BE OUR GUEST

Peter Hilty is a linguist who taught English and history of the language at Southeast Missouri State University for 30 years. He resides in Cape Girardeau.

A word in the news

Harassed by Harass

It seems difficult to say anything new about present events, but perhaps I have found a fresh topic. Long before any of us had heard of Thomas and Hill, I came across the etymology, the word history, of Harass. The student of language must realize that words come from some place, and that the word without a history is as uncommon as the Dodo (the word comes from Portuguese and means stupid. But then there have been none around for 300 years to care what their name means).

Most dictionaries argue that Harass is the sound of the word that Frenchmen used to urge their dogs to attack. I say Sic to mine (the word is a form of Seek), but the French shout something like Harass. I asked a native French girl about this, who told me that she had not heard such nonsense, but this is the dictionary argument. Try it on your dog, if you have a French poodle, and you wish him to attack some intruder.

Modern harassment, sexual or otherwise, has nothing to do with instruction to dogs. Or perhaps it does in a vague, faded poetic way. The belief that the original meaning of a word remains its "true" meaning is called etymological fallacy. A literalist would have us see Thomas bringing his dog into the courtroom and having the dog torment assistants.

Americans disagree not only about the details of the Thomas-Hill story, but heatedly disagree about how the word is pronounced. Perhaps this argument fuels in part the other. We learn to sound words from speakers around us. Almost always we prefer to sound words from speakers around us. Almost always we prefer the forms we learned first if we are confronted with several pronunciations. There is no profit at all in asking in hushed tone, "But what is the correct way?" Some speakers, with assurance, stress the first syllable; others, just as confident, call these speakers bimbos and stress the second. We live in such a self-conscious world that one might feel that he may watch a life-time of reputation go down the drain when he sounds one word "incorrectly."

Harassment is a word heard in learned circles; it is not a word I learned at my mother's knee, but rather a TV and Congressmen word. I have read at least 12 dictionaries on the matter and suggest the following:

1. One who says "HAR es" will find plenty of dictionary support.

2. One who insists on "he RAS ment" will find just as much dictionary support.

3. The speaker who wishes to make no enemies should use some synonym, if he or she can find one. It is wise to avoid pronouncing the word aloud. One may use it in a letter -- if one is confident that he will not be asked to read the letter aloud.

The subject is unworthy of argument, and the one who engages in it seriously reveals that he is ignorant of certain basic language principles. But dictionary reading on the topic is fascinating. My oldest dictionaries, from Civil War times, opt for the stress on the first syllable and suggest no other. The splendid Random House 2, finished only four years ago, notes that the word is a 17th century borrowing and has traditionally been sounded in English with stress on the first syllable. Although this remains in Britain, the editors claim, a new form has developed in North America with stress on the second syllable. This form "has become common in the U.S., especially with the young intelligent speakers" but is impatiently rejected by older informed speakers. Maybe so.

The final part of our word study is that topic which most often sends readers to dictionaries: "What does the word mean?" The question is never easy to answer and suggests confidence in dictionaries which may not always be merited. Dictionaries are never entirely up to date, while words keep changing in meaning. Dictionaries must define out of the context which the reader has in mind. Dictionaries often reflect regional prejudices, especially in pronunciation.

Words are defined through sentences in which they appear. Even Harass, shouted to a dog, is a complete sentence with some parts understood. Linguists are often critical of dictionaries, and perhaps with good reason, but modern dictionaries are masterpieces in several dimensions and illustrate some of the best scholarship of our time.

Good dictionaries define words in context, often quoting much of a sentence in an effort to show meaning. Reading the history of Harass informs us that the word has remained rather near its earliest definitions. A writer in 1626 wrote "These troops came to the army but the day before, harassed with a long and wearisome march."

A century later someone, concerned for horses noted "After they (horses) have been harassed and gone through their assigned tasks, they should be rid gentle out of the (barn)."

A 1710 writer complained that there was "not a seat whereon to rest our harassed limbs."

A 1850 Webster's defines the word as "to weary, as an army harassed by a long march."

If these earlier definitions seem not to satisfy the modern reader as accurate descriptions of Harass, it is perhaps because none suggests human malice and conniving. One writer notes that the people were "Harassed by earthquakes." But earthquakes will never be discussed in Congress as malicious harriers.

Dictionaries often use synonyms and antonyms in an effort to define, a strategy not always helpful. Rarely will a pair of words be complete synonyms. Here are some that have been given for Harass: Hound, Badger, Pester, Plague, Bait, Torment, Exhaust, Perplex.

Dictionary definitions come from accepted pieces of literature, but the King James Bible and Shakespeare do not use Harass, perhaps because the word was rather new in the early 17th century. Poet laureate Tennyson in 1855 in Maud wrote of someone who was "slowly dying, vext with lawyers and harassed with debt." Later in Enoch Arden, the same poet wrote, "The thought haunted and harassed him."

The Concordance for William Wordsworth lists six lines in which Harass appears. In one, in The Prelude, the poet complains that "I have been harassed by verse."

So what is the single meaning of Harass? We cannot insist upon a single meaning. The word, like many words, is somewhat redefined with each usage. Certainly lexicographers for the rest of this century will recall the definitions in context that the word has received during the past few days. Do these definitions fit the historical meanings of the word? Not exactly, I believe. The word has acquired a somewhat more serious if not sinister quality. I do not mind being harassed by earthquakes or even by long marches. That bitter wind is not so keen as man's ingratitude.

Modern dictionaries of legal terms rarely list Harass. One which does defines is as "vexatious litigation," leaving the layman to wonder if there are other varieties. This morning's paper (Oct. 17, 1991) reports the tragic story of a mass murderer in Texas and quotes a neighbor who recalls that "he harassed her daughters." How would the lady have spoken a month ago? And do Texas and Washington agree on the word? Whatever our conclusions about precise meaning, the word has been stirred. Likely it will not lie quietly again for a generation.