Showing posts with label homonym. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homonym. Show all posts

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Homographs of the Day: ZOG/zog


Actually, these are not quite homographs, since one is capitalized and the other isn’t.  They are thus, rather, what I dubbed “Confusables” when introducing the feature of Confusables ® (paronym-disambiguation) into the Franklin spellers and dictionary products.    Anyhow, you probably haven’t heard of either;  but this one is a doozy.

(1)  The better-known of these is written in all capitals:  ZOG,  in line with its origin as an acronym.  It stands for “Zionist occupation government”;  and no, it does not refer primarily to the West Bank.   As to what-all it does refer to, you can easily find by googling (just be sure that you have your anti-malware software set on HIGH).

What is interesting about this is that it is among the very few terms -- and virtually unique among monosyllables -- whose mere utterance brands the utterer as a very particular political breed of beast.
These are harder to find than you’d think.  The only one that springs immediately to mind is “Social-Fascist” (and its German equivalent), whose use invariably revealed the user as a Third Period Stalinist (or at least someone parotting their patter).  The use of the term liberal as a sneer-word (as opposed to simply denouncing concretely various policies of liberals) does tell the listener quite a bit about the user, but of course the word is used objectively as well.  The term reactionary is almost always a sneer-word for conservative (thus revealing much about the speaker), but it can also be used, cavalierly, as a defiant synonym of laudator temporis acti (indeed, the historian John Lukacs self-applies the label).  The concept Antichrist makes sense only in a Christian context, but you can easily discuss the term (say, in comparing it to that of the Dajjâl ) without subscribing to any of the tenets of that belief-system.  ZOG is different.
It’s not just that most people don’t believe a “Zionist occupation government” (in the intended sense) exists.  After all, people use terms like Santa Claus, unicorn, phlogiston, Higgs boson, and will even predicate positive qualities of them (“Santa wears a red suit”, “the Higgs boson is necessary for the consistency of the Standard Theory”) without thereby making any existential commitment (Quine’s term) at all.

(2)  As a (somewhat nonce) term in physics, it is written in lower-case.  Here is the first (and only) passage in which I encountered the term:

Massive particles of spin 1 can be described as having three ingredients:  a left-handed zig (helicity 1), a right-handed zag (helicity -1), and a non-spinning ‘zog’ (helicity 0).
-- Roger Penrose,  The Road to Reality (2004), p. 653


Sunday, December 8, 2013

Word of the Day: “paregmenon” (expanded)




A friend forwarded one of his daily emails from Anu Garg’s “A.Word.A.Day” feature.

Now, normally, I dislike “word a day” features, unless (as on this site) they are full cultural/philological portraits, of value in themselves  even if you never use the word in question -- which, they being mostly quite obscure, you generally should not.  Prose that does not grow organically, but is mined autodidactically from dictionaries and thesauri, tends to be a wretched breccia of jackdaw-bits.   But today’s offering proved an interesting exception.

The entry as given by Mr. Garg:

paregmenon

PRONUNCIATION:
(puh-REG-muh-non)

MEANING:
noun: The juxtaposition of words that have the same roots. Examples: sense and sensibility, a manly man, the texture of textile.

ETYMOLOGY:
From Greek paregmenon, from paragein (to bring side by side). Earliest documented use: 1577.

USAGE:
"The Songs poets also used paregmenon for more than two words in succession ("Climbed those high hills,/ Ridged hills and higher heights").
William McNaughton; The Book of Songs; Twayne Publishers; 1971.


That stylistic phenomenon is indeed prominent  and needs a name.  
As a young man, not knowing a word for it, and requiring one for my own notes, I made one up based on something I had read, and called such a relation “rhematic”.    That use of the word (though it may have existed once) is by now purely idiolectal -- though the duality “theme and rheme” (roughly:  topic and comment) has latterly been revived for textual linguistics, in an unrelated (um, nonrhematic) sense.  So at this particular onomasiological cubby-hole, the lexical cupboard is bare.

