Older dictionaries sometimes informed their readers that Modern English has two different verbs: bid “to ask for something” (also “to command”) and bid “to pray. ”. OUPblog - Academic insights for the thinking world.
Older dictionaries sometimes informed their readers that Modern English has two different verbs: bid “to ask for something” (also “to command”) and bid “to pray.” This statement is hardly true: bid “to pray” is obsolete and forgotten. The principal parts of bid (bade, bidden) are rather rare, and most of us probably bade farewell to them long ago (my computer even told me to avoid bade). Bidden is recognized, if at all, only in the phrase (translated from Latin) “bidden or unbidden, God is present.” By contrast, forbade and especially forbidden are very much alive.
Enjoy a good view of a monk wearing a cassock. Photo by Sion30001 via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.
The history of the verb bid and its family is full of surprises. For example, those who never studied Old English may not know that the noun bead is related to bid. Yet if you think of the aforementioned bid “pray” and the phrase telling beads, things will fall into place. The earliest evidence for the word bead in texts does not antedate the fourteenth century. In the plural, it meant “prayer” and by extension, “rosary.” Curiously, the tautological phrases to bidbeads “to tell prayers” and bidding prayer existed. My students in the course “German and European Culture to 1700” never heard or saw the word cassock. Perhaps rosary is an equally unfamiliar word to the young? If so, have a look at the header. Another image (below) features a cassock.
In one of my recent posts (Sept 16, 2026), you could see a portrait of the Venerable Bede. As must be clear by now, the monastic name Bede (Beda) meant “prayer.” Unfortunately, nothing is known about the early childhood of this great man. Even his birth name has not come down to us.
Why should bid have combined the seemingly irreconcilable senses “offer” and “pray”? The situation becomes clear when we look at German. There we find two (!) different verbs: bieten “to offer” and beten “to pray.” In English, their cognates (the forms related to them) merged. It follows that if we want to explore the origin of bid, we should study the history of two words, and this is what we will now do.
For the sense “offer” (Old English –bēodan) Gothic, that is, the fourth-century Gothic Bible, had an exact cognate, namely –biudan (I have left out the prefix). Similar cognates abound all over the Indo-European languages, and probably the original sense of this ancient verb was “observe; wake.” We don’t know why the sound complex b-d had this sense: there is nothing “symbolic” or sound-imitative about it. However (small comfort), we can explain why forbid has its modern meaning “disallow.” The prefix for– often points to rejection, repudiation, and destruction: compare get and forget, swear and forswear. Even fordo “to destroy, wreck” once existed, alongside several other equally fear-inspiring verbs.
Let us now look at the history of beten “to pray” (the other of the two German verbs, related to our subject) and its cognates. The sense “pray” is late: it does not antedate the conversion of the Germanic speakers to Christianity. The original sense was mundane: “to ask for something.” The related Gothic and German nouns also meant “prayer,” but the Gothic noun with the same root translated Greek prosaítēs “beggar,” which makes the verb’s original, nonreligious sense (that is, “ask”) obvious.
Once again, we cannot help wondering why the root b-d held that attraction to speakers millennia ago. Yet we also find it in the verb meaning “to wait.” English bide is probably remembered only in the phrase “to bide one’s time.” Its cognates meant “to request; compel, exercise a moral constraint,” “compel” probably being the oldest sense. The related Russian noun beda “misfortune,” stress on the second syllable, means “misfortune.” The spectrum of the Slavic cognates (from “calamity” to “danger”) derives naturally from the basic sense “to compel.” We seem to be dealing with a word having broad Indo-European connections.
Another English verb belonging to this family is bode, remembered, if at all, only in the phrases “it does not bode well” and “it bodes ill.” But at one time, it meant “to announce” and was formed from the root of Old English boda “messenger” (the German for “messenger” is still Bote). Bid, one of whose senses is “to command,” forms a weak semantic bridge between it and boda. Semantics is like ivy: words crawl all over the place, cling to one another, or get disconnected, and the original ties between and among them are often hard to reconstruct.
