Monthly Archives: October 2017

Incorrigible Language Lessons*

cover, The Unseen Guest

Book 3, The Incorrigible Children series

I first read The Mysterious Howling, book 1 of the series The Incorrigible Children of Ashton Place by Maryrose Wood, as an advance reader copy, some months before its publication date (in 2010).  I was smitten and couldn’t wait to keep reading, but since the first book hadn’t even come out yet, the second was clearly far off in the misty future. And so my attention wavered, and by the time the second, and third, books appeared, I couldn’t recall the sense of urgency and let them go.

Until Now.

Last week I read book 2, The Hidden Gallery. I was then cautioned by a frustrated friend that book 6 had had its publication date delayed already multiple times throughout this year and was now scheduled for next year, so I thought, oh, I should take it slowly. And yet by the next day I was flying through book 3, The Unseen Guest. Which is where we are now. And because there were many many places where I felt compelled to stop and read excerpts out loud to those around me, I have decided to share some of them here as well. (I’m also taking this opportunity to go back and reread book 1.)

The general story is this: Young governess in Victorian England (she’s 15) is brought to a grand house to work with extremely untrained and fairly mysterious children. More mysteries ensue. My experience of the Incorrigible Children so far places the books as a hybrid cross between Joan Aiken’s Willoughby Chase novels (by temperament**) and Lemony Snicket’s Series of Unfortunate Events (by narrative style). The latter comparison, I hasten to clarify, is not so much due to unrelenting unfortunate events but instead to the narrator’s habit, rather like that of our heroic governess herself, of Teaching Us Things along the way.

Here are some examples, which should involve very few — and only minor — spoilers.

p. 64: ‘As Miss Lumley would later explain to the Incorrigibles, a rhetorical question is one that is asked, but that no one is expected to answer. “For what child does not like being treated kindly by an adult?” is a rhetorical question. So is “Why, it seems I’ve taken your saddle by mistake, Miss Pevington; how could I be such a dunce?” Not to mention the old standby, “Do bears live in the woods?”
‘There are countless such examples, but to catalog them all would take weeks, and who has time for that? (Note that “Who has time for that?” is also a rhetorical question. The curious among you may feel free to search for more instances within these pages, if you find that sort of treasure hunt enjoyable. And who doesn’t?)’

Then some plot happens.

p. 136: ‘But before we continue any further with the adventures of Miss Penelope Lumley and the three Incorrigible children as they venture into the forest in pursuit of a runaway ostrich, let us look away for a moment (for they will have to do quite a lot of hup, hup, hupping before they get far enough into the woods for things to become interesting) and consider some matters of linguistic significance, starting with three letters: namely, P, O, and E.
‘When the admiral first said POE, Miss Lumley thought he meant Poe, as in Edgar Allen Poe. This is because POE and Poe are homonyms, which means they are two different words that are pronounced the same way.
‘POE is also an acronym, which is a word made out of the first letters of other words. To the admiral it stood for Permanent Ostrich Enclosure, although POE could just as easily stand for something else: Pie Over Everything, for example, a tasty, if filling, notion. Or Ponder On Elks, which as you already know, is nearly impossible to avoid doing once you have been told (and told, and told yet again, in the strictest possible terms) not to ponder on elks.
‘Some acronyms prove so catchy that they become words in their own right. Marine explorers know that “scuba” is an acronym for Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. Those of you who enjoy shooting laser beams at your friends for sport can bamboozle your opponents by crying out, “Here comes my Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation!” just before you fire.
‘If you now think that you would rather confront a herd of Profoundly Outraged Elephants in a Perilously Oscillating Elevator than hear another word about homonyms, acronyms, or any other kind of nyms – well, think again. There is power in words used carelessly. Consider how disappointed you would feel if, after booking an expensive spa vacation, you found yourself on holiday with the Society of Professional Accountants instead.’***