And those who specially need to fill it, are Arabists, such as myself:  for Arabic does notoriously avail itself of this morphosemantic flourish;  in classical Arabic, it's called jinaas, or tajniis.  Indeed, since both those words are slightly ambiguous (the latter can also mean ‘naturalization’, the former not), their use together can provide a case of “disambiguation via semantic intersection”, as in old-fashioned law English.
Yet I've never previously seen a good English equivalent, even among Arabists.  Classical grammars of Arabic translate the term as "paronomasia", but that's no good, since that word usually means "punning", and tajniis is usually employed, not with the flavor of low puns, but with a touch of appropriate elegance:  as indeed, Austen’s title Sense and Sensibility.   The figure at its best  suggests depth and dignity, bringing out a sense  latent in the common etymon, though commonly forgotten in the day-to-day use of the derivata: thus Gide’s serviable mais non servile.   Even that comical manly man -- though it smacks of Saturday Night Live twitting Schwarzenegger, that does not inhere in the structure, but springs merely from the degraded nature of our age;  for those who hark to the days when men were men indeed, it rings with virtus virumque.

~

Related in here somewhere  is the notion of the paronym.   The word is familiar to Arabists, but seems not to be used much in English.  At least, Wiki has an entry for it  in a couple of dozen languages, but not English.  So you’ll have to make do with this:




For a more generous collection of morphosemantic remarks, check out this:
~

So, paregmenon has, in principle,  a role to play.  The only problem is, it is a word with  -- so far as my own experience goes -- no life outside of dictionaries of obscure and lifeless words.   It is not listed in the massive Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary (third edition).  Nor does it appear in the Oxford Companion to English Literature (3rd edn. 1946), which does, however, list paronomasia.  The word might even be a modern invention, masquerading as ancient -- much as the old Beduin, pried and paid by lexicographers of the pre-Islamic Arabic tongue, pulled words for the occasion  out of their …..  -- or rather, out of their foreheads, like Minerva.

Thus, Curtius, in his Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (1948), discusses much the variety of literary wordplay, under the Latin name of annominatio (a direct morphological equivalent of Greek paronomasia:  both mean ‘names next to another’);  for this, he gives three Greek equivalents -- none of them the supposed “paregmenon”.   The latter seems to be a word simply found among the bulrushes.

As example of annominatio, he gives  a line of Matthew of Vendôme,

Fama famem pretii parit  amentis nec amantis;
  est pretium viae  depretiare decus

and comments (here I quote from Trask’s translation),

In this distich, two pairs of homophonous words  and three inflections of the same stem  are introduced in true virtuoso fashion.

None of this is to say that paregmenon might not prove useful, just because it is no veteran of the field, but a word still in the womb.   As such, it has not accumulated the distressing plethora of senses which infects the whole vocabulary of rhetoric’s termini technici.   Cut it from whole cloth -- on a recognizable morphosemantic pattern -- and use it consistently, in a stipulated sense.  -- C.S. Peirce defended, and practiced, this dodge, as regards the terminology of philosophy;  and in the sciences (especially mathematics) it is absolutely standard (homotopy, holonomy, functorial, equicontinuous, etc.).   In cases where a pre-existing word like regular or normal is pressed into mathematical use, it winds up with fifty different meanings.

Note:  There is more that might be said upon the matter of wordplay, not by way of mere further exemplification, but of digging towards the depths:  this would lead us in the direction of Freud’s Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten (1905 ff).   We touch but on the edges of that subject, here:


~

Bonus update:  A homonym joke!

“I’m going to settle down in the country somewhere.”
“What will you do there?  Raise chickens?”
“Write.”
“Oh?  Well, I supposed you know your own business best,” said Jane dubiously.  “I don’t think I’d like to run a poultry farm myself.”
Bill saw that the intricacies of the English language had misled her.
-- P.G. Wodehouse, The Purloined Paperweight (a.k.a. Company for Henry) (1967)

Then, right (right) on the next page, he socks you with another one.  Bill, it turns out, has written a thriller, and Jane is thrilled:

“I love thrillers.  What was it called?”
Deadly Ernest.”
“What!”
“Ernest without an a,” said Bill, wondering, as so many authors have done, why the title of a book, spoken aloud, should always sound so fatuous and wrong.  “Ernest was the villain.”

Better yet, on the very next page, we get a paronym joke.  Bill, whose real name is Thomas Hardy, dare not use that to sign his books, lest he be taken for his sosie or homonym, the other English author by that name; and so he chooses a nom de plume, “Adela Bristow” -- specifically in hopes that some hard-of-hearing bookstore clerk will slip one to a customer who had mumblingly requested an “Agatha Christie”, thus considerably goosing his sales.   (We ourselves would never stoop to such a thing, in mere quest of unsuspecting readers.  We shall not, for instance, use the phrase “homonym porn” in this post, nor drag in some irrelevant reference to “Taylor Swift nude pixxx”.)

