Word of the Month: Marriage

1 January 2004

The issue of gay marriage has been much in the news of late and the topic promises to be a hot-button political issue in the 2004 US presidential election. At issue are the questions of whether and how the state should recognize homosexual unions.Therefore, our word of the month is:

marriage, n., the condition of being husband and wife, since 1975 sometimes applied to same-sex couples. Also applied to the ceremony and celebrations associated with the beginning of such a union. Also applied to other forms of relationship, often with a modifer, e.g., plural marriage. Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.

Currently, only Vermont allows gay couples to form “civil unions.” This statute was signed into law by Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean when he was governor of that state. In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the state constitution and gave the legislature six months to rectify the inequity. In the United States, the regulation of marriage is traditionally a state function and there is little federal law on the subject. There is a 1996 law, however, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples for purposes of federal benefits such as Social Security and pensions and gives states the ability to refuse to recognize gay marriages solemnized in other states.

Courts in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec have ruled that heterosexual-only marriage laws are discriminatory and it appears as if Canada will rewrite its marriage laws to permit gay marriages in the coming year. At present, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries that grant identical marriage rights to both gays and heterosexuals.

The heart of the issue is one of semantics. What exactly do we mean by the word marriage? Regular readers of Wordorigins.org are no doubt aware that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. If we extend the meaning of marriage to include gay unions, then that is what the word means. But it is interesting to look at where the word comes from and how it has been traditionally used.

In the following pages, we examine words that are associated with the institution of marriage.

annul, v., to reduce to nothing, to eliminate. From the Old French annulle and Latin annullare, to make into nothing. In English use since c.1400. The term is used in reference to marriage meaning to declare that a legal marriage never actually existed.

bride, n., a woman about to be or recently married. From the Old English brýd, c.1000.

civil union, n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992:  “Well, marriage is not the correct word or concept; but there is indeed a project of a proposition of law [in France] for a so-called ‘civil union’ contract that would include same-sex couples.” 12 March 1992, soc.motss.

cohabit, v., to live together in sexual relationship, but without the legal sanction of marriage. Since c.1530.

common-law marriage, n., a cohabiting relationship that gains legal sanction through longevity. Common Law is the non-statutory law of England (also used as a basis for law in the United States, sans Louisiana), embodied in old commentaries and judicial precedence. Common law marriage is no longer a recognized legal concept in the United Kingdom and most of the United States. From 1909.

de facto union, n., legal term used in Quebec to denote a cohabiting relationship and the limited rights such a union has under Quebec law.

Defense of Marriage Act, prop.n., also DOMA, 1996 US federal law that exempts states from the requirement to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. The US Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the acts and pronouncements of other states, but also gives Congress some ability to define the parameters of such recognition. The constitutionality of DOMA is an open question.

divorce, n. & v., the legal dissolution of a marriage, the separation of any two things united things, to dissolve a marriage or other union. In English use since 1377. From the French, ultimately from the Latin divortium, which in turn is from divertere, to turn aside. This latter was specifically used in Latin to denote a woman leaving her husband.

domestic partnership, n., a legal union of two people who live together but are not necessarily in a sexual relationship. Generally, a domestic partnership laws do not confer all the rights of a marriage or civil union. In use since 1985 to denote informal arrangements and 1990 as a legal term.

engage, v., to pledge, to bind by contract (1525), specifically to bind in a promise of marriage (1727). From the French engage (en- + gage, pledge).

family, n., a group of people closely related by blood or by close emotional ties. From the Latin familia, household, famulus, servant. The current sense is relatively recent. The word has been in English use since c.1400, the original sense being the servants in a household. By 1545, the term had expanded to include the spouse and children as well as servants. By 1667 the word was being used to include only those related by blood. Related senses include those descended from a common ancestor, a house or lineage, c.1425, and a group of similar or related things, 1611.

nuclear family, n., a social unit consisting of husband and wife and their children, 1949. From the sense of nuclear meaning central, not relating to atomic theory.

gay marriage, n., a legally sanctioned homosexual union, from at least 1984.

groom, n., a man about to be or recently married, a clipping of bridegroom, from the Old English brýdguma. Guma is an Old English poetic word for man. The word was later folk-etymologized into the modern groom through association with that word meaning a type of servant.

homophobia, n., fear toward or hatred of homosexuals. From homo[sexual] + phobia, 1969.

homosexual, adj. & n., pertaining to sexual desires toward or activities with others of the same sex, those who have such desires or engage in such activities, esp. to the exclusion of heterosexual relationships. 1892, from homo- (same) + sexual.

homosexual marriage, n., a long-term cohabiting relationship between members of the same sex, also used recently to refer to a legally sanctioned union. Cited in the OED3 as early as 1955, that early citation has the word “marriage” in quotation remarks.

