Synecdoche

Okay, it's the beginning of the title of a new movie, directed by Charlie Kaufman and starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman. So I expect that avid indie film followers already know what this word means, even if they didn't a week or two ago. But I had actually come across this word in my reading a couple of days before, and hadn't been able to even make a guess at it. It came in the phrase 'synecdoche of'. I believe it was in Zoe Heller's The Believers,but won't swear to it. Nevertheless, it seems to be a mini motif, so I'm going to take a stab at it. All I can come up without help is that syn means something like 'with' or 'together'. But what the 'doche' is, I haven't a clue. I'm sure it will be transparent to all once I look it up. Here goes...

Well, this is one rambling grab bag of a word. It is in essence a substitution word. According to the free dictionary, it can mean a part standing in for the whole, the whole standing in for a part, the specific for the general or the general for the specific, and finally the material from which a thing is made.

It sounds complicated, but we do this all the time. "All hands ashore!" for example doesn't mean that the captain wants some kind of grotesque ritual of amputation. He wants the bodies that come with the hands. "I'll sic the law on you!" means I'll get some policemen to chase you down, not that the abstract institution is going to be sent round.

When you use a brand name instead of the more generic name, like Kleenex instead of tissue paper, you are using a syndecdoche. And when you get up to the check out counter and say, "I'd like to put that on plastic," the clerk likely knows very well that it's not just any piece of plastic that you propose but some very specific charge card.

As for "Synecdoche, New York", we can only guess at this point which form of synecdoche will be employed. Something stands in for something else. That would be my guess.

By the way, the word is Greek and does have a 'with' component. I can't quite get a take on the original Greek meaning, but it's something like 'to receive with' which is sometimes translated as 'simultaneous understanding'. I just read it also as 'acceptance of part of the responsibility for something.' You pronounce it si-nek-duh-kee, which, frankly, surprised me. If I think of a cynical duck, I will perhaps remember how to say it, but not, alas, what it means...

paean

I was teased a few days ago after using this word in a short book review on The Wind in the Willows for our in-store newsletter. Although my critic wondered about my use of the word to endorse a children's book, she did day I had used the word correctly. There is a difference, though, between using a word correctly and actually knowing what you're trying to say. I feel fairly sure that what I meant to say was communicated, but once again, am less sure that I actually know all that much about the word I used. (You can see what my life is like--haphazardly throwing a word out there and then optimistically hoping for the best.)

So what is a 'paean?' The way I think of it is as a sort of hymn of praise, but in a Greek, or at least pagan sense. The word 'ode' also comes to mind. Now it's time to find out the truth...

Well, I seem to be closer than my average in my understanding of the word this time. The word does mean something like a hymn of praise, song of joy, etc., and it does come from Ancient Greek and apparently relates back to songs sung in praise of Apollo. Paian, 'the healing one' seems to have been an epithet of Apollo, and relates back to the Greek word paiein--'to strike, to touch'. You can see the progression, and yet 'song of joy or praise' seems quite a long distance from 'striking or touching', doesn't it?

casino

So this is sort of a double confession of ignorance, or maybe a confession of ignorance laced with a dash of the unobservant is more accurate. Last night, my sister and cousin were in town and we were having dinner on the wharf from which you could see the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, which celebrated its hundredth anniversary last year. On the walls of the restaurant were some historic Boardwalk pictures, one of which was of the 'first casino fire'. My sister asked, "Is the casino still there?" and I said no, that there were conference rooms and a ballroom there now. She said that the word casino, which we now associate with gambling, actually just means large meeting room. Santa Catalina, for instance, has a casino but it was never a gambling place. I would suspect that Santa Cruz wouldn't have had much tolerance for that either.

The unobservant part comes in as they were driving me home, and we came toward the front of the building, where the word CASINO shown in very prominent neon. This wouldn't be such a big deal, except that I live close enough to the Boardwalk that I can see that sign from my window. Admittedly, it's turned sideways toward me, but it's not like I've never walked along that stretch of pavement. So yes, there is still a casino at the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, but it in truth more of a game arcade.

