If you recall from a previous thread, at my work we have done a 360 degree assessment of ourselves, and as part of that people had to describe us with adjectives. I found that part the most fun. For example, someone described me as "literate," which I think of as meaning being able to read or write; yet, I do know that it means being well-read, which is what I hope they meant. Another described me as "contented." Is that good or bad? It may be good to be content with what you are doing, but you can be too content. There were some obvious negatives too, such as "argumentative;" Shu definitely agrees with that one!

However, one descriptor that you don't often hear was "sanguine." It is an interesting word because, while it means "cheerfully optimistic," it struck me that we use "sanguinous" in medicine to mean a "bloody," such as in "sero-sanguinous drainage" from a wound. In looking it up, I found that AHD had a nice Word History of how the 2 words developed.

The AHD word-history says, "Such a temperament was called sanguine, the Middle English ancestor of our word sanguine."

In checking OED's quotations I thought the story might be slightly different, because references to a sanguine temperment do not come until after the Middle-English period; the prior references are to a sanguine complexion.

c1386 CHAUCER: Of his complexioun he was sangwyn.

1509: For sanguyne youth it is al contrary.

It turns out, however, that in those days the word complexion in fact meant 'temperment',¹ and it did not acquire its current meaning of 'face-appearance' until later.²

---

¹c1386 CHAUCER Or ellis his complexioun is so corrageous that he may not forbere.
²1580 Rhodope beeing beautifull (if a good complection and fayre fauour be tearmed beautie).