Rantings of a sub-editor

March 2, 2010

Who gets it: the poet or the prophet?

Filed under: new words,Richard Dixon,vaticide — substuff @ 11:04 am
Tags:

Ah, much happiness in my subby little world. Dim sum with Mr Dixon in the sunshine yesterday and the opportunity to practise attempting to convey an impression of great intelligence while simultaneously using chopsticks. A trip to The Times, tidbits overheard in lifts, a handshake with Simon Pearson and the possibility of shifts.

More joy: a beautiful two-volume New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has fallen into my clutches. I have been getting by at home with an Encarta dictionary (complete with pictures and American spellings) for the past decade, always meaning to make the move to Oxford and always finding something less dictionary-like to spend my pennies on. These babies have thumbnails. And gold lettering. And little blue speckles on the sides. So beautiful.

And in further book-bliss news, I have been lent Dr Johnson’s Dictionary of Entertaining and Historically Stimulating Words (if I may abbreviate its title so abruptly). I haven’t yet had the opportunity to properly investigate the delights within. But here’s a question.
On the back, it says:

Va’ticide n.s. [vates and caedo, Latin.] A murderer of poets

Fantastic! I gave it a quick Google to see if I could find an instance of it actually being used. Had there ever been a rampage by a vaticidal maniac? Was vaticide more of a problem in some parts of the world than others? Sadly – happily, in fact, for the poets among us – there were no examples to be found. (Although it does appear to be the name of an Australian heavy metal band – disturbing image alert.) But to my surprise, the word was translated overwhelmingly as “the murder of a prophet”. Murder, not murderer. Prophet, not poet.

To the shiny OED I went (although ‘went’ is probably the wrong word, considering that I have had it clutched lovingly to my bosom for the past two hours). It translates vates as a poet, especially one divinely inspired; a prophet-poet. So a bit of both, then.

But to me, the murder of a prophet and a murderer of poets are two quite different things. And if I am going to use such a fantastic word, I want to know what it means! Any offers?

February 17, 2010

A heavy haspiration

Filed under: a/an,esteemed persons,Richard Dixon,word choice — substuff @ 10:37 am
Tags: , ,

The first work email I get this morning is from the Chief. It is short and to the point:

“a: it’s a hotel, a historic, not an hotel, an historic.”

I beg to differ, Brighton Argus style guide (now online)

Aside from the worries I have about the mental health of a man who spends his spare time reading style guides for local newspapers of cities he doesn’t live in (and he’s not even a sub!), I thought this was an interesting gripe.

Before I continue, let’s just point out that aspiration (a kind of short pant!) is important in this debate. To aspirate, says the OED, is to produce a sound with an exhalation of breath. So, if we’re talking h-wise, hotel, happy and Hove are aspirated, but heir and honour are not. Hot!

Fowler’s says, rather charmingly:

Opinion is divided over the form to use before h-words in which the first syllable is unstressed: the thoroughly modern thing to do is to use a (never an) together with an aspirated h (a habitual, a heroic, a historical, a Homeric, a hypothesis), but not to demur if others use an with minimal or nil aspiration given to the following h (an historic, an horrific, etc).

No demurring, you old-fashioned types!

The Times Style Guide, however, supports the Chief.

use an before unaspirated han heir, an honest woman, an honour; also, prefer an hotel to a hotel, an historic to a historic, an heroic rather than a heroic

Kit and I err on the side of the modern on this one. We are sticking to a historical event, a habitual tic, etc. But I’ll admit to the occasional wistful sigh.

A little trivia on the subject, courtesy of Fowler’s:

Three special cases:
an hotel (with no aspiration on the second word) is now old-fashioned, but by no means extinct.

In humble, the h was originally mute and the pronunciation prevailed until the 19c, but is now obsolete: it should therefore be preceded by a, not an.

In American English, herb, being pronounced with silent h, is always preceded by an, but the same word in British English, being pronounced with an aspirated h, by a.

Bet this post has got y’all aspirating heavily

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers