A “bleeding heart” may sound like something you’d see a cardiologist for, but it isn’t a medical malady. Rather, it’s a term that was originally coined to positively describe an outpouring of emotion, but over time evolved to take on a more derogatory context, specifically when referencing a person’s political beliefs. Let’s examine the etymological evolution of this uniquely diverse phrase.
Advertisement
One of the earliest written examples of “bleeding heart” is found in Geoffrey Chaucer’s 14th-century poem Troilus and Criseyde. In this work, Chaucer writes, “For which him thought he felte his herte blede,” using the metaphorical bleeding heart to convey the character’s emotional anguish. By the 16th century, the phrase began to take on a religious meaning, as Jesus was often described to have a “bleeding heart” for those who were suffering. And by the late 17th century, the phrase took on a botanical use to describe a pink and white heart-shaped plant with droopy flowers.
In the 20th century, the phrase “bleeding heart” got completely turned on its head, when it was used by conservative writer Westbrook Pegler to ridicule those who supported liberal President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pegler frequently used the phrase to lambast the “bleeding-heart liberals” he disagreed with. Before long, the phrase was being used by right-leaning rhetoricians around the country, including Senator Joe McCarthy, who used it to attack newsmen he disagreed with, such as Edward R. Murrow. “Bleeding heart” continues to have a political connotation today as it describes passionate people on all sides, though the phrase has lost some of its staunchly negative reputation.
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
In a 1996 episode of The Simpsons entitled “Lisa the Iconoclast,” teachers Edna Krabappel and Elizabeth Hoover show their students a film about Springfield’s founder, Jebediah Springfield. When asked how he achieved such greatness, Jebediah says, “A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.” Krabappel then remarks, “‘Embiggens’? Hmm, I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield,” to which Hoover replies, “I don’t know why. It’s a perfectly cromulent word.”
Embiggens? Cromulent? Where did these words come from?
Advertisement
All for Nonce
While the Merriam-Webster entry for “embiggen” gives no mention of the animated series, it does mark the first usage as 1996, which is when The Simpsons showrunners asked the show’s writers to come up with two “nonce words,” or “word[s] or expression[s] coined for or used on one occasion.”
The verb “embiggen,” which means “to make bigger or more expansive,” was cleverly paired with “cromulent,” an adjective that means “acceptable” or “fine.” The Simpsons fans are well accustomed to layers of smart humor in the seemingly mindless animated comedy, but even this joke might have slipped by those without linguistic knowledge. But “the perfectly cromulent” lines launched the journey for these made-up words to become a part of the popular lexicon. “Embiggen” was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2018, and “cromulent” was added to the corpus in 2023, after being listed as a “word we’re watching” for several years.
Published appearances of “cromulent” include a 2013 Supreme Court amicus brief over a matter of copyright infringement, and aNew York Times article in 2020, when Deb Amlen wrote: “I suspect that one of the scariest moments for new [crossword] solvers is when they discover that it is perfectly cromulent for constructors to clue answers in a way that means one thing, but twists the answers into real words that mean something totally different.”
You, Too, Can Embiggen the English Language
It’s not as though the New York Times crossword desk has a monopoly on playing with language in cromulent ways. People make up new words all the time — in etymology, this is called a “neologism,” or a word or phrase coined to adapt to meet changes occurring in the life and culture of its speakers. The nonce (one-use) words of “embiggen” and “cromulent” turned into neologisms as more people and publications continued to use them.
Such linguistic behavior has been going on for centuries; this isn’t even the first time The Simpsons has made it into the dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary added Homer’s catchphrase “D’oh!” to the dictionary in 2001. Alice in Wonderland writer Lewis Carroll also was a notorious neologist — we can thank him for embiggening the English language with “chortle,” “bandersnatch,” and “snark,” to name a few.
So take this as a challenge to create your own neologism — “There Should Be a Word for That! (So Make One Up.)” offers a helpful primer, including the concepts of compounding (“duckface,” “manspreading”) and blending (“brunch,” “listicle”). We’ll eagerly await your creations to become the next “cromulent” and “embiggen.”
Jennifer A. Freeman is the Senior Editor of Word Smarts and Word Daily. When she's not searching for a perfect synonym or reaching "Genius" level on Spelling Bee, she's playing with her Welsh Terrier in Greenville, SC.
Let’s not beat around the bush. There are plenty of idioms in English, but other languages have colorful (and useful) idioms, too. An idiom is an expression with a meaning that can’t be deduced from the definitions of the individual words. For example, in English, we “see the light” when we metaphorically come to a conclusion after a long delay, but a speaker of another language might see that expression translated and wonder where the lightbulb is. It’s the same with idioms in other languages: When we read the phrases in English, the words may not make much sense, but in context they have clever and instructive meanings. Let’s learn some idioms from around the world.
