Anyone know the origin of this expression? I know that kit can label a group of things, and caboodle:
Main Entry: ca.boo.dle
Pronunciation: k&-‘bü-d[^&]l
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from ca- (intensive prefix) + boodle
Date: circa 1848
: COLLECTION, LOT
Then, boodle:
Main Entry: boo.dle
Pronunciation: ‘bü-d[^&]l
Function: noun
Etymology: Dutch boedel estate, lot, from Middle Dutch; akin to Old Norse buth booth
Date: 1833
1 : a collection or lot of persons : CABOODLE
2 a : bribe money b : a large amount especially of money
Just wondering how this came into common parlance.
I think there are a number of expressions that use repetition of the same idea in two different ways as an intensifier: so kit, a whole group of things + caboodle, a whole group of things = really, the whole group of things. The OED also attests "kit and boiling", kit and boodle" and "kit and cargo" formed in the same way. I imagine "kit and caboodle" won out because of its pleasant rhythm and alliteration.
I’m sure I’ve run into several phrases that do the same repetition trick, but for the life of me I can’t remember another apart from "let or hindrance" at the moment.
Anyone?
[quote author=granthutchison link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#1 date=10/18/02 at 11:00:07]I think there are a number of expressions that use repetition of the same idea in two different ways as an intensifier: so kit, a whole group of things + caboodle, a whole group of things = really, the whole group of things. The OED also attests "kit and boiling", kit and boodle" and "kit and cargo" formed in the same way. I imagine "kit and caboodle" won out because of its pleasant rhythm and alliteration.
I usually hear whole kit and caboodle, so I suppose the whole applies to each of the kit and caboodle: very much everything, indeed. ;D
I’m sure I’ve run into several phrases that do the same repetition trick, but for the life of me I can’t remember another apart from "let or hindrance" at the moment.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#2 date=10/18/02 at 11:29:16]
I usually hear whole kit and caboodle, so I suppose the whole applies to each of the kit and caboodle: very much everything, indeed. ;D
"Spit and image" comes to mind.
I always thought it was "the spitin’ image" but I couldn’t for the life of me see why until I looked up the defintion at yDc:
Main Entry: [sup]4[/sup]spit Function: noun Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : SPITTLE, SALIVA (2) : the act or an instance of spitting b (1) : a frothy secretion exuded by spittlebugs (2) : SPITTLEBUG 2 : perfect likeness
3 : a sprinkle of rain or flurry of snow
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#4 date=10/19/02 at 19:45:42]According to him, it’s "spit and image" or "spit image."
Dr Language is more proscriptive than the OED, which acknowledges spit and image, spit image, spitten image and spitting image though describing the latter two as a "corrupted pronunciation" and an "alteration" of the first, respectively. Both these altered versions have been around for more than a century, though.
[quote author=granthutchison link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#5 date=10/19/02 at 20:00:22]
Dr Language is more proscriptive than the OED, which acknowledges spit and image, spit image, spitten image and spitting image though describing the latter two as a "corrupted pronunciation" and an "alteration" of the first, respectively. Both these altered versions have been around for more than a century, though.
Is that a case of evolved language, then? As I was asking for in my other post?
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#6 date=10/19/02 at 21:15:11]Is that a case of evolved language, then? As I was asking for in my other post?
It’s a bit different, isn’t it? This is just a change in the way a phrase is interpreted, whereas previously we were talking about big grammatical shifts from gotten to got.
There are lots of examples of language evolving with time, and evolving differently in different places. What exactly were you looking for?
I am wondering what forces cause language to evolve. A couple of factors to consider would be nice; the list does not have to be exhaustive. In the examples I brought, I was looking to see if widespread mispronunciation, misunderstandings of what words are actually used in a phrase, or other factors are responsible for changes in what is considered correct.
I’m sure there are a great many factors beyond the ones I suggested and I would like a few to ponder.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#8 date=10/19/02 at 22:41:43]I’m sure there are a great many factors beyond the ones I suggested and I would like a few to ponder.
Well, one big force for change is the gradual regularisation of irregular verbs and nouns - people drop the old rules in favour of the standard. That’s happened in the past (we say girded, not girt) and it has sometimes split the irregular and regular forms into two different meanings (as happened to wended and went). It’s also happening now, as more and more people say indexes rather than indices, and we’re seeing subtle differences of meaning between the irregular and regular forms (spelled v. spelt and burned v. burnt in the UK). These revisions can take place in different ways in different countries: so the US has retained the very old structure for the verb to get, with a vowel change in the past tense and the introduction of a terminal "n" for the past participle: get, got, gotten. Whereas in the UK we have partially regularised it by making the past tense and participle the same: get, got, got. Sometimes the two countries regularise in different ways: the old verb structures shine, shined, shone and dive, dived, dove have been partially regularised in both countries, but in the UK we go for shine, shone, shone and dive, dived, dived; whereas in the US I see shined and dove in the past tense.
Then there are the changes from mishearing unfamiliar words, or adapting words to better fit our idea of what they mean. I was surprised to read Dr Language’s connection between tornado and thunder today, because I had always seen tornado as being a word related to turning. But, checking on the derivation, I found out it probably originated in the Spanish tronada, "thunderstorm" and then had the torn- formation forced on it because it made sense to people that it would be related to Spanish tornar "to turn".
