

snogging, n. A favorite activity of returning soldiers.

You might want to define this for non-UK readers.

The current crop of non-UK high schoolers and college-age kids has learned this from Harry Potter.  I had to look it up myself a few years back while reading book #4 (I think) aloud to my kids.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2652
Joined  2007-02-19

Keep it up, Dave. You’re on to a good thing.

turbojet

I must confess that I feel more uncomfortable with the expression “ejected out”, than I do with “injected in”; while I find that “injected into” doesn’t give me the slightest qualm. But I can’t help feeling vaguely hostile to “ejected out”.

necrophiliac

I don’t know enough about Jack Kerouac to be able to say anything about the extent of his knowledge of English usage. But it strikes me that “necrophiliac” is an adjectival form; I suspect that a psychiatrist, more at home with the jargon of his/her profession, would be more likely to say “a necrophile” when referring to a person afflicted with necrophilia, and to say “necrophiliac symptoms” when referring to the attributes of the condition (though I see that lh’s 1907 cite refutes me). After all, it’s not usual to refer to a book lover as a “bibliophiliac”, or to an admirer of things French as a “Francophiliac”. One could do it, I suppose; it’s not as gross a flouting of convention as, say, “normalcy"*, but a flouting I suspect it is, nevertheless.

* I know that “normalcy” is more acceptable nowadays than it was in Mr. Harding’s time. People who use it should also try “abnormalcy” instead of “abnormality”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

Mr Seaborg ended up getting an element named after him, which is nice.
edit: and he was alive at the time the name was given, which is rare.

[ Edited: 28 November 2011 03:08 PM by OP Tipping ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

The second sentence is not an instance of usage as a noun.

I realize that, but could you have resisted quoting it?

I know that “normalcy” is more acceptable nowadays than it was in Mr. Harding’s time.

It has always been acceptable; people decided to make fun of it at the time because they wanted a stick with which to beat a politician they did not like (a phenomenon not unknown in our time; cf. the mockery of Rumsfeld’s perfectly sensible statement about known unknowns).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2011 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2652
Joined  2007-02-19

I know that “normalcy” is more acceptable nowadays than it was in Mr. Harding’s time.
It has always been acceptable;

Well, obviously, if people use it, it must be acceptable to them. I don’t know much about Mr Harding, and have no desire to bash him (George Kennedy portrayed him as a gullible sort of nebbech, easy prey for crafty scoundrels, as I recall), but I still dislike “normalcy”. If somebody were to say “formalcy” rather than “formality”, or “genialcy” instead of “geniality”, I wouldn’t care much for that, either.De gustibus non disputandum.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

I happily accept ‘normalcy’, but I don’t say it, simply because I prefer ‘normality’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 05:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

Changes made.

I had the same issue with ejected out, but the full clause is “ejected out the other end.” The out is not paired with ejected but rather with the other end. I decided this was the most succinct way of contrasting the intake with the ejection.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

Could say “ejected at the other end”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

I still dislike “normalcy”. If somebody were to say “formalcy” rather than “formality”, or “genialcy” instead of “geniality”, I wouldn’t care much for that, either.

The latter are not words; you just made them up.  They are not in any dictionary and have never been used (except in similar expostulations; from Harding’s day: “Shall we say ‘formalcy, brutalcy, dualcy, realcy, equalcy, totalcy, pluralcy’? Would Washington’s exhortation be improved by substituting this form of new vintage?").  “Normalcy” has been around about as long as “normality”; to quote the Random House “Mavens’ Word of the Day” feature from June 25, 1999:

Harding, we recall, was also blamed for the word bloviate, and just like that word, normalcy was coined in the mid-nineteenth century and Harding merely made it more popular.

The words normality and normalcy both mean ‘the quality or state of being normal’. Both are perfectly regular formations. But only normalcy has been fiercely condemned, especially after Harding’s famous use of it.

A fact brought up at that time was that not only was normalcy around since 1857, or before Harding was even born, but the supposedly proper normality was only a few years older, first recorded in 1849. (Normalness was also a word of that era, but it never got very far.) Another relevant fact is that normal itself, in the familiar sense ‘standard’ (another sense, in geometry, goes back to the seventeenth century), only dates from the 1820s and was rare until the 1840s. Thus when discussing any form of normal we must remember that it is a rather recent word all of whose relevant forms appeared at about the same time.

It is of course perfectly OK to dislike any given word, but one can dislike a word without trying to prove that it’s somehow illegitimate.  Lots of people apparently dislike the word moist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2652
Joined  2007-02-19

It is of course perfectly OK to dislike any given word

After several salutary years with wordorigins.org, I would no more question the “legitimacy” of a word than I would that of a person 40 years younger and 25 kg heavier than myself. But to paraphrase a famous art critic, I don’t know anything about words, but I know which ones I like. I’m not trying to prove anything, just indulging in a little harmless vituperation.

Interesting, what you say about “moist”. I’d no idea.

(reaches for bottle, muttering “In vino veritas")

;-)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

Interesting, what you say about “moist”. I’d no idea.

I didn’t either until fairly recently, and I’m still somewhat bemused by it.  Apparently the distaste is felt mostly by women.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

I thought we’d discussed moist here, but maybe that was on ADS-L.

Yes, moist has a very active and vocal minority that are horrified and disgusted by the term, associating it with some kind of nasty sexuality. The late, great television series Dead Like Me made fun of the phenomenon in the first episode, where the main character discussed her mother’s aversion to the word and used it at the dinner table, commenting on the “moist” cake, to upset her. Then after the protaganist dies (by being hit by a toilet seat from a deorbited Russian space station), “toilet-seat girl,” as she is known in the afterlife, rearranges the alphabet magnets on her mother’s refrigerator to spell “moist” to antagonize her from beyond the grave.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2011 05:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

Ha!  Wish I’d heard of the series while it was on.  (But my appreciative attention tends to kill off TV series; anybody heard of Profit, Frank’s Place, or Almost Grown?  I drove them off the screen in a season or less.)

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Meanwhile, over in the French      Lazy susan ››