wordwatching

In the preface to his great Dictionary of the English Language, Dr Johnson wrote:

I am not yet so lost in lexicography, as to forget that words are the daughters of earth, and that things are the sons of heaven. Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote.

Change in language provoked despair in Johnson, irritation in Fowler, and impotent rage in those many who would see the language fixed as it was when they finished their formal education.

Rapid and mindless change in usage and vocabulary certainly causes inconvenience: it disguises or distorts meaning where the true object of language is to convey meaning as clearly as human frailty allows. On the other hand, gradual evolution of language — even by the adoption of ‘barbarisms’ — helps ensure its continued vigour. The English language is a perfect example.

Change in language also gives scope for minor fossicking and diversions for those who amuse themselves with such things. It is a commonplace that the meaning of a word may change over time. In some words, the change may be very dramatic. In a few cases, the meaning may reverse itself entirely.

Thus, obnoxious originally means ‘exposed to harm, subject to a harmful or evil influence or agency’ (OED2, 1989; and it was so used in the Law Times as late as 1891).

The Macquarie Dictionary (second edition, 1991) gives the primary meaning as ‘objectionable, offensive, odious’; and the secondary meaning as ‘exposed or liable’ (to harm, evil, or anything objectionable).

Another well-known example is prestige: originally ‘juggling or magic; cheating, deluding, deceitful’ (OED2, 1989). Now: ‘reputation or influence arising from success, influence, rank or other circumstances’ (Macquarie, 1991).

Other examples are panache and mere.

A more controversial example is tawdry (see p. 242). It is a contraction of St Audrey (St Aethelreda) who, according to the Venerable Bede, died in 679 as a result of a growth on her throat. This she attributed to her early vanity of wearing a silken lace around her neck. The monastery she established at Ely became the famous cathedral, where a fair was held each 17 October in honour of her memory. Gold jewellery was sold as St Audrey’s lace and then taudry lace in memory of the supposed cause of her death. It was not necessarily cheap and showy, but it quickly gained that reputation. Despite an ambiguous quotation from Wycherley in 1676 (‘taudry affected rogues, well drest’) the OED2 admits only a pejorative meaning of the word; but it admits equally that taudry lace — the original expression — once denoted real finery.

A word with several meanings is said to be polysemous (an expression adopted by practitioners of modern linguistics; not recognised by the first edition of the OED, but first recorded in 1884, according to the second edition). The words discussed above, however, take their polysemic character to a hermaphroditic extreme. Commentators (Philip Howard, Tom McArthur, and others) have tried to popularise Janus word as a description of this little linguistic curiosity. On the Humpty Dumpty principle, any word would do, provided we decide what it should mean. On the other hand, enantiodromic has a long and honourable history, and seems to do the work for which Janus word was coined.

The enantiodromic word is only one species of polysemy. The creature has relatives who bear a striking but spurious resemblance. For example, to cleave means ‘to part or divide by a cutting blow, to hew asunder, to split; but also to stick fast or adhere’.

Although apparently the same word with opposite meanings, they are etymologically distinct, having converged on a common form from separate origins. The first sense derives from the old English cliofan; the second, from old English clifan. This branch of the family is the homonym.

Other, but less challenging, members of the family are homophones and homographs. They comprise pairs (or groups) of words that are entirely separate in meaning and etymology, but happen to look and/or sound identical.

Hence:

sow (spread seed)/sow (female pig);
lead (conduct)/lead (metal);
bear (carry)/bear (animal);
swallow (ingest)/swallow (bird), and so on.

Perhaps the most interesting form of polysemous word is the subspecies in which the one word bears two current meanings which are diametrically opposed. Enantiodromic words show historical drift; this subspecies, however, maintains the two opposite meanings side by side. These are, of necessity, rare creatures, and yet some of them pass unnoticed every day. Thus:

fast: firmly fixed in its place; not easily moved or shaken, settled, stable; quick, swift, moving quickly.

quite: completely, wholly, altogether, entirely, to the fullest extent or degree; rather, to a moderate degree, fairly.

to sanction: to ratify or confirm; to make valid or binding; to enforce a law by attaching a penalty to transgression.

to weather: to subject to the beneficial action of the wind and the sun; to change by exposure to the weather, to wear away, disintegrate; to withstand and come safely through (a storm); to sustain without disaster.

This branch of the family has also been labelled Janus words. Possibly a more accurate, and already available, expression is amphibolous words.

Polysemous words lace our language, yet ideas can be unequivocally expressed. Context almost invariably provides the clue to enable the intended meaning of a polysemic word to be determined. It is a fascinating exercise — and a very difficult one — to construct a sentence of ten words or more which is truly ambiguous.