Then most of the rest of the plot, but not all, intervenes before this next excerpt:

p. 278: ‘With no time to prepare a more complicated lesson, Penelope had left instructions for them to count how many pigeons landed in the branches of the elm tree outside the nursery window while she was out and to record the figures in what she unthinkingly called a PIE chart, by which she meant simply Pigeons In Elm. That the acronym for Pigeons In Elm was the same as that for Permanent Incorrigible Enclosure had not even occurred to the distracted governess, who had been in a tizzy deciding which dress to put on****, among other concerns. But the children knew nothing of the admiral’s plans and had simply understood their assignment to mean that the chart should be in the shape of a pie, complete with slices.
‘As it turned out, the pie-shaped chart worked wonderfully well. In fact, the “pie chart” remains in use to this very day, although the Incorrigible children themselves are rarely, if ever, given credit for its invention. (Why pie charts have stayed so popular while pudding charts, cupcake charts, and even tart charts have sunk into obscurity is a mathematical mystery, but perhaps it ought not to be, for who does not like pie?)’

Who, indeed?

—————————

*Not that I believe these lessons particularly need correction.

**Temperament of the humans and the story, not the temperament of the attendant wolves, which varies greatly between the series.

***Okay, I just keep feeling the need to add a note here saying that I see this panders to common stereotypes of accountants, which doesn’t seem strictly necessary.  If someone is expecting a spa vacation, then they may be disappointed by any alternative, regardless of company, whether those number accountants or acrobats or aardvarks.

****I would like to mention that this is not a standard distraction for our stalwart Miss Penelope Lumley.

A Response to a Question: Miners and the CPB.

Because I can’t bring myself to deal directly* with the horror that is the director of the Environmental Protection Agency working to eliminate more environmental protections** in order to increase coal production***, I will take this opportunity to refer to another, earlier, federal statement on coal miners. Back in March, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney defended his department’s slashing of funding for diplomatic, social, and educational programs with the following:

“When you start looking at the places that will reduce spending, one of the questions we asked was ‘Can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs?’ And the answer was no,” Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a Thursday morning interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We can ask them to pay for defense, and we will, but we can’t ask them to continue to pay for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.”

I note that the answer was “no” because they asked only people who were determined to craft a budget from the president’s campaign promises.  Here’s what happens if they ask me:

So … leaving aside why we can in clear conscience ask such people to pay more of their taxes for defense than they already do … and leaving even more aside why we are acting as though individuals can choose where their taxes are going and should “pay for” only those things that might affect them personally****…

…Why would slashing funds for public broadcasting affect these people?

We shouldn’t even have to answer that one for “single moms,” but okay: because many, many parents, especially overworked ones, want to have educational programming they can trust, without commercials (okay, sorry, that’s no longer accurate, but they’re still much tamer and calmer than the other networks’), available for their kids, or themselves, to watch.

But coal miners? Why do coal miners need public television?

Two reasons:

1) The obvious reason: So coal miners and their families can watch public television. I mean, come on. People are people, and it can’t actually be true that no one with the job of coal mining, in a culture of coal mining families, could be interested in, or passionate about, the kinds of programming that publicly-funded television can provide.

And, less obviously, 2) So the rest of us can watch public television and learn about coal miners, past and present.

Here are some example shows and clips from a quick PBS programming search:

————–

*Except, apparently, in footnotes.

**I don’t know why this feels any more appalling than the simultaneous multi-pronged attacks on reproductive rights and women’s health and freedom – maybe it’s just on my mind because among this set I heard of this one last. I think all of them happening together takes me back to the barrage of executive orders from January that made it clear the main tactic of the new administration would be swamping the country with so many disparate changes we couldn’t hope to address them all in turn.

***Having never had to live it, I’m pretty disturbed by the idea of recreating these photos of the smog and pollution of American cities before the Clean Air Act.

