"The major in mufti."

I'm reading H. Beam Piper's 1950's era story "The Edge of the Knife" where he refers to a military man wearing civilian clothes as "the major in mufti."

I looked up "mufti" and came up with "a professional jurist who interprets Muslim law ," which seemed to make no sense.

The alternative definition makes more sense: "ordinary dress as distinguished from that denoting an occupation or station mufti
>; especially: civilian clothes when worn by a person in the armed forces"
So, the major is in mufti because he is wearing his "civies" rather than his uniform.

I wonder why "mufti" has such seemingly different meanings.

The etymology dictionary is not particularly helpful:

mufti (n.)

1580s, muphtie "official head of the state religion in Turkey," from Arabic mufti "judge," active participle of afta "to give," conjugated form of fata "he gave a (legal) decision" (cf. fatwa). Sense of "ordinary clothes (not in uniform)" is from 1816, of unknown origin, perhaps from mufti's costume of robes and slippers in stage plays, which was felt to resemble plain clothes.

The word for today is ...

..."mordant."

mordant

Definition

mor·dant[ máwrd'nt ]

ADJECTIVE

1. sarcastic: sharply sarcastic or scathingly critical
2. corrosive: having a corrosive effect

Interesting for Word Nerds.

One of the factoids I've collected about the English language is that it's mostly not English. I've been told - OK, it was my college linguistics professor - that English is about 40% Norman French, 40% foreign borrowings, and 20% Anglo-Saxon.

On the other hand, this Ideas Illustrated post suggests that there is an 80/20 rule in effect, and the 20% of the language that is native gets the most use.

Fun with words - those wacky Alsatians.

I've always thought that "whacky" or "wacky" - meaning silly or screwball - had something to do with getting "whacked" on the head. Apparently, the on-line etymology dictionary thinks that's the origin of the word also, which claims:

"wacky "crazy, eccentric," 1935, variant of whacky (n.) "fool," late 1800s British slang, probably ultimately from whack "a blow, stroke," from the notion of being whacked on the head one too many times."

Now, I'm not so sure based on what I've recently read in Jack Beatty's "The Lost History of 1914: How the Great War Was Not Inevitable." In that book, Beatty describes the ways in which the supposedly inevitable First World War could have been derailed.

One of those ways might have happened if the use of a certain derogatory word for the people of Alsace-Lorraine had caused a stronger reaction by the German parliament over the military usurpation of legal authority in Alsace Lorraine as a result of the Saverne Affair. If the parliament had reacted stronger than merely passing a hand-slapping censure of the military, according to Beatty, then right-wing elements in Germany might have led a coup de'tat against democracy in 1913, and, thereby, have been too distracted by internal politics to get involved in that nonsense happening in the Balkans in 1914.

In turn, the Savern Affair was kicked off by the use of a derogatory word for the natives of Alsace-Lorraine, and, in a way, it's heartening to learn that political correctness has been with us for over a hundred years.

As we all recall, Alsace-Lorraine was a slice of Europe - the eastern corner of France, from one perspective, the western salient of Germany, from another - that was batted back and forth between the French and Germans for centuries. Predominately, German-speaking, Alsace Lorraine had been attached to France in 1648, during the era of Louis XIV, as a result of the Treaty of Westphalian, which concluded the 30 Years War.

Germany re-acquired Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 as a result of its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. Germany, nonetheless, looked at the region as being untrustworthy because of their centuries long incorporation into French nationalism and culture.

There was a term that was used by the Germans to describe the people of the region, which seemed to gesture at their foreigness. The word was "wackes." It seems that the "name Wack and/or Wackes probably is of Latin derivation, meaning “vagabond, wanderer, foreigner.” It might also have to do with cattle, from the Latin for “cow,” “vaggas.”

If one stops for a moment, one can see hints of the "cattle" and "wanderer" meme in the words "vaqueros" which became the American "buckeroo."

As is the case with such things - think "okies," for example - the regional word gets loaded with a lot of negative stereotyping by the ascendent elite. So, in the case of the people of Alsace-Lorraine, it happened to be the case that "wackes" came to mean something like "shiftless, weird, undependable, silly, screwball," and it was in that context that in the Sauvergn Affair, the pompous 20 year-old Lt. Gunter von Forstner began referring to the inhabitants of the region where his troops were stationed as "wackes." Needless, to say his comments were directed to a group who included soldiers from Alsace-Lorraine, which led to Lt. Forstner being harassed every time he left the base, which led to the military crackdown, in what has come to be known as "zabernism" - "abusive misuse of military authority; bullying" - which, in turn, nearly led to Germany missing its date with destiny.

