Dot Wordsworth

‘Quick, darling, you’re missing the last taboo,’ shouted my husband from the drawing-room with the television on, as I was working in the kitchen. ‘Quick, darling, you’re missing the last taboo,’ shouted my husband from the drawing-room with the television on, as I was working in the kitchen. He is a collector of last taboos. Once, it was death. Since there’s been geriatric sex (when he loudly complained of the misuse of geriatric), sex-change surgery live, The Vagina Monologues, Tourettism and Joan Bakewell. Yet linguistic taboos about race, sex (‘gender’) and disability have multiplied, despite the popularity of ever more ingeniously obscene slang. On the same principle as Wikipedia, these swell the online Urban Dictionary weekly.

Mr Peter Andrews writes to tell me that he was told by a lawyer with whom he used to be a school that a moot point is not one that is debatable, but one that has already been decided. This is not news that has reached the Oxford English Dictionary, which happens to have revised its entry on moot only a few weeks ago. Originally, a moot point was one proposed for discussion at a moot. A moot, in the legal sense, was either ‘a discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice’ or ‘a hypothetical doubtful case that may be used for discussion’.

Every time he hears the words Big Society on the television or radio, my husband shouts out ‘Pig society!’ I am unsure whether he is inspired by George Orwell or the Earl of Emsworth’s Empress of Blandings. Every time he hears the words Big Society on the television or radio, my husband shouts out ‘Pig society!’ I am unsure whether he is inspired by George Orwell or the Earl of Emsworth’s Empress of Blandings. But if the Big Society is a great idea and not just a big idea why should it not be the Great Society? After all, we live in Great Britain, not Big Britain. I know that people watch Big Brother, eat Big Macs and sell the Big Issue or apply for grants from the Big Lottery Fund.

I have never seen the point of quiche, so I noticed with equanimity a hole where the quiche should be on the shelves of my local Sainsbury’s. I have never seen the point of quiche, so I noticed with equanimity a hole where the quiche should be on the shelves of my local Sainsbury’s. ‘Due to production issues,’ said a sign, ‘availability across quiche has been affected.’ Issues was to be expected, since mass-amnesia has lost the word problems. But the sign represented a new high-point in the rise of across. I suppose here, in the world of quiche, it meant ‘of all kinds’.

Mr Nick Clegg attracted some mockery recently by using the words cuts and progressive in the same sentence. Mr George Osborne, in his Budget speech, said: ‘We are a progressive alliance governing in the national interest.’ Some accused them of using the word progressive because it meant nothing. In reality progressive means several things. Usage slides from one to another. Thus Mr Clegg had spoken in the same interview about reduced taxes for the poor (or, rather, ‘people on lower incomes’). Taxation which increases according to income is called progressive taxation. This appeals to progressive-minded people. The latter sense is the most slippery. Fortunately, the Oxford English Dictionary last month updated its entry for progressive.

A reader has written to complain that a contributor to The Spectator used the construction ‘I was sat’. A reader has written to complain that a contributor to The Spectator used the construction ‘I was sat’. Veronica has also shown me an article in the Daily Mail about sex tourists in Thailand, which says: ‘Sat at a crowded bar at 2 a.m. is Peter.’ This is a most unaccountable usage, rolling over us unstoppably. Yet when I turned to The Spectator (no relation) written by Joseph Addison for July 20, 1711, I found this: ‘The Court was sat before Sir Roger came; but notwithstanding all the Justices had taken their Places upon the Bench, they made room for the old Knight at the Head of them.

That nice Tristram Hunt, the meteorologist’s son turned MP, was on Newsnight Review and used the word mitigate. That nice Tristram Hunt, the meteorologist’s son turned MP, was on Newsnight Review and used the word mitigate. ‘You mean militate,’ cut in Germaine Greer. And he did. We all commit malapropisms. The brain fumbles for a ready-made phrase and picks up the wrong one. On the same programme the clever Phillip Blond kept using phenomena as a singular, and I thought, with a little surprise, that he must know no better. But later on, after Dr Greer’s schoolmarmish intervention, he managed a phenomenon or two without strain.

My husband and Alfred Lord Tennyson have much in common — not a poetic soul, it is true, but a tendency to reach for the decanter and to mutter offensive comments. My husband and Alfred Lord Tennyson have much in common — not a poetic soul, it is true, but a tendency to reach for the decanter and to mutter offensive comments. At a dinner attended by Gladstone, Holman Hunt, Francis Palgrave and Thomas Woolner in 1865, conversation turned to the rebellion at Morant Bay, Jamaica and its repression. As Gladstone expatiated on the cruelty of the white man, Tennyson was heard to provide a sotto voce obbligato: ‘Niggers are tigers; niggers are tigers.’ No doubt the poet laureate was moved as much by the sound of the words as their meaning.

Disney has, I hear, decided to rename its animated film Rapunzel (due at cinemas in time for Advent) Tangled. It is thought that little boys would not want to go to see a film named after a heroine. But since Rapunzel herself is named after a root vegetable, they might perhaps have called the film Rampion instead. It has a manly sound, as if it were the name of a television detective. In the story that we vaguely remember from the Brothers Grimm, a man steals some rampion from an enchantress’s garden because his wife says: ‘If I can’t eat some of the rampion which is in the garden behind our house I shall die.’ Why the woman should want rampion, goodness knows.

There is an apparently successful book called Here Come the Tickle Bugs! by Uncle Sillyhead III. Its audience is among three-and-a-half-year-olds. ‘When children are silly, no kisses or hugs. Only tickles from the Tickle Bugs!’ At this point the adult reading the story is meant to tickle the child. I can see the attraction, from the child’s point of view. Veronica loved being tickled, for a bit. Sometimes, though, it made her feel sick. My husband says that in 1897 a couple of American psychologists called G. Stanley Hall and Arthur Allin came up with a distinction between two kinds of tickling, knismesis and gargalesis.

I’ve just been laughing at a television advertisement for ‘snail polish’. I’ve just been laughing at a television advertisement for ‘snail polish’. It turns out to be ‘Sixty Seconds Nail Polish’. Normally when we use ‘sixty second’ adjectivally, it remains in the singular form. BBC 3 television has an item called ‘Sixty Second News’. Perhaps what has happened is that a make-up company, Rimmel, has named a product ‘Sixty Seconds’, and has then been reluctant to adjust the valuable brand-name according to the laws of grammar. Hence the polished snails. It has not all been laughter in my sheltered life of kitchen, church and children, and I shall not even mention the election.

Like a baby that throws its rattle from the pram each time it is handed back, my husband responds to specific stimuli from the television. Every time he hears the phrase next up, he shouts, ‘Shut up!’ This exclamation also serves as a response to first up, and even listen up. English is rich in phrasal verbs, but the prepositions recruited for them seem to have become unruly recently. We are suffering from prepositionitis, and up is getting particularly uppity. Uppity itself is American in origin, not dating from much earlier than Joel Chandler Harris’s ‘Uncle Remus’ stories (1880): ‘Hit wuz wunner deze yer uppity little Jack Sparrers, I speck,’ says the narrator of the tale of the sparrow’s misplaced trust in Brer Fox.