Following
this logic, the modern spelling of this word ought to be caterpiller rather than caterpillar. But, as so often with English spelling, the
fault lies with Dr Johnson, who employed a rare variant spelling caterpillar for the headword in his Dictionary of the English Language
(1755), ignoring the fact that it was consistently spelled caterpiller in the quotations he included. Johnson’s endorsement of the spelling led to
its widespread adoption, causing it to become accepted as the standard spelling
today. However, there are those who
prefer to stick rigidly to the earlier spelling. The website of St Martin’s Academy Chester
advertises its Very Hungry Caterpiller Day; the Wild Ryedale website offers
updates concerning the Mullien Moth Caterpiller; the Landscape Britain website
shifts randomly between caterpillar
and caterpiller. Michael K. Brown’s book The Caterpiller’s Hat proudly vaunts the misspelling in its
title. One anonymous questioner posted the
following query to the Ask.com forum: ‘How long does it take for a caterpiller
to turn into a butterflie’; his revival of archaic spellings for both caterpillar and butterfly suggests either a laudable commitment to the revival of
archaic spellings, or a poor grasp of modern spelling conventions.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
Caterpillar
Monday, 6 May 2013
Cord or Chord?
There are two words here, though their spellings are easily
confused. The word for a rope or thick
string is spelled cord, while the
musical term describing the simultaneous combination of notes is spelled chord.
This may seem quite straightforward and uncontroversial, but it’s
interesting to observe that this distribution of the two spellings is
unetymological. The word we now spell cord is a borrowing of the French word corde, ‘string, rope’, which itself is
derived from the Latin chorda. It is first recorded in English in the 15th
century in the spelling cord;
however, in the 16th century it was respelled chord to reflect its Latin origins.
This spelling remained common in the 17th and 18th
centuries; it has survived into modern usage in certain specialised senses,
such as ‘that touched a chord’, and in the name of the musical instrument harpsichord.
Despite
its spelling, the musical term chord
is unrelated to Latin chorda; it
derives from accord in the sense ‘bring
into harmony’.The musical term first
appeared in English in the 15th century, when it was spelled corde; this word survives in the
spelling of accordion. In the 16th century it was
confused with the word corde,
‘string, rope’, and subjected to the same change in spelling, giving us the
word chord. So, while the spelling of these two words
might appear straightforward, their histories show that the spellings are,
etymologically-speaking, the wrong way round.
Chord should refer to the
rope, and the musical term should be cord. While this confusing history may appear to
have been straightened out in today’s usage, it has left some vestiges of
uncertainty. Should it be ‘vocal chords’
or ‘vocal cords’ for instance? The usual
spelling today is vocal cords, but
it’s common to find vocal chord. This is frequently stigmatised as a
folk-etymological spelling, implying confusion with the musical sense of chord, but it’s actually a genuine
survivor of the older spelling, first recorded in the 18th century.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Expresso
The correct spelling of this word is espresso, deriving from the Italian cafè espresso ‘pressed-out coffee’. However, it is regularly assimilated to the
more common English word express,
giving the incorrect, yet increasingly frequent, spelling expresso. This spelling is now sufficiently common to have been accepted as a variant in a
number of dictionaries. Merriam-Webster labels
it a ‘variant of espresso’, much to the chagrin of many of its readers. Comments added to the online entry voice an
outraged hostility to the acceptance of this incorrect spelling. One commentator is saddened that the spelling
is common enough to be adopted by the dictionary, while another refuses to
accept it: ‘No, it’s simply and only ESPRESSO! EXpresso...is only a variant
because the clueless masses have used it so much its nearly been accepted as an
alternative spelling!’. (Note the
inevitable misspelling of it’s!) For
most opponents of expresso it is simply
a badge of stupidity: Gene
Weingarten of the Washington
Post considers expresso the ‘idiot’s
coffee-bar order’.
Spelling Trouble enjoys a coffee with friends |
In response to a question about the correct spelling
and pronunciation of this word on a bulletin board, most contributors oppose
the expresso spelling. For one it is ‘like nails on a chalkboard’;
for another there is no debate: ‘It’s espresso. It just is. Go to Italy.’ While this may seem a logical and
incontrovertible argument, it’s worth recalling that many foreign words in
English have not preserved their original spellings. Supporters of the expresso spelling note that in French the word is spelled express, while one hazards the more
dubious suggestion that drinking expresso
makes you go faster! This folk
etymological justification of the expresso
spelling by associating it with speed lies behind one of the definitions
offered by Urban Dictionary, which
describes it as ‘any fancy coffee’ ordered as a take-away. The association with quick service implied by
the expresso spelling is deliberately
invoked by owners of the ‘Speedy Expresso’ café. Various establishments play on the
association with the verb express,
encouraging their customers to expresso
themselves. Whatever we might think of
these rather tortuous puns, it is evident that the opportunities the expresso spelling allows us to associate
it with other genuine English words means that this spelling error is here to
stay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)