The Jeweller's Window

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30829, 14 August 1965, Page 5

The Jeweller's Window

ABZURD

(Specially written Jor “The Press” by ARNOLD WALL) should I be shocked when I hear a speaker on the air say that something is “abzurd”? If he were to be taken to task he might well ask why, if he, properly says “abzolve,” it is not proper to say “abzurd.” And if this question is put to me, I can reply only that “it just is so,” neither logic nor grammar can supply any better answer. "Absurd" belongs to a small group of words in which “ab" and “ob” are followed by “s.” As “b” is a flat or “voiced” consonant it would normally influence the following “s” and flatten it into “z” as it does in “absolve” and “observe” according to the law of assimilation. But though the English are law-abiding people (as peoples go) their language abounds in flagrant breaches of law as you may see in this and similar cases. Reviewing the whole of this small field we have in the “ab” group “absent,” “absence,” “absinthe,” “absolve,” “absolute," “absolution,” “absorb," “abscess," and “absurd.” And you see that “absolve” is the only obedient citizen and that its relatives “absolute” and “absolution” do not follow its example. “Absorb" is rather doubtful, and though the Oxford authorities prescribe the pronunciation with “s” and that alone, “abzorb” is not uncommon and Daniel Jones records it as an alternative. “Abscess” has an insurance policy in the form of the “sc” which protects the sharp “s.” The United States however, says “abssolve” disapproving all such irregularities as “abzolve.” In the “ob” group we have “observe," “observance," etc., “obscene," “obscure,” obsequies,” “obsess," “obsolete" and “obsidian,” and here again there is only one “zedder.” that is “obzerve" (and "-ation,” etc.). “Obscure" and “obscene” are insured. The United States Webster says “obzerve," for once allowing what seems to be an isolated departure from orthodox behaviour. Haberdasher The last century has seen a very great advance in the science of etymology yet there remain many unsolved problems in this field. It often happens that the modern investigator has to confess himself beaten though the older and less careful or less conscientious lexicographer would make a wild stab at the answer. Take the case of "haberdasher.” We know that it was in use in the Middle Ages, that it comes from an Old French “hapertas,” “of unknown origin” which seems to have meant small goods, especially hats. Oxford offers no solution.

Weekley, who is often more daring, can only suggest that "haber” was the same word as “aver” of “averdupois,” that is the verb “to have," used in the sense of “goods.” That “aver”—was sometimes spelt “haber” in the Middle Ages. The “-tas" remains to be explained. Now here the older authority was also the bolder and had his answer. Nathaniel Bailey, 1719, a very learned man and a pioneer in more than one particular as a lexicographer, offers this explanation which he quotes from his 17th century predecessor. Minshew. The word comes from German and is a complete little sentence in the form of a question—“habt ihr das?’’, “have you that?,” "a question,” says Bailey, “frequently askt those who sell many articles." You see how easy it is to find an answer though it may lead you into such an absurdity as this. At least one bulky book has been written on guesses of this kind and it makes very good, amusing reading. It was called “A Student’s Pastime” and the author was W. W. Skeat, an excellent lexicographer and professor of Anglo-Saxon at Cambridge. He gave me a copy of it which, I regret to say, I no longer possess. It appeared about 1890. The above-mentioned John Minshew was a German master resident in London, he published a dictionary in 11 languages about 1617.