I was reading a biography of Joe DiMaggio and noticed the author used the word withal several times. Withal seems like a good old word that is underused, like bespeak or bespoke. Or behoove (a word I used in an email this week.
While I knew how to use behoove, I was not certain the meaning of withal. Withal is defined not as a contraction of "with it all;" "with it all" is the primary definition. It can withal mean as well or besides. But besides has a sense of location (next to) while withal does not. Withal can withal mean in spite of or nevertheless. Etymonline.com sets its date of entry in English in about 1200 as a carryover from Middle English, where it was two words, with alle. Etymonline gives its meaning as "in addition." Certainly withal (pronounciation with-awl, emphasis on the second syllable) seems to be an archaic adverb. Why use withal instead of too or also? I understand it in place of "in addition" or "in spite of" since it is shorter, but "in spite of" can often be replaced by "yet" or "also" withal.
So in spite of its use in the biography, withal is not a word I will try to add to my vocabulary. There are too many good, shorter, and more common words that work just as well.
Behoove, on the other hand, is a word it would behoove more people to use. Behoove bespeaks a legal argument, but is used withal in many other ways. It means "to be necessary or proper for" and the impetus can be legal, moral, or just proper behavior. It can also refer to an action taken for personal profit or advantage, in which case it has only a positive sense. ("It behooves one to have a good command of the English language.")
The most interesting thing about the etymology of behoove is that it is spelled behove in Britain, causing dissension over whether it should be pronounced to rhyme with move and prove or rove and grove, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It comes from the Old English word behofian that was in use prior to the year 900.
And since I have space and used the word impetus earlier, let's look at it's meaning and etymology. Impetus comes originally from Latin, from the word for rapid movement or rush, impetus. It is a noun that arrived in the early 1400s spelled impetous, but by the 1640s people decided to stay with the Latin spelling. It is now defined as a moving force, something that stimulates to action.
But when such an action, whatever the cause is rash and rushed it becomes impetuous, an adjective. Impetuous actually arrived in English earlier, in the late 1300s, but also from Latin, through Old French. The original Latin word was impetuosus, and meant impetuous with a flavor of violence thrown in. Impetuosus comes from impetus, so impetus and impetuous have a common ancestor. When the Old French adopted the word in the 1200s it became impetuos. The extra "ou" makes a difference; it is not bad to give impetus to something, but to be impetuous is not a good characteristic.
It behooves us to think carefully about our actions.
1) I am greatly enamored by the word, behoove, not only because of its being an ancient word, but also because it's one of the few remaining impersonal verbs in the English language. It behooves us, that is, we need to. These constructions are common in other European languages, but has long been lost in English. Shame.
ReplyDelete2) Withal is another word whose loss I mourn, as I think it would have been a great additional to the modern lexicon. Its loss got me thinking as to the processes behind the fall of words into disuse; why do some words make it, and some don't? Maybe, like you said, the use of shorter words occasioned withal's inevitable plunge into oblivion, but given that it's quite short itself, I remain unsure.
Great post.