husband, n., a married man. From the Old English húsbonda, hús (house) + bunda, peasant. Originally (c.1000), the word meant the male head of a household, a freeholder. The current sense dates to c.1290.

lesbian, adj. & n., pertaining to female homosexuality, a female homosexual. Adjectival use is from 1890, the noun is from 1925. The term is a reference to the ancient poet Sappho, a resident of the island of Lesbos in Greece, who allegedly had female lovers (“allegedly” because very little is actually known about her other than fragments of her poetry).

life partner, n., a participant in a long-term cohabiting relationship, esp. a homosexual one. Since at least 1983.

long-time companion, a participant in a long-term cohabiting relationship, esp. a homosexual one. Since at least 1989.

matrimony, n., marriage, 1357. From the Anglo-Norman and ultimately from the Latin matri- (mother) + monium (state or condition).

nuptial, adj. & n., pertaining to marriage or the marriage ceremony, the marriage ceremony itself, 1490. From French, ultimately from the Latin nuptialis, wedding.

significant other, n., a participant in an established romantic or sexual relationship. Originally a sociological term (1940) for a person with great influence over another, the term acquired the current meaning c.1977. Often used in social situations where one wishes to be inclusive or ambiguous over the exact nature of the relationship.

inamorata, n., mistress, girlfriend. From the Italian, 1651.

mistress, n., a governess, obs. (1330); a female head of household, including women who share this authority with a man (c.1375), this sense survives mainly in the abbreviation Mrs.; a woman involved in a romantic relationship with a man, esp. one married to another (c.1425), now the primary sense; a female dominant partner in a sadomasochistic relationship, 1921. From the Anglo-Norman maistresse, the feminine counterpart to master.

fiancé/fiancée, n., a person (man/woman respectively) engaged to marry. From the French, 1853.

wed, v., to marry. From the Old English weddian, c.1000. The original English sense was to make a pledge, esp. one of marriage. Early use applied to the man only, making a pledge to support a woman. By c.1400 applied to both sexes and the mutual act.

wife, n., a married woman. From the Old English wif, c.725. Originally, the word simply meant a woman. By c.888 it had developed the modern sense of a married woman.

Shame on Martha

1 January 2004

Standing on the steps of the federal courthouse in New York City this past month, businesswoman and former director of the New York Stock Exchange Martha Stewart, convicted of lying to federal investigators, asserted her innocence and decried the actions of the prosecutors. In so doing, however, she made what may be a Freudian slip in her use of the word shameful:

Today is a shameful day. It’s shameful for me and my family and for my beloved company and for all its employees and partners. What was a small personal matter came over the...became over the last two years an almost fatal circus event of unprecedented proportions.
—Martha Stewart, 16 July 2004

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: shame·ful
Pronunciation: ‘shAm-f&l
Function: adjective
1 a: bringing shame : DISGRACEFUL b: arousing the feeling of shame
2 archaic: full of the feeling of shame: ASHAMED

Decline of the Dictionary

1 December 2003

Robert Harwell Fiske’s review of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (MW11), is a clear illustration of one of the two views that people have about dictionaries. In Mr. Fiske’s view, Noah Webster came down from the mount with his dictionary inscribed by God on stone tablets. The dictionary is sacred scripture and changing it is heresy. It should not even contain mention of usages deemed improper by an anointed priesthood of prescriptivist grammarians.

The other view holds that a dictionary should be a useful reference, not an icon to be worshipped. It should describe how the language is actually used and provide advice, where appropriate, on matters of grammar and usage.

The first view, if adopted by lexicographers, would rapidly render dictionaries useless. The basic task of a dictionary is to facilitate communication by documenting what words mean. If we only admit into the dictionary words and usages deemed to be proper, we will quickly render significant aspects of our culture unintelligible to others. Dictionaries will rapidly become empty shells of formal prescriptions that bear no relevance to the way we actually speak and write.

The article makes a two-part argument: the English language is in decline and lexicographers, especially those at Merriam Webster, are contributing to this decline.

Regarding the first point, the article provides no evidence. Is the language in decline? No evidence is provided indicating that this is indeed the case. The article does not even provide an objective standard to measure this supposed decline. Is the number of solecisms on the rise? You would not know from this article. It does list a few high profile anecdotes of questionable usage, but, as any freshman college student learns, anecdotal evidence is a weak form of argument. One can find similar solecisms from any century one cares to mention. The fact that a president or a basketball player makes a verbal gaffe does not mean the language is in decline (whatever that means). All it means is that an individual made an error.

When it comes to the second point, the article does present evidence of a sort. “Of a sort” is key. The arguments here are based on half-truths and vagaries. Mr. Fiske misstates and makes selective use of facts and he inaccurately characterizes the content of the dictionaries he abhors. It is difficult to present a concise rebuttal to his complaints because they are little more than a list of things Mr. Fiske does not like about the current crop of dictionaries. What follows, therefore, is simply a point-by-point rebuttal to those complaints.