Bid “ask, pray” is obviously not a synonym of bid “to command.” Its Gothic cognate was bidjan (the same meaning). In Modern German, we find bitten “to request.” And indeed, as concerns etymology, this verb has nothing to do with those mentioned above. (Forbid is related to bid as forget is to get; see above).
Here is a big BAD wolf. Bad is a b-d word, but has nothing to do with our story. Photo by christels via Pixabay. Public domain.
We may again ask ourselves what magic the root b-d contained that so many words stemmed from it. To repeat, it was obviously not sound-imitative: just two voiced consonants. Vowels varied in them according to the rules of Old Germanic and served grammar, rather than etymology (from the present to the past, and so on). Nor can we detect any “symbolic” value in them. Or did a combination of two voiced stops in quick succession (b/d/ b/g, and their likes) all kinds of emotions? There is no one to ask, and we are not likely to solve the riddle that bothers me. Too bad. (Bad has nothing to do with the words discussed above!)
Questions
1. British versus American English
Here is a sentence from a newspaper: “In [place name deleted] one in seven children live in poverty.” This grammar has always struck me as odd. Doesn’t the subject one require the singular lives? I asked AI, and the answer surprised me. AI said that in American English lives is the only accepted form, while in British English live is correct. I often encounter such sentences in American newspapers (the only ones I read), and, contrary to AI’s statement, the form I see is always plural! Isn’t everybody’s experience the same? What form prevails in British English? Can our readers from the UK enlighten me? I also think that “one OF seven children” would never be followed by a plural verb. Does IN emphasize the idea of multitude, while OF stresses exclusion?
One of/in seven dwarfs is/are in love with Snow White. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
This comic strip is about Ruthie, her brother, and her playmate James, among others. Here is a typical sample: “And look—see here! She done left me gold coins.” “James, it’s chocolate inside.” “Hey, I ain’t complainin’!”
Is this version of English “cute”? Ruthie is six years old. James is probably her age. He “speaks funny.” But she takes Zealand for ceilin(g) and pirate for parrot. She was much smarter several years ago. What has happened? Like Rosa Dartle, I ask merely for information. (Incidentally, it was Dickens, rather than Oscar Wilde, who coined this unforgettable phrase.)
Words beginning with shr- ~ schr- ~scr– have bothered me for years, partly because of German Schreck “horror.” Three of my old posts are devoted to this fear-inspiring group: consider shrimp, shrew, and scram (the posts for April 18, 2012,May 2, 2012, andJuly 29, 2020). Of those, only shrimp turned out to be peaceful. English shr– and skr– ~ scr– are twins (triplets?).
Below, I will return to those groups for the last time. Recently, I have been paying more and more attention to expressive words of all kinds and stumbled at my old acquaintances, first of all at shrivel. Obviously, an expressive word? There is a certain danger in a hunt like mine. Etymologists (and probably many other researchers) tend to find what they are looking for. Leo Spitzer, an outstanding Romance linguist, wrote numerous papers on the origin of etymologically obscure English words, and somehow it turned out that all them were of French origin. Another excellent philologist, Stefán Einarsson, an Icelander, also tackled some etymological problems. He invariably discovered light in Icelandic.
I learned a lot from both of them, admire their insights, but fear becoming a slave to a preconceived idea. Language, as most specialists believe, was expressive at its conception. It of course still is, but up to a point. The problem is just this “point”: one wonders where to stop. For example, boat (see the beautiful image in the header), such a prosaic word, an onomatopoeia? Boat?! James A.H. Murray, the great first editor of the OED, despaired of finding the origin of this intractable noun and exclaimed that he gives up—perhaps boat is an onomatopoeia! One of the readers of my essay (see the blog for October 5, 2011: “From Ship to Boat”) found the idea acceptable: waves beat against the vessel baht-baht-baht (in the past, boat had a long vowel, as in today’s spa). The OEDonline provides valuable notes on the etymology of boat but cannot offer a solution (for the obvious reason: given the evidence at our disposal, the riddle is insoluble).
Let us now look at some words beginning with shr-. Shred (related to shroud) has the root that at one time began with scr– (that is, skr-). Isn’t skr-skr the sound we hear when shredding something? Dozens of words in the Indo-European languages (verbs and nouns, from shred to scrotum) have been referred to this root. But as I keep repeating year in, year out, this kind of root is not more inspiring that a common denominator. How did that root originate? It seems to have been an onomatopoeia. Shrill and scratch are classic examples. Of course, the picture is not so uniform.
Some, shrew, for example, almost certainly, have a different origin (see the reference at the beginning of this essay), but most are indeed either sound-imitative or “emotional.” German etymologists have given up Schrulle “quirk, whim, vagary” and call it a fanciful formation, which it probably is. Outside the likes of shriek, shrill, and shrivel, we find quite a few “emotional” words beginning with scr-, for example, scrap, scrape, scrub, scrawl, and scream. In English, the consonant group scr-, unless it is from a Romance source (as, for instance, in script), is usually of Scandinavian origin.
I have always wondered why English speakers needed Northerners to teach them how to say scramble, scrape, scratch, scrawl, scream, screech, and scrub. (See some vague remarks on this subject at the end of this essay.) Incidentally, it was only Walter W.Skeat who traced all the verbs listed above to Scandinavian. The OED said about scramble: “Of unknown origin.” The same verdict appears in the OEDonline. The few additional note on this verdict leave the verb in its obscurity. TheOxford Dictionary of English Etymology(1965) called scramble a word “of symbolic origin” (this is water to my mill!) and a blend (or a portmanteauword) of dialectal scamble (said to have been known to Shakespeare) and its old synonym cramble. I do not know who suggested this solution and have no opinion about its second half.
Finally, the 1914 reprint of The Century Dictionary declared scramble to be a frequentativeform of the dialectal verb scramb (that is, to scramble was explained as “to scramb regularly or many times”). We are also told that scramb “to pull or scrape together with the hands” emerged as a variant of scramp (also dialectal) “to catch,” “probably a nasalized form of scrape,” which “conformed to the series scrimp, scrump, etc.” Scrump does not appear in TheCenturyDictionary. Only scrumptious (the word that years ago made me study the entire group) does, but nothing quotable can be found about its origin there. Very complicated! Let those who consult reference books beware.
A screeching, shrieking forest demon. Image: forest demon by Stiller Beobachter. CC-BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Be that as it may, English scr– words are usually of Scandinavian origin, because this ancient Germanic consonant group yielded shr– in English. English shrill and shriek must be imitative. The situation with schr– in German is partly the same. I have mentioned Schreck and Schrulle above. Schramme means “scratch” (a noun), and I know this word, mainly because it made all the way into Russian, though Russian shram means “scar.” German Schrat “forest demon” is a word “of unknown origin.” Its Scandinavian cousin is scratti. The word may be sound-imitative (this is my idea), but etymologists do not know for sure and probably never will. Demons are secretive creatures, even though they tend to make a lot of noise and scare people. They scratch, scrape, perhaps screech, scream, and do other scr– ~ skr- things, to scare people.
In Old Germanic, words designating “noise” sometimes began with hr– (this situation is typical of many other languages of the world). Such were, for instance, Old English hrēam, hræfn “raven” (called this for its cry), and quite a few other words, one of them being rattle, which had hr– in the past. When later, h- was lost before r, such words also lost their connection with noise, and English began to borrow Scandinavian skr– words with gusto. I am not saying that the borrowing happened because the native hr- words lost their h-, but a certain “emotional” gap in the vocabulary did occur, and it was filled with loanwords.