Anyway, we now have some inkling of what 'casino' means, but now I'm curious about its origins. It sounds like it must have Italian or Spanish origins, but we shall see...

Okay, it does all begin in Italy, and in the way that words do sometime begin meaning something almost opposite to what they mean now, 'casino' is Italian for little house. I suppose in Spanish it would be 'casita'.

In Italy, the word was first applied to a country house, and you only have to think of all the cutesy names Americans have had for their getaway homes to understand the diminutive aspect here. But just as inevitably, the word came to encompass what one might do in a country house, and so came to mean a place to dance, listen to music, and gamble. Apparently gambling took over as the main association to the word, first in Italian and then in English. It appeared in English in its first (or second) meaning of 'social gathering place' in the 18th century, and then meaning 'gambling establishment' in 1851.

So what was really going on on Santa Catalina that they felt obliged to use this word? I'll bet there were some card games to be found--and they weren't just betting toothpicks.

Hibernian

This is the first post that takes a suggestion from a reader (thanks, StephanieG!) to further extend the realm of ignorance in order to combat it. Luckily, my ignorance probably matches anyone's who posts here, so I can treat your ignorance as my own!

Today's word is "Hibernian". Our commenter confesses to thinking the word is an Irish word, but has recenly discovered that it's the name of a Scottish football team. I am guessing that it is a Celtic word, with a meaning in both languages. My own associations to the word are curiously financial, as my only point of reference is the "Hibernian National Bank." And I am intrigued by the possible connection to the word 'hibernate'. I will even guess that it all somehow relates to the Latin word for winter, which I believe is something along the lines of 'hiver'. So lets see where I went astray...

So Wikipedia has it that "Hibernia" is the Roman name for Ireland. Apparently, this is some sort of dubious translation from the Greek word for Ireland "Iouernia" with overtones of the Latin word hibernus, meaning 'wintry'. I am sorry to say that Hibernia and Iouernia do not sound similar enough to be cognates unless you are extremely hard of hearing...Perhaps someone would like to stake their doctoral thesis on the idea that the Romans were slightly deaf. Or at least deaf to the sound of Greek words.

It's interesting that Ioernia and Eire do have a similar sound.

This leaves the problem of the fact that, to American ears, "Hiberian" has vaguely Scottish connotations. But it turns out that the Romans were as confused as we are about this. "Scotia eadem et Hibernia", as Isidore of Seville would have it, means "Scotland and Ireland are the same country". Is this a condescending blurring by the conquering class, or is it in fact an identity?

I don't know, but it's worth pondering.

And M is also for....

I know, I know--it gets repetitious after awhile. I can't help it if it's only the M words that have it in for me.

Today's word is maunder. I once again found myself writing someone whom I did not particularly want to appear an idiot in front of, and said that I had been 'maundering around', but had to catch myself, because I did not know for sure that I was saying what I thought I was saying.

I had to look it up before I posted this blog, so I can say straight out that I was more or less right. It means to move, talk or act aimlessly, which was the impression I was aiming for. However, the surprise for me was the connection, not certain, with the word "meander". It's not proven, but it makes perfect sense, and it seems to be one of several instances I've encountered where one word splits between the conventional version and its dialectic variant and then takes two separate paths. This seems to give the word more room to spread out and fulfill itself. I can hear the relation of maunder and meander, and I know one has pleasant connotations and one more negative. But at least in my mind, they are both really describing the same sort of activity.

M is for...

Okay, let's forget for the moment all the countries beginning with M that I don't know anything about--Mali and Mauritania, I'm looking at you. There is a word beginning with m that has been much in the news lately, a word thrown about in that cavalier fashion that is so characteristic of words that appear on this blog. It has to do with the presidential election and will be heard far more in Republican speeches than Democratic ones. Got it? Give up?

The word is 'maverick', of course. Now I think we all think we know what this word means. Trailblazer, or something to that effect. I think of that early television show of the same name, and am sure it was intended in a positive light, and that the McCain/Palin ticket are attempting to draw of sort of reflected aura from it by using it every chance they get.

So I know how to use the word in the common parlance. But is a maverick a positive characterization as originally used? My understanding of the word, probably hideously wrong, is that it refers to a steer who wanders away from the herd. Not necessarily a good thing from the cowhand's point of view. But let's find out the definition before I wax philosophical...

Well, it's interesting because there are a couple of different kinds of ideas and meanings floating in the word. It does indeed mean a person of independent ideas. But the animal form of maverick is not at all what I pictured. It means an unbranded animal, particularly stray calves who have been separated from their mothers, and thus become fair game for the person who first brands them. The name was apparently taken from that of a Texas rancher, Samuel Augustus Maverick, who apparently left his own calves unbranded, though on what basis, I do not know.

The Wikipedia article on Mr. Maverick says that his not branding cattle was not a result of his independent thinking, but because of his basic last of interest in ranching, a turnabout that amuses me for some reason. Getting credit for unconventionality when you are just lazy sounds about right to me, at least in as far as how reputations get made.

In what I suppose is one of those never to be resolved arguments about history, Maverick said that his reason for not branding was that he did not want to inflict pain on the calves. His enemies suspected that his real reason was that he wanted to pick up any unclaimed, unbranded calves as his own. This is probably a litmus test for our own feelings about human nature. Was he compassionate or just greedy? I think my own answer is that he could very easily have been both. It would fall quite comfortably in the middle range of the human spectrum.

The Maldives

Apparently the theme of countries that I don't know about is "Must begin with M". Because here I am with yet another country or region or God knows what it is that starts with M that I don't know the first thing about.

Well, okay, I do know the first thing about it. Them. Because this came to mind while I was watching the BBC covering some recent unrest there. They are very good about zooming in on the part of the world they are talking about, realizing that the vast majority of their viewers probably flunked geography at some point in their education. Unfortunately, I wasn't really paying attention...

However, I think they may have zoomed in to the Indian Ocean. If I remember correctly, the reason they have sprung to recent world attention is that they are holding their first democratic election. The incumbent has been in power for something like thirty-five years. His challenger was a political prisoner. It's the big deal for the Maldives. Only question is, what precisely are the Maldives?

Okay, I already find my preconceptions arrested. I was thinking maybe the Greater Maldive and the Lesser Maldive, as far as islands go, but in fact, there are 26 coral atolls, which in turn comprise 1,192 islets. 250 of these are islands large enough or at least hospitable enough to be inhabited. However, I was right about the Indian Ocean part. If you look at a map, they seem to drop off the bottom of the west coast of India, while Sri Lanka is a more solid form on the right.

Like so many places now, they've pretty much seen it all as far as the conquerors and colonizers go. First, there were fisherman from the west coast of India and as far away as Sri Lanka. Buddhism imposed itself in an early expansion, but since the 12th century, the Maldives have been Muslim. In fact, a revision of the constitution this year requires that a requirement of citizenship is adherence to Islam. So much for the separation of church and state.

If you think a moment about the Maldives being in the Indian Ocean, you will realize that I am more than a little remiss in not knowing more about them. In December, 2004the Maldives were one of the places that experienced the power of the tsunami that killed and devastated so many in that quarter of the world. 108 people are reported to have died as a result. Some islands were evacuated and six were decimated. The toll on the infrastructure was massive,especially the tourist infrastructure,which is a main source of the present day economy.

But there have been other economies. In the early part of our last millennium, the Maldives actually as good as coined currency for the Arab trading world, in as much as cowry shells, which served as coinage in this realm, literally washed up on its shores.

There is yet another noteworthy thing about the Maldives. They apparently hold the record for being the lowest country in the world. Their highest point is cited at only about 7 1/2 meters above sea level. A charming Guinness Book of World Records sort of fact, until you realize that this means that global warming and other reasons for oceans rising threaten this nation's very existence.

And you thought the current economic crisis was bad...