 |
Another day, another shooting There's a Word for It -- UnfortunatelyBy Rick Horowitz First the thing. Then the word for the thing. That's the way the language works -- the English language, at any rate. Probably any language. Somebody notices something, or creates it or even imagines it, and eventually the urge to label it is almost irresistible: "pixel" or "wannabe," "outsource" or "supersize." That's the way the language grows. The particular thing in question can be a tangible object or a shiny new concept. It can be an action. But it has to be something. There aren't a lot of free-floating words out there searching for something to describe. Redundant words? Certainly; it's no sin to be a synonym. Obsolete words? Absolutely; an object, a concept, even an action can fall out of favor over the centuries. But rest assured: When a word is first attached to something, it's attached for a reason. If it's still being used, there's a reason for that, too. "Gunman," for instance. As in "Gunman slays seven, kills self." "Gunman on rampage, nine dead." "Elusive gunman captured." "Lone gunman suspected." "Gunman" -- one word, no spaces. No letup. He's our modern-day Minotaur: half man, half firearm. And all trouble. You'll read about him almost daily in your newspaper. He grabs the covers of your magazines. His latest deeds are splattered across your TV screen. "Gunman" does this. "Gunman" does that. It's so convenient for headline writers and crime reporters, don't you think? "Gunman" is such a concise word; there's still plenty of room for the grisly details and the body count. You wouldn't want to leave out the body count. "Guns don't kill people," the gun goons insist. "People kill people." Apparently it's just a coincidence that the people who kill people turn out so very often to have guns in their hands when they do the killing. So I tried to find "knifeman" in the dictionary. After all, "gunman" is in the dictionary. I've got three dictionaries surrounding my desk, and "gunman" is in every one of them. I couldn't find "knifeman," though. Or "daggerman." Or even "blademan." (I checked "daggerman" and "blademan" just in case.) I tried to find "hammerman" in the dictionary. If guns don't kill people, I figured, maybe hammers kill people. And if enough hammers happened to turn up at enough murder scenes, the way guns happen to turn up so frequently, maybe "hammerman" would be right there in the dictionary the way "gunman" is. Nope. No "hammerman" anywhere. "Poisonman"? I didn't do a bit better with "poisonman." Surely someone is still doing away with someone by slipping something lethal into the lentil soup. But no -- no "poisonman" either. I did find "swordsman." But there aren't a lot of murders committed with swords these days; most of the current definitions stuck to fencing. I also found "hatchet man." But not many of the definitions had anything to do with actual, physical violence; most had to do with invective-spewing writers and underlings who do the boss's dirty work and the like. Besides, I couldn't help noticing that crucial space between the words: "hatchet man." Only one of my three dictionaries even bothered to consider "hatchetman" as a single word, and even there it wasn't the preferred spelling. Unlike "gunman," for instance. One word, no spaces. Coincidence? I don't think so. Posted 9/22/99. Here's
another word to remember: "Rick's." Get your fresh supply of commentary
right here twice weekly!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz