"Today's 'Done With Mirrors' ...
... is brought to you by my contempt for the letter 'U.' "
It's not really U's fault. Actually it's this bottle of Chimay's fault. I've been writing an online etymology dictionary for three years. It's in the very late stages of the second and final write-through, and I can't wait to be done with the summbitch. All fall I slogged through revisions of the miserable letter "S" -- more English words by far begin with "S" than any other letter (thanks to the "super-" and "sub-/sur-" prefixes). Then came "T," another long haul.
But I comforted myself with the assurance that, based on my files, the whole rest of the alphabet barely added up to another "T." Light shone at the end of the tunnel. Then I hit "U" this week and I realized I had cut a corner the first time through. I only listed the "un-" words if their un-"un-" form was no longer in use (unkempt is an easy example). But that's not good enough. So now I have to add in all the "un-" words. And "un-" is the most productive prefix in English. Practically every verb and adjective has an "un-" form. It's like a dictionary within a dictionary.
uninterested ... unbiased ... unjust ... unequivocal ...
So I'm going to tell all about "U" just to piss it off. You know what? In Middle English, "u" and "v" weren't even separate letters. Writers back then, and through Shakespeare's day, would use "v" at the start of a word ("vnder," "vain") and "u" elsewhere ("full," "euer") whether it was the vowel or the consonant. In fact, one of the dictionaries I use, T.G. Tucker's "Etymological Dictionary of Latin," published in 1931, still lists the "u" words and the "v" words promiscuously all under one heading. It's a highly eccentric work.
Oh, and "U" taking the place of "you" isn't a modern AOL trick. I've seen it in letters from the 1860s. (No smiley faces, though). And that's not even counting "I.O.U.," which goes back to the early 17th century. So take that, you U, you.
It's not really U's fault. Actually it's this bottle of Chimay's fault. I've been writing an online etymology dictionary for three years. It's in the very late stages of the second and final write-through, and I can't wait to be done with the summbitch. All fall I slogged through revisions of the miserable letter "S" -- more English words by far begin with "S" than any other letter (thanks to the "super-" and "sub-/sur-" prefixes). Then came "T," another long haul.
But I comforted myself with the assurance that, based on my files, the whole rest of the alphabet barely added up to another "T." Light shone at the end of the tunnel. Then I hit "U" this week and I realized I had cut a corner the first time through. I only listed the "un-" words if their un-"un-" form was no longer in use (unkempt is an easy example). But that's not good enough. So now I have to add in all the "un-" words. And "un-" is the most productive prefix in English. Practically every verb and adjective has an "un-" form. It's like a dictionary within a dictionary.
uninterested ... unbiased ... unjust ... unequivocal ...
So I'm going to tell all about "U" just to piss it off. You know what? In Middle English, "u" and "v" weren't even separate letters. Writers back then, and through Shakespeare's day, would use "v" at the start of a word ("vnder," "vain") and "u" elsewhere ("full," "euer") whether it was the vowel or the consonant. In fact, one of the dictionaries I use, T.G. Tucker's "Etymological Dictionary of Latin," published in 1931, still lists the "u" words and the "v" words promiscuously all under one heading. It's a highly eccentric work.
Oh, and "U" taking the place of "you" isn't a modern AOL trick. I've seen it in letters from the 1860s. (No smiley faces, though). And that's not even counting "I.O.U.," which goes back to the early 17th century. So take that, you U, you.
Labels: etymology