Mr. Fiske bemoans the fact that the American Heritage Dictionary started to include four-letter words in 1969. He feels that we would all be better off keeping these words hidden. But what of the translator who is trying to find the English equivalent of a foreign epithet? Doesn’t the translator need a resource to find those English equivalents? Four-letter words may not be appropriate in most situations, but (for good or ill) they are very common in our speech and writing and pretending they do not exist will not make them disappear. People will use four-letter words whether or not they are listed in the dictionary. The notorious “F-word,” for example, did not appear in any general dictionary for over 170 years (1795-1965), yet this omission did nothing to discourage its use.

A similar objection is raised to the inclusion of the slang word def in MW11. But what of the white kid in Iowa who runs across it and wants to know what the word means? Not including the word would be to say that contemporary African-American culture is not worth recording. Nor is the word a passing fad. Def has been a staple of the Hip-Hop scene since at least 1979 and the Historical Dictionary of American Slang records West Indian use of the word as far back as 1907. The two-line entry in MW11 is appropriate and utilitarian. The problem here is not with the dictionary; it is with Mr. Fiske. His view of what is important and relevant is exceedingly narrow.

The article notes that most slang is ephemeral. While it is true that most slang is coined and used over a very short period by a small group of people, the slang words objected to here are decidedly not ephemeral or used by a very small group. They have had staying power and wide popularity. To be sure, they may eventually pass from our vocabulary, but they are in the midst of runs that have lasted decades and are showing no signs of abating:

• Funplex is old enough to vote at 18 years.

• McJob first appeared back in 1986 and (in the first of many omissions of fact) the article fails to note that the Mc- prefix is a prolific combining form, forming words like McDoctor, McPaper, and McSex.

• Dis is into its 21st year.

• Headbanger appears in 1979.

• JFK was in the White House when phat made its appearance forty years ago.

• Dead president is a slang term of our grandfather’s generation, dating to 1944, and still going strong.

• And def, as noted above, is close to the century mark.

• Ironically, the only one of these that Mr. Fiske actually likes is the newest coinage, Frankenfood, clocking in at only 11 years old.

One may certainly question the wisdom of particular editorial choices made by Merriam Webster. I have my doubts about how many people will actually ever need to look up funplex, for example. But nitpicking over individual editorial choices does not constitute a philosophical disagreement.

The denunciation of the inclusion in MW11 of the uninterested sense of disinterested makes one wonder if Mr. Fiske actually read the dictionaries he criticizes. MW11 includes a lengthy usage note on the word—almost three times as long as the main entry. MW11’s review of the history of the word mirrors that contained in the OED2, a dictionary that Mr. Fiske says “we can still respect.” The OED2 also includes a usage note on the uninterested sense, saying that it is “often regarded as a loose use.” The Shorter OED also includes a usage note on the word, as does American Heritage. One wonders where these “boneless” lexicographers are who include the sense without comment. The only dictionary I have found that fails to include a usage note on this word is Merriam Webster’s 1961 Third, which has no usage citations whatsoever. It is disingenuous to revive a forty-year-old argument about one particular dictionary and applying to lexicographers in general. This is like criticizing George W. Bush for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In a footnote, the article takes on the very basis of descriptivism, claiming that just because a writer, no matter how esteemed, makes an error, does not change the fact that it is an error. On its face, this seems reasonable. Any human being is capable of error. The question to the prescriptivists is who is the authority? Nobel laureate John Steinbeck, according to Fiske, committed a solecism in his use of enormity to mean large. Arguments from authority are always dicey and if it were just Fiske v. Steinbeck, Fiske might have a point. But when one adds Paul Theroux, J.B. Conant, and E.L. Doctorow (all quoted in MW11’s usage note on the term) to Steinbeck’s camp, then one has to wonder exactly when would Mr. Fiske accept a particular usage?

The article objects to the one-line entry in MW11 for alright. That one line entry is followed by a seven-line usage note, a fact that is omitted from the article, which also fails to note that the word is also included in the OED2 and that H.W. Fowler himself said that although it is “seldom allowed by the compositors to appear in print, is often seen in [manuscripts].” The idea that it be removed from the dictionary in favor of Boeotian is so laughable that one begins to wonder if this article is not a parody of the prescriptivist position. If one has to dig this deep into the vocabulary barrel to find a word that MW11 omits, then the editors have done a fine job at being comprehensive.1 There can be no doubt that far more people will crack open the dictionary to look up alright than will to look up Boeotian. Is it not better for someone to look up the word and find a usage note stating that it is often considered an erroneous spelling than to find nothing at all?

The article then launches into a string of words it regards as errors:

• Supercede. The article objects to this spelling variant, but MW11 includes a usage note (that once again the article fails to mention) that explains this spelling has been common in published writing since the 17th century, even though many consider it to be an error.