As another example, the words orange and apron started their lives as norange and napron, but lost their initial n’s from a mishearing of, for instance, "a napron" as "an apron". (In the case of orange there was maybe some influence from a knowledge of the Latin aurum, gold, too.)
Another mechanism for language change that’s worth thinking about is the huge systematic changes, like the Great Vowel Shift (something I think Linnet will know more about than I do), in which pretty much every vowel in English shifted its pronunciation.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#8 date=10/19/02 at 22:41:43]I am wondering what forces cause language to evolve.
With respect to pronounciation, the two major forces are homo sapiens’ imperfect ear and imperfect tongue.
A, B and C are native speakers of English.
Under normal circumstances, when A says ‘dog’ and B says ‘dog’ C’s ear compensates for the differences between A’s and B’s vocal cords, mouth shapes, etc., and hears ‘dog.’ But C’s ear is not perfect, and, especially in the case where C is not a native English speaker, C may hear ‘zog’ or ‘thog.’
Day to day, we compensate for these ever-so-slight variations in pronounciation. Over hundreds and thousands of years, however, the variations tend to become fixed as ‘new’ words, leading to a new dialect, and ultimately to a new language.
An example of this phenomenon is seen in the English word ‘thank.’ In Dutch and German, languages very close to English, the cognate word is ‘dank.’ The word started life as ‘tong’ in PIE.
English ‘gold’ is ‘goud’ in Dutch (with the ‘g’ pronounced as in Scottish ‘loch’), ‘golden’ in German, and ‘zloty’ in Polish. These words began as ‘ghel’ in PIE, which also yielded, among many others, English ‘yellow,’ ‘glad’ and ‘cholera.’
Note also that the Arabic and Aramaic word for ‘gold’ is ‘dahab,’ while in Hebrew it’s ‘zahav.’
You encountered the phenomenon many years ago: Remember the kid’s game called Broken Telephone?
Another mechanism for language change that’s worth thinking about is the huge systematic changes, like the Great Vowel Shift (something I think Linnet will know more about than I do), in which pretty much every vowel in English shifted its pronunciation.
The GVS began in the fifteenth century and was done by about 1700. For the die-hard linguists, I can tell you that in the GVS ‘each long vowel was raised in the mouth to the position of the vowel next above it in the system’. Shakesperian English represents a mid-way point in the shift.
It is difficult to say why this shift occurred. However, it was not the first major vowel change in English. After the Norman Conquest there was a change from what we know as Old English to Middle English. This is more easily to find a cause for; Norman French became the dominant language spoken by those at the top of the food chain. English was spoken by the masses but to a large extent was oral only. English did not start to resurge until about 1204, when King John lost Normandy and French, therefore, became the language of the enemy. A further straining of Anglo-French relations took place during the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453). In 1399, Henry IV became the first native English speaking king of England since the Norman Conquest.
The change from OE to ME saw most vowels changing, and a new set of dipthongs introduced, including the ‘oi’ that appears in words such as joy. Although both OE and ME are very melodic and pleasing languages, they are quite different from each other. I can speak ME and have a working but imperfect knowledge of it, but I as yet have little understanding of OE and have to rely on translations.
Now tell me how the GVS relates to the whole kit and caboodle again?
[quote author=Linnet link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#11 date=10/22/02 at 05:15:59]Now tell me how the GVS relates to the whole kit and caboodle again?
Pay attention at the back, there!
"Kit and caboodle"=> intensification by repetition => "spit and image" => "spitting image" => by what mechanisms do languages change over time? => Great Vowel Shift.
IOTTMOI.
Please, sir, it was more of a muse on the twists and turns that these threads seem to take, rather than a lack of attention ( in this case, anyway ;)).
PS: Thanks for the information about the GVS.
You’re welcome. I have more info, but didn’t want to deluge anybody with it. Personally, I think it is rather sad that the GVS occurred, as ME is a much better sounding language.
[quote author=Linnet link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#13 date=10/22/02 at 19:44:51]Personally, I think it is rather sad that the GVS occurred, as ME is a much better sounding language.
How interesting! Do you know of an online source where ME could be heard (preferably with accompanying ME and Modern texts)?
[quote author=Agoraphile link=board=idiom;num=1034888669;start=0#14 date=10/22/02 at 21:49:45]
How interesting! Do you know of an online source where ME could be heard (preferably with accompanying ME and Modern texts)?
I don’t know about online, but our local library has a 4-cassette version read in Old English. I didn’t know it was in Old English until I put it in the tape player. Surpise! Didn’t sound like any English I ever heard, including them "furriners" in England. I’ve also heard some Chaucer in Middle English. A little better, but you wonder whether it was the speaker or you who had too much to drink.
Actually, thinking back on it, it reminds me of the 1969/1970 years and the "Paul is dead" controversy. Playing the phrase "Number Nine" backwards (very easy in the days of reel-to-reel recorders) came out distinctly as "Turn me on dead man." Most of it sounded like it could have been English, but the accents and everything else made it sound really strange. Every once in a while something came along that sounded a little familiar. Just like Middle English.
