
You know the feeling: you read a word that you have read a thousand times before, a word you were sure you knew the meaning of, and suddenly you realise that maybe you do not. Alan Coren’s wit, for instance, is always described as coruscating (check the dust jackets) and I was fairly certain that it meant something akin to sublime and, in a way, it does (flashing and sparkling apparently, which I get) but then I see that it also means severely critical; scathing, which seems to me to be the absolute antithesis of Mr Coren… and then, of course, I had to look up antithesis because although it is a word I have used with reckless abandon for many years, I have filled myself with doubt. For some reason I cannot quite fathom, my mind was cast back to the classroom and ‘reading aloud’ when I tackled a passage containing the word ‘misled’ which I confidently read as mizzled, much to the delight of everybody else in the class. For more years than I care to remember I laboured under the conviction that hirsute meant dignified because the first time I encountered it, it was used in a sentence which would have certainly allowed that definition. I’m pretty certain that I had left school before I learned that lesson.
I realise that the meaning of a word can be shaped entirely by the context in which it is used: abstemious for instance can mean ‘I indulge no more than daily’ in relation to chocolate, ‘I save it all up for the weekend’ in the case of alcohol and ‘not a single gram of the filthy stuff will ever pass my lips again’ in reference to okra.
Consider a language that allows the words ‘I could kill you’ to mean one thing when delivered with a smile and quite another when delivered with a baseball bat.
English – I am far too stupid to learn another tongue – is a language full of homophones. When spoken the meaning of these words relies entirely upon context: flower/flour, suite/sweet, whether/weather, whole/hole, there are hundreds… and then we have homonyms where not even the spelling varies: quail, duck and, just to prove that they’re not all birds, rose. Context alone defines these words.
Do other languages have such words? I’m pretty sure that French does because I tried to speak it at school and almost every word I ever said sounded almost exactly the same as the word before it, and meant exactly the wrong thing. I knew back then that rue meant road and I knew also that roux was the base of all sauces (and, now I think about it, that it also meant red-haired – definitely not what you want to find in your beurre blanc *). French – you’d never guess – further complicates things by giving them all a gender: la somme (an amount) means something different to le somme (snooze) – how you gauge the amount of snoozing a French person has is open to conjecture, but may well depend upon whether you are a boy or a girl. How the French language will adapt to gender neutrality is not something I would dare to consider (but it will probably involve bringing Air Traffic Controllers out on strike and burning lorry tyres in the street). In the masculine manche is a tool handle (alright, alright, settle down at the back) and in the feminine it is (amongst other things) The English Channel – whatever its name, it keeps our two great nations a world apart.
Undaunted, I decided to find out how coruscate might translate into French and I discovered that it is brille, which when translated back into English is sparkle and so it seems that Alan Coren’s wit was, indeed sparkling. If only he’d had a beard…
*Similar to the English white sauce, but with flavour.






