Question: I often wonder about words that are spelled the same yet have totally different meanings. A "pupil," for instance, can be a student in a school or a small part of the eye. I assume there's some connection between these different meanings, but I can't see what it is.
- C.K., Harrisburg, Pa.
Answer: Yes, a connection does exist between the different senses of "pupil," but we have to go all the way back to Latin to see it. The source of both words is the Latin noun "pupilla," a diminutive of "pupa," meaning "doll" or "girl."
If you look into another person's eyes from close up you can see a tiny reflection of yourself in the small, dark opening of the iris. This reflection looks something like a little doll. The part of the eye that seems to hold this image was thus called "pupilla" (literally, "little doll") in Latin. "Pupil," the English word for this part of the eye, derives from "pupille," the Middle French descendent of the Latin word.
The word "pupilla" was also used in Latin to designate a little girl who was a ward or an orphan. The masculine counterpart of this word was "pupillus." "Pupille," the Middle French and later the Middle English form of the word, was used for both sexes. At first the Middle English word still meant "minor ward," but eventually "pupil" came to mean "a young student in school or in the charge of a tutor."
Question: When I first came to this country, I was confused by the phrase "I will be with you momentarily." I had learned that "momentarily" means "for a short time" rather than "in a short while." Which meaning is correct?
- E. S., Bridgeport, Conn.
Answer: They both are, although a small but determined group of critics disagrees, regarding "We'll be leaving momentarily" as an error. These critics insist that "momentarily" is correct only in its original sense, "for a moment" (as in "The speaker stopped momentarily to clear his throat"), which was first recorded in 1654. This impressively old sense appears to have been rarely used until the 20th century, but it is now extremely common. The "at any moment, in a moment" sense is also extremely common, but it was not recorded until the 19th century.
These senses have coexisted in American English for many decades. (In British English, on the other hand, use of "momentarily" to mean "at any moment" is rare.) Neither one is inherently superior to the other, and neither one detracts in any way from the other. As with most multi-sense words, the context in which "momentarily" is used makes its meaning clear. The only real basis for the objection to the newer sense is the notion that a word can have just one proper meaning, but that notion is mistaken, as a look on just about any page in a dictionary will show.
Question: When did the letter "j" become part of our alphabet?
- J. E., Tigard, Ore.
Answer: "J" was the most recent letter to be added to our alphabet, and its adoption was a gradual process.
The Romans used the letter "i" for both a vowel sound and a consonant sound. At first, the consonant sound was like that of modern "y," but as Latin developed into the Romance languages, it came to be pronounced with the sound of modern English "j" at the beginning of words. After the Norman Conquest in 1066, French words that began with this sound were introduced into English, though the sound was still spelled with an "i."
In the Middle Ages a hook was sometimes added to "i" as a decorative elaboration, especially when "i" was the first letter of a word. Since "i" was more likely to have the consonant sound in this position, the hooked "i" came to be associated with the "j" sound, possibly by the 15th century. By about 1630 the letter "j" was recognized as representing only the consonant sound, but it was still considered to be only a variant of "i" when words were alphabetized.
Not until the beginning of the 19th century did the "new" letter merit its own assigned place - as the tenth letter of the alphabet - in dictionaries. Noah Webster, in his dictionary of 1806, was one of the first to implement this separation of "i" and "j."