![]()
A Nimrod in Search of Daffisms
Our language is perhaps more fluid than any other. New words and
expressions
work their way into the language, and old ones disappear, at a
fantastic
rate. Other old words stick around, but their meanings slowly evolve
into
something utterly different from what they once were. Yet others-and
these
are by far the most maddening to a pedantic know-it-all such as
myself-change
their meanings, or evolve into something meaningless, due to the
shocking
ignorance of the general public.
Take the phrase "eke out." The standard definition of "eke out" is
"supplement," as in, "I eked out my salary by winning at the
racetrack," or
"The Thanksgiving turkey was eked out by stuffing, candied yams,
cranberry
sauce and other goodies." This phrase came to be because "eke" is the
old-fashioned word for "extra." ("Nickname" is a modern version of
"eke-name," meaning "extra name.")
Still, simply because "eke" rhymes with "squeak," most people believe
that to
eke something out is to barely achieve it, as in "The horse eked out a
narrow
victory." My teeth hurt every time I hear someone use the phrase in
this
way, but short of draconian legislation, there's no way to make people
stop
it.
Another one that gives me douche-chills is "The proof is in the
pudding."
Now, just what is this phrase supposed to mean? And how do you find
the
proof in the pudding? By biting down on it unexpectedly? This
grotesque
piece of nonsense is actually a butchering of the very sensible maxim,
"The
proof of the pudding is in the eating"-in other words, "Performance is
the
only valid test."
Now, about Daffy Duck: Sometime in the 1950s (I don't know exactly
when the
cartoon was made), he managed to convince a great number of
English-speakers
that a certain word means something entirely different from what
standard
dictionaries say it means. Here's what happened:
The plot of this particular cartoon has an irascible caveman (with his
good-natured but stupid pet dinosaur) ineptly trying to kill and eat
the
infamously malicious little black duck. The caveman comes a cropper
time and
again, meeting the dreadful injuries and humiliations that inevitably
befall
anyone who menaces a Warner Brothers anti-hero.
At one point, gloating over his adversary's failures, Daffy sneers,
"Well,
well, my little Nimrod..."
Here, the duck was using the term "Nimrod" strictly in accordance with
the
definition supplied by Webster's New World Dictionary (Second
Collegiate
Edition): "...the son of Cush, referred to as a mighty hunter: Gen.
10:
8-9...a hunter." In other words, he was saying (sarcastically), "Well,
you're quite the mighty hunter, aren't you?"
Given the context, however, just about everyone who saw that cartoon
took the
word "Nimrod" to mean "loser," or "clownish nincompoop." Since the
word was
so pleasing to the ear, a thitherto obscure term quickly gained wide
usage
with an entirely new meaning, and it has been used thus ever since.
As one who hates to see English corrupted by ignorance, I naturally
deplore
this amazing shift. However, I can't help but marvel at it. If a
foul-tempered (and fictitious) celluloid animal-not even a mammal!-can
accomplish so much, just think how many other times something of this
sort
must have happened in the 1500-year history of our language!
I would beg all my readers to send me similar examples that they've
encountered (with as thorough documentation as they can supply, of
course).
I don't pretend that I'll ever be able to stop anyone else from
committing
these vulgar errors, but it may be that I am currently misusing certain
words
and phrases as innocently as anyone who has ever used "Nimrod" as an
insult.
In the meantime, I grudgingly raise my hat to the little black duck.
In
homage, I have just invented a new word, to describe any word or phrase
that
is commonly misused through ignorance: Daffism.
Such misuses are, of course, dethththth-PICABLE!
- Josephus Rex Imperator
|