This image is for linguistic purposes only


~
~  Posthumous Endorsement ~
"If I were alive today, and in the mood for a mystery,
this is what I'd be reading: "
(My name is Agatha Christie, and I approved this message.)
~         ~
~
[Update 10 December 2013]
In a reader’s comment on an article in today’s Le Figaro (which we examined in another post, from a moment ago: A little bit of spin makes the sugar-pill go down ), concerning the new French adventure into Central Africa, we find the following excellent homonymic pun:

Contrairement à ce qu'affirmait Mr Hollande, la France à Fric, n'est pas terminée.

Such wordplay is easy to do in French -- indeed, difficult to avoid -- given its phonology.  In the present case, it is a blend of France-Afrique, and fric meaning ‘moolah, lolly, simoleons’.   Works nicely on the printed page:  but, like Deadly Ernest, orally  not at all.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Linguists in quest of the elusive “Wiggs Particle”


Amateurs imagine that the toughest words in a language are the long ones:  things like postlapsarian, callipygian, or sesquipedalian.  For small children, there is some truth to this, but purely for articulatory reasons -- they understand the word spaghetti perfectly well, even if they pronounce it busketti.   For an adult, the only problem in long words is that, if borrowed from other languages, they may be etymologically opaque; but for anyone versed in Greek and Latin, the words cited above are transparent.
More seasoned observers are aware that the hardest words are the shortest, since the most polysemous.   Thus:  pen ‘writing implement; corral; prison; female swan’.  But those at least you can readily define, even if (such words being homophones) the meanings are unrelated.

Much harder to define -- and more important in the language as a whole -- are what are called particles -- a wastebasket category, really, for little wordlets or wordkins that are neither noun, nor verb, nor adjective, nor preposition, nor good red herring.  Their semantics are unfathomable, their syntactic privileges of occurrence  sui generis.   As:  so (“I told you so”/”So what?”/”So-so”/”Thus and so”/”Even so”/”So very tall”/”Not so bad as all that”/”Ah so!”/”As Paris goes, so goes the world”/”Not so!”/ “It started raining, so John left”/”you old so&so”/”so-called”/”this must be done just so”/ etc.).  Or:  French ne, que; German doch; MSA mâ.

The more a sentence is composed of nothing but mini-words, the more idiomatic it is -- you cannot reach its meaning  by summing those of its parts; it must be seized as a whole.  As:
            English:  “That’s as may be.”
            French:  “Ne t’en fais pas.”
And my favorite, from Yemeni Arabic:
            la-gad-u -- wa-gad-u -- fa-gad-u  heek.
Roughly:  “If ‘twere done -- as’t must be done -- ‘twere well it were done thus.”

~

Well!  So much by way of propædeutic prolegomena (to use some long, but basically easy words).  And now to the nub.

For some years now, an elite coterie of ninja linguists have been engaged (deep underground, at an undisclosed and indeed possibly purely imaginary location) in the search for the Particle to End All Particles:  a particle which, if ever discovered, will exlain the whole of Universal Grammar.   Its existence was first hypothesized, back in the drought years of ought-eight, by one Willard “Willie” Wiggs, of Waddleburg, Wisconsin.  While not specifying any of the actual properties of said particle, Mr. Wiggs thought it might be nice to have his name immortalized, for the sake of his lovely grandchildren;  and thus it was done.
Preliminary calculations suggest that the Particle, if it exists,  can consist of at most one consonant, and around half a vowel.

~

Let us emphasize:  This particle, if it exists, is the key to everything.  That is why we like to call it the “Yahweh Particle” (a.k.a. the “Allah Particle” or the “Jehovah Particle”, according to taste).   With this particle, you can fashion comprehensible and attractive sentences, thus ensuring success in romantic and business ventures. Without this particle -- you’re in Suckyville, dude. 
(And as for the so-called “Higgs Particle”, the linguist sniffs:  “A mere epiphenomenon.”)

Which is why we need a national nay international nay intercontinental/extragalactic effort  to find this thing.
But (you ask) how much will this gigantic effort cost?
Dr J:   “Billions.”  Level gaze.  “Biyyuns and biyyuns and biyyuns …”
John Q. Public:  “How -- how can we help?”
J:  “Send all your money to this site, in small, non-consecutive bills.”

(Please, no second-party checks;  but as collateral, we will accept your first-born.)