****Not to mention the idea that we should pick specific people and decide that if something doesn’t affect them, then it isn’t important for anyone in the country. (Or, as I suspect in this case, to say well, my friends and I don’t want to pay for these things, so because it would sound wrong to say the budget should be based on what affects or doesn’t affect me, I’ll suggest some random other people who sound more worthy, and pretend for spurious stereotypical reasons that this is what affects or doesn’t affect them.)  Since I’m not mentioning these things here, perhaps they will need another post of their own at some point.

About About: An Introduction

Welcome to Word Matters!

end-tufted brush, in packageIn my medicine cabinet, alongside my regular toothbrush, I keep a special “end-tufted brush,” good for focusing gently on my gumline and the backs of my front teeth. I recently found myself looking at the packaging and finding that the name in French is “brosse à bout touffu”. Which is to say, “brush, at the end, tofu” – or…well, something like that.

Anyway, while looking at the French name of my special toothbrush*, I noticed the phrase “à bout” and how similar it was to the word “about”. I found myself wondering whether it might be cognate or share history with the English word. In a sort of “what is this story really about, in the end?” way.

So I looked up the etymology of “about” and learned the following:

from Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (NI3):
Middle English abuten, aboute, going back to Old English abūtan, abūton, from a- + būtan “outside, without” –More at but

from Online Etymology Dictionary
Middle English aboute, from Old English abutan, earlier onbutan “on the outside of; around the  circumference of, enveloping; in the vicinity of, near; hither and thither, from place to place,” also “with a rotating or spinning motion,” in late Old English “near in time, number, degree, etc., approximately;” a compound or contraction of on + be “by” + utan “outside.”
By c. 1300 it had developed senses of “around, in a circular course, round and round; on every side, so as to surround; in every direction;” also “engaged in” (Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?), and gradually it forced out Old English ymbe, ymbutan (see ambi-) in the sense “round about, in the neighborhood of.”

In other words, “about” descends from words and roots that mean around, or outside of a center. Physically, I can picture this: a room, for example, with chairs scattered about.

Meanwhile, my searches online and in my little French-English dictionary tell me that “à bout” is “at the end” or “to the limit”. And “bout” itself translates to “end, tip, butt, stub”.

So, as it turns out, I’m wrong about about**. I was thinking that the focus of a story, what it’s about, might be something you’d end up with. Instead, the story centers around, or about, that focus.  But I learned some things. And I have a new picture in my head, of a story gathering, or maybe dancing, around its focus. And I love that moment of wonder, when I sense a connection between or among words, and new worlds of possibility and imagery open up in my view.  That moment, with the exploration that follows, is one of the foci of this blog.

About this blog

I am
(nouns): parent, writer, editor, singer, songwriter, lesbian, reader, feminist, linguist
(adjectives): female, Jewish, secular, white, left-handed, cisgender, Ashkenazi, American

I love
cats, music, chocolate, language, the woods, the city, puns, working toward peace and justice***

I write about
word origins and history. False cognates, true cognates. Language development and parenting. National politics and identity politics. Framing of arguments. Books and songs. Punctuation and pragmatics. The occasional grammar guide. Truth in advertising. The power of words to separate, or denigrate, or accord new respect. Dialect differences and language change.


*which I highly recommend, by the way, if you tend to get tartar in specific places. Hat tip to Terry, my dental hygienist!

** with the following two notes:
1) It’s kind of funny that “about” means encircled and close by, while “à bout” means to the farthest limit.
2) It’s also funny that “about” is related to “but,” while “à bout” is related to “butt”. False cognates indeed!

***Plus some other stuff. Here’s what I said I love when I was 13 and introducing myself to my diary: “reading, writing, singing, cats, unicorns, mythology, science-fiction, all animals that aren’t cats or unicorns, life, puns and other jokes, Doctor Who, other British humor, talking, chocolate, other food, being extremely weird, gymnastics, swimming, most of school, traveling, the idea of World Peace, nature, enjoying myself, and getting along with other people.” I’ve clearly changed some since then, in that … I don’t so much do gymnastics anymore.  (Also, I have taken the liberty of adding a comma between “cats” and “unicorns,” as I’m fairly certain I meant to have one there.)