|
|
|
Jewish World Review August 24, 2005 / 19 Av, 5765 Origin and meaning of ‘handkerchief’; ‘nincompoop’; ‘tchotchke’; ‘gild the lily’; Are these constructions ungrammatical?
By
Editors of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Dear Editor:
My question is how did the word‘handkerchief’ come to mean‘a
piece of cloth for wiping the nose and face’?
—S.B., Middlesex, N.J.
Dear S.B.:
The origin of the word‘handkerchief’ is straightforward when you
divide it into its two parts,‘hand’ and‘kerchief,’ both of
which, of course, are distinct words themselves.
‘Kerchief’ descends from the Middle English word‘courchef,’ which in turn comes from the Old French word‘cuevrechief.’ Broken down further,‘cuevrechief’ is from the Old French‘covrir,’ meaning‘to cover,’ plus the Old French‘chief,’ which means ‘head.’
Originally‘kerchief’ meant exactly what you would
expect,‘a covering for the head,’ and that is still its primary
meaning today, referring specifically to the often decorative
squares of cloth worn by women throughout the world as head
coverings.
The kerchief has proved to be a versatile article of clothing over
the years. As any former Cub Scout or Boy Scout can tell you, a
kerchief can be worn around the neck, in which use it is sometimes
known specifically as a‘neckerchief.’ Likewise, to differentiate
between the square of cloth worn on the head and the square of cloth
held in the hand for such tasks as face-wiping and nose-blowing,
‘hand’ was long ago simply added to‘kerchief’ to form
‘handkerchief,’ a word that was first recorded in the 16th
century.
Dear Editor:
My dictionary says that the origin of ‘nincompoop’ is unknown. Can
you tell me anything else about it?
—F.C., Seattle
Dear F.C.:
One early theory about the origin of this odd word asserted that it
was derived from the Latin phrase‘non compos mentis’ (‘not of
sane mind’). Samuel Johnson, the great British lexicographer,
introduced this etymology in his dictionary of 1755. For two reasons, though, this derivation is no longer accepted. First,‘non compos’ has no equivalent to the second‘p’ in‘nincompoop.’
Second, the earliest recorded uses of the word — dating from the
1600s and apparently unfamiliar to Johnson — are spelled
‘nicompoop’ or‘nickumpoop.’ Their lack of a second‘n’ makes the derivation from‘non compos mentis’ highly unlikely.
Another theory is that the word got its start as a whimsical
creation, more or less out of the blue. This may be, but it's likely
that the word originated in the spoken language; as a result,
there's so little information about its earliest stages that we
can't state this with any certainty.
Unless further information comes to light, the origin of
‘nincompoop’ remains as stated in your dictionary — unknown.
Dear Editor:
I ran across an unfamiliar word the other day,‘tchotchke.’ How is
this word pronounced? What does it mean? Where did it come from?
—T.P., Baltimore
Dear T.P.:
‘Tchotchke’ comes from Yiddish‘tshatshke,’ which means ‘trinket.’ The Yiddish word comes in turn from an obsolete Polish
word‘czaczko,’ which was similar in meaning. ‘Tchotchke’ is pronounced‘CHOCH-ka.’ The word is used in English, as in Yiddish, for knickknacks, trinkets, or gewgaws. Its earliest known use as an English word dates from 1971. Here's a typical use from an article
by Barbara Ehrereich that appeared in the New York Times Book Review
on December 18, 1983:
‘The working class gives itself away with plastic flowers and
similar 'tchotchkes'.’
Dear Editor:
Can you tell me about the origin of the phrase‘gild the lily’?
—K.R., Washington
Dear K.R.:
This idiomatic phrase is traceable to Shakespeare's play‘King
John,’ produced in 1597, which includes the lines,‘To gild
refined gold, to paint the lily,/To throw a perfume on the
violet,/.... Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.’ With time, the
phrase as we know it came to be used to mean‘to add unnecessary
ornamentation to something that is beautiful in its own right.’
You'll note that Shakespeare's original phrase is actually‘paint
the lily,’ which is also still used as an idiomatic phrase in
modern English.‘Gild the lily’ has sometimes been criticized as a
misquotation of Shakespeare. The point can be made, however, that
those who use the phrase are not quoting Shakespeare at all, but are
instead using a well-established idiom.
It seems likely that the success of‘gild the lily’ over‘paint
the lily’ is due to the repeated‘-il-’ of‘gild’ and‘lily,’ which gives the phrase a more memorable sound.
Dear Editor:
I have a question regarding constructions like "I wish I would have
known" and "If you would have said something before." These
constructions sound ungrammatical to me. I would instead say "I wish
I had known" and "If you had said something earlier." I would be
interested to know whether you have run across this yourselves.
—C.L., Baltimore
Dear C.L.:
The usage appears to be a not uncommon characteristic of informal
speech, in which "would" is often in contracted form: "I wish I'd
have known." Our evidence indicates that it does not occur in
standard writing that finds its way into print.
The construction is by no means confined to the illiterate, although
the fictional examples presented are surely intended for characters
of little education. The construction would have to be judged
nonstandard in ordinary written discourse.
No one is really certain how the construction arose. Note that it
occurs in the conditional clause of a hypothetical or counterfactual
statement. This is the type of statement in which, if we are
employing the verb "to be," we use the plural form of "to be" even
with a singular subject: "If she were here..." That's what's known
as the subjunctive form of the verb. Your example, "I wish I had
known," with its auxiliary verb "had," is in the past perfect tense,
just like the verb in the simple sentence "I had already eaten." The
past perfect doesn't call for a specific subjunctive form. But
perhaps the aberrant "would have" construction represents an attempt
by the speaker to impose a subjunctive "marker" on the past perfect
tense.
It sounds like an awful lot of complicated grammar — but who ever
said English was plain and simple?
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Readers may send questions to Merriam-Webster column, P.O. Box 281, 47 Federal St., Springfield, Mass. 01102. Comment by clicking here. © 2005 Merriam-Webster Inc. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
