Jul 16th 2010, 13:01 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK
WE'VE moved our New York offices to a new building with one of those television screens in the elevator. You know the kind: a 3-second weather forecast, business tip of the day, capsule news, adverts.
Today there was a "Word of the Day: osculate: v. to kiss." And weirdly, this pinched a nerve in me, and I now have to say it plain. I hate the word-of-the-day business: those word-of-the-day calendars and so forth. It's not that I don't like words. I wouldn't write a language blog if I did. But it's in particular I hate these words used to replace perfectly plain ones, words that do nothing but add length and a Greco-Latin sheen with no new meaning. Some people may take knowing words like "osculate" as a mastery of language. I'd describe linguistic skill the other way round, as knowing that a word like "osculate" should virtually never be used in place of "kiss". Few things are more enjoyable than a good kiss, but I'd turn down any offer to osculate.
Has anyone ever used "osculate" in spontaneous speech or writing? This 1961 cartoon seems to show that the word was once better known, but it's also a joke. The Oxford English Dictionary gives only one citation of it used in a real sentence:
1873 St Paul's Mag., Mar. 259 Professedly prudish...they..mutter, nod, osculate.
Not much there. The word has a mathematical meaning too. The OED again:
Math. trans. To have contact of a higher order with, esp. the highest contact possible for two loci; to have three or more coincident points in common with... as in two curves, two surfaces, or a surface and a curve.
Now I do like the idea of kissing as "having contact of a higher order with" someone. But three or more coincident points in common? That sounds like contact of an even higher order than kissing, to me. In any case, you won't find me osculating and telling.
In this blog, named after the dictionary-maker Samuel Johnson, our correspondents write about the effects that the use (and sometimes abuse) of language have on politics, society and culture around the world
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I found this article after I looked up the word "osculate," having seen it a few minutes ago on the screen in the elevator at the New York office I'm at. :) I don't think I'll use the word often, but I can't say that I won't have some fun later today by calling up my girlfriend to tell her that I want to osculate her. :P
Kiss also has a meaning in mathematics: the kissing number is the number of unit spheres that can be packed around and tangent to another. In three dimensions the kissing number is 12; in two dimensions it is 6, and the resulting lattice is commonly called "kissing pennies".
"It's not that I don't like words. I wouldn't write a language blog if I did"—should that be "if I didn't?"
I'm too busy to be worried about elated oxen.
I believe there are two sides to this.
On the one hand, there are those who believe that language should be reduced to its least common denominator, so as it is clear and concise to the greatest number of people. Hypothetically, any large word that reproduced a smaller one's meaning should be erased from usage. Thereby the users of a language would enjoy the most lucid communication as possible.
On the other hand, language is something personal, and should be weird and extravagant. It is about self-expression, be you a pedant, a redneck, or chimpanzee, and you don't have to affect a style to suit others. The more ways you say "kiss" the better, even if only classicists understand. It speaks as much about the author as the content. They can osculate whenever they fancy.
From an author's perspective, he both wants to communicate his ideas clearly without neutering his style. So I say use "osculate" whenever you want, because it makes the world a little richer. But it also might convey to the world you're something of a wanker.
I wonder how much time is taken up by learners of English in learning synonyms after synonyms for every ordinary word there is, and how much of that time spent is necessary. I am thinking the same time can be used in learning a mathematical theory, or memorizing a Bach's fugue, or appreciating a rose. Why do we need so many synonyms?
I think "osculate" could be quite useful when one wants to obscure the meaning. For example, I might say of someone at work, "He got the promotion because he osculates the supervisor's gluteus maximus."
Odd synonyms for ordinary words shouldn't be taken too seriously. Have fun with them!
Geisendorf's comment reminds me of the interesting Wikipedia article on "Anglish".
At least now I k the word that allows me to create this logical rhyming progression:
Prevaricate, osculate, fornicate.
e.e. cummings
My 1959 (revised third edition) Shorter OED traces the origin to the Latin osculum, little mouth, kiss, but considers the meaning "to kiss" as rare. It offers, inter alia, "to bring into close contact 1671; to have close contact with each other; Natural History: to have contact through an intermediate species or genus 1737; so Osculatory substantive a representation of Christ or the Virgin, formally kissed by the priest and people during Mass." So it sounds as if osculate is less a synonym for a passionate, romantic kiss but a description of a less steamy contact.
@willstewart, the mathematicians who coined the term 'osculation' were most likely not English speakers; my guess is that they were French. For similar reasons, nearly all geometry terms used in English are latinate (e.g. line, tangent, circumference, congruence, exterior, curvature), Greek in origin (e.g. parallel, polygon, chord), or a hybrid of Latin and Greek roots (e.g. orthonormal). Some of them are of course more obscure than others.
Maybe it would be more evocative to say that two curves are 'kissing' instead of 'oculating', but just as we say 'acute angle' instead of 'sharp/needle corner', the terms perhaps help draw attention to the fact that the technical meanings are being discussed, not the everyday words.
In fact 'kiss' is better and clearer than 'osculate' in the mathematical sense, too - and who could not prefer 'kissing curves'?
Mathematicians, too, want to appear more serious and clever than they [we] are....
Gee, I don't know... Osculate sounds like something your priest told you never to think about, let alone do. "Hey, wanna osculate?"
In Piers Brendon’s _The Dark Valley_, the American Ambassador to Paris of the 1930s, William Bullitt is quoted as writing in a letter to FDR:
“[Leon Blum] entered the front door, flung his broad-brimmed hat to the butler, his coat to the footmen, leaped three steps to the point where I was standing, seized me and kissed me violently! I staggered slightly but having been kissed by Stalin, I am now immune to any form of osculation [...]”
Doug, assuming the choice of "breech" rather than "breach" was intentional, then: yes, that is a pretty good description of what I meant!
Oh, thanks, Lafayette. Since I'm wearing it, what's the verb mean? "To honor in the breech?"
While I agree that the plain verb "osculate" is not a very useful replacement for "kiss", I like latinate words because unlike Germanic words, they can be made into adjectives easily—"osculatory", of or related to kissing. Words like "osculatory", "avuncular", and "porcine" occasionally come in handy.
Osculate me, Oscar.
Yes, you learn "ubiquitous" for the SATs, and say "everywhere" for the rest of your life.