Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 29, 2012
Arts / ??!! / Books Shakespeare Invented 1,700 Words
Posted by Jen Graves on Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:46 AM
I heard the author of How Shakespeare Changed Everything interviewed on KUOW Tuesday, and since then, I haven't been able to get out of my head the words that Shakespeare invented. They are regular words, words we use all the time.
The list includes alligator, eyeball, and skim milk. He took the existing assassin and made assassination.
Wikipedia says alligator is an adaptation of the Spanish "el lagarta" for lizard. Eyeball and skim (from skimmed) milk seem obvious. Genius always makes sense.
Here are some more.
2
Spanish para tontos:
95% of nouns follow EZ gender rules: -o ending is masculine, -a ending is feminine; then you match the ending of the article to it. So, "El" does with a noun ending in -0, and "La" goes with a noun ending in -a.
For animals and people that can be actually male or female, you say la lagarta referring to a female one, and el lagarto referring to a macho one. And like english before it was distroted by ultra pc notions, the generic concept of any old 'gator would be "el lagarto."
Saying "la legarto" would make you sound educated to about a 2d grade level. It's about as bad as saying "The el cid." While we're not yet at a point where the concept of being a reasonably educated person includes being fluent in Spanish, a reasonably educated person should imho at least know enough for this kind of super basic rule. La cerveza. Una cerveza. Not, un cerveza por favor. And donde esta el bano, not la bano.
Estamos?
95% of nouns follow EZ gender rules: -o ending is masculine, -a ending is feminine; then you match the ending of the article to it. So, "El" does with a noun ending in -0, and "La" goes with a noun ending in -a.
For animals and people that can be actually male or female, you say la lagarta referring to a female one, and el lagarto referring to a macho one. And like english before it was distroted by ultra pc notions, the generic concept of any old 'gator would be "el lagarto."
Saying "la legarto" would make you sound educated to about a 2d grade level. It's about as bad as saying "The el cid." While we're not yet at a point where the concept of being a reasonably educated person includes being fluent in Spanish, a reasonably educated person should imho at least know enough for this kind of super basic rule. La cerveza. Una cerveza. Not, un cerveza por favor. And donde esta el bano, not la bano.
Estamos?
5
Elbow?
What the hell did people call it before that? Armbend?
Did he invent knee also? If he invented elbow and not knee that would be really strange.
What the hell did people call it before that? Armbend?
Did he invent knee also? If he invented elbow and not knee that would be really strange.
7
I suspect there's a lot to what emor @3 suggests. Shakespeare has enjoyed a level of attention and longevity that I'm sure many of his contemporaries haven't. Maybe it isn't that he invented these words entirely, his is just the oldest record we can find them in.
10
@5, @7
OED says this about elbow:
Origin:
Old English elboga, elnboga, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch elleboog and German Ellenbogen (see also ell, bow)
So it wasn't like he just made up words out of thin air--even Lewis Carroll's nonsense words had a certain logic, right? Instead, it sounds like he's credited with originating the forms that the words generally appear as today. There were also pretty much no dictionaries or standards of spelling for English at the time, either; I seem to recall reading that Shakespeare spelled his own name inconsistently. I suppose the fact that these forms have persisted reflects the level of authority that his output and popularity brought to him.
OED says this about elbow:
Origin:
Old English elboga, elnboga, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch elleboog and German Ellenbogen (see also ell, bow)
So it wasn't like he just made up words out of thin air--even Lewis Carroll's nonsense words had a certain logic, right? Instead, it sounds like he's credited with originating the forms that the words generally appear as today. There were also pretty much no dictionaries or standards of spelling for English at the time, either; I seem to recall reading that Shakespeare spelled his own name inconsistently. I suppose the fact that these forms have persisted reflects the level of authority that his output and popularity brought to him.
11
@3
That's the fucking point, basically. In Shakespeare do we have the first historical attestation, as far as we know so far, of certain terms. But is it really reasonable to assume he was such a coiner of neologisms? Truthfully, we would expect him to merely make use of terms already commonly employed in the common tongue.
Shit, would we assume Homer invented Greek because he was the first attested writer of any sort of functional Greek? Even if not, there are so many terms that occur in Homer and nowhere else; should we then assume he coined them all, rather than they all being part of a more obscure dialect?
English scholars usually get a piss-poor education in linguistics; and this problem is systemic. Even at the peer-reviewed level, such obvious logical flaws fall right through the cracks in the floor, as English scholars typically possess none of the most rudimentary tools of linguistics.
So yeah, you so a lot of English scholars fellating each other over the works of William Shakespeare, that silly clownish fop.
That's the fucking point, basically. In Shakespeare do we have the first historical attestation, as far as we know so far, of certain terms. But is it really reasonable to assume he was such a coiner of neologisms? Truthfully, we would expect him to merely make use of terms already commonly employed in the common tongue.
Shit, would we assume Homer invented Greek because he was the first attested writer of any sort of functional Greek? Even if not, there are so many terms that occur in Homer and nowhere else; should we then assume he coined them all, rather than they all being part of a more obscure dialect?
English scholars usually get a piss-poor education in linguistics; and this problem is systemic. Even at the peer-reviewed level, such obvious logical flaws fall right through the cracks in the floor, as English scholars typically possess none of the most rudimentary tools of linguistics.
So yeah, you so a lot of English scholars fellating each other over the works of William Shakespeare, that silly clownish fop.
14
@11: You have really jumped over to full time troll the last couple weeks or so. Have you and Gay Dude been meeting for cocktails?
16
@11
I presume Shakespearean scholars probably have a better understanding of English in the 16th and 17th centuries than you do.
Why are you so angry?
I presume Shakespearean scholars probably have a better understanding of English in the 16th and 17th centuries than you do.
Why are you so angry?
18
@14: We haven't, but I'd love to enjoy a round of libations to hear more of what sparks @11's dogmatic observations.
20
@10: "I seem to recall reading that Shakespeare spelled his own name inconsistently."
Yes, and of all the documented spellings he used -- Shakspere, Shakspeare, etc. -- the only one he didn't use is the one we use now.
Yes, and of all the documented spellings he used -- Shakspere, Shakspeare, etc. -- the only one he didn't use is the one we use now.
21
Despite all the hate for @11, I think he's got a real point. Shakespeare fans make no effort to distinguish between the creation of a word and the oldest record of printed use. These are clearly very different things. It makes no sense for a playwright to use hundreds and even thousands of words that the audience had never heard and wouldn't be able to relate to.
Also, I looked up Alligator in my dictionary and it gave the source as originating in Spanish with a first documented use between 1560 - 1570. Shakespeare was born in 1564.
Also, I looked up Alligator in my dictionary and it gave the source as originating in Spanish with a first documented use between 1560 - 1570. Shakespeare was born in 1564.
22
@19: Sorry, but I don't want to clutter this post's comments with a sub-thread about a thread on another post. Seems like that violates Slog etiquette.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS