Pedants' Paradise

[jean]

According to my Chambers :-

UNCTUOUS ' Oily: greasy, full of unction, offensively suave and smug '

Used all the time to describe the richness of a food recipe...

Surely that's a revival of an older use, rather than something entirely new?

[french frank]

Surely that's a revival of an older use, rather than something entirely new?

Looking at the OED meanings (the "E" probably relevant as perhaps reflecting "English" culinary tastes), I'd say that predominantly the meanings are a bit pejorative - as if 'oily' and 'fatty' were not generally compliments when referring to food. My mother certainly used to warn against anything that was too creamy, or "rich" - like pâté. 'Only a small bit, dear.' Perhaps we've reverted to earlier tastes (in fact, we probably have: olive oil used to be shunned in our family).

[jean]

...Perhaps we've reverted to earlier tastes (in fact, we probably have: olive oil used to be shunned in our family).

I think we have - after years of demonising fats, we've discovered that the real dietary disaster is sugar (see other threads).

[jean]

UNCTUOUS '...full of unction...'

And unction is just another word for anointing. Thus

Thou spread'st a table in my sight
Thine unction grace bestoweth:
And O what transport of delight
From thy pure chalice floweth

renders the more prosaic

Thou preparest a table before me...Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over

cf Extreme Unction

.

[french frank]

And unction is just another word for anointing.

And at the root seems to be L. ungere - to smear; and unguen - a fatty substance.

So if one is being pedantic (heaven forfend!), it is probably 'unetymological' to use forms like unctuous as a culinary term for anything TOO liquid. It would have to be oily, fatty and smearable.

[jean]

...It would have to be oily, fatty and smearable.

And isn't that exactly how it is used - you might well smear your foie gras, but I suspect you'd prefer to eat it.

I don't think the metaphorical Obadiah Slopeish meaning had developed in the classical period, and there's no adjective unctuosus, but L &S give for the noun unctum the two distinct meanings a rich banquet, sumptuous feast, and an ointment.

[Bryn]

'Borrowed' from a message on r3ok.com:

[jean]

The Historic Present again.

I'm with Melvyn on this.

Almost the most interesting thing about the item, though, is the way Ed Stourton introduced it.

He is clearly aware that the phrase casus belli, usually used to mean occasion of war (I blame Brewer), shouldn't really mean that at all because casus is an event or an outcome, not a cause.

So he said something like causus belli instead.

(But Wikipedia tells me that this rather strange usage came into wide use in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and due to the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory".

Still not quite happy with it though, and neither was Stourton.)

.

[french frank]

He is clearly aware that the phrase casus belli, usually used to mean occasion of war (I blame Brewer), shouldn't really mean that at all because casus is an event or an outcome, not a cause.

Isn't it used as meaning the case (or argument, justification, reason) for war, rather than the cause of war. Does the phrase even appear in Latin?

[jean]

I once found a very similar phrase in classical Latin meaning something much more like the fortunes of war, but I haven't been able to find it again.

I used to think this usage was just a mistake, but I now realise it must be a post-classical use where casus means case in the modern sense of justification.

For casus, Lewis & Short only give (apart from the more literal meanings related to falling) That which turns out or happens unexpectedly, an occurrence, event, accident, chance, misfortune, emergency.

[french frank]

Tacitus has cāsūs bellorum which seems to mean the misfortunes of wars, but it seems from Wiki that the phrase in the singular is a much more recent (non Latin) usage in relation to the debates about the 'just war'. The OED has the Latin phrase (pronounced ˈkeɪsəs ˈbɛlaɪ) dating from JS Mill in 1849: ' To assist a people struggling for liberty..is not a casus belli ...'

[jean]

Tacitus has cāsūs bellorum which seems to mean the misfortunes of wars,

That was it!

but it seems from Wiki that the phrase in the singular is a much more recent (non Latin) usage in relation to the debates about the 'just war'.

Yes, I think that's probably correct.

The OED has the Latin phrase (pronounced ˈkeɪsəs ˈbɛlaɪ) dating from JS Mill in 1849: ' To assist a people struggling for liberty..is not a casus belli ...'

Interesting example of the Westminster pronunciation!

[french frank]

That was it!

Tacitus, Annales I, 61:

Igitur cupido Caesarem invadit solvendi suprema militibus ducique, permoto ad miserationem omni qui aderat exercitu ob propinquos, amicos, denique ob casus bellorum et sortem hominum.

[Stillhomewardbound]

When (and I suppose, why) did the habit of knocking the 'the' of long established titles and names emerge from?

Earlier the Proms announcer (or should that just be Proms announcer) referred to an artist being interviewed following her rehearsal with BBC Symphony Orchestra making it sound rather like a brand title on a tin.

Over recent years the likes of THE Royal Albert Hall, THE Royal Festival Hall and indeed THE Proms have lost their 'the' but I don't regard it as just a change in convention that I'm reluctant to adapt to. I mean, it seems only logical to me to refer to the likes of THE BBC Symphony Orchestra it being the symphony orchestra of THE BBC.

Similarly the halls Albert and Festival have been accorded regal status and accordingly it only makes sense to speak of them as THE Royal ... etc.

Next year after the Queen's birthday parade will we hear the announcer say ... ' and now making their way on to the balcony of Buckingham Palace ... Royal Family.'?

Is it something to do with the epidemic spread of the glottal stop across the spoken words of the English language? Or the apparent inability of broadcasters now to colour and shade their words with the appropriate emphasis that will clarify the meaning of what they wish to say? Not to mention the fact that so many people appearing on TV and radio or merely in public announcement situations approach the microphone with unsupported voices and little notion of how to project.

And while we're on this subject of changing usage ... am I the only one left on the planet that goes 'too' the supermarket and will I be the only one that is going 'too' flog all those that that really can't be bothered 'ter' to make a 'too' out of the preposition 'to'?

[Serial_Apologist]

Next year after the Queen's birthday parade will we hear the announcer say ... ' and now making their way on to the balcony of Buckingham Palace ... Royal Family.'?

I guess it varies from example to example, but I wouldn't like to make a generalisation. In the above, "on to the balcony of Buckingham palace" makes more sense somehow than "on to the balcony of the Buckingham Palace" - Buckingham Palace being a destination, in the same way one would speak of "going to Blackheath", not "going to the Blackheath". It's a place name, as opposed to "the black heath" of presumably agreed association, in context.

On the other hand, I have often written articles containing such lines as "Jim Mullen was on guitar last night, insteasd of his usual bass". "On the guitar" sounds somehow overloaded, too much information. THE guitar, not A guitar? - if you see what I mean.