Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I listened to the begining of this episode while at work this morning and you reminded me a a Foxtrot that my wife put on the fridge a few weeks ago.

I have been known to drop the "I lessthanthree you" to my wife

From Foxtrot

A Houston woman says her family makes fun of her for saying “waste not, want not.” Does this proverb make literal sense?

I just heard this one on the radio, and I think you missed a key point in your answer.

The expression "Waste not, want not" does not mean "Waste not, desire not," it means "Waste not, lack not."

Usually, we use the word "want" as a synonym for "desire" or "wish for." "I want candy" means "I would like to have candy." That is the fourth definition of "want" as a transitive verb in my 1961 M-W Collegiate. The expression "waste not, want not" is built on the first definition in my old dictionary (older than I am, at least): "To be without, to lack." It is a usage that seems to have become obsolete over the years. Perhaps we are more used to this definition of "want" when it is used intransitively with the preposition "for" (rather than transitively, without a preposition): "for want of a shoelace, the battle was lost" or, the example sentence in my dictionary, "he never wants for friends." Thus, we could say: "she does not want money" and mean either "she does not lack money" i.e. she is very rich, or "she does not desire money," i.e. she prefers the life of a starving artist.

Returning to "waste not, want not," it is a powerful moral message, but easily misunderstood by someone who only is familiar with the use of "want" as a synonym for "desire." It makes no sense at all to reprimand someone by saying, taking the example used on air, "Do not throw away these perfectly good shoes, or else you will not wish to wear them in the future." Instead, the expression needs to be understood as "Do not throw away these perfectly good shoes, or else you will not have any shoes to wear in the future."

I think I might be a voice of dissent on the whole 'cousins' issue. Let me explain:

Years ago, I took an anthropology class at the University of Alabama. Anthropology 101, it was, and at some point during the year, we studied familial relations in various cultures. When we covered cousins, our professor did the same thing on our blackboard that you did verbally: Put the family tree up and show who were first cousins, who second, who third, and so forth.

But it was not at ALL the way our family reckons it. I was distracted throughout the entire lecture, and went up after class to ask him if we were just wrong, or if I had just misunderstood.

He listened to my explanation and then said that there were other ways of "calculating" it, and that my family had simply gone with another solution. He even clarified this in class during the next lecture, because the method our family uses is apparently fairly common in the south. Turns out I wasn't the only one in class who had been very confused; I was merely the only one who had spoken to him about it.

Our way is this way, which this site calls the "counting method": http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=2856

Charlie (paternal grandfather)
David (my father) & Patsy (his sister) = siblings
Me & Wendy (Patsy's daughter) = first cousins (so far, this is the same as what you and my Anthro 101 professor described)

Me & Wendy's children = second cousins
My children & Wendy = second cousins

My children & Wendy's children = third cousins

And it goes on from there. I've double- and triple-checked with my family over the years--pretty much every time this comes up--and this is the consistent way we do it, and everyone I knew in my hometown in Alabama did it this way, as well. To my knowledge, anyway.

Re Nachkuss. I am confused here. I understood Martha's word as "Nachkuss", and her definition as being the last kiss, the one you give after all the others, for example when lovers part and kiss and kiss and kiss, and then part, and then come back for that one last "after" kiss.

But when I look that up on Google, I get umpteen references saying: "The German language contains 30 words that refer to the act of kissing. There is even a word, Nachkuss, for all the kisses that haven't yet been named." When I see so many sites using the same words, I am suspicious. It sounds like a factoid that is being copied because it sounds good. But here, it doesn't even sound good. Why would you have a word for kisses that "haven't been named"? It sounds like somebody twisted something real and wrote it down and now everyone's copying it.

I did see this page: http://annathepiper.livejournal.com/556543.html which seems more pertinent.

I've just asked a German acquaintance, and while he likes Martha's definition very much, he says he is unaware of the word. He did speak about "Nachtkuss", the good-night kiss a parent might give a child.

In my opinion, I think we need Martha's Nachkuss. I vote to anglicize it immediately.

Two items:
1. The best word I have heard for the male equivalent to "mistress" is just plain old "lover.". Somehow, the very word implies that the relationship is not only sexual, but also naughty. Anyone who has the temerity to introduce her lover to people (who do you introduce him to, anyway? Girlfriends know who he is, and anyone else either knows you're married to someone else or doesn't need the "this is who I'm having extramarital sex with" label anyway.) isn't going to be worried what others will think of her word choice, just her taste in men.

2. I am Southern, so the correct "cousin-ing" of someone was taught to me with my ABCs. I wad taught that the "number" of a cousin (i.e., first, second, etc.) is equal to the number of generations BETWEEN you both and a common ancestor. For example, my first cousins and I have only ONE intervening generation (our parents) before we meet at our grandparents' names. And the "removed" is what happens if there's a different answer for each person: in the case above, my first cousin's chdren are my first cousins once-removed because I count back only one generation (hence "first"), but they count back two; the difference of one is the "removal" number.

At family reunions, my great-aunt, the oldest in her generation and thus of course called only "Sister" by all present, was a wonder at this stuff. Kids would play "Ask Sister," which meant grabbing someone you'd never seen in your life and going over to Sister, where we would say, "Sister, I'm Hobson's granddaughter and this is Suzy's half-brother's stepson. How are we related?" She would reply instantly with something like, "Well, honey, now y'all're half-third cousins twice removed, but only by marriage, you see." Made me flabbergasted every time. 🙂

Kulturvultur said:

In response to the question of a name for the lover of a married woman in the Valentine's Day episode, there is an Italian word called "cicisbeo". He was the professed gallant and lover of a married woman, who attended her at public entertainments, to church and other occasions and had privileged access to his mistress. Although the origin is unknown it may have come from a translation of "in a whisper" or an inversion of bel cece which means "beautiful chick (pea)". There is a similar word in Spanish (cortejo or estrecho) and in French petit-maître, but I think the Italian may be closer to the intention of the caller. The exact etymology of the "cicisbeo" is unknown; some evidence suggests it originally meant "in a whisper" or an inversion of bel cece, which means "beautiful chick (pea)".

shout out to the wikination.

Even though "mistress" has a much worse connotation, "cicisbeo" is the word I immediately thought of. I fist saw it in The Charterhouse of Parma, by Stendahl. He explains it as he knows it:

"Since they had become loyal subjects, their chief concern was to print sonnets on tiny pink taffeta handkerchiefs for the weddings of a young lady belonging to some rich or noble family. Two or three years after that great event in her life, the same young lady would take a cavaliere servente: sometimes the name of the cicisbeo chosen by the husband's family occupied an honorable place in the marriage contract."

But who says "cicisbeo?" Weirdos, that's who. I believe the current expression is "manstress"