Advertisement
Pulling water from my own rice paddy
我田引水 (ga den in sui) is a Japanese idiom that means to do or say something for your own benefit. You’re giving yourself advice, even though you’re the only one who needs it.
To walk around hot porridge
Chodit kolem horké kaše is a Czech phrase similar to the English idiom “beat around the bush.” “To walk around hot porridge” means to avoid a difficult topic and make up distractions in order to avoid discussing it.
He who doesn't have a dog hunts with a cat
Quem não tem cão, caça com gato is a Portuguese saying that suggests one should use what’s available and make the best of it. To be fair, cats are excellent hunters, even if they have a mind of their own.
Advertisement
The carrots are cooked
Les carottes sont cuites comes from French, and it means you can’t change the situation. It’s too late, and you probably have mushy carrots.
Drawing a snake with feet
If you’re drawing a snake with feet, those are unnecessary body parts and you’re putting way more effort into that picture than necessary. 画蛇添足 (Huà shé tiān zú) is a Chinese idiom that means doing excess work can become redundant.
To talk a dog out of a bush
Someone who can convince a dog to get out of a bush when they’re going after a scent must have excellent persuasion skills. ń Hond uit ń bos gesels describes having a great conversation (with people) in Afrikaans. Being a good conversationalist is just as valuable a skill as talking to dogs.
Advertisement
Not my circus, not my monkeys
Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy is a Polish idiom that has been adopted into English, too. If the circus and monkeys aren’t yours, then they’re not your problem.
He sold him for an onion peel
بايعها بقشرة بصلة (baa’hu beqishra basala) is the Arabic equivalent of the “I’d sell you out for one corn chip” meme. It describes throwing away a relationship for nothing. Frankly, a corn chip is preferable to an onion peel.
To not have hairs on your tongue
No tener pelos en la lengua is a Spanish phrase that means to speak your mind straightforwardly. (Not to avoid hairballs.)
Train go sorry
Even sign language has idioms. Signed in ASL, “train go sorry” means “sorry, you’re too late” or “sorry, I can’t repeat that.” It’s kind of like when people say in English, “You missed the boat on that one.”
To hurl a cap
टोपी उछालना (toh-pee uh-chhahl-nah) is a Hindi idiom that references criticizing someone. Why stop at hurling insults when there are caps to be thrown?
If you're near ink, you’ll get black. If you’re near a light, you'll get bright.
Gần mực thì đen gần đèn thì sáng is a Vietnamese phrase that means you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. Some idiom translations are universal.
Jennifer A. Freeman is the Senior Editor of Word Smarts and Word Daily. When she's not searching for a perfect synonym or reaching "Genius" level on Spelling Bee, she's playing with her Welsh Terrier in Greenville, SC.
The phrase “dressing down” seems like something you’d hear if a waiter spilled a bowl of creamy Italian dressing all over the restaurant floor. Or maybe you’d hear a person yell, “Dressing down!” as a warning to others before they strip naked. But actually, it’s a term that means “to speak angrily to someone because they have done something wrong.” So how did this turn of phrase come to be associated with a scolding?
Advertisement
The origins of the phrase “dressing down” date back to the 1400s, when it was primarily used among sailors to describe the process of slathering a ship’s sails with tar, wax, or oil to renew their efficacy and quality. By the 1900s, that usage was expanded to describe sailors who were reprimanded for committing infractions. If a sailor was “dressed down,” then they were unlikely to repeat the same mistake, thus improving their effectiveness, much like a freshly waxed sail.
“Dressing down” is just one of many nautical phrases that have transcended their initial meaning and are widely used today. Today, people may say “learn the ropes” to describe learning the basics of any trade, but the expression was originally intended to describe the intricate rope and pulley systems found on many ships. “Pipe down” originated on the seas, too, referring to a nightly signal made by the boatswain’s pipe to alert the crew that it was time to retire for the evening. If you feel groggy, you’re likely saying you’re tired and feel a bit foggy, but if you’re a sailor, you might be feeling the effects of having one too many cups of grog — a cocktail of rum, water, sugar, and lime juice.
Featured image credit: Evgeny Atamanenko/ Shutterstock
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
Do you literally mean “literally,” or do you mean “figuratively”? Even the most well-respected dictionaries have loosened up the restrictions on “literally.”
During these dog days of summer, you may say, “It’s so hot, I’m literally melting.” But unless you’re a giant talking ice cream cone, that sentence is far from literal. The word “literally” means “in a literal sense,” which implies that you’re talking about something factually, precisely, and accurately. However, people often use the word in a figurative sense, which drives grammar pedants up a wall. You may be surprised (or reassured) to learn, though, that there are plenty of times when it’s OK to use “literally” figuratively — and reputable dictionaries agree.
Advertisement
The word “literally” was coined in the 1530s from the Latin literalis, meaning “of or belonging to letters or writing.” By the 17th century, that definition had already begun to shift as people increasingly used “literally” for hyperbole and in metaphors. In 1876, Mark Twain wrote in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer: “And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.”
This figurative usage continued to grow more widespread, and eventually, dictionaries took notice. Both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster contain seemingly opposing definitions for the word “literally,” stating it can be used both literally and figuratively. “Literally” is a Janus word, meaning it can act as its own opposite; other examples include “cleave” (which means both “to split” and “to adhere”) and “oversight” (“supervision” and “omission”). When Merriam-Webster updated the definition of “literally” in 2013, editors explained they “included this definition for a very simple reason: a lot of people use it this way, and our entries are based on evidence of use.”
If you find yourself using “literally” in the figurative sense, don’t worry, because you’re not alone, nor are you incorrect. If a grammar stickler gives you a hard time, just point them to the dictionary and go on your merry way.
Featured image credit: Sohel Parvez Haque/ Shutterstock
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
If we say, “Let’s talk about English accents,” you might imagine a refined gentleman taking his tea and crumpets. But in this case, we’re talking about accent marks. While many other languages rely heavily on accent marks to guide pronunciation, English speakers rarely deal with tildes and umlauts (and in the rare cases you do come across an accent mark, odds are it’s a loanword from another language).
Advertisement
In a technical sense, accent marks are called “diacritical marks” — symbols added to letters in order to indicate a change in tone or stress. They include acute accents (é), diaeresis (ä), and cedillas (ç), just to name a few. Diacritical marks are quite common in other languages, as evidenced by many of the loanwords that are now a common part of the English lexicon: café, crème, doppelgänger, château, açai, piñata, the list goes on.
So why doesn’t English have diacritical marks of its own? The simplest answer is likely due to the invention of the printing press. During the 15th century, many early printers eliminated accent marks from words in an effort to make the printing process easier. While most English words have roots in languages with diacritical marks, the accentless versions have become the standard English versions. For example, the French versions of hôtel, début, and façade turned into “hotel,” “debut,” and “facade” in English — same spelling, same definition, no accent marks.
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
A baby’s first word is a major milestone in their development, no matter how short or long the word may be. That being said, if your baby suddenly says, “Worcestershire,” or “açai,” you have a genius on your hands. Most kids tend to say their first coherent words around the age of 1, and then begin to form complete sentences within the following year. Often speech begins with the simple words “mama” and “dada” — or variations thereof — and there’s a few reasons for that.
Advertisement
First off, the repetitive nature of the syllables makes them catchy and easy to repeat, and babies hear these terms more frequently than “hocus-pocus” or “flip-flop,” for example. In linguistic terms, the word “mama” starts with a labial consonant (“m”), which utilizes both lips in a similar fashion to how a baby would breastfeed or bottle-feed. This familiar mouth construction makes it much easier for babies to say the word “mama,” as they already know how to make that shape with their lips.
The word “dada,” on the other hand, begins with a dental consonant, a term describing how the tongue pushes against the upper teeth to make these sounds. Because of this, it might come after “mama.” However, saying “dada” doesn’t require learning how to push air out through the nose, which is a skill that takes time for babies to develop. Some babies may say “mama” and “dada” because they associate the sounds with food or comfort, not necessarily because they’re a direct reference to mom and dad.
If a baby hasn’t started babbling with “mama” or “dada,” another short and/or repetitive term such as “uh oh” or the ubiquitous “no” might be coming soon. Studies show that learning and using repetitive versions of words (“night-night” and “choo-choo,” for example) at a young age may actually help children in vocabulary learning. This makes words like “mama” and “dada” excellent options if you’re trying to encourage your child to say their first word.
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
Before we talk about the word “schwa,” and what this symbol does, let’s just acknowledge how fun it is to say over and over. Schhhwaaaa … schhhwaaaaa … OK, that’s enough of that.
Advertisement
“Schwa” is the name for the upside-down “e” symbol (ǝ) often seen in the dictionary in the pronunciation guide as part of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). It’s derived from the Hebrew word shva — a vowel that serves a similar purpose and appears in writing as two vertical dots beneath a letter. When it comes to pronunciation, the “ǝ” designates an unstressed syllable pronounced more like “uh.”
