web analytics

WORDS…..

By ATWadmin On December 9th, 2006

So what have ALL these words in common? 

accommodation aerial amazement apostrophe assassination auspicious baseless bloody bump castigate changeful clangor control (noun) countless courtship critic critical dexterously dishearten dislocate dwindle eventful exposure fitful frugal generous gloomy gnarled hurry impartial inauspicious indistinguishable invulnerable lapse laughable lonely majestic misplaced monumental multitudinous obscene palmy perusal pious premeditated radiance reliance road sanctimonious seamy sportive submerge suspicious

 

That’s right – they were all invented by William Shakspear (Edward de Vere) -our greatest ever writer!

17 Responses to “WORDS…..”

  1. David

    When you say "invented" is it not just the case that Shakespeare has the first recorded use of the words? They could well have been in use before he wrote the plays and sonnets.

    I’ll ignore the "De Vere" reference – we’ve debated that one before.;)

  2. I agree with Peter, There is no way that Shakespeare was the first to use these words.

    Bloody is Germanic in origin (blutig). Was it not part of the Protestant nickname for Mary Tudor, who lived well before Shakespeare?

    Obscene is from the Latin "obscenus", which means offensive, dirty. Similar words were also used in other European languages (Fr. obscène, Ger. obszoen) long before Shakespeare had been translated.

  3. It’s my understanding that "Bloody" is a contraction from "God’s Blood" – a lot of words used in conversation are derived from religious oaths – Like "Geez" is from "Jesus Christ".Crikey from "Christ Almighty" etc..

  4. >>"Bloody" is a contraction from "God’s Blood" -<<

    I don’t think you’re right there. In English morphology, adjectives can be made from some nouns by adding "y", thus skin – skinny, wind – windy, etc. (this mechanism comes from Old German "ich", e.g. wind-ich – windy, blut-ich – bloody, etc.)

    Did you know that "hocus pocus" was a Reformation Protestant jibe at the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation from the term "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body) said during the consecration at the old Latin mass.

  5. Yep – and they were so right 🙂

  6. Blimy is meant to be God Blind me.

    It’s hard to know if Shakespear was the first to use these phrases. Even if they are logically derived from other languages doesn’t mean that he wasn’t the first to logically derive them. We would need to have some documentation from before Shakespear which used these phrases to disprove the hypothesis that it was him.

    Is bloody written down anywhere before Shakespear?

  7. >>even if they are logically derived from other languages doesn’t mean that he wasn’t the first to logically derive them<<

    Theoretically true, Aileen, but hardly likely. Many single-syllable English nouns form a related adjective by adding "y". Just some from the body: skin – skinny, hair – hairy, hand – handy (I could go on with leggy and shitty!). All of these have the same morphology in German (haut-ig, haar-ig, etc.) It would be very remarkable that blood, which "blut/blut-ig" follows the same pattern in German were an exception and did not follow the rule until Shakespeare came along and "invented" it!

    Besides "Bloody Mary" lived before Shakespeare, as I said. She also had a favourite, a Bishop Bonner, who stayed with the True Faith and was called "Bloody Bonner" by contemporaries for his counterreformation zeal. Bishop Bonner died before the Bard was even a twinkle in that Stratford iconoclast’s eye.

  8. "Besides "Bloody Mary" lived before Shakespeare, as I said. "

    I know that she lived before Shakespear. That deosn;t mean that she was called Bloody Mary at the time. Hence my saying that we would need documentation from before his time to disprove him being first.

    Many single syllable nouns form adjectives by the addition of words now but that deosn’t mean that they were in Shakespear’s time. Or that he didnlt add to the list.

    We don’t make an adjective from scar by adding the letter y. I kow we have scary from scare but it could have the alternative meaning relating to scar.

  9. (sigh) Aileen, read what I wrote about what bigoted contemporaries said about Bishop Bonner.

    >>Many single syllable nouns form adjectives by the addition of words now but that<<

    I didnt say that. I said that it would be absurd to believe that "blood" resisted the morphological rule and had to wait until Shakespeare turned up to tell it to fall into line.

  10. sighs

    I read but as I also read that your arguement that bloody was used before Shakespear was based on Mary living before him, I’m not minded to take your word that Bonner’s contrmories called him bloody.

    Of course objections to Bonner had to be based on bigotry. It couldn’t have anything do do with the burnings.

    It is not absurd to believe that Shakepear first coined bloody. Why assume that language styles were the same now as then. The words and their use changes over time. We still don’t have roady, thready lampy, mixy yet.

  11. It is an obvious rule to apply and there is no reason what it needs to have follwed the same path as the Germans.

  12. >>I read but as I also read that your arguement that bloody was used before Shakespear was based on Mary living before him,<<

    No, you didn’t read that. You may have misread it, though.

    >>Of course objections to Bonner had to be based on bigotry.<<

    I was being facetious, I always wondered though why someone who specialisted in burnings should be called "bloody" and not "firey"!

    >>Why assume that language styles were the same now as then.<<

    I never did. I was talking about morphological rules, which, unlike styles, are immanent to a language. Anglo-Saxon, with its rules, parted from Old German about a thousand years before Shakespeare showed up.

    Aileen, I can’t reply to your 9:25 as I can’t understand it.

  13. "I agree with Peter, There is no way that Shakespeare was the first to use these words.

    Bloody is Germanic in origin (blutig). Was it not part of the Protestant nickname for Mary Tudor, who lived well before Shakespeare?"

    and

    ""Besides "Bloody Mary" lived before Shakespeare, as I said. "

    The argument would be that she was called Bloody Mary before Shakepear not merely that she had lived before him.

    "I was being facetious" It was a possiblility but I had no way of knowing.

    The 9.25 deosn’t matter it was just there for completness.

  14. Last comment, got to go.

    >>Is bloody written down anywhere before Shakespear?<<

    Yes.

    Goodnight Aileen

  15. It would have helped if it had been one of the first comments considering that having been written down before Shakespear was the relevant proof that he wasn’t first, which is why I kept asking.

  16. These words were coined — or first used in print — by a man steeped in languages. (I agree that it was probably De Vere.) He clearly knew Italian, French, and some Spanish; he was an accomplished Latinist, probably responsible for a good bit of his uncle Arthur Golding’s translation of the Metamorphoses (Ovid being Shakespeare’s principal classical source): and he was even familiar with the sources of English (his tutor having the sole copy of Beowulf).

  17. CGE

    Well said!