• Infer to mean imply and peruse to mean to read in a casual manner. These are classic examples of hypercorrection. Infer and imply have been synonyms for centuries and peruse has never meant anything other than simply to read. And again, the article does not mention the usage note in MW11 regarding infer and imply.

• Hone in to mean home in. Again the article neglects to mention that MW11 includes a usage note recommending against this usage.

• Flaunt for flout. Again, the article neglects the usage note, which says, “if you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake.”

• Incent and impactful. The article fails to make a case why these are errors. They are ungainly and inelegant to be sure, but hardly “wrong.”

• The pronunciation of nuclear as /NU-kya-ler/. Three recent presidents, one a nuclear engineer by training (Carter), have made this pronunciation famous. One ought to be careful in declaring this one wrong lest one incur the wrath of millions of Southerners who are proud of their dialect.

• Reticent meaning reluctant, accidently, and predominate as an adjective. Finally the article makes a few correct points, albeit minor ones. MW11 should have included usage notes for these.

The essay concludes by introducing a meaningless survey. First, it is a survey of readers of The Vocabula Review—hardly a representative sample of public opinion or even experts on usage. Second, the questions are poorly constructed. Any survey choice that begins with “Yes!” is going to skew the results. Also, the final choice is not on the same continuum than the other four. It answers a different question. Finally, no information on survey size or margin of error is included.

One might counter that this is just fun and “unscientific,” but if so, why include it? The data are meaningless and do nothing but show that Mr. Fiske is so desperate to find support for his untenable position that he is clutching at whatever straws he can grab.

Ultimately, the question is who is the authority on language. Should we rely on those who actually use the language, the writers and editors, or should we rely on a handful of self-proclaimed experts who ignore actual examples of usage in favor of their own personal preferences?

There is a place for well-crafted language and a place for reasoned advice on usage, but this goal is not served by shrill complaints about the licentious lexicographers, half-truths, and poorly constructed arguments. Those concerned with clear and elegant use of language would be better served by reason than by simply declaring things to be wrong because they do not like them. This unreasoned prescriptivism does little except place a strait jacket on the English language, turning it from a flexible and expanding language into a rigid and increasingly less useful one.

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary, defined a dictionary as “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic.” One has to ask who is more likely to bring Bierce’s nightmare to fruition, the descriptivist lexicographers who chronicle how people actually use the language while providing sensible usage advice or rigid prescriptivists who want to deny that other usages even exist.

1 Subsequent to this article being written and published in TVR, another commentator pointed out that Beotian is indeed in M-W’s 11th. The word does not appear in the main dictionary but does appear in the lexicon of geographical terms at the back of the volume.

Decline of the Dictionary

by Robert Hartwell Fiske

1 December 2003

This article, and the response that follows, originally appeared in the pages of The Vocabula Review and is reprinted here with permission. Fiske is the editor of The Vocabula Review.

The new slang-filled eleventh edition of “America’s Best-Selling Dictionary,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Frederick C. Mish, editor in chief), does as much as, if not more than, the famously derided Webster’s Third International Dictionary to discourage people from taking lexicographers seriously. “Laxicographers” all, the Merriam-Webster staff reminds us that dictionaries merely record how people use the language, not how it ought to be used. Some dictionaries, and certainly this new Merriam-Webster, actually promote illiteracy.

Several years ago, the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary ("America’s Favorite Dictionary") caused a stir by deciding to include four-letter words in their product. Since the marketing strategy of including swear words has now been adopted by all dictionary makers, Merriam-Webster, apparently not knowing how else to distinguish its dictionary from competing ones that erode its marketing share, has decided to include a spate of slang words in its eleventh edition. There’s nothing wrong with trying to distinguish their product, of course, but when it means tampering with the English language — by including idiotic slang and apparently omitting more useful words—it’s reprehensible.

Merriam-Webster proclaims it has added some ten thousand words to its Collegiate Dictionary. To do so, as a company spokesman admitted, “some words had to be kicked out” of the earlier edition. More interesting than this new edition would be a book of the words abandoned. Were they sesquipedalian words that few people use or know the meaning of; disyllabic words that few people use or know the meaning of? It’s quite true: people are increasingly monosyllabic; after all, many people today prefer dis (included in the Collegiate tenth and eleventh) to disparage or disrespect or insult. And now, in the eleventh, there is also the equally preposterous def, another word, Merriam-Webster assures us, for excellent or cool (which among many younger people today, is also spelled kool and kewl, and though both words may have as much—or as little—currency as def, neither, curiously, Merriam-Webster saw fit to include in their compilation).