What makes a schwa special is that it often shows up even when there doesn’t appear to be a letter. Take “rhythm,” for example — while there’s no vowel seen between “th” and “m,” the IPA pronunciation shows “ əm” as the second syllable. The word is pronounced “RIH-thuhm” with the schwa symbol giving an unstressed vowel “uh” sound in the second syllable.
In addition to Hebrew and English, you’ll find schwas in at least 10 other languages, including Albanian, where it’s written as a diaeresis (two dots) over an “e.” In Dutch, it’s a digraph (two letters) written as “ij.” In Malay, schwas are shown using a symbol that looks like an upside-down “v.” No matter how the schwa is written, it sounds the same (the unstressed “uh” sound) in every language that uses it.
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
When Should You Actually Use an Exclamation Point?
It’s easy to go overboard with exclamation points, but overindulging causes this mark to lose its punch. When is it appropriate to use an exclamation point?
Hey!!! The exclamation point is one of the most common, yet frankly overused symbols in modern language. This familiar punctuation mark primarily denotes emphasis, or can be used as a warning if it’s written on its own! An early version of the symbol originated during the Middle Ages (!) and over time, this simple punctuation mark has blossomed into the popular symbol used today!!!!!
Advertisement
As the previous paragraph demonstrates, however, it’s easy to go overboard with exclamation points. They should be used far more sparingly than they are — even professional writers are guilty of an overly excited text!!! Sure, there are times when it’s appropriate to use one, but overindulging will cause the exclamation point to lose its punch. If you feel like you’ve been overusing exclamation points when texting or posting on social media, perhaps it’s time for a detox. Here’s how to cut back and use them in a more reasonable manner.
To understand when to use an exclamation point, let’s first review when not to use them. As a basic rule of thumb, if you’re writing a work email, a job application, a condolence card, or any similarly serious correspondence, you should eschew them altogether. Exclamation points detract from the serious and professional nature of any setting. Let’s look at two examples — “I’m sorry for your loss.” vs. “I’m sorry for your loss!” Using a period conveys an aptly somber feeling, while an exclamation point diminishes the situation and makes it feel almost goofy or celebratory.
In general, it’s best to use exclamation points extremely sparingly. That being said, they are useful for conveying legitimate feelings of shock and awe. If you’re writing out a “Wow!” or “No!” then it’s perfectly OK to use an exclamation point for emphasis. And if you’ve managed to corral your exclamation point usage, that single punctuation mark will deliver the bang you need it to.
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
For most people, the terms “bugs” and “insects” are used interchangeably to refer to any itsy-bitsy critter flying through the air or crawling on the countertop. But etymologically, there are a few small, yet notable distinctions that differentiate the two words. So when is it appropriate to call something a bug vs. an insect? To understand this debate, let’s travel back to a middle school science class lesson.
Advertisement
Scientists classify living organisms using a seven-tiered taxonomy scale: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. (A common mnemonic to help remember this order is: King Phillip Came Over For Good Soup.) These distinct groups range from the most general at the top (kingdom) down to the most specific (species). Within the kingdom Animalia, you’ll find a vast array of living creatures that includes humans, birds, baboons, and beetles, just to name a few. But once you drop down a level to phylum, you begin to see significant differences both biologically and etymologically.
The phylum Arthropoda includes pretty much all the critters that we’d refer to as “bugs” — beetles, spiders, moths, centipedes, ticks, ladybugs, you name it. However, it also includes crabs, lobsters, shrimp, and any other creatures with an exoskeleton, a segmented body, and jointed appendages. The specific term “bug” originated in Middle English as the word “bugge,” referring to a “frightening scarecrow.” Over time, its use was expanded to include anything that induced fright, such as creepy-crawlies.
The term “insect,” meanwhile, is derived from the class Insecta, which is a more specific grouping further down the taxonomic scale. By their literal definition, all insects have an exoskeleton, head, thorax, abdomen, three pairs of jointed legs, and a pair of antennae. This means that the term can be used to describe ants, beetles, butterflies, cockroaches, grasshoppers, fleas, termites, and many more creatures. At the same time, it would be inaccurate to refer to centipedes or spiders as “insects” since they lack all those features. (Centipedes are in the class Chilopoda, and spiders are in the class Arachnida.) When it comes to nomenclature, using the term “bug” for a crawly critter is almost always correct, as it’s a far more general term than “insect.”
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Optimism. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
Enter your email to receive daily lessons that dive into what makes English so fascinating. Each email is packed with odd rules, etymologies, and the tools you need to be a better communicator.
Sorry, your email address is not valid. Please try again.
Sorry, your email address is not valid. Please try again.