“I have nothing to say”

Add comment July 15th, 2009

The above is one of my many favorite quotes from the films of Laurel and Hardy. I’m sharing it with you to let you know that for the next week, I will have nothing to say. I’m on vacation. There will be a Wood on Words column this Sunday, however.

Chat with you all later.

No rest for the restive

Add comment July 10th, 2009

“Restive” is one of those words, like “noisome,” that isn’t what it seems to be.

Its original sense was more like resistant to moving. It retains the meaning “refusing to go forward” — that is, trying to stay at rest.

More commonly nowadays it’s used to mean “hard to control; unruly” or “nervous or impatient under pressure or restraint.”

In other words, it’s more restless than restful.

Those tricky “sake” expressions

Add comment July 9th, 2009

“Sibilance” in phonetics refers to a hissing sound, most commonly made by the letter “s.” The word, appropriately enough, comes from the Latin verb “sibilare,” meaning “to hiss.”

Some quirks in English have arisen from a desire to avoid too much sibilance. Imagine Daffy Duck saying “sibilance” to get an idea of the potential problem.

Thus we have the convention for the phrases “for appearance’ sake,” “for conscience’ sake” and “for goodness’ sake.” The Daffy standard suggests these phrases have enough sibilance already without adding an “s” after the apostrophe, which would be “normal.”

They look strange, but at least they don’t appear to be unpronounceable.

Two other “sake” phrases should have that additional “s”: “for Pete’s sake” and “for heaven’s sake.”

Daffy probably would consider them all “dethpicable.”

“No” know-how

Add comment July 8th, 2009

“Nobody” is one word, but “no one” is not one.

Interestingly, a nobody can be somebody, as long as it’s someone “of no influence, authority or importance.”

“Nowhere” is also one word, and there can be a there there. As a noun, “nowhere” is “a place that is nonexistent, unknown, remote, etc.” or “a place or state of obscurity.”

As the film “Yellow Submarine” taught us, the “Nowhere Man” was somewhere, and actually somebody, too.

Other useful “no” words are hyphenated, among them “no-account,” “no-brainer,” “no-go,” “no-name,” “no-no,” “no-nonsense,” “no-show,” and “no-lose” and “no-win.”

And did you know that “noway” and the dialectical “nohow” are actually listed as one-word terms? The former is more commonly written these days as two words and “used with the force of an interjection.”

No way! Yes, that way.

Things you shouldn’t do alone

Add comment July 7th, 2009

A recent wire service story described something as hindering “a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others.”

“Interacting” and “communicating” are activities that, by definition, require others. If you have specific participants, name them. Otherwise, you don’t need “with others.”

On the flip side, however, if you’re communicating alone, you’re probably talking to yourself. That can be a bad sign.

And I don’t even want to think about what interacting with yourself might be. Keep it to yourself.

Did he say “crotchet”?

Add comment July 3rd, 2009

In my previous offering, I quoted a sentence containing the phrase “a baseless crotchet.” Now there’s a word you don’t see very often.

In this instance, “crotchet” means “a peculiar whim or stubborn notion.”

You’re more likely to encounter its adjective, “crotchety,” for “cantankerous; eccentric.”

The former definition of “crotchet,” now archaic, was “a small hook” or “a hooklike part or device.”

So, in case you were wondering, yes, it’s related to “crochet,” which is French for “small hook.” And that means in that type of needlework, a “crochet hook” is literally a “hook hook.”

Also in this family is the lawn game “croquet,” in which mallets are used to hit balls through hoops.

I assure you that I didn’t expect this to end up here: There were no mallets aforethought.

(I’m almost ashamed of that one — almost.)

When will it be over?

Add comment July 2nd, 2009

The Associated Press clings to the notion that “over” is better for “spatial relationships” (”the cow jumped over the moon”) and “more than” is better “with numerals” (”he now makes more than $1 million a year”).

The AP can be excruciatingly slow to change its ways. In “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” Bryan A. Garner says “over” and “more than” are interchangeable in the latter instance, adding “and this has been so for more than 600 years.” (I would have said “over 600 years” to underscore the point.)

Garner concludes with, “The charge that ‘over’ is inferior to ‘more than’ is a baseless crotchet.”

I doubt there are many readers who are confused by this use of “over” when they see it, so it also passes the comprehension test.

And it’s a heck of a lot easier to fit into headlines.

It’s hyphen time

Add comment July 1st, 2009

‘Tis the season for stories about power usage, which means it’s time for this reminder: There’s a hyphen in “kilowatt-hour.”

This is generally the case for terms that combine two types of measurement: kilowatt-hour (power and time); foot-pound (distance and weight); light-year (speed and time).

By contrast, terms that combine a unit of measure and a simple modifier are generally two words: square mile, cubic centimeter, fluid ounce, liquid quart, dry quart, troy ounce, board foot.

And while I’m on the topic, another reminder about light-year: It’s not a unit of time but of distance — how far light can travel in a year. And at 186,000 miles per second, that’s a fur piece — and I don’t mean a mink coat.