Derive & Drift

While on holiday, my friend Jonathan Caws-Elwitt took the following linguistic excursion. Although he didn't hit paydirt, he dramatizes beautifully what it means to be an etymological speculator. As with others kinds of journeys, getting there--or not getting there--is half the fun. Speaking of fun, I recommend Jonathan's humorous article on do-it-yourself etymology available at http://www.amazon.com/Chaucers-time-do-yourself/dp/B000FJA7JK/ref=sr_1_1/102-8099513-7404102?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184713955&sr=1-1

Jonathan, by the way, has joined me in writing a book—ENGINEERING YOUR LIFE. For more on this effort, please visit www.engineeringyourlife.com, where you too can get involved.

Now about "Derive & Drift," Jonathan writes:

In a small museum in New Brunswick, I noticed that the French version of a display about continental drift used the word "dérive" for "drift." I got a little bit excited about the possibility that "drift" and (the English word) "derive" might be words of a feather. But the Online Etymological Dictionary (www.etymonline.com) shows "derive" as coming from Latin (via French) and "drift" as coming instead from the Germanic side of the street, namely, from Old Norse or Middle Dutch (and being related to "drive").

The French use of "dérive" for "drift" seems to play on the concept of diversion (as in diverting a body of water--(or, in this case, a body of land). One can therefore think of aeons of continental drift as the planet's attempt at creating a diversion—perhaps so that we wouldn't notice that Magnetic North was not exactly North.

I hope you find this information diverting, assuming it's not old news—which, after all, is exactly what continental drift is.

Euphemism, Flatulence, and Style

According to the New World Dictionary, "euphemism"--from the Greek elments eu, "good" + pheme, "voice-- is "the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distateful, less offensive, etc. than another.

To my way of thinking, deliberately choosing language that is "less expressive or direct" is far more offensive than any word could be. Euphemism smacks of obfuscation, cowardice, and--in the extreme--just plain lying. So, for example, we have a "Department of Defense" instead of a "War Department." We speak of "collateral damage" instead of "innocent victims."

Which brings us to "flatulence," a word that we can say on the radio--no problem--but we can't say "fart" without getting into big trouble. Weird because "fart" refers to the exact same noisy phenomenon as flatulence.

Why can't we say "fart" or "shit" or "fuck" on the radio? Do those words actually offend anyone more than "flatulence," "excrement," or "intercourse"? If you want to talk about offense, let's start with the pricks (:penises" if you prefer) who devise tax schemes that soak the poor to benefit the rich.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against "flatulence," per se. I'm glad it's in our language. I happily included it in "Words of a Feather, where I showed the close relationship between "flatulence" and "inflation"--both words deriving from the Latin word "flare" meaning "to blow."

If I were writing a poem about farts and needed a three-syllable synonym for the sake of the rhythm, I'd jump up and down in thankfulness for "flatulence." But I'm against employing that word simply to separate me--via indirection--from reality.

In case you don't find the above argument persuasive, let me bring in the big gun Mark Twain, who worked at a time when popular writers were often paid by the word. Rather than talk about the power of clear, concise, direct writing--a la Strunk and White--Twain playfully explained: "I never write "metropolis" for seven cents because I can get the same price for "city." I never write "policeman" because I can get the same money for "cop."