In another thread wordnerd said

quote:

My hyperpuristic tongue is squarely in my cheek here.

Neither my tongue nor my cheek is square so does anyone have any idea of the origin of this usage?

Here's one of the definitions in the OED Online:

squarely, adv.
fig. Plainly, unequivocally, firmly, solidly. Chiefly U.S.

1860 in Thornton Amer. Gloss. (1912) II. 845 [This] means simply and squarely, that you intend..to rule or ruin this Government. 1885 Cent. Mag. XXIX. 511 He stands squarely upon observation, experience, induction. 1900 LAPSLEY Durham 44 He..based his demand squarely on his royal power.

Tinman

I get the usage, I'd even quibble with the "chiefly US" as it's common enough here. I was just wondering how it came to have that usage.

Interesting question, Bob, though I couldn't find the answer.

I did find that the sense of old-fashioned is from U.S. jazz slang...from the shape of a conductor's hand gestures in a regular four-beat rhythm. The honest, fair and straight, direct definitions make sense, given the straight sides of a square. But the firmly definition I am not as sure about.

My guess is that 'square' might have acquired these metaphorical meanings (firm, solid, down-to-earth, regular) -- I'm thinking also of phrases like "square deal", "square meal" (re-literalized at West Point as a plebe-hazing technique), the pleonastic "four-square" (is there any other kind?) -- because the square is such a basic, regular, stable, ubiquitous shape, so unlike the pointy triangle or the showoff pentagon (not to mention the Jewish hexagon), the ugly asymmetric heptagon, etc.

Interesting about the jazz derivation of 'square' as a pejorative term; I had thought it was just turning a mainstream virtue (squareness) into a hip diss.

Phroggye

I know it doesn't answer the question here, but The Word Detective talks about "square meal."

Tinman

Thanks, Tinman. That makes a lot of sense.

My husband has always been a bit skeptical of Word Detective, saying that some of the etymology is questionable. I've always liked it. Any thoughts on Word Detective?

I think Evan Morris (The Word Detective) is fairly reliable. He certainly has lexicology in the blood; both his mother and father were also in the "trade". I am not qualified to speak for his scholarship, but I have never found him completely wrong. His writing style may be a little too popularistic for some, though.

Huey Lewis and the News said, and I agree, that it's Hip to be Square.

Always thought that the term "square meal" arose because Royal Navy sailors ate their food from square plates, it being much easier for a carpenter to make a square plate rather than a round one. But I stand to be corrected!

quote:

Originally posted by Erik Johansen:
Always thought that the term "square meal" arose because Royal Navy sailors ate their food from square plates, it being much easier for a carpenter to make a square plate rather than a round one. But I stand to be corrected!

I'm not so sure that you need to be corrected. I always thought the same. So, I looked up the H. M. S. Victory website in hopes of spotting square plates, but found only round bowls. Nevertheless, I am of the same opinion still. I saw square plates from the Royal Navy somewhere. The fact that we share the same idea about this obscure subject seems to be circumstantial evidence that there is some basis for it. As Thoreau said, some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.

But I stand to be corrected!

Well, Mr Quinion finds your etymology, amongst others, to be "rubbish, of course, but entertaining rubbish". He suggests that it is an Americanism, and mentions Mark Twain and a newspaper in Portland , OR, for early citations.

Since it wasn't not all that easy to make something exactly square prior to industrialization, a square is a sign of precision. A nearly perfct circle can be drawn with the crudest of tools, but not a square. While I have nothing with which to back this up, I'd guess that "square" and "precise" were synonyms that led to this expession.

quote:

Since it wasn't not all that easy to make something exactly square prior to industrialization, a square is a sign of precision.

Not so. Perfect squares (and cubes) were being made in stone by, amongst others, the Egyptians and the Aztecs long before the industrial revolution.

A square is easily drawn accurately simply by constructing a quadrangle with equal sides and equal diagonals. A simple measuring task.

quote:

Not so. Perfect squares (and cubes) were being made in stone by, amongst others, the Egyptians and the Aztecs long before the industrial revolution.

A square is easily drawn accurately simply by constructing a quadrangle with equal sides and equal diagonals. A simple measuring task.

Nevertheless, it's easier to draw a circle - and less imaginitive. Unless one goes to the crystalline level, one doesn't find squares in everyday nature. Anyone can scribe a circle freehand, but it takes skill and knowledge to produce a square.

quote:

Anyone can scribe a circle freehand

Using a pair of compasses or similar, yes. It's easy to do. But freehand? I reckon most people would make a better job of a square.

One could argue that a rule is a most complex thing than a fixed centre, pivot and fixed length of string - but I reckon it'd be a pretty close argument.

And, incidentally, the Royal Navy always used circular plates, often made of pewter. The British army, though, in later years at least, used mess-tins, which are rectangular. Easier to carry in a pack, I chould think.

If you place your thumb on the table and walk around it, you've got a circle. Stand up, remove your belt, let it drag the ground, and turn about. You've got a circle. I dare say you'll not be able to pace off a square with as much accuracy.

The square has for at least two millinea, and likely longer, been considered magical/mystical, just as the circle has. We only think of the magical mandala (circle) today, ignoring the "magic squares" of the ancient mathematicians. Granted, the three rows of numbers describe a rectangle, but stil comprise four right angles.
Here's an interesting bit about them: http://www.ismaili.net/mirrors/Ikhwan_08/magic_squares.html

As to my original thought, the simple lathe is likely the earliest "high-tech" tool. Two trees, a bent sapling, a rope, and a piece of flint will build a tool for cutting a perfectly round object. Indeed, the very name, "lathe" derives from the bent sapling.

Don't want to argue with you, Richard, but when I visited the HMS Victory not only did the tour guide mention the "square meal" story but there WERE some wooden square plates on tables there. Perhaps only the officers ate from pewter plates?

Which came first? The square or the circle? Probably unknown and unknowable. Certainly the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Europeans had geometries of a sort and knew how to make circles and squares. I still agree with Quinion (q.v.) that the earlier meaning of the adjective square as honest became, after a while, satisfactory in American English of the mid-19th century. As an aside, most ancient paltes I've seen have been round, and it is hard to throw a clay dish or bowl that is square.

Yesterday in this thread zmj linked to Quinion, who says, "The oldest example I know of appeared in the Morning Oregonian of Portland, Oregon, in 1862, about a hotel that had opened in the town: 'If you want a good square meal and a clean bed to sleep in, give Mr Lee a call.'"

Here is an earlier one, from the Placerville, California Mountain Democrat in 1856: "We have secured the services of an excellent cook, and can promise all who patronize us that they can always get a hearty welcome and a 'square meal,' at the 'Hope and Neptune.'"

From the Bracknell Royal Navy Association:

quote:

When a sailor joined the navy during the nineteenth century, he would have been issued with one a square plate, made this shape to allow more sailors to sit at a table, off which he would have been fed "three times daily", according to Admiralty instructions. This then gives rise to the saying -
"Three square meals a day". Or "A good square meal"

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:
From the Bracknell Royal Navy Association:

quote:

When a sailor joined the navy during the nineteenth century, he would have been issued with one a square plate, made this shape to allow more sailors to sit at a table, off which he would have been fed "three times daily", according to Admiralty instructions. This then gives rise to the saying -
"Three square meals a day". Or "A good square meal"

Tinman

Nevertheless, this still has the strong odour of urban myth about it. It may be accurate but it wouldn't be the first time that a false etymology has been accepted so enthusiastically that people, even people who should be in a position to know better, have taken it as true. When I have more time I'll dig some examples out.

The link does not work but, frankly, I'd sooner believe Michael Quinion than a quote from a private association in Bracknell.

He says of the therory that "...Sailors used to eat off wooden boards; these were square in shape and were usually not filled with food. However, after a heavy watch the sailors were given a large meal which filled the board — a square meal...." - "...Wonderful stuff. Rubbish, of course, but entertaining rubbish...." and his research is generally accurate and thorough.

In his book, POSH and other language myths Michael claims that the term "square meal" is American, harking back to the middle of the 19th century.

It would be interesting to learn where the Bracknell RNA got its information.

The link didn't work but a bit of fiddling about (see the article) with the url got the page. There is so much wrong with that article its hard to know where to begin. Practically every word of it is nonsense from the origin of "fiddle about" to the oft quoted but entirely specious origin of "freeze the balls off a brass monkey".

All this plus typos and errors. On the quiz show "QI" Alan Davies once asked plaintively "Why is everything I know wrong?" and received the reply from one of the other panellists "Because everything you know you learned from overhearing a bloke in the pub."

Frankly I'd put more trust in the bloke in the pub than in that particular link.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Here is an earlier one, from the Placerville, California Mountain Democrat in 1856

You should send the reference to Quinion.

I've managed to find the page myself and, apart from the "loose cannon" reference, I would suggest that all the etymologies shown are complete rubbish.

This site seems rather more authoritative, if perhaps more modern http://www.middle-watch.co.uk/html/jack_speak.html but I note that the expression "square meal" does not appear therein.

You should send the reference to Quinion.

'Tis done, sir, along with a request that he include Wordcraft among his links.

Further to the main discussion. This does illustrate how unwise it is to just rely on internet sources. For more examples, this kind of gibberish can be found all over the net. In fact a google search on "dead ringers" + "cats and dogs" turns up nearly 23,000 hits and from the first couple of pages it looks as if about half of them are quoting the linked rubbish verbatim.

Amusing it may be, etymology it isn't. My guess with the Bracknel link is that the author has researched on the internet and been convinced by what he's found so that he's reported it as true. I don't think he intends to pull a fast one, I think he's sincere (he looks sincere on their homepage anyway ) but sincerity is no proof of correctness.

I've corrected my link above to the Bracknell Royal Navy Association for anybody who wants to read it, though Richard and Arnie think it's a lot of hogwash. But it's entertaining hogwash. I agree that Quinion is a more reliable source.

Tinman

quote:

Richard and Arnie think it's a lot of hogwash. But it's entertaining hogwash.

It is entertaining. Etymology isn't an exact science anyway. We really don't know who is right on this.

quote:

Richard and Arnie think it's a lot of hogwash.

Actually, it was Richard and Bob. However, I took a look at the page today and agree with them: it's a load of (cannon) balls.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:

quote:

Richard and Arnie think it's a lot of hogwash.

Actually, it was Richard and Bob.

Oops! So it was. Sorry, Bob.

Tinman