What is a weekend?

…So asks the Dowager Countess in an early episode of Downton Abbey. Any idea I may have had that it was only my own rather idiosyncratic family that was so amused at the time – not only by the question itself but by Maggie Smith’s impeccable deadpan delivery – that it remains to this day an oft used geflügeltes Wort, seems to have been misplaced; as demonstrated in the LRB clip below.

Rosemary Hill very nicely contextualizes the tentative nearing of the upper classes and the masses – by way of the pesky upper-middle-classes dabbling about in things called ‘jobs’! – at the beginnings of the last century. One may quibble, but there is much for the discerning viewer to take from the oft maligned Downton Abbey.

Notes and Queries 1879-11-29: Vol 12 Issue 309

On the right is the puzzled question out of Staffordshire in Notes and Queries to which the convoluted reply is included in the video. (From the Internet Archive.)

Afterthought

Not an aftermath exactly, but preoccupied still with words, words, words, this much more than a mere afterthought: the NYT reports under the headline “Hip, Woke, Cool” – also three words – that Henry Louis Gates as director of the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research at Harvard is editing in cooperation with Oxford University Press a new lexicon dedicated to the richness of the African American language, the Oxford Dictionary of African American English (ODAAE)

It’s a long way from the Harvard of Longfellow and Lowell to that of Henry Louis Gates, and as far from Trench’s mid-nineteenth century idiosyncratic glossary to this one in planning across the pond and in this 21st century, with all the creativity, nuances and melodies that time and place bring to the English language in all its variations; a vibrant reminder of the evolutionary power of language as ideas and experience are given form and rhythm. A terrific project, I think, and with a multidisciplinary character and application; projected completion in 2024.

As a quick reference, some resources:

And, Cab Calloway doing his own marketing! Wonderful!

Aftermath

Diverging to dabble in some amateur wordsmithing (is that a word?); inspired by a word pondered by Woolf; inconsequential to all intents and purposes and simply said in passing, but worthy of thought.

In her diary entry of Wednesday 7 November 1928, Virginia Woolf wonders at her poor physical and mental state in the aftermath of the publication of Orlando. And true to form, that contemplation once written sets her searching mind, unhindered by its fragile state, momentarily meandering, and she wonders about the etymology of a rather ordinary word, the word “aftermath”, and turns to, as she says, “Trench”, for some reconciliation.

Well, none was forthcoming from the said Trench. But I was curious and wondered at her reference, and a footnote explained the tome to be: A Select Glossary of English Words used formerly in senses different from their present (1859) compiled by Richard Chenevix Trench. Rather dated, even during Woolf’s time to be sure, and one may presume that it was long in her possession; from her father’s library perhaps.

To my surprise a digitized version (of the American edition) is on the hathitrust website, and this curious work of reference is certainly well worth a browse – even if it doesn’t help on the matter concerning “aftermath”!

Some further research on my part indicates that the word does in fact fit the criteria insinuated in the title, so the good Mr. Trench was indeed remiss.

aftermath (n.)

1520s, originally a second crop of grass grown on the same land after the first had been harvested, from after + -math, from Old English mæð “a mowing, cutting of grass,” from PIE root *me- (4) “to cut down grass or grain.”

Also known as aftercrop (1560s), aftergrass (1680s), lattermath, fog (n.2). Figurative sense is by 1650s. Compare French regain “aftermath,” from re- + Old French gain, gaain “grass which grows in mown meadows,” from Frankish or some other Germanic source similar to Old High German weida “grass, pasture.”

Online Etymology Dictionary

A modern definition, “figurative sense” as mentioned above or in the original might read:

aftermath | ˈɑːftəmaθ, ˈɑːftəmɑːθ | noun

 1 the consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event: food prices soared in the aftermath of the drought

Farming new grass growing after mowing or harvest. ORIGIN late 15th century (in aftermath (sense 2)): from after (as an adjective) + dialect math ‘mowing’, of Germanic origin; related to German Mahd.

(My) Apple Dictionary

I note that the Online Etymology entry suggests the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem so named to further illustrate the meaning of the word, and it does so in a lyrical fashion. The poem (see below) appears to have been first published in 1873, and I make the observation that, in the sense that it combines the agricultural meaning with the figurative idea of change – natural and man-made – and what remains, that Longfellow may have been moved – even subconsciously – by the slaughter upon the battle fields of the Civil War – and its aftermath. (I don’t know this, of course, and probably am influenced by Siegfried Sassoon’s 1919 poem also called “Aftermath”; in which the aftermath in question is that of the First World War – no tepid “gloom” to be found in Sassoon’s poem, rather the stark, bitter reality of war.)