So, thus far, we have learned that the people of Alsace Lorrraine were called "wackes", something that found its way into the names of people from that region, and that "wackes" came to mean "silly, foolish or screwball."

Is it just a coincidence that the word "wacky" means "silly, foolish and screwball"?

It seems that when we refer to "wacky tabacky" or call someone "wacky," we are indulging in ancient ethnic insult to the abused people of Alsace Lorraine.

Fun with words. Why do criminal get "sentenced" to prison?...

...why is there a "sentencing" phase in criminal procedures? Why do judges get to hand down lengthy "sentences"?

So, I'm reading "The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard's 'Sentences' (Rethinking the Middle Ages")by Philipp W. Rosemann. It is very interesting work on the effect that Peter Lombard's book, "The Sentences," had on the course of Western Civilization.

The Sentences was the seminal work of theology that started the development of systematic theology. From the time it was written in the mid-12th Century until sometime in the 16th Century, the Sentences was the required text for the study of theology.

The Sentences was a development of a genre called the "sentence compilations." In this genre, the author would reference particular sources from church fathers and other authorities and arrange these citations thematically for contemplation and study.

Why was "The Sentences" called "The Sentences"? My naive assumption was that Peter Lombard had clipped quotations from other sources and "pasted" them into his work. The quotations thus were the "sentences."

But the fact is that there seem to be very few direct quotations in The Sentences. Rather, Lombard's strategy seems to be to distill the essence of the authority and to provide a more accurate citation for the student to find the place in the cited work for himself.

This raises the point that a "sentence" is not simply a unit of grammar that begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. In fact, it may have been the case that when Lombard wrote "The Sentences" this definition of a "sentence" did not exist. Lombard lived during the period when the revolutionary idea of putting spaces between words was invented. Likewise, the convention of an alphabetical order running from "a" to "z" was only invented after Lombard's death; prior to that things were indexed pursuant to some "natural" relationship that existed in the subject.

But "sentences" are also units of meaning, which gives us a clue as to the answer to our original question. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the origin of sentence comes from sentientem, from which we get the idea of "sentient", i.e., thinking, such as when we refer to human beings as "sentient":

sentence late 13c., "doctrine, authoritative teaching," from O.Fr. sentence (12c.), from L. sententia "thought, meaning, judgment, opinion," from sentientem, prp. of sentire "be of opinion, feel, perceive" (see sense). Loss of first -i- in L. by dissimilation. Meaning "punishment imposed by a court" is from c.1300; that of "grammatically complete statement" is attested from mid-15c., from notion of "meaning," then "meaning expressed in words." The verb meaning "to pass judgment" is recorded from c.1400.

So, essentially, a sentence is a unit of expressed meaning or thought, and which includes opinions and judgments. "The Sentences" is a book that compiles not just the expression of the judgments of theological authorities, but distills those judgments into a readily digestible format. The "judgments" or "opinions" are the "sentences."

Likewise, when a judge hands down a "sentence," the judge is expressing his "judgment" as to the penalty the criminal should receive. The judgment - not the time served - is the "sentence." Over time, of course, the penalty was conflated with the idea of the "sentence" and the original meaning was lost.

So, the idea of a "sentence" seems to have gone from a unit of "expressed meaning" to that of being a grammatically complete unit of meaning during the time that Western Civilization became a generally literate culture.

Word of the day.

Bespoke - as in a "bespoke suit."

I'll confess that I knew it had nothing to do with " to speak," but a part of me really thought it did have something to do with "to speak."

It is better to light a single candle than curse the dark, so I looked it up, and the answer is....

"U.K. made to order: made to a customer's specifications

"a bespoke suit."

Huh? 

 

Well, maybe it does have something to do with "to speak" in the sense that "to order" involves "to speak."

 

According to the online etymology dictionary -

 

bespoke

"custom or custom-made, made to order," of goods, as distinguished from ready-made, 1755, the same sense found earlier in bespoken (c.1600), pp. of bespeak, in a sense of "to speak for, to arrange beforehand," a sense attested in bespeak from 1580s. Now usually of tailored suits.

