Sherbet

On Saturday, DS and I were buying food for a cookout. Always in the mood for some sort of dessert, but knowing I should restrain my impulse for my favorite ice cream (Dove brand vanilla with brownie chunks, and chocolate ganashe covering on top–yum!), I suggested sherbet. I initially pronounced it “sherbert,” then moved on to (jokingly) pronouncing it “sherbit” because of the spelling on the container. I also tried “sherbay.” DS corrected me back to the “sherbert” pronunciation, but I declared that that could not be the right pronunciation because there was no “r” at the end. It didn’t make any sense. Well, the Wordsmith has explained it in his new column on words at MSN.

So how did we get from sherbet to sherbert? When we borrow a word from another language, we often naturalize its spelling and sound (in Italian sherbet becomes sorbetto, in French sorbet). There are not many everyday words in English that follow the pattern of sherbet, but there’s plenty of company for the -bert ending: Herbert, Robert, Albert, Dilbert, etc.

I think if the word is going to be pronounced “sherbert,” the second “r” should be included in the (American) spelling because the disconnect between the spelling and the pronunciation makes me a little nuts. (I’m not usually bothered by word/pronunciation disconnects, but there is something about adding an “r” to the pronunciation of “sherbet” that seems a little ridiculous…kind of like when people jokingly pronounce “fajitas,” “fagitas.”)

cross-posted at Word Play

Misc.

I had a dream I lost my job. In the dream, my job involved some sort of medical duties…I think I was drawing blood, or something. I lost it the same day I got it. Someone I haven’t seen in real life for ten or eleven years was with me, and she invited me to lunch once we received the news. As if I could afford lunch with just having lost my job. As if there were no problems at all. I declined and said I was going to go visit my mom & step-dad. I think I was going to ask if I could move back in with them.

*******

I despise how expendable companion animals are in this society. I sympathize that people are struggling financially (as you can see from above, my own concern with finances is permeating my sleeping brain), but it seems once you’ve made a commitment to an animal, it should be absolute. I’d no sooner return the cats to the pound because of my finances than I would turn out a friend or family member from the guest room. We may all be eating beans and rice—the cats and the people—but we’re all in it together.

*******

And thank you, William Rhoden, for asking why we continually give horse racing a pass:

“The sport is at least as inhumane as greyhound racing and only a couple of steps removed from animal fighting.”

This, of course, is in response to the death of Eight Belles in yesterday’s Kentucky Derby.

******
I’m working with a friend at the center in hopes of helping him with his English. He had asked me several times if I could teach him English; I told him I couldn’t “teach” him, but I could practice with him. In our sessions, we discuss the work he’s doing in his English class. During the most recent session, he was trying to understand when to use “we” and when to use “us.” Alternating between English and Spanish, I tried to explain objective case. He thought the difference was based on the people included in the pronoun (“we” included the speaker, but he was defining “us” like “them”). I corrected this and then asked if his teacher had explained objective case. He said no.  I asked if he had learned the basics of sentence formation (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) He said no. Granted, this may have been covered before he started attending classes because it seems like fundamental information to have for anyone wanting to understand how and why we select the words we choose. I don’t get the sense he is learning the 1st/2nd/3rd person breakdown either, which (I think) makes memorizing all of this information much easier. The only reason I remember the Spanish I remember is because we had to learn the various word endings based on the 1st/2nd/3rd person approach. I tried to diagram the pronouns for him, but I couldn’t explain what the diagram was meant to indicate. The language always fails me when things get too complicated.

unexpected reminders

I receive Word of the Day emails from dictionary.com and the wordsmith; I write the words and their definitions in a small notebook I keep on the dining room table. Receiving the emails is an exercise to improve my vocabulary, but, unfortunately, my memory is weak, so I keep the notebook as an additional reference. I’ve been too busy this week to keep up with the daily emails, so I’ve been catching up with them this morning. The emails from dictionary.com include snips from newspaper and magazine articles, demonstrating how the word of the day is used in a sentence.