My initial plan was to write an essay about the origin of the verbs shrink and shrivel. Also, I did not doubt that German schrumpfen (the same meaning) is their next of kin. But my database yielded very few results. No publications emerged about the distantetymology of those words: just one essay by a Swedish researcher went great lengths toward showing that shrivel is a verb of Scandinavian descent (if so, the northern word was “Englished” later: skr– changed to shr). Perhaps if one is mainly interested in shrinking and shriveling, it is unrealistic to expect greater profit.
Scholars tend to find what they look for. The bear and the honey, engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
PS.I am pleased to thank our readers for the comments and one correction!
Feature image: Nswo statuette with its dugout canoe and paddle, Sakata. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren. Photograph by Ji-Elle. CC-BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
When official history falls silent, who remembers the war?
This question lies at the heart of Lebanon’s troubled relationship with the memory of its Civil War (1975–90). More than three decades after the conflict ended, the war remains a deeply contested part of Lebanon’s past. Lebanon has had no comprehensive state-led truth commission or national reconciliation process, and the Civil War remains largely absent from the official history curriculum. Memories of the conflict therefore remain fragmented across communities, families, political affiliations, and generations.
But silence does not mean that the past has disappeared. When official history falls silent, other forms of remembering emerge. Novels, poems, paintings, films, photographs, and testimonies become archives of experiences that institutions have failed—or refused—to preserve.
Arab women, including the Syrian novelist Ghada al-Samman, the Lebanese-born poet, novelist, and visual artist Etel Adnan, and the Lebanese filmmaker Nadine Labaki, have created some of the most powerful alternative archives of the Lebanese Civil War. They refuse to let the conflict disappear into historical silence. Their works expand what it means to remember war. Sometimes, remembering means recording a nightmare, preserving a fragment, painting a ruined landscape, or making people laugh in the face of sectarian violence.
When everyday life becomes an archive
Ghada al-Samman’s Beirut Nightmares, written during the Civil War, takes us away from the conventional battlefield and into the intimate space of a woman’s home. The protagonist is trapped in Beirut during the siege. Snipers, shelling, hunger and fear transform the apartment from a place of safety into a prison. Yet the novel does something more than document the violence surrounding the protagonist. It records what war feels like in the body: insomnia, terror, hunger, exhaustion, and the constant anticipation of death. Conventional histories of war tend to privilege battlefields, political negotiations, military leaders, and armed combatants. Yet Al-Samman asks us to look elsewhere. The protagonist’s manuscript, written under siege, becomes an alternative archive, preserving experiences that might otherwise disappear. The home becomes a site of resistance, while the female body becomes a record of a war that official narratives cannot fully capture.
When a broken story tells the truth
Etel Adnan approaches the problem of remembering differently. Her Sitt Marie Rose, The Arab Apocalypse, Of Cities and Women, and her visual art refuse to offer a single, coherent version of the Lebanese Civil War. Instead, Adnan gives us fragments, contradictions, symbols, and ruined, blood-red landscapes. Her work captures the experiences of living through violence when the familiar structures that make life intelligible—home, city, community, language, and identity—are themselves fractured.
In Sitt Marie Rose, Adnan recounts the story of Marie Rose Boulos, a Christian educator who worked with Palestinian refugees. Marie Rose’s commitment to crossing sectarian boundaries places her in direct conflict with the patriarchal and sectarian logic of the war. Her murder exposes how women’s bodies and choices become battlegrounds for competing ideas of community, loyalty, and nation.
In The Arab Apocalypse, Adnan takes fragmentation even further. Language itself seems to break apart. Words, images and symbols collide, while recurring suns and ruined landscapes replace the orderly historical timeline we might expect.
In Of Cities and Women, Adnan reimagines Beirut through personal memory and encounters with the city, challenging the idea that its history fits into a single narrative. Her attention to women, displacement, and place offers a gendered reimagining of the city and its histories.
Adnan’s visual art performs a similar archival function without relying on documentary representation. Landscapes and abstract forms become traces through which loss, destruction, and memory remain visible.