Today's exercise in OCD obscurantism comes from this Ann Althouse post on the MSM's trashing of Callista's Gingrich's style, as in -

The cat claws are out for Callista, whose own hyper-manicured claws "are folded neatly over her lap, a posture she frequently assumes." She "assumes her signature rigid stance." If she's in any position, it is — in Daily Beast talk — a position she assumes. Because she's just that kind of person, now, isn't she? So entitled.

"From her perfectly coiffed bob to her bespoke power suits, Callista Gingrich possesses a style that evokes a woman who wants to mirror her husband’s wealth and power — and lacks any singularity." She assumes her rigid position — her stance — next to the man, mirroring him, wearing a version of his suit, lacking any personality of her own. Lacking any "singularity." Are you kidding? She's the most distinctive-looking person on the political scene! The bright colors, the sharp edges, the signature hair.

Another well-established factoid that may be wrong.

I've frequently heard that the magician's incantation of "hocus pocus" derives from the Catholic words of instantiation, i.e, "hoc est enim corpus."  But that well-established fact seems to be on shaky grounds:

Thomas Ady’s 1656 A Candle In The Dark identifies a particular juggler who used that name and the word in his patter:

I will speak of one man...that went about in King James his time...who called himself, The Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery.

The use of hocus-pocus as part of an incantation dates to 1632. From Thomas Randolph’s The Jealous Lovers of that year:

Hocus-pocus, here you shall have me, and there you shall have me!

Some contend that hocus-pocus is a play on the words in the Latin mass hoc est corpus. While this seems very plausible, there is no evidence to support it and the other Latin words in the mass do not match with those given in Ady’s 1656 account of the juggler’s patter

Check here at "EverythingyouknowaboutEnglishiswrong" for a further discussion of this issue.

Civility.

At Theology for Dummies, the latest kerfuffle involves "civility" and whether it is obscene to call someone a "silly ass."

On the former, there is this interesting call for balance by Msgr. Charles Pope.  After citing some seemingly intemperate language by Christ and the Apostles, Msgr. Pope observes:

Now, most of the passages above would violate modern norms about civil discourse. Are they sinful? They are God’s word! And yet, they seem rather shocking to modern ears. Imagine getting into your time machine and going to hear Jesus denounce the crowds and calling them children of the devil. It really blows a 21 Century mind


I want to suggest to you that these sorts of quotes go a long way to illustrate the cultural dimension of what it means to be civil. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular point, say of preparing the meal, than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them.Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive debate are common. But in the upper Midwest and parts of the Deep South conversation is more gentle and reserved.

At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for, as we see, Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc. Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus also teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter.

Jesus also engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong, they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it, but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture expected things like this from prophets.

Careful -Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.

On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.

Balance - The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First that we should speak the truth in love, and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.

As for the latter, we have to remember that the use of the term "ass" comes from "asinine" which has nothing to do with the body part [or, in light of the way that "asinine" is spelled, the animal, although some etymological sources do make that connection.]

Asinine and "ass" as in the term "silly ass" - to disappoint the thin-skinned people described by Msgr. Pope derive from the perfectly non-obscene Greek word "synesis."  "Synesis" means "the habit of right judgment." The contrary of synesis is "asynesis." (See Aquinas Commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics, Book 6, Lecture IX.)   People who lack the habit of right judgment, i.e., people who make poor and foolish judgments are described as "asynetos," or in English "asinine" from which we derive terms like "ass" and "silly ass."

You can see this etymology in Charles Dickens' classic use of the the phrase "the law is a ass - an idiot" by Mr. Bumbles in Oliver Twist.  Bumples properly correlates "ass" with "idiot" which connotes "asinine" - one "s" - not the body part, which would be "arse", or the animal.

The tendency we thin-skinned moderns have to associate "asinine" with the body part reflects our linguistic tendency to break words down to similar sounding roots - "eggcorns" - and then conjugate from those roots, whether they are imagined or real.  Although it may be better characterized as a collision between "folk etymology" and "back formation."

In any event, "asinine," like the word "niggardly," has nothing to do with the faux-roots that cause such controversy among thin-skinned moderns.