When Are the Dead No Longer "Late"?
Also, did we go from bad to badder to worse?
Visit www.booksmartstudios.com to subscribe to Lexicon Valley!!!
Econ CCX has a neat question. If BAD traces to the 1300s but WORSE traces further back to the 1200s, what kind of sense does that make, and is the source of WORSE in WAR?
I’m paraphrasing them, but their insights are perfect. We assume that the comparative form of BAD would emerge after the form itself, and we should.
The etymologies are misleading. BAD does first appear in the 1300s, but there is evidence that it existed earlier since there’s a term BAEDDEL in Old English that refers to people looked down upon in various ways. What is lacking is a mere, simple “BAED,” but that’s probably an accident. As I wrote in my book NINE NASTY WORDS, Old English sources record no “fuck” precursor, but then there is only so much material. I wrote that we wouldn’t think we knew everything about today’s English from Charlotte’s Web, an episode of “Good Times” and five issues of the New Yorker. I thought that was a good line … but have heard nothing about it! However, the point stands. BAD was surely first, and, almost as surely, at first there was a BADDER.
WORSE starts in Old English and further back as “more confused.” We can imagine why it would have been subbed in for BADDER — the similar sounding BETTER was already being used for “more good.” And wouldn’t you know, trace the WORSE root far enough back and it is indeed the source for, in another flowering, WAR, a confused thing as it is.
Gillis Heller writes:
It’s 2024 already and I still see references to “the late President John F. Kennedy”. What does late even mean in this context? How long will it go on?
He means, I assume, that “late” should refer to people only recently gone. And it indeed has, since many, many centuries ago. Here is a case where we have to check our natural impulses. I’m not sure I have ever seen a reference to JFK as “late,” nor is it “a thing” to me to see references to “the late FDR” or “the late Calvin Coolidge.” I feel like you stop saying “late” after about ten years.
I invite listeners to weigh in on this one — let’s see what happens!
I think that 'late' should last only about a year, as people would universally know that the person has died by then. 10 years is a long time, really.
I think familiarity, context, and relevance has a role in using “late” more than time. In speaking about a relative I’m likely to say my late father, if his being deceased is unknown to the listener and relevant to the message.