What word did Merriam-Webster decide to omit to make room for the all-important def? What word did they decide to omit to make room for funplex (an entertainment complex that includes facilities for various sports and games and often restaurants)? What word did they omit in order to add McJob (a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement)? What words did they omit in order to add headbanger (a musician who performs hard rock), dead presidents (United States currency in the form of paper bills), phat (highly attractive or gratifying), and Frankenfood (genetically engineered food)? Frankly, I rather like the coinage Frankenfood. But if people do not enjoy or feel comfortable eating genetically altered foods, which I suspect is likely, the word will be fleeting. Almost all slang, the people at Merriam-Webster should know, is ephemeral. Most of the slang added to the eleventh edition will never see the twelfth—or ought not to. Consider this paragraph from the Merriam-Webster site:

Many new words pass out of English as quickly as they entered it, the fad of teenagers grown to adulthood, the buzzwords of the business meetings past, the cast-off argot of technologies superceded [sic], the catchy phrases from advertisements long forgotten. It is likely that many such ephemeral coinages will never be entered in dictionaries, especially abridged dictionaries where space (or time or money or all of the above) are at a premium. That does not mean, however, that the words did not exist, simply that they did not endure.1

Odd that Mish and his minions would then agree to the addition of so much slang to the eleventh edition. (Odder still, perhaps, that slang like far-out and groovy, even though the popularity of these words has been much reduced over the years, are still entries in the Collegiate.2) But, as I say, it’s a marketing strategy. It’s not lexicography. These slang terms are not meant to improve the usefulness of their product; they’re meant to help sell “America’s Best-Selling Dictionary.” Slang, Merriam-Webster believes, sells.

Lexicographers are descriptivists, language liberals. People using disinterested when they mean uninterested does not displease a descriptivist. A prescriptivist, by contrast, is a language conservative, a person interested in maintaining standards and correctness in language use. To prescriptivists, disinterested in the sense of uninterested is the mark of uneducated people not knowing the distinction between the two words. And if there are enough uneducated people saying disinterested (and I’m afraid there are) when they mean uninterested or indifferent, lexicographers enter the definition into their dictionaries. Indeed, the distinction between these words has all but vanished owing largely to irresponsible writers and boneless lexicographers.3

Words, we are told, with the most citations are included in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Are then words with the fewest omitted, or in danger of being omitted? Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary includes alright,4 but what word was not included, or “kicked out,” so that an inanity, an illiteracy like alright could be kept in? Boeotian is not in Merriam-Webster’s; is alright truly a better use of space for a “college dictionary”? I think not.

All it takes for a solecism to become standard English is people misusing or misspelling the word. And if enough people do so, lexicographers will enter the originally misused or misspelled word into their dictionaries, and descriptive linguists will embrace it as a further example of the evolution of English.

Merriam-Webster’s laxicographers, further disaffecting careful writers and speakers, assign the meaning reluctant to the definition of reticent. Reticent means disinclined to speak; taciturn; quiet. Reluctant means disinclined to do something; unwilling; loath. Because some people mistakenly use reticent to mean reluctant, dictionaries now maintain reticent does mean reluctant.

There are other examples of Merriam-Webster’s inexcusably shoddy dictionary making. According to the dictionary’s editors:

• The spelling supercede is a variant of supersede

• The spelling accidently is as valid as accidentally

• The verb predominate is also an adjective meaning predominant

• enormity means the same as enormousness

• infer means the same as imply

• hone in means the same as home in

• flaunt means the same as flout

• peruse means not only to examine carefully but to read over in a casual manner

• incent means incentivize, itself ungainly

• impactful is listed as an adjective of impact

• The pronunciation of nuclear is NU-klee-er or NU-kya-ler

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary actually promotes the misuse of the English language.

Of course, it’s in the financial interest of dictionary makers to record the least defensible of usages in the English language, for without ever-changing definitions—or as they would say, an evolving language—there would be less need for people to buy later editions of their product.

A few months ago, in The Vocabula Review, I offered the following TVR Poll:

Dictionaries should be much more prescriptive, far less descriptive, than they now are.

• Yes! More than that, laxicographers promote the dissolution of the English language (and even society) with their misguided liberality: 19%

• Quite so. Dictionary compilers need to maintain, and perhaps even decide, distinctions between words; they need to guide us on matters of usage: 27%

• A mix of guidance and license is probably the best course—it’s also the commonest course: 22%

• Lexicographers are necessarily descriptivist for their job is simply to record how people use the language: 28%

• Obviously, we all must bow to the definitions and spellings found in the dictionary: 4%

As you see, 68 percent of the respondents rejected the strong descriptivist idea of dictionary making. Still more heartening to me is that only 4 percent of the people who participated in this poll believe that the definitions and spellings a dictionary offers are those we are necessarily bound to. More than that, though, the new Merriam-Webster is a sign that dictionaries, at least as they are now being compiled, have outlived their usefulness. Dictionaries are no longer sacrosanct, no longer sources of unimpeachable information. Dictionaries are, indeed, no longer to be trusted.