These works create another way of remembering. Adnan’s fragments resist the demand to make war appear coherent, reconciled, or safely contained in the past. Her art keeps the wounds visible. The result is an archive without the appearance of an archive: no official monument, no single narrative, no authorised voice. Memory survives instead through images, fragments, landscapes and voices that refuse to settle into one version of history.
Can humour remember war?
Nadine Labaki’s Where Do We Go Now? takes yet another approach. The film is set in an unnamed Lebanese village divided by sectarian tensions. Its women are determined to prevent the men from turning those divisions into violence. But they do not confront the men through conventional political power. Instead, they destroy radios, manipulate religious symbols, hire Ukrainian dancers to distract the men, and even drug their meals to keep weapons out of their hands. The scenes are absurd and often genuinely funny. But the humour conceals a serious question: who carries the responsibility for remembering what war does to a community?
Labaki’s women know what another cycle of violence will cost. While their interventions are acts of care, they are also acts of historical resistance. They try to prevent the past from becoming the future. The film therefore turns women’s everyday labour—mourning, caring, organising, persuading, protecting—into political action. Its unnamed village also transforms the story into a wider reflection on communities divided by violence: what happens when neighbours become enemies, and when the wounds of one generation become the inheritance of the next?
Beyond preserving the past
What connects Al-Samman, Adnan, and Labaki is not simply that they write about the Lebanese Civil War, but how they remember it.
Al-Samman records the war through the female body and the domestic space. Adnan fragments its history through literature, symbols and visual art. Labaki transforms remembrance into tragicomedy, showing women attempting to interrupt the repetition of violence. Together, their different forms create what I call “alternative archives”: cultural memory that exists outside official institutions and challenges the silences surrounding the conflict. They challenge official institutions’ authority over what counts as history and reshape our understanding of feminist resistance; for these women are not simply adding women’s experiences to an established history of the Lebanese Civil War. They question how history is produced, showing that women’s fear, grief, survival, creativity, care and resistance are not secondary to the “real” history of war; rather, they are history itself. A monument can preserve a name; a textbook can preserve a date; an archive can preserve a document. But a novel can preserve a feeling; a painting can preserve a wound; a film can preserve a gesture; and a woman’s testimony can preserve what an official history leaves behind.
When official history falls silent, remembering becomes more than looking backwards. It becomes a struggle over who has the right to tell the story and, ultimately, who has the right to imagine what comes next.
Revision, I’ve been told again and again, is the key to effective writing. Yet sometimes I find myself making an essay or chapter worse when I revise it. I introduce new errors, garble sentences or paragraphs that once seemed clear, and add whole paragraphs that I later decide to cut.
Here’s what I’ve noticed myself doing:
Making new typos. When I see something that needs to be fixed, I type what I think will fix it, often glancing down at the keyboard. Then I move on to the next problem, forgetting to proof the correction and thus introducing new problems. I need to slow down.
Overlooking the obvious. Autocorrect catches the most egregious typos, like “fpor” for “for” or “teh” for “the.” But it does not correct word substitutions, for example when you type “work” for “word.” Errors may be almost too simple to notice because you are reading what you think you wrote rather than what you actually wrote. You might miss a substitution like “iconically” for “ironically” or “principle” for “principal” (or vice versa). I once mistakenly referred to The Elements of Style authors Strunk and White as Stunk and White, an error overlooked by the copyeditor and proofreader as well. We were all processing the word we predicted to be there rather than what actually was on the page.
Trying to satisfy everyone. In terms of content, I sometimes make things worse when I forget who my audience really is and try too hard to satisfy particular comments by reviewers, editors, or beta-readers. This can result in my over-explaining certain points or adding tangential asides. When I re-revise, I find myself wondering, Why did I add that? It helps to keep your eventual ideal reader in your head (or at least over your shoulder) and resist the impulse to go along with every suggestion.
