Photo by Bundo Kim on Unsplash. Photo has been cropped.
Some of the trickiest words in English are also the simplest looking. Set, for example, has over 450 definitions according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Run, go, take and put also have meanings numbering in the hundreds.
While meet doesn't quite fall into the same league, it deserves respect.
In the usual sense of the word, it is a verb that refers to an encounter with someone else. It stems from the Old English metan (to find, find out; fall in with, encounter; obtain).
There's an element of chance inherent in the early meanings. The modern sense, to purposely assemble, didn't arise until the 1500s, and the figurative expression to meet halfway – as in when you fully cave into your other half’s wishes and they thank you for compromising – came along about a century later.
Here are two other, less common meanings for meet. The first is a noun that came about in the 1800s thanks to the English fox hunting set who called their bloodthirsty little gatherings meets. That usage has now expanded to include any sporting event with many participants.
Then there's the somewhat archaic meaning, “proper, fitting”. This word, while identical in spelling and pronunciation to the other senses, is no relation. Its root, med, can be traced back over 5,000 years to the proto-Indo-European language meaning “suitable, having the same dimensions”. That makes this meaning of meet a cousin to words like measure, commensurate (that word so popular in jobs vacant ads where it can be roughly translated as “as little as we can get away with”) and even medical and meditate.
Now for a phrase that often causes brows to furrow in learned places. How often do you hear newsreaders talk about one world leader meeting with another to discuss Matters of Great Importance? Do you gnash your teeth in indignation at the unnecessary inclusion of that word with?
I used to. But I’ve softened my stance, and I’ll tell you why.
When I say that Bob met Mary, what mental image arises for you? There’s a good chance, I reckon, that you saw either a chance encounter – maybe the two bumping into each at their kids’ football game – or a casual meeting over coffee, say.
But if I tell you that Bob met with Mary, you now know we’re talking about a planned meeting, probably for a specific purpose like knocking off their respective partners for being insufficiently accommodating regarding their own perfectly reasonable requests. That little word with adds a shade of meaning that helps the listener understand what kind of meeting has taken place.
This illustrates the danger of trying to prescribe what constitutes good English. It’s so easy to underrate the intelligence of your fellow speakers and miss the nuances of the spoken language. Said another way, it may be you who’s being an illiterate idiot, not your lesser-read fellows.
Here’s another example. Did your English teacher ever tell you that to talk of entering into something was wrong, since into is inherent in the word enter? Again, that’s too black and white. Look at the phrase “that doesn’t enter into it”, used whenever someone you’re arguing with raises a valid objection to what you just said. Now rephrase it without the word into. It doesn’t work. Likewise, who ever heard of someone entering a contract? No one. You either enter into one or you sound – and forgive me for labouring this point – like an idiot.
You might argue that “that doesn’t come into it” would avoid both the redundancy and the weirdness if the redundancy is removed. But that’s sophistry. That doesn’t enter into it is as much a part of the language as chalk and cheese and you wouldn’t read about it.
That’s not to say that every redundant word or phrase is good or useful. But Darwin’s law about the survival of the fittest often does apply. Just because you can’t see how a language adaptation can be fit for purpose doesn’t mean it isn’t. It may be your understanding, not the adaptation, that needs to evolve.
Bits and specious
True Carl Sagan story. In 1994, Apple code-names their latest Macintosh “Carl Sagan”. Even though it’s only for internal use, Sagan sends them a cease-and-desist letter. So Apple changes the name to “BHA” for “Butt-Head Astronomer”. Sagan sues Apple for libel. The court dismisses his claim, stating: “One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase ‘butt-head’.” Sanity prevails. (For the record, I’m a massive Carl Sagan fan. But even great people can be butt-heads sometimes.)
W is the only letter of the alphabet more than a syllable long. It’s what makes it faster to say worldwide web than its alleged abbreviation, www.
From the weird-but-true file, Hamlet has been translated into many languages including Klingon.
Did you know Donald Duck has a middle name? It’s Fauntelroy. His other two names, Donald and Duck, were allegedly inspired by Australian cricket legend Don Bradman when he got out for a duck against the New York West Indians in 1932. Just as well he did. Donald a Hundred and Twenty Three Not Out would have sounded weird.
Quote of the week
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Oliver North, retired US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel
Need expert help?
When I’m not writing Lingwistics posts, I’m doing two other things:
I’m a business writing coach. If you’d like to save a lot of time and become more effective too, check out this web page.
Running Department of Writing, a specialist business writing agency. If you need support with proposal writing, white papers, web content, content marketing, editing or any other aspect of professional writing, email me at ken.grace@departmentofwriting.co.nz. Don’t let geography stand in your way either. Our clients come from around the world.
Nice, Callum. I wasn't aware of that. Does that also mean that what starts as a (possible) redundancy may become, over time, not a redundancy at all? Does "whelm" have any currency in today's language or is it now an obsolete word?