Here’s a live snippet of Rufus’ interpretation of the tune in case you can’t get to the blip.fm version:

For those of us who grew up in the eighties, we probably all remember the synth-influenced version by Taco. Or maybe you recall Gene Wilder & Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein. Fewer still would have caught Fred Astaire’s performance in Blue Skies.

No matter where you’ve seen it or heard it (or tried to sing yourself, all misheard lyrics and bad syncopation [it can't just be me]), you’ll never forget it.

In my most recent listening, the phrases “rubbing elbows” and “hobnobbing” popped into my head and couldn’t be dislodged.

Which is all a very long intro to the following blog post.

To “rub elbows with” seems to carry the kind of well-to-do, upper-crust society, urbane connotation I was envisioning:

There’s nothing like rubbing elbows with the rich and famous, or At the reception diplomats were rubbing shoulders with heads of state. Both of these terms allude to being in close contact with someone. [Mid-1800s]

Another source thinks the idiom is a little less haughty/aristocratic:

Fig. to associate with someone; to work closely with someone. (No physical contact is involved.)

So we’ve got some conflicting reports there, but it seems like the use I’m thinking of did in fact originate from the kind of close quarters party-style mingling one might do at a fancy soiree. It’s possible that there are now less hoity-toity uses for the phrase, but I think most folks (like me) hear a certain air and arrogance to the phrase.

I could be wrong; let me know.

Which brings us to hobnob (and/or hobknob, which I assumes was the correct spelling).

The always enlightening Urban Dictionary cuts right to the chase:

Hob-knobbing is how socialites spend their days.

Please note the spelling as well.

Other sources:

Etymology: from the obsolete phrase drink hobnob to drink alternately to one another
Date: 1813

1 archaic : to drink sociably
2: to associate familiarly

And:

–verb (used without object)
1. to associate on very friendly terms (usually fol. by with): She often hobnobs with royalty.
2. Archaic. to drink together.
–noun
3. a friendly, informal chat.
Origin:
1595–1605; from the phrase hab or nab lit., have or have not, OE habban to have + nabban not to have (ne not + habban to have)

Hobnobbing, it seems use to have something to do with drinking/toasting and may “have” to do with “haves” and “have nots”.

Although it sounds more posh, hobnobbing might have started out as the less “loaded” phrase, but now carries more of the connotation that both words certainly share.

In the end, I think the song – whatever form or remake or cover – it takes is far better than my wordy middling.

I still think those folks on Park Avenue who were Puttin’ on the Ritz were likely both hobnobbing and rubbing elbows, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Until next time.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Me: I swear, it’s on the box
The Fiber One box: Cardboard no. Delicious yes. (TM)
Jenn: I don’t care what it says, that box is lying!

This exchange brought up an enlightening little bit of verbal back-and-forth that I won’t recap here, but that ends with me investigating the differences between “relate” and “correlate”.

So how do I decouple two words that seemingly mean the same thing? How does a relationship differ from a correlation?

As always, my trusty guide is Merriam-Webster:

“relate“:

: to show or establish logical or causal connection between

“correlate“:

: either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other (as husband and wife)

If I’ve learned one thing from both research meetings and the XKCD webcomic, it’s that correlation and causation are two different (but related [nice!]) concepts.

If “relate” can be taken to imply a causation in at least one of its forms, then the difference is clear.

I was going to argue that relate seems more active – something applied to the humanities and live sciences – the relationship between spouses, children, animals or the environment. Correlate seems somehow colder, more distant; clinical.

I’m pretty sure those thoughts are at odds with Merriam-Webster but their differentiation is more elegant since it focuses on “relate” being causal and “correlate” being, well, “correlative”. I leave it to you to figure out the rest.

Until next time.

Related posts:

1. Aten Ants I’m not losing my mind (well, I may be, but...
2. Tee Aych I’m becoming little more than a chronicler of meeting anecdotes...
3. Rubbing Elbows with Hobnobbers After hearing Rufus Wainwright’s cover of Puttin’ On The Ritz...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here, briefly, are Merriam-Webster’s definitions.