Fussing too much with syntax. On more than one occasion, I’ve noticed myself revising a sentence to (try to) make it clearer but leaving in an extra word or ending from the earlier version that turns the new version into word salad. Writing about early twentieth-century scientists’ speculation about the Martian canals, I wrote that they were once believed to be “a means for transporting water.” My revision read that they were believed to be “a means for Martians to transporting water.” Oops. When I revised the phrase “the study’s aim is to clarify perceptions of dialect,” my revised version read “the aim of the study is to undercover the average person’s perception of dialect.” I had “undercover” rather than “uncover.” And when I try to resolve the reference of vague pronouns by adding in names, I sometimes forget to double-check the spelling, so Schultz becomes Shultz, and Carlsen becomes Carlson.
Understanding strengths and weaknesses. Over the course of my career, I’ve noticed that my writing gets more convoluted when I am expounding on a theoretical or technical point as opposed to when I am narrating a story. So now I pay particular attention to clarity in places where I write about abstractions rather than about people and actions. Make a list of your own strengths and weaknesses and use it to focus your revisions.
Two suggestions. The track changes feature looks messy, but I suggest leaving it on as you revise so that you can do targeted reproofing of your revisions and corrections. Or better yet, read your work aloud so you don’t fall into the trap of seeing what you think you wrote.
This week’s post is devoted to answering two questions from readers. Do you have a question you’d like me to answer (hopefully not with origin unknown)? Feel free to leave a comment or send an email to blog@oup.com!
Ghent, gaunt, and John of Gaunt: what is the connection, if any?
John of Gaunt (1340-1399) was indeed born in Ghent (Dutch Gent, Belgium) but never used this extended name as an adult. If Shakespeare had not called him John of Gaunt in his tragedy KingRichardII, no one would probably have remembered that ancient soubriquet today. (“Old Gaunt indeed, and gaunt in being old”; this is the beginning of Act II, and the dying duke keeps playing with the word again and again in the next eight lines.)
This is Ghent/Gent today. Photo by Alvesgaspar via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0.
It is usually believed that Ghent is a Celtic place name going back to ganda “confluence of two rivers.” A few other hypotheses on this score need not concern us here, because the ancient origin of Ghent has no bearing on the present discussion.
Gaunt is a doubletof Ghent, and we are, naturally, interested in how “the linguistic confluence” happened. Bear with me, as they say, because, probably for the first time ever, I am going to discuss some niceties of sound change. The spelling gh has an obvious reason: h prevents English speakers from pronouncing Ghent as Jent. The problem is the vowel: why eif the etymon was Ganda? Not a single book on the history of Dutch seems to have explained the change. Only one thing is obvious: there was no umlaut in the word that would have turned a into e.
So, why e? My idea needs some explanation, but I’ll state it dogmatically, without going into detail.
Part 1: Dutch.OldGermanic languages had many palatalized consonants; l’ and n’ (the apostrophe denotes palatalization) were common. To give an example, palatalized l and n are the sounds we hear in the Italian words famiglia “family” and compagnia “company.”
Those who have studied Russian know that palatalized consonants are called soft in that language. Such sounds are also widespread in modern German and Dutch dialects. They often affect the preceding vowels by moving them to the front. For example, [a] becomes [e]. This is probably how Gant, which, I suppose, had “soft n,” became Gent in Dutch. I would be grateful for approval or refutation.
Part 2: English. In Anglo-French, which was spoken in England after the Norman Conquest of 1066, the vowel [a] before m and n was often pronounced like [au] in Modern English out. The medieval spellings comaunder, Caumbrigge, and so forth were ubiquitous. In many words, this au became the sound we today hear in haunt and vaunt. The adjective gaunt, discussed in the previous post, most probably, did not come from French but joined haunt, vaunt, and the rest. This is also how the place name Ghant became G(h)aunt. The modern English spelling Ghent is “correct” but late. It was introduced to conform to Dutch Gent.
For a long time, people associated gaunt with the town of Ghent in today’s Belgium. Hence also the idea, cited in the previous post, that running the gauntlet and the word gauntlet originated in Flanders, though this punishment was first used in the Swedish army, as also explained last week.
