whacky
Dear blogosphere,
A “wack job” is a crazy person — “wack” as in “wacky.” Look it up. A “whack job,” by contrast, would be something that Tony Soprano ordered.
You’re welcome. Glad to be of service.
Leave a Reply
Commenting is closed for this article.
Dear Mr Jacobs,
Thanks for the tip, but we’re just attempting to return the word to its roots — see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wacky:
wacky: “crazy, eccentric,” 1935, variant of whacky (n.) “fool,” late 1800s British slang, probably ultimately from whack “a blow, stroke,” from the notion of being whacked on the head one too many times.
— the blogosphere · Apr 20, 05:24 PM · #
Dear blogosphere,
Thanks for your courteous reply. However, I must insist that your attempt to “return the word to its roots” — since it (a) requires dependence on highly speculative etymological back-formations, i.e., pure guesswork, and (b) deprives us of the ability to distinguish between mentally compromised individuals (“wack jobs”) and mob-generated executions (“whack jobs”) — be abandoned immediately as an unsustainable project that deserves immediate, um, whacking.
— Alan Jacobs · Apr 20, 07:42 PM · #
Alan, you’re the voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Care about your vocabulary!”
— Joules · Apr 20, 10:25 PM · #
Dear Mr Jacobs,
True to our well-known and well-deserved reputation for being open to reasonable argument and constructive criticism, we would be happy to comply with your request — if, that is, you can cite a few plausible examples where this homography would result in genuine ambiguity, in order to support your assertion that it “deprives us of the ability to distinguish” the two meanings. Given that one meaning refers to a person and the other to an action, we here in the ‘sphere are skeptical that you’ll be able to do so.
— the blogosphere · Apr 20, 10:51 PM · #
Dear blogosphere,
I’m more than happy to comply.
Christufuh: Where ya been, Tony?
Tony: Ah, dealin’ with a wack [whack?] job.
— Alan Jacobs · Apr 21, 12:22 AM · #
Our comment section is above average.
— Peter Suderman · Apr 21, 01:19 AM · #
Dear Mr Jacobs,
Bravo! And we said it couldn’t be done.
However, we feel compelled to point out that, besides the fact that the phrase “dealing with a wHack job” (with the
hmeaning) seems a bit unlikely, your example is a snatch of dialogue, which means that these interlocutors would have struggled with the ambiguity regardless of how either of them might have thought to spell the word. Unless, that is, Jersey mafiosi distinguish between word-initial “w” and “wh” (Hwack job?).Alas, this particular bit of blogosphere has to go to bed now (and the trope is getting worn out in any case), so we (I) will let you have the last word (we hope it’s spelled correctly and is unambiguous).
— the blogosphere · Apr 21, 02:43 AM · #
Peter: Not to mention our posts. Well, some of them.
— Alan Jacobs · Apr 21, 01:02 PM · #
This is one of the best posts (and comment threads) this place has seen in a long while. You guys should form a comedy troupe.
(I know that sounds like some kind of passive aggressive insult, but it’s truly, genuinely a compliment.)
— PEG · Apr 21, 02:16 PM · #