“-ant”:

1 a: one that performs (a specified action) : personal or impersonal agent b: thing that promotes (a specified action or process)
2: one connected with
3: thing acted upon (in a specified manner)

“-ate”

: act on (in a specified way) : cause to be modified or affected by : cause to become : furnish with

I bring up the two similar suffixes because of two equally perplexing constructs I’ve encountered this week: “conversate” and “medicant”.

The fist, “conversate”, comes directly from a reality show competition on HGTV. Whereas I would have simply said “converse” or even “talk” one of the gentleman involved in the contest chose to say “conversate”, but why?

Even as I’m typing out this post, Firefox is angrily underlining “conversate” and insisting I change it to “conversation”, “conversant” (we’ll hold off on that one) or “converse”.

Maybe he thought “conversate” sounded more formal or that it related to some subset of normal conversation or that it described a specific act of conversing in some altered state.

I really have no idea except to say that it sounded incredibly forced and just plain wrong to me ear.

The only other time I can remember someone appending such a regular construct on to a word to get some grand new chimera was the use of the verb “orientate” as a stand-in for “orient”, “instruct” or “guide”. I think part of the problem here stemmed from the fact that I was an “Orientation Leader” at UGA. Since I held the title “Orientation Leader” my job must have been “orientating” or “to orientate”, right?

It was frustrating and grating to hear, but language can be like sandpaper now and again and I became deaf to that word by Summer’s end. Hearing “conversate” on TV brought it all back to my consciousness in a rush of memories (good AND bad) that compelled me to mention it here.

The second new word I heard this week comes from my wife, who wondered aloud if “medicant” could be an acceptable form of what most of us currently use, “medication”. Her touchpoint was irritate/irritation/irritant and so I gave her props and fired up my browser.

Merriam-Webster (again) agrees; medicant:

: a medicinal substance

So, not exactly “medicine” or “medication” but any medical substance, it would seem. Maybe a bandage or a topical ointment?

I’m not really clear as to why certain noun forms rate “-ants” or certain verb forms deserve “-ates”, I just now that my daughter says “Aten” sometimes when she means “Eaten” or “Ate” (depends) which is, itself, another blog post.

Until next time, ponder “ants”, “ates” and the word “conversant“.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Coup versus Coupon: Are they remotely (or closely) related?

Turn out, yes they are.

Coup:

Pronunciation: \ˈkü\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, blow, stroke

Coupon:

Pronunciation: \ˈkü-ˌpän, ˈkyü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Old French, piece, from couper to cut

Two things:

1. Those French seem to have been working from some older source and may have crammed several meanings into one verb form that we went on to unpack and use for a few of our own. Plus, how nice is it that “cut” is one of those meanings, since the defining characteristic of coupons is that they are cut. Beautiful, this English language.
2. People who utilize that secondary pronunciation of coupon – the one that sounds nothing like coup and everything like a kewpie doll – need to be punished.

I hope you enjoyed the etymology lesson. I know I did.

Related posts:

1. Rubbing Elbows with Hobnobbers After hearing Rufus Wainwright’s cover of Puttin’ On The Ritz...
2. Ficly Friday: The Big Death Not too long ago I got a line from the...
3. Tee Aych I’m becoming little more than a chronicler of meeting anecdotes...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Up for grabs in last night’s winner-gets-nothing roundtable: Further and Farther

At first glance, the two seem pretty interchangeable. We easily talked ourselves in circles, weakening our vowels until the two words sounded virtually identical.

Here was our final agreement:

• Farther: used in denoting a difference in distance between two concrete objects

Think Grover and his “Neeee-ar….. Far” comparisons or something declarative like “Chicago is farther from Miami than Atlanta.”

• Further: a comparative for ideas and not objects

Upon further review
Nothing could be further from the truth

I’ll admit to not using the internet as crutch until …. just now.

Here’s how we scored: PERFECT!

• Some authorities (like the Associated Press) insist on “farther” to refer to physical distance and on “further” to refer to an extent of time or degree, but others treat the two words as interchangeable except for insisting on “further” for “in addition,” and “moreover.” You’ll always be safe in making the distinction; some people get really testy about this.
• FARTHER denotes physical advancement in distance.

  FURTHER denotes advancement to greater degree, as in time.

• Farther refers to length or distance. It is the comparative form of the word far when referring to distance.

  Further means “to a greater degree,” “additional,” or “additionally.” It refers to time or amount. It is the comparative form of the word far when meaning “much.”

