The Jeweller's Window

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30610, 28 November 1964, Page 5

The Jeweller's Window

Relative (Specially written for "Th« Press” by ARNOLD WALL) From time to time I have been called upon to say whether there is any valid objection to the use of “relative” in the sense of a person akin to some other, a sense more commonly expressed by “relation.” The simple answer' to this is that there is now no difference at all between these two words when used in this sense. Both have undergone change for “relative” is an adjective which has become a noun and “relation” is an abstract which has become concrete. “Relation”, for kinsman, dates from 1502 and “relative” in that sense from 1657, but the fact that the one is a good deal older than the other has little bearing on the status of either of them in our day. There was at one time a strong objection to this use of “relative”, and it was evidently expressed in rather violent terms by a distinguished Wellington headmaster: the question, I think, generally comes to me from old pupils of his school. I have been asked about “relationship” which, it- is suggested, is often used where “relation” would quite well do the required job. It is hard, I find, to speak mildly on this point. I have kept my eye on “relationship” for many years now and I would say that, roughly speaking, it is unnecessarily preferred to “relation” in about 80 per cent of cases. “Relation” is about as completely abstract as any word can be and to attempt to make it still more so is, in Shakespeare’s words on a different occasion, “wasteful and ridiculous excess”. The point was dealt with at some length by Fowler in his “Modern English Usage” nearly 40 years ago, but his criticism of the “-ship” does not seem to have had the slightest effect. The sad fact is that the temptation to dilute language by the use of unnecessarily long words is too strong to be' resisted by the average writer. Only some unimaginable major revolution in our habits of thinking and writing will ever prune away such supererogatory (there I go!) additions to common words. The Deceiver “Rose” is a beautiful name for a proverbially beautiful flower, it has exercised a sort of spell upon other words and names so that we find it as a disguise adopted by others who have no right to it. Rosamund is not, as has been supposed “rosa mundi”, “rose of the world”: it is an old Germanic “Hrosmund” of which the first element is “horse” and the second “protection.” “Rosemary”, ,the shrub, and hence the Christian name, is “marine dew", Latin “ros marinum”. “Tuberose” has nothing to do with either “tube” or “rose”, the Latin ‘tuberosus” means “tuberous” and nothing more. “Primrose” does not stand for “prima rosa”, the first rose, but by association with “rose” has been altered from Old French “primerole” which comes from Latin “primula” now also a flower name. It is in the field of geographical names that “rose” has been most successful as an impersonator. Whether on purpose or by accident several English villages have incorporated the word into their names, thereby, it would seem, giving themselves a sort of meretricious charm. Rose Ash in Devon stands for “Ralph’s Ash-tree” formerly “Rowesasche”. “Roseacre” in Lancs is “field with a cairn”. Old Norse “hreysi”; “Roseberry Topping” in Yorks meant “Othinn’s Hill”, the “R” being an intrusion which is unexplained; “Othenesbery” is the old form. Rosedale, in Yorks, is “horse-valley”, Old Norse “hrossen-dal” and “Rosgill” in Westmoreland means the same thing. “Roseden” in Northumberland is “rush valley" place where rushes grow. The only English place name in which “Rose” is a real rose seems to be Rose Castle, the residence of the Bishop of Carlisle, possibly this “Rose” is an allusion to the rose as an emblem of the Virgin Mary.

New Names Changes in political boundaries and in emphasis on nationalities have caused changes in the names of peoples and in some cases a longish period of transition seems inevitable as the older generations are apt to cling to the old while the younger tend to prefer the new; hence we see hesitations and some doubts about pronunciations. The old •‘lreland" had the older “Erin” as a competitor and now “Eire” has been officially adopted. “Erin” is still occasionally used here, especially in reference to Moore’s Irish Melodies, and it is locally pronounced with short e as' “Errin”, but this is quite wrong; “Erin” should be pronounced with the long sound so that it is “Earin” to rhyme with “fearing” without the “g”. Another fluctuating pair is provided by the old “Siam” which is more or less successfully ousted by “Thailand”. Whatever is the name of my land’ Oil Monday, Wednesday, Friday, ••Thailand.” On all the other week-days I am Just the old familiar ''Siam.” In some da ?- “Ireland” and “Siam' may become fossils, but not, I think, in this century.