That a president can ask Is our children learning? a basketball star can use the word conversate, a well-known college professor can say vociferous when he means voracious, and another can scold a student for using the word juggernaut because she believes it means jigaboo is disturbing. But these are precisely the sorts of errors, if enough people make them, that the staff at Merriam-Webster will one day include in their dictionaries:

• child n, pl or sing children.

• conversate to exchange thoughts or opinions in speech; to converse.

• vociferous 1 marked by or given to vehement insistent outcry. 2 voracious.

• juggernaut 1 a massive inexorable force, campaign , movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path. 2 usu offensive jigaboo; black person.

Over the last forty and more years, linguists and lexicographers have conspired to transform an indispensable reference work into an increasingly useless, increasingly needless one.

1 From the Merriam-Webster website: Passing Fancies.

2 Merriam-Webster does publish a number of “specialty dictionaries,” including Merriam-Webster’s Biographical Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotations, but they have not published a dictionary of slang. Since the editors at Merriam-Webster are so enamored of slang, let them publish a specialty dictionary of it.

3 Lexicographers often try to justify the inclusion of solecisms like disinterested (in the sense of uninterested) in their dictionaries by citing examples from authors who have used these words solecistically. The obvious response to this is that authors—well known or not—are not immune from misusing and misspelling words and have forever done so. In the seventeenth century, according to the OED (a dictionary we can still respect), disinterested did have the meaning “without interest or concern,” but for the last three hundred years, the word has meant “impartial or without bias.”

4 Though Merriam-Webster’s is likely the most descriptivist dictionary on the market today, many of my criticisms of it are also applicable to other popular college dictionaries. The American Heritage College Dictionary, The Oxford American College Dictionary, and Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, for instance, all include, and thereby sanction, the solecism alright.

Word of the Month: Nautical

1 November 2003

Two weeks ago the movie Master and Commander, starring Russell Crowe, opened in theaters across the United States. The movie, based on the popular series of novels by Patrick O’Brian, is about the fictional adventures of Captain Jack Aubrey and his friend physician and spy Dr. Stephen Maturin. They sail together aboard the HMS Surprise, taking on Napoleon’s Navy and engaging in all sorts of adventures on the high seas.

O’Brian’s books and the movie they inspired are very faithful to details about life, including language, aboard ship in the age of sail. It is swashbuckling adventure to be sure, but pretty good history as well. Because the movie, which took in over $25 million at the US box office during its first weekend, will engender questions and enthusiasm for the language of the sea, our word of the month is:

nautical, adj., relating to sailing, ships, sailors, or the sea, 1552. The English word is adopted from the Middle French nautique, which is from the Latin nauticus, which in turn is from the Greek word for sailor.

On the Wordorigins.org discussion forum, we frequently debunk words and phrases that have false nautical origins attributed to them. We do this so often that one participant, Dr. Techie, invented the facetious acronym CANOE, meaning Conspiracy to Attribute Nautical Origins to Everything. In the face of all this one can easily forget that there are a great number of English words and phrases that do in fact have their origins in the sea.

What follows is a list of words and phrases that all have their origins in nautical language. The nautical origins of these terms will not be readily apparent to many. Where several dates are given, the first is for the general or figurative use and the second (earlier) is the date of appearance in nautical jargon.

A1, adj., prime, first class. A1 was first used by Lloyd’s Register, a listing of ships in commission by the famed insurance company, to denote vessels in prime condition. 1837 for nautical use. In general use from 1851.

albatross, n., a mark of misfortune, a burden. Not really a nautical term, but rather from literature about the sea. The sense is a reference to Coleridge’s 1798 poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in which the mariner kills an albatross and it brings misfortune upon him and his ship:

Instead of the cross, the albatross
About my neck was hung.

The metaphorical sense dates to 1936. The name of the bird is an alteration of the Spanish alcatraz, pelican, inaccurately applied in English to the petrel, especially Diomedea exulans, the giant albatross.

aloof, adj., distant, either physically or emotionally. Originally, a nautical command meaning to sail closer to the wind. Probably from the Dutch loef, windward. 1549.

broadside, n., an assault or attack in force, to fire a broadside. The term originally referred to the side of a ship, 1591, or somewhat later to a coordinated volley of cannon fire from all the guns on one side of a ship.

by and large, adv., across a range or gamut, 1669. Originally, a reference to a ship that sails well both close hauled to the wind, or by, and away from it, or large.

caboose, n., a railroad car, usually at the end of a train, used as a work and break area for the crew, 1861. The word is from the Dutch kabuis and is nautical in origin. It was originally a galley built on the deck of a ship or the hut that covered this kitchen, 1769.

careen, v., to lean, to tilt, to speed unsteadily, 1600. Originally, to turn a ship on its side so maintenance can be performed. From the French carène, keel.

close quarters, n., in immediate contact, especially with a foe, 1753. (The obsolete variant close-fight is older, dating to 1662.) Originally a term for barriers erected on deck behind which a crew could retreat during attempts tot repel boarders.

