(A version of this article appeared recently in Arts & Opinion).

Linguistic mishugass redux

by

Howard Richler

Recently the Journal of Animal Ethics advised us to refer to our pets as companion animals and to remember that as we are also members of the animal kingdom, we should call our animals “non-human” animals; ergo your pet should really be called a companion non-human animal. We are also advised that the term vermin and pest are politically-incorrect as is the expression “stubborn as a mule,” regardless of the recalcitrance level of the ass. This is reminiscent of some of the preposterous terms proposed by the quasi-oppressed in the late 80s, early 90s. For example, in Language, Gender and Politics, authors Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler suggested the addition of the word “ovarimony” to our lexicon to reference statements that women give under oath, because of the supposed etymological link between testimony and testes. This neologism was topped by poet's Betsy Warland suggestion thar "dictionary" should be respelled as “dicktionary,” because DWEMs (Dead White European Males) such as lexicographers James Murray and Samuel Johnson exemplified patriarchal thinking that was controlled by the first four letters of the revised spelling.

I will admit, however, that there is a place for sensitivity in one's choice of words. For those people who find terms such as cerebrally-challenged too euphemistic, I remind them that it wasn’t that long ago that words like “cretin” and even “moron” were used in polite society without compunction. Given a choice, I’d rather be oversensitive than not sensitive enough. Increasingly, “ethnic” verbs such as “to welsh” (to avoid payment); “to gyp”(to cheat) and “to jew” (to bargain) are also avoided. Also, because for some people the suffix -ess denotes inferiority (it's difficult to think of a manageress running a Fortune 500 company), I understand why a female thespian would rather be called an actor than an actress. I even can comprehend why ESPN commentator Max Bretos was suspended in February for saying that the New York Knicks loss to the New Orleans Hornets revealed “a chink in his {Chinese-American basketball phemon Jeremy Lin's} armor.” For some people of Chinese lineage the term “chink” is as offensive as the word “nigger” is to blacks.

But where does it end? Some years ago when I wrote A Bawdy Language: How a Second-Rate Language Slept Its Way to the Top, I included a section on word play where one of the chapters was titled “'Definitions depend on how you split 'em” Here, I featured a puzzle I called “Animal Split Definitives” where words were defined by their constituent parts. Hence, “aspire” was defined as “venom” by breaking up the word into “asp” and “ire”; similarly “heathen” was defined as “barbecued chicken” by dividing the word into “heat” and “hen.” One of the “animal” words I included was “hippocampus” that I defined as “'university for fat people” and my editors wanted me to exclude this definition as they felt is was insensitive to the horizontally-challenged. While normally I'm fairly open to editorial suggestions, in this instance I dug in my heels and after great hesitation the editorial board at my publisher caved into my intransigence and left my definition unedited. ( I'm not sure if my calling their objections “fatuous” helped sway them.)

Must we avoid the word niggardly that means stingy or miserly because someone might associate it with the dreaded N word notwithstanding it having no etymological connection to it? If I say that I find a “penal institution (and pronounce the first word “penile”’) to be barbaric,” I’m sure there’s somebody out there who thinks I have cast aspersions on the practice of circumcision. If I use the word “pithy” will someone feel I’m mocking lispers? Must I avoid the word “judicious” when among Jews, “dyspepsia” when among French-Canadians and “nervous titter” when in the company of women? Must everyone, except white Protestants, avoid “waspish comments?”

The mind boggles.

hrichler@gmail.com

Howard Richler's latest book is Strange Bedfellows: The Private Lives of Words. Linguistic meshugas redux

by

Howard Richler

Recently, the Journal of Animal Ethics advised us to refer to our pets as companion animals and to remember that as we are also members of the animal kingdom, we should call our animals “non-human” animals. Ergo, Fido should really be called a companion non-human animal. We are also advised that the term vermin and pest are politically-incorrect as is the expression “stubborn as a mule,” no matter the recalcitrance level of the said ass. This is reminiscent of some of the preposterous terms proposed by the quasi-oppressed in the late 80s, early 90s. For example, in Language, Gender and Politics, authors Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler suggested the addition of the word “ovarimony” to our lexicon to reference statements that women give under oath, because of the supposed etymological link between testimony and testes. This neologism was topped by poet's Betsy Warland suggestion that “dictionary” should be respelled as “dicktionary,” because DWEMs (Dead White European Males) such as lexicographers James Murray and Samuel Johnson exemplified patriarchal thinking that was controlled by the first four letters of the revised spelling.

I will admit, however, that there is a place for sensitivity in one's choice of words. For those people who find terms such as cerebrally-challenged too euphemistic, I remind them that it wasn’t that long ago that words like “cretin” and even “moron” were used in polite society without compunction. Given a choice, I’d rather be oversensitive than not sensitive enough. Increasingly, “ethnic” verbs such as “to welsh” (to avoid payment); “to gyp”(to cheat) and “to jew” (to bargain) are also regarded as improper. Also, because for some people the suffix -ess denotes inferiority (it's difficult to think of a manageress running a Fortune 500 company), I understand why a female thespian would rather be called an actor than an actress. Recently, after their constituent parts. Hence, “aspire” was defined as “venom” by breaking up the word into “asp” and “ire”; similarly “heathen” was defined as “barbecued chicken” by dividing the word into “heat” and “hen.” One of the “animal” words I included was “hippocampus” that I defined as “'university for fat people” and my editors wanted me to exclude this definition as they felt is was insensitive to the horizontally-challenged. While normally I'm fairly open to suggestions by editors, in this instance I dug in my heels and after great hesitation the editorial board at my publisher caved into my intransigence and left my definition unedited. ( I'm not sure if my calling their objections “fatuous” helped sway them.)

But where does it end?Must we avoid the word niggardly that means stingy or miserly because someone might associate it with the dreaded N-word notwithstanding it having no etymological connection to it? If I use the word “pithy” will someone feel I’m mocking lispers? Must I avoid “judicious” when among Jews, “dyspepsia” when among French-Canadians and “nervous titter.” when in the company of women? Might not “enigma” offend? Must everyone, except white Protestants, avoid “waspish comments?”

The mind boggles.

hrichler@gmail.com

Howard's next book From Happy to Homosexual will be published by Ronsdale Press in 2013,

HOT DOG

(This article appears in the July/August edition of Lexpert with the title "Who Named the Dog?")

Putting the dog back in hot dog

by





Howard Richler









On July 4^th the attention of all gourmands will be turned to the most All-American of all sporting competitions. I speak, of course, about Nathan's Hot-Dog Eating Contest held annually on Coney Island, New York. Legend states that on July 4, 1916 four immigrants partook in a hot dog eating contest at Nathan's Famous stand on Coney Island to settle a dispute as to which of the voracious gentlemen were most patriotic to their adopted land. Last year, American Joey Chestnut won his fifth title by consuming 62 hot dogs and buns in ten minutes. Over 40,000 spectators attended this cholesterol-imbibing orgiastic event and an additional 1.949 million viewers watched it live on ESPN.

As we approaching the dog days of summer and this momentous event, this is a good time to discuss the origin of one of the most quintessential American words – hot dog.

Lore has it that in 1900 sports cartoonist Thomas Aloysius “Tad” Dorgan was ingesting a sausage at the New York Polo Grounds, the baseball Giants’ home park. Since there had been rumours that canine meat was prevalent in the sausages, he dubbed his bunned lunch “hot dog.” His subsequent caricature of a dachshund on a bun got the goat of the Coney Island Chamber of Commerce who instituted a policy of banning the term “hot dog” by concessionaires, insisting instead on the use of PC terms such as “Coney Islands,” “red hots” or “frankfurters.” The Dorgan etymology has been repeated by many language writers including Bill Bryson in Made in America.

There are, however, some problems with this account. Dorgan was working in San Francisco in 1900 and did not move to New York until 1903. Also, no one has uncovered the Dorgan cartoon in question. He did, however, sketch some “hot dog” cartoons in 1906 from a bicycle race in Madison Square Gardens.

The first printed references to “hot dog” occur in the 1890s. On Sept 28, 1893, Knoxville (Tennessee) Journal displayed the term and earlier on May 20, 1893, New Brunswick (New Jersey) Daily Times, had an article that related how the shore town of Asbury Park has passed a by-law to fine “hot-dog peddlers.”

The term “hot dog”, however, only became popular due to a reference in Yale Record of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut in 1895; apparently the word “dog” had been a university slang term for “sausage” for at least a decade. A lunch wagon that operated nightly at Yale was dubbed “The Kennel Club” as the humble sausage represented its specialty. A poem was written in the aforementioned newspaper entitled ECHOES FROM THE LUNCH WAGON:

“Tis dogs' delight to bark and bite,”

Thus does the adage run.

But I delight to bite the dog

When placed inside a bun.

But decades before the 1890s, there had been accusations that sausage-makers were “dogging” their product. An article in New York Commercial Advertiser of July 6, 1838 quipped, “Sausages have fallen in price one half, in New York since the dog killers have

commenced operations."

Due to the supposed connection between sausages and dogs, by the middle of the 19^th century it is not surprising that earlier refernces to the term “hot dog” are found. In fact, lexicographer Ben Zimmer reported in his Word Routes column last year that a law librarian Fred Shapiro of Yale University found this entry in the December 31, 1892 edition of Paterson (New Jersey) Daily Press: “Somehow or other a frankfurter and a roll seem to go right to the spot where the void is felt the most. The small boy has got on such familiar terms witth this sort of lunch that he now refers to it as “hot dog.” “Hey Mister, give me a hot dog quick,” was the startling order that a rosy-cheeked gamin hurled at the man as a Press reporter stood close by last night. The “hot dog”was quickly inserted in a gash on a roll, a dash of mustard also splashed on to the “dog” with a piece of flat whittled stick, and the order was fulfilled.”

Zimmer did some sleuthing and unearthed the identity of this hot dog purveyor – Thomas Francis Xavier Morris, known in Paterson as “Pepper Sauce” Morris. Morris had previously lived in Germany where he may have learned his frankfurter flavouring formula. His 1907 obituary stated that “Besides peddling hot frankfurters Morris made pepper sauce that he supplied to many families the condiments being much sought after.”

For a while the term hot dog competed for supremacy with frankfurter, red hot and wiener but by 1910, largely due to its Ivy League connection, hot dog became the definitive term for this food.

Enjoy this July 4th gentlemen; don't forget to bring lots of antacids.

hrichler@gmail.com

Howard's next book From Gay (Happy) to Gay (Homosexual) and other mysterious semantic shifts is being published by Ronsdale Press next Spring.