The word for April 17th was roister: To engage in boisterous merrymaking; to revel; to carouse. I was struck by the similarities between roister and boisterous (in meaning and in sound), and wondered why boisterous was never chopped down to boister and turned into an intransitive verb (tho, checking the online etymology dictionary, originally boisterous meant rough or coarse—not quite the same way it’s defined today). I moved to the examples of roister used in a sentence and there I saw a line by Michael Browning, a writer I’ve mentioned in this space before:
. . .the bullying, lying, lily-livered, lecherous, roistering, brandy-swigging, battle-fleeing, toad-eating Harry Paget Flashman, whose charming roguery has won him a worldwide following.
— Michael Browning, “Flashman’ Trio Fine Fun, Leaves Us Shouting ‘More!'” The Palm Beach Post September 24, 2000

This is the second time I’ve seen Michael’s writing referred to by Dictionary.com. His writing provided an example for the use of the word uxorious too. (My memory retained this one, thanks to seeing his name attached to it.)

Interconnections

With one essay, Guy Davenport demonstrates to me the difference between looking at American Gothic and seeing American Gothic.

“We can see a bamboo sunscreen–out of China by way of Sears Roebuck–that rolls up like a sail: nautical technology applied to the prairie. We can see that distinctly American feature, the screen door. The sash-windows are European in origin, their glass panes from Venetian technology as perfected by the English, a luxury that was a marvel of the eighteenth century, and now as common as the farmer’s spectacles, another revolution in technology that would have seemed a miracle to previous ages. Spectacles began in the thirteenth century, the invention of either Salvino degl’Armati or Alessandro della Spina; the first portrait of a person wearing specs is of Cardinal Ugone di Provenza, in a fresco of 1352 by Tommaso Barisino di Modena. We might note, as we are trying to see the geographical focus that this painting gathers together, that the center for lens grinding from which eyeglasses diffused to the rest of civilization was the same part of Holland from which the style of the painting itself derives.

Another thirteenth-century invention prominent in our painting is the buttonhole. Buttons themselves are prehistoric, but they were shoulder-fasteners that engaged with loops. Modern clothing begins with the buttonhole. The farmer’s wife secures her Dutch Calvinist collar with a cameo brooch, an heirloom passed down the generations, an eighteenth-century or Victorian copy of a design that goes back to the sixth century B.C.

She is a product of the ages, this modest Iowa farm wife: she has the hair-do of a medieval madonna, a Reformation collar, a Greek cameo, a nineteenth-century pinafore.

Martin Luther put her a step behind her husband; John Knox squared her shoulders; the stock-market crash of 1929 put that look in her eye.” [my favorite line]

The train that brought her clothes–paper pattern, bolt cloth, needle, thread, scissors–also brought her husband’s bib overalls, which were, originally, in the 1870s, trainmen’s workclothes designed in Europe, manufactured here for J.C. Penney, and disseminated across the United States as the railroads connected city with city. The cloth is denim, from Nîmes in France, introduced by Levi Strauss of blue-jean fame. The design can be traced to no less a person than Herbert Spencer, who thought he was creating a utilitarian one-piece suit for everybody to wear. His own example was of tweed, with buttons from crotch to neck, and his female relatives somehow survived the mortification of his sporting it one Sunday in St. James Park.”

From the essay, The Geography of the Imagination

I can honestly say I’d never given much thought to buttonholes before reading this piece.

Vegan themed words

I receive Word of the Day emails from the wordsmith, and this week’s theme are words dealing with veganism because this week’s guest wordsmith is Matt Ball, the co-founder and executive director of the non-profit organization Vegan Outreach. I didn’t immediately understand how the word Cartesian fit with the veganism theme, but, fortunately, the wordsmith provides examples of how the word is used. I liked what the example has to say, and thought I would post it.

Cartesian (kar-TEE-zhuhn) adjective

Of or relating to Descartes, his theories, methods, or philosophy,
especially its emphasis on mechanistic interpretation.

[From Cartesius, Latin form of Descartes, after philosopher René Descartes
(1596-1650).]

Today’s word in Visual Thesaurus: http://visualthesaurus.com/?w1=thesaurus

“To visit a modern CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) is to enter a
world that, for all its technological sophistication, is still designed
according to Cartesian principles: animals are machines incapable of
feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this any more,
industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the
part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert your eyes on
the part of everyone else.”
Michael Pollan; An Animal’s Place; The New York Times; Nov 10, 2002.