copper-bottomed, adj., genuine, authentic, trustworthy, 1795. A metaphorical extension of the nautical practice of sheathing ship’s bottoms in copper plating, to prevent the accumulation of shells and weeds that slow a ship.

dido, n., a caper or prank, 1807. Also, cut a dido, to commit a prank. All right, this one is probably not nautical in origin, but I did the research to debunk it and want to slip it in. It is often said that this term is from the HMS Dido, a ship so fast and maneuverable that it could literally run circles around the other ships in the Mediterranean fleet. Unfortunately for this great story, the ship in question was not launched until 1896, nearly a century after the term first appears.

cut and run, v.phr., to leave hurriedly, 1704. Originally, a nautical term meaning to make sail by cutting the cable instead of weighing anchor. The metaphorical usage dates to at least 1861.

cut of one’s jib, n., one’s appearance, 1823. The phrase started life as a sailor’s catchphrase. A jib is a triangular staysail stretched from the jib-boom or bowsprit to the fore-topmast. The word is of unknown origin, but dates to 1661.

deep six, n. & v., death, the grave, or to dispose of, 1929. The origin of this term is uncertain, but is widely thought to be a reference to burial at sea at a depth of six fathoms.

fathom, v., to penetrate, to comprehend. The immediate predecessor of this verb is the nautical verb meaning to take a sounding, to measure the depth of water under the keel. The word is ancient, coming from the Old English fæðm, meaning literally embracing arms, or figuratively grasp or power. Also quite early, c.1000, the word came to mean a measurement the length of a man’s outstretched arms. This was later fixed at six feet. This was a general unit of linear measure, but survives today chiefly in nautical use for depth of water.

figurehead, n., the titular head of an organization or community, one with the trappings of power but no real authority. A reference to the ornamental carving, often a bust or full-figure of a woman, on the bow of a ship. 1765 for the literal, nautical use; 1883 for the metaphorical sense.

first rate, adj., excellent, unsurpassed, 1666. Originally a term referring to the largest class of naval vessels, esp. those in the Age of Sail that carried 74-120 guns.

flotsam and jetsam, n., detritus, debris, esp. that which is floating, odds and ends. Flotsam is from the Anglo-Norman floteson (cf. modern French flottaison), the wreckage of a ship found floating, 1607. Jetsam is a syncopated form of jettison and refers to cargo and goods thrown overboard from a ship in distress, 1570. The terms are distinct because in maritime law different liabilities apply. Owners of surviving cargo on a ship are liable for the loss of the owners of the jetsam (their cargo was saved because the others’ were thrown overboard), but not for flotsam, which was lost due to accident.

gangway, intj., a demand to clear the way, either for a person carrying a burden or for one of higher social rank (e.g., an officer), 1925. The general sense of the noun gangway is not nautical in origin. It refers to any passageway. It dates to c.1000 and is a combination of the Old English gang, a road or passage (cf. German gehen) + way. Nautical use of the noun gangway dates to 1688, when it referred to a platform between the forecastle and the quarterdeck. Use to mean the opening in the bulwarks for entering or leaving a vessel dates to 1780.

groggy, adj., befuddled, tired, weak, as if from a fight or drink, 1832. Older use, from 1770, means intoxicated. Grog is a mixture of rum and water once served to sailors in the Royal Navy. The name comes from the nickname of Admiral Edward “Old Grog” Vernon who in 1740 first ordered the mixture to be served to sailors in the place of neat spirit. Vernon’s nickname is from the grogram coat he often wore. Grogram is a mixture of silk, mohair, and wool which has waterproof qualities. Grogram is from the French gros grain, large or coarse grain, 1562. The Royal Navy abolished the rum ration in 1970.

hand over fist, adj., with ease, quickly, esp. used in reference to financial gain, 1825. The phrase originated at sea in reference to the ease and speed with which experienced sailors climbed rigging. By the late 19th century the phrase was being used metaphorically.

hard and fast, adj., rigidly adhered to, 1867. The phrase originally was used to describe a ship firmly attached to a wharf or shore, unmoving.

hard up, adj., in difficulty, esp. financial, 1821. The term originated in 1612 as a nautical command to turn the ship away from the wind as fast as possible, a turn usually made in desperation to avoid a collision.

high and dry, adj., stranded, 1822. The phrase is from the metaphor of a ship that has been beached above the surf line.

hulk, n., a large person, a large object, 1597. The word hulk originally meant a ship, c.1000. It is an Old English word, hulc, that is related to the Medieval Latin hulcus. Cognates are found in many European languages and the ultimate origin is obscure. Shakespeare was the first to apply the term metaphorically to a person in Henry IV, Part 2.

laid-up, adj., disabled. This one is from 1769 and originally referred to a ship that was moored for repairs or because it was retired from service.