 Aftermath

 by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

When the summer fields are mown,
When the birds are fledged and flown,
      And the dry leaves strew the path;
With the falling of the snow,
With the cawing of the crow,
Once again the fields we mow
      And gather in the aftermath.

Not the sweet, new grass with flowers
Is this harvesting of ours;
      Not the upland clover bloom;
But the rowen mixed with weeds,
Tangled tufts from marsh and meads,
Where the poppy drops its seeds
      In the silence and the gloom. 

- Poetry Foundation

There is no need to connect Longfellow with Trench, but I can’t resist. Both were born in the same year and died only a few years apart. Trench (1807-86), for a time Dean of Westminster, is buried in the knave of the Abbey and Longfellow (1807-82) is one of the few Americans, and the first, to have a memorial dedicated in Poet’s Corner at that same venerated place. Whether the pair met during any of Longfellow’s sojourns to Europe I couldn’t say but, even had they, “aftermath” probably didn’t arise in polite conversation, for had it done so Trench would surely have recognized the special characteristic of interest to him and noted it for his scholarly volume; and many, many years later Virginia Woolf’s curiosity could well have been quickly satisfied. Was she ever the wiser? Did she inquire of Leonard or one of her many gentleman (or not so) farmer acquaintances in the home counties?

Though I can find no direct reference, Virginia Woolf’s father would surely have made the acquaintance of Trench – the man. With Longfellow, though, I can make a connection – albeit fleetingly. In Frederic William Maitland’s The Life and Letters of Leslie Stephen (for which Woolf was a source), a note made by the subject for October 7 1863 during an extended Summer in the United States records an encounter (presumably through James Russell Lowell – who would remain a life time friend) in which Stephen describes Longfellow as “a pleasant, white-bearded, benevolent-looking man of very quiet manners, who talked agreeably but not poetically (?) with a want of (the?) readiness (?) which appears to be characteristic of literary gents in these parts …” [p.118]. (Read on a little and one learns Stephen also met Seward and Lincoln – sort of – in Washington! The first did not particularly impress, and the second more than he expected.)

What a rabbit hole did I just fall down!

Parrots or people

As said in the previous post, legendary amongst many, is the Monty Python “parrot” sketch” (sometimes called “The Pet Shop”); this I have always understood to be a parody of the linguistic flights of fancy [sic!] we have taken (at least in the Anglophone world) to avoid speaking plainly on the subject of death. I must admit to being fundamental in this regard, and even the oft used “pass” and its derivatives (-away, -on, -over), though inoffensive, irritate me madly.

When all’s said and done we share the same fate. So, say it out loud, that what needs to be said: be it parrots or people, let dead be dead. Or is it: “bleedin’ demised”?

Introducing John Cleese and Michael Palin and a stuffed “Norwegian Blue” in “The Parrot Sketch”!

A classical update in a digital world

Unlike in the digital world, where an update comes from out of nowhere, or perhaps from the clouds above – overnight and undercover, or intruding unannounced in the light of day, there remain great collections of human thought and knowledge, remnants from times passed, that demand meticulous review; and under the auspices of the human brain that understands memory as more than a machine, that pays little regard to bits and bytes, and timeouts, rather dedicates its own finely wired synapses to the higher arts of scholarship – perseverance, selection, reflection, accuracy.

Such may be said of the just published Cambridge Greek Lexicon (Cambridge University Press). [On the website is a trove of information, including the history and methodology of the project, an extended video introduction and reference material and links.] Over twenty years in compilation; what was originally conceived as a revision of HG Liddell and Robert Scott’s legendary 1889 Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, after due consideration and because of its antiquated form, had morphed into a completely new project.

Classics at Cambridge: Introducing the “The Cambridge Greek Lexicon”

This Guardian piece informs of what is in and what is not, and delights in giving us the down and dirty – or “earthy” as they call it. Some may say, well … and with a blush! To rejoin: Shame on those who go digging in ancient ground and shun at getting hands dirty! And though blushing, I quote:

…The verb χέζω (chezo), translated by Liddell and Scott as “ease oneself, do one’s need”, is defined in the new dictionary as “to defecate” and translated as “to shit”; βινέω (bineo) is no longer “inire, coire, of illicit intercourse”, but “fuck”; λαικάζω (laikazo), in the 19th-century dictionary translated as “to wench”, is now defined as “perform fellatio” and translated as “suck cocks”.

The Guardian, 27th May 2021

Whatever would the Messrs. Liddell and Scott think! Whether these new volumes will endure as long as their predecessor only time will tell but it is interesting to contemplate how language and custom may develop in the next hundred years or so (hopefully, it will still be determined by the living, breathing not an artificial intelligence!) – and in which direction! As the Guardian editorial ends:

…Easy as it is to gently mock the sensibilities of a former age, perhaps future generations will decry early-21st-century comfort with sexually aggressive terms; when, perhaps, it will be time for another dictionary of a “dead” language.

