The Economist

The Economist

Given the cost I am not an ongoing subscriber to The Economist, a superb magazine that covers world events. I sign up on alternate years and benefit from a mini-liberal arts education each week.

The magazine also publishes a year-end guide, in which its well-informed editors predict what the next year will look like. This guide, plus a recent weekly issue, touched on two word-related topics that I thought worth sharing.

One was a piece on national anthems and their often blood-curdling calls to patriotism. As the writer notes, “an improbably large number drip with blood. This variously streams generously (Algeria); spills purely (Belgium); dyes the flag red (Vietnam); or waters the furrows impurely (France).” The first verse of France’s stirring Marseillaise “contains the charming and apparently bucolic line: ‘Do you hear in the countryside…’ it begins.” The writer asks, “What can the sound be? Cows lowing? The wind in the vine leaves? No: it is ‘the roar of those ferocious soldiers. They’re coming … to slit the throats of your women and children.’” (Did the French soccer team’s coach remind them to sing the bit about ferocious soldiers before their dramatic World Cup final with Argentina?)

The second article addressed a familiar theme: inflated job titles. Instead of meeting a receptionist as you enter an office, you may encounter “someone far grander: a lobby ambassador.” The article said one job ad for this role specified the person is expected to “curate experiences” for visitors. So, you as a visitor “might think you are asking someone where the toilet is; in fact you are having an experience with a brand ambassador.”

As I finalize my 2023 New Year’s resolution, I realize the need to elevate my rebranding efforts as I curate my readers’ experiences.

And just call me Mr. Ambassador

[300 words] 

Mumpsimus

I don’t remember when I first encountered the word mumpsimus. But it immediately became one of my favorites. Here’s why.

1.      It’s sharply focused. It means “someone who clings to an error despite all the evidence that the person is wrong.” Mumpsimus zeroes in on a particular situation with sharp, clear definition.

2.      Mumpsimus has a fascinating origin. The word comes from a Catholic priest who mangled the Latin wording in saying the Mass. When he should have said “sumpsimus,” meaning “we have received,” after the Eucharist, he said mumpsimus (which is meaningless) instead. Even though the error was repeatedly pointed out to him, he refused to correct his wording.

3.      When I first encountered mumpsimus I read a story that illustrated its meaning. A mental patient insists that he is dead. His psychiatrist asks him, “Do dead men bleed?” The patient says, “No.” So the doctor takes a needle and pricks the patient’s finger and a drop of blood oozes out. The patient looks at his finger in wonderment and says, “Wow, so dead men do bleed.”

4.      The unusualness of the word leads me to appreciate the richness of the English language. Now and again we meet a new word, which we realize is a perfect fit for a particular need. And we say, “Thank you, English, for giving this to me.”

5.      Finally, there’s the word’s utility. Mumpsimus is perfect for describing people who, for whatever motives, refuse to accept the facts. Perhaps it’s out of habit, like the priest getting the wording wrong. Or maybe it’s easier to cling to an error than make a painful change.

Mumpsimus, I contend, is a word for our times. We should push it to the front in our conversations. Put it in headlines. Shout it from the rooftops. Mumpsimus!

  [300 words]