Are lubber and loblolly related?
There can be no clearcut answer to this question, because we are or seem to be surrounded by a host of expressive words. This is obvious in dealing with loll-. Consider loll “to drop, dangle,” lollop “to lounge,” and lollipop, which is almost loblolly in reverse. Loblolly once meant “thick gruel” (so in the sixteenth century, when the word first surfaced in English texts). Some time later, it acquired the sense “country bumpkin” (compare chawbacon “hick, yokel”: from simple food to a derogatory term, or beefeater “Yeoman of the Guard”). We’ll return to loll– later
Expressive and thought-provoking. Photo by teofanutza05 via Pixabay. Public domain.
Lob– (in loblolly) reminds us of lubber “clumsy man,” today known mainly from landlubber “someone ignorant about the sea and all matters nautical.” It has a root, similar to that of love (Old English lufu)! Lubber and love have nothing in common, except that both are expressive. (The statement that love is expressive probably needs no proof.) That’s the arrow they share, but the target is unpredictable, and there is of course no way of explaining why l-v, rather than m-v or n-v, should possess emotional connotations: none of them is sound-imitative.
For whatever reasons, the sound complex lab/laf ~ lub/luf seems to evoke more or less similar emotions in speakers from all corners of the earth. For instance, Russian lafa (pronounced as la-fa, stress on the second syllable) means “great luck.” The word reached Old Russian from the East: the source is Arabic and Turkish. It may amuse you to know that the German verb loben “to praise” has no secure etymology, though cognates, certain and putative, are numerous. They sound very much alike, but, naturally, throw no light on the origin of the verb. Another expressive word like love?
The OED suggests that lubber reached English from French and that French may have borrowed it from German. This is of course possible, but, while dealing with such a universal sound complex, one never knows for sure who borrowed from whom or whether each language coined the word independently.
In my old posts, I often referred to the Swiss linguist Wilhelm Oehl, who compared dozens of similar-sounding words from various languages and referred to the process he called primitive creation. If you search for Oehl, my posts will turn up at once. Oehl is now all but forgotten, but many of his ideas deserve attention. It appears that laf/lab is indeed a “primitive complex,” evoking two dissimilar ideas: one of awkwardness and another of something pleasant.
When one deals with bare roots, it sometimes happens that they refer to incompatible, even opposite phenomena. This circumstance need not worry us. A list of Indo-European roots looks like very serious linguistic algebra, but, for example, four Indo-European homonymous ter‘s and seven (!) per‘s have been reconstructed!
We can now turn to –lolly, the second component of loblolly. There is (or was) the regional noun lolly “tongue.” Its “expressive” origin cannot be doubted. The verb loll (as in “don’t loll about all day doing nothing” and “the dog’s tongue lolled out of his mouth”) belongs here too. Finally, the verb lollop “to walk with lounging gait, etc.,” mentioned at the beginning of this essay, also exists. Hensleigh Wedgwood compared loblolly and lollipop long ago. Other etymologists agreed with him.
This is Oblomov, the hero of a famous novel by Ivan Goncharov. He used to loll about all day doing nothing. The book is certainly worth reading. Image by K. N. Chichagov via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
Where are we then with the questions about lubber and loblolly? Are they related? Of course, the basis of comparison is only lub– and lob-. In the discussion above, lolly has been thrown in for good measure. We have seen that all three components of those words are expressive, or sound–symbolic. Their relationship is of a special kind. By way of analogy, consider jag, jig, and jog. Are they related? Lub– and lob– belong together, which does not mean that they are cognate in the same way in which live and life, write and writ, wine and vinegar, or Engl. love and German Liebe (the same meaning) are. We should rather refer to affinity than relationship. This then is the answer to the question in the heading.
NOTE: I’ll be at a conference next week. See my next essay two weeks from today. Send us questions and suggestions. It has been years since I received so many queries that I could produce regular monthly (!) gleanings. I long for the largess of old days.
