Do you ‘champ’ or ‘chomp’?

I had an email recently from an ex-colleague and pal.

There was none of that ‘how are you?’ stuff, that you might expect.

You know – that sort of polite conversational stuff before the killer request. Oh no.

He was straight in there:

“Carol –  Is it ‘CHAMPING’ at the bit or ‘CHOMPING’ at the bit…??

“I favour ‘champing’…but am I right? So many colleagues seem to quote the other variant.”

 After I had finished laughing – in a comedic horse-whinnying way that frightened the cat out of the office – I sat down and had a think.

Do I ‘champ’ or ‘chomp’? And which is correct?

 Well, my natural instinct, like Paul, would be to go with the former. So it was time to do some ferreting around to see what’s what in the world of bit-champing – or chomping.

 First port of call is the word ‘champ’. What does it mean? Well. A quick scoot over to an online dictionary tells us

that it means to crush and chew noisily, or to bite upon and grind impatiently.

 Looking at the history of the word we can see it probably started life in the 16th century as an onomatopoeic verb – or one that sounds like the actual action of a munching horse.

 Chomp, by comparison, apparently appears about a century later as a variant of ‘champ’.

 The ‘bit’ referred to in the phrase is the piece of metal in a horse’s mouth that allows the rider to control its movements. When excited or nervous, the animal will champ (or ‘chomp’) on it.

So, the this is where the expression as a whole comes from. If you’re keen to get on and do something, you’re just like a horse chewing on a delicious piece of metal. Ahem.

 So. ‘champ’ or ‘chomp’? I suppose I could just make life esier for myself and everyone by referring to the Guardian Style Guide. It just says: ‘champ’ not ‘chomp’.

Simples.

Is ‘handicapped’ ever acceptable?

This is a quick post. I have to get something off my chest…

Yesterday, on Twitter, someone I follow used the term “aurally handicapped”.  This was in relation to a story about deaf children in Sri Lanka.

Now, obviously, the acceptable terminology used in different countries to refer to disability is a wide and varied thing. But here in the UK (and, I would have thought, in the US where this Tweeter is from) ‘handicapped’ is a word you just don’t use – isn’t it? Is it ever acceptable?

As someone with hearing impairment (a term some people disapprove of, but my chosen descriptor) I was stunned to read that clunky phrase. It was clearly something repeated from the Sri Lankan press. But from a deaf advocate, it was insensitive to say the least.

Oh Lordy. Am I over-reacting? Am I turning into some kind of dreadful PC word watcher?

I don’t think so. I think I was just shocked. It just shows how powerful words can be. I can’t recall the last time I heard the word ‘handicapped’ being used in this way.

Things have changed a lot since the 1970s.

 

 

 

A riot of words

Looting, rioting, anarchy – hardly words we’d usually have associated with the latest disappointing British summer. But, over the last week or so, this is the language that has dominated our lives through the reporting of, and reaction to,  the extraordinary events on the streets of Britain – or, should I say - England.

I’ve been really interested in these words. Are they accurate or do they fan the flames of disquiet?

 So, I’ve been doing a bit of geeky word-searching, just to see what specific words actually mean.

Finding the right words

After my last post, it’s been pointed out to me that maybe some of the words I used were, how shall I say it, er… ‘inappropriate’.

Mmm. No offence was meant and I did sort of scratch my head when it was mentioned by the lovely Suzie Jones. But she is an expert in this field and I bow to her better knowledge.

So what did I do wrong, exactly?

Well, apparently the words ‘impaired’ or ‘impairment’  or ‘problem’ are a no-no …  I should just use deaf, BSL, deafened, hard of hearing (HoH) and deafblind (or dual sensory loss). This is because some BSL users (and some deafened people) hate the terms I used because it means something that doesn’t work.

Golly gosh! Chumps, twerps and daft apeths

Today I did something a bit stupid. In fact, I was a bit of a chump. How wonderful is that word? So satisfying to say and such an accurate description of someone behaving a a wee bit stupidly. It carries no malice and in itself causes a little titter.

So much better than the venom-laden modern equivalent of ‘tosser’ or ‘prick’ for example. Or maybe that’s just me, getting old?

Anyway, what I did wasn’t quite in the league of Laurel and Hardy chumpishness, but it got me thinking about those good old English words that have somehow dropped out fashion.

Populate the field… agh!

This week I am mostly annoyed by the phrase ‘populate the field’.

An empty field. It clearly needs populating...

A few years back, if someone had asked me to do this I would have wondered why on earth they wanted me to fill a large area of grassland with people.

Of course today, as most people supposedly know,  it means ‘fill in the box’  in computer-speak.

So why not say ‘fill in the box’ ?