The Guardian, 28th May 2021

Capitalized upon

That was quick – so much for the debate I had hoped for! The New York Times will from henceforth capitalize Black when referring to people or cultures of African origin. (To which I made a rare comment asking for clarification concerning, for instance, indigenous Australians – being most certainly black/Black but not of African origin or least ways no more so than everybody else and not in the sense that the Times means. Suffice to say, no clarification was received!).

One could quibble endlessly with the (not very satisfactory) reasoning given, but it makes not much sense to do so – it is their publication and their choice, and certainly one that most reasonable people can live with.

I would only say, the debate may have lasted months in the newsroom (as per the internal letter to staff), but the public discussion certainly was not very long at all – we are just the loyal readers I suppose!

Herewith, a little digression in the interest of another of my grammatical eccentricities (faults!), and that is a tendency to be inconsistent with words with an -ise or -ize suffix – the former favoured/favored [sic] in British English, the latter American English. This comes to mind because I see now, in my first blog entry on this matter, I wrote capitalise and here capitalize.

Capitalising on the moment – Black or black?

a grammatical diversion

Being an inconsistency I too have noted in recent times, I link here to this NYT piece discussing the pros and cons of the adjective “black” as used in respect to race, being elevated, so to speak, to proper noun status; that is, a capitalised “Black”.

Not being one who is at all fundamental on this, though finding the grammar fuzzy, and also very aware of my own inconsistency (see any one of my previous blog entries), I would only say that the German capitalisation of ALL nouns has affected me (or infected me!) over the years and point out that it was, at the very least, a convention of the English language prior to the 19th century. Consider, for instance, the Constitution of the United States of 1787:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States – Preamble
Samuel Richardson’s “Letters Written to and for Particular Friends”  

And then of course there are any number of literary examples; at the British Library there are gems in abundance, including this letter-writing manual of sorts from Samual Richardson, with fictional correspondence for all and every occasion, and that was to inspire his epistolary (and scandalous!) 1740 novel, Pamela.

As I say, I have not formed a definite opinion on this matter, but there is, I think, a certain linguistic elegance and SIMPLICITY beyond the political and social arguments parried in the NYT piece – though in this respect, it would be only consequential to extend the Black to include White and Brown (in context). But dare I mention all the Grey areas then open to dispute, and that social groupings (defined by common nouns) beyond those categorised by color (or Color) and sometimes deriving from adjectives and sometime not – eg. g/Gay, q/Queer, m/Migrant, r/Refugee – may have equally valid arguments. This could all lead to Man and Woman and all the subsets thereof, and I don’t know what J.K. Rowling would do with that…, and the Germans don’t know how lucky they are to have avoided THIS argument …but they have their own linguistic conundrum in dealing with matters of “race” – not to mention the little COMPLICATION of giving all their nicely capitalised nouns a GENDER!

continue reading

A linguistic minefield

Lionel Shriver writes in Harper’s (paywall or if you’re lucky the one read a month) of the linguistic minefield to be navigated these days in both the written word and in conversation. I suppose I use “lefty lingo” (but in moderation I think), as she calls it, but I too have found myself grating at the (over-) use of a certain vocabulary and terminology in the media. (Do we actually speak like that to each other in everyday discourse?)

I recognise very well Shriver’s irritation with words like “privilege” and “woke”; staples of the progressive vocabulary, and I too struggle with the appropriate formulation of terms relating to “colour” and “slave”, and I absolutely have been known to rant about the lack of precision and lazy use of “cultural appropriation“…

This leads (inadvertently!) to “inappropriate” I guess, and “problematic” and “troubling”; almost always relating to (mis-) behaviour – rather ordinary words that, extraordinarily, have become somehow tainted through excessive repetition.

There is something, in my opinion, to Lionel Shriver’s thesis that this conformist language identifies cohorts, and its prescriptive tone excludes others. Did I say “others”? A word I have identified as having been given a particular emphasis beyond that of a common determiner. Who defines “others”? These excluded “others” definitely do not fit within the accepted parameters of contemporary speech, in which an “other” is more likely to refer to a “minority”, and to be then further complicated by “marginalised communities” being a preferred term here.

I find myself thinking about the UK elections just won and lost in the northern counties and towns of England, and just wonder at how cranky some voters may very well be, there, where a night at the pub doesn’t revolve around “identity” at the mild end and the “cis-heteronormative patriarchy” at the extreme, and where people may well feel “marginalised” and any “privilege” well earned.

It’s complicated [sic].