leeway, n., freedom to act as one sees fit, 1827. The metaphorical sense, which dates to the early 19th century is from a literal nautical sense from 1669. This literal sense refers to lateral drift of a ship in the direction of the wind or the downwind (leeward) distance a ship requires to maneuver. A ship with a lot of leeway has no other ships or objects leeward and is free to maneuver without fear of collision.

log, n. & v., a journal or record, to record in a journal or record, 1825 for the noun, 1823 for the verb. No, this word is not originally nautical, but this particular sense derives from nautical usage. The word meaning a block of wood dates to Middle English, the late 14th century. The origin is unknown, but it is related to clog, another word that originally meant a block of wood. The nautical sense dates to 1574 and originally referred to a block of wood tied to a line that would be thrown astern of a vessel underway. By measuring the line paid out over a fixed period, the crew could determine the ship’s speed. The sense of a journal is transferred from entering these measurements into the ship’s journal or, as it came to be known, the log. The computer terms logon, login, logoff, and logout also come from this sense.

loose cannon, n., an unpredictable person or thing, something uncontrollable that is liable to cause damage, 1900. This one is not actually from nautical jargon, but it comes from a nautical metaphor. The term was popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: “I don’t want to be the old cannon loose on the deck in the storm.”

lopsided, adj., leaning to one side, 1711. This term was first used to refer to ships that listed to one side. Lop, a verb meaning to droop, dates to 1578. It is perhaps echoic in origin, related to lob and also the source for loppy.

lower the boom, v., to stop, to defeat, 1950. This US slang phrase is nautical in origin. A boom is a spar that holds a sail in place, from the Dutch, 1662, and akin to the word beam. To lower the boom on someone is to metaphorically bring a beam down upon their head.

mainstay, n., the chief support, something or someone on whom something relies, 1604. In nautical jargon, a stay is a rope that supports and holds in place a mast. The mainstay is the rope that holds the mainmast in place, usually running from the top of the mainmast (maintop) to the foot of the foremast. The nautical term mainstay dates to 1485 and the generic stay to sometime after 1100.

headway, n., progress, 1775. In nautical jargon the head is front, or bow, of the ship. So to make headway is to make forward progress. Nautical usage of headway dates to 1748 and head to 1485. The sense of a latrine or toilet is also nautical, dating to 1748, and comes from the fact that latrines were usually placed in the bows—so the wind from astern would carry the excretions away from the ship.

in the offing, adj., soon, close at hand, 1779.  In nautical terms an offing is a position at sea, but within sight of shore, 1627.

pipe down, v., to stop talking, to become quiet, 1900. On board ship, the boatswain would use a pipe to signal various commands. To pipe down was to dismiss the watch and send them to bed, 1833.

scuttle, v., to ruin, destroy, or otherwise make useless, 1888. In nautical jargon, a scuttle is a hole drilled through part of the ship, 1497. The verb means to drill or create a hole in the bottom of a ship in order to sink her, 1642. The word is related to the French écoutille and the Spanish escotilla, but the exact relationship is uncertain.

scuttlebutt, n., gossip, rumor, 1901. On board ship, a scuttlebutt is a cask with a hole cut in it (a butt that had been scuttled) containing drinking water for the crew, 1805. The figurative use of the term comes from the idea that sailors would gather around the scuttlebutt and gossip, much like modern office workers talk around the water cooler.

shove off, v., to depart, to leave, 1844. Nautical use of shove meaning to launch a boat is ancient. The term appears in Beowulf:

guman ut scufon
weras on wil-sið    wudu bundenne.
(then shoved out
away with a will    in their wood-sheathed ship.)

The use of off, instead of out, dates to 1600.

skipper, n., leader, 1830. This is one of the commonly recognizable nautical terms dealt with here. Nautical use meaning the captain or master of a ship dates to 1390. It is from the Middle Dutch or Middle Low German schipper.

skylark, v., to engage in horseplay, to frolic, 1809. This term is not nautical in origin, but rather comes from the name of the bird which is known for singing as it flies. Early uses, however, are nautical and refer to antics in the rigging of a ship.

slush fund, n., money that is not officially accounted for, esp. money used for bribes, 1874. In nautical jargon, slush is the fat and grease from boiling meat, 1756. It is the same word as that for partially melted snow. It is of unknown origin, but is probably related to sludge and slosh. Slush would be sold when in port and the money would be distributed among the crew. Nautical use of slush fund dates to 1839.

stem to stern, adj., complete, whole, 1697. The stem is another name for the bow of a ship, or more specifically to the piece of timber to which the planks are fastened, 1538. By extension, the phrase is used figuratively to denote the entirety of something.

taken aback, adj., surprised, discomfited, 1842. In nautical jargon, to be taken aback is to suddenly have the wind shift, either through bad steerage or sudden weather change, so that it is coming over the bow and giving the ship sternway, 1754. To be taken aback can dismast a ship.