Well, mostly perfect. My word choice is a bit sketchy and I’m no Webster (so, clearly, I need both a dictionary AND a thesaurus for Christmas), but my internal barometer for the usage was spot-on.

Word nerds, FTW!

Related posts:

1. Aten Ants I’m not losing my mind (well, I may be, but...
2. Dell Mini 9 Unboxing and Review So I got my much-anticipated Dell Mini 9 (Inspiron 910)...
3. On and Off Owen has a very cute habit of extrapolating words or...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I was never a big believer in either “when in doubt, leave it out” or “less is more”. More is, empirically, more. Just check out that last sentence: two.

I digress.

Here’s long-time reader, second-time emailer Mel and her contribution suggestion:

What is the real verb form of the word “incentive?” Per dictionary.com, “incentivize” entered the lexicon around 1965. What did we say before that? Doesn’t “incite” pretty much mean the same thing? Do you think people moved to “incentivize” during that era because “incite” was associated with the word “riots?”

I’ve never been a fan of the verb “incentivize” because it seems like so much marketing-speak and I try not to use my buzzword/work vocabulary in a private, personal space. Also, the auto-spell-check in Firefox chokes on it.

I prefer “incent” but that’s not really a word either; it just sounds less made-up. I suppose I need a digital file now for imaginary words that should be actual words.

In any case, Mel makes a good point and poses an interesting question. I’m inclined to nod my head and agree with her without too much digging or research because the answer feels right, but keep in mind I say “incent”. ;-)

Paul Brians, whom I’ve mentioned previously, has this to say on the whole incent/incentivize/encourage continuum:

Business folks sometimes use “incent” to mean “create an incentive,” but it’s not standard English. “Incentivize” is even more widely used, but strikes many people as an ugly substitute for “encourage.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself, but I still think the component that incent/ivize possesses that encourages lacks is the understanding of some kind of exchange – not necessarily money, per se, but some form of equity or currency – in exchange for a positive outcome/preferred behavior.

In that case, maybe incent/incentivize aren’t poorly-formed constructs, since their connotations are the sole ownership of business and marketing folks and that’s the whole point.

As to Mel’s larger socio-political question, I’ll leave that research and debate open to comments.

Happy National Punctuation Day!

Related posts:

1. Aten Ants I’m not losing my mind (well, I may be, but...
2. Tee Aych I’m becoming little more than a chronicler of meeting anecdotes...
3. Rubbing Elbows with Hobnobbers After hearing Rufus Wainwright’s cover of Puttin’ On The Ritz...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Her quandary: Is there another form of “has integrity”, one that denotes ownership with a verb of being as opposed to has/have? So an adjectival form of the noun “integrity”.

Honestly? No Idea.

I jokingly suggested “integral” but I’m thinking “integrous” [urban dictionary] [wiktionary] works better. After all, a person can be generous and have generosity in their hearts – why not be able to express both concepts for integrity?

From reading the sources above, it seems as though you can, but folks don’t feel comfortable doing so because they’re too integrous or deferential, actually, to normative English-speaking. At least here in the States; I can’t speak for others.

Oh, and if you’ve ever wondered about being “whelmed” or “gruntled” – these came up in our discussion as well – I’ve got just the blog posts for you.

Thursday!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’ve always been one to “flesh out” and idea, and I had the vague understanding that it came from Renaissance-era art, but it wasn’t an idiom I thought much about and even more rarely used.

Turns out I’m not the only person who’s had some trouble discerning the differentiation between “fleshing out” an idea and “flushing out” an idea. Paul Brians of the Department of English at Washington State University drops the knowledge:

To “flesh out” an idea is to give it substance, as a sculptor adds clay flesh to a skeletal armature. To “flush out” a criminal is to drive him or her out into the open. The latter term is derived from bird-hunting, in which one flushes out a covey of quail. If you are trying to develop something further, use “flesh”; but if you are trying to reveal something hitherto concealed, use “flush.”

The differences are slight, especially where one is talking about ideas or intellectual pursuits, so I can see why folks would get confused. But if you think back to the source and origin of the phrases, you won’t get things wrong.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to flush out an unwritten blog post and flesh out another half-written one.

Are you with me?

Thpppttt!!!!!!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.