Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Resume v. Résumé

Resume v. Résumé

This one came by request. Normally, I try to say in the same part of speech, but this time, I was intrigued by the identical spelling (notwithstanding the accents) and therefore, what would appear to be the same etymology. So, if DD is to be believed, and perhaps by the time I get done with this post, I’ll have consulted OED, resume comes from the Latin “resumere” for to take back or re-take, (consistent with consume from “consumere”, to take up or take completely), where “emere” means “to take or buy”. So, resume has a direct etymological link to its origins of to take up an activity or place or condition where one left off as without interruption. She resumed her use of her sobriquet of “Mitzi,” rather than Madeline, in her older years in order to attempt to recapture her youth. He resumed his tenancy after the constructive eviction from the roof leak abated. She resumed writing her opposition to the Plaintiff’s counsel’s insipid motion after the telephone call from the Court. But résumé is odd. DD states that it is the past participle of the French résumer, and gives it a recursive etymology to “resume” which now allegedly means “to sum up”, but nothing in the definition or etymology of "resume" indicates any summing. So, yes, I’m off to OED now. OED gives the same etymology and general usage, except buried in meaning 5b., it says "resume" means to recapitulate or summarize facts (with usages c. 1675-1875), where meaning 5a. was to repeat a sentence or word in an admittedly rare usage (c. 1535-1825). How does 50 years in the 1800s make one word rare, but another not, is a rant for another day. But, finally! Something having to do with “summing”. So, it appears that for some unknown reason around 1600 there was a split in the word usage with an offshoot which, while its origins have faded into antiquity, the final derivative remains in common usage. At the moment, unfortunately, your guess is as good as mine. I’ll have to consult my French dictionary, I think, if I want to get any further on the why, but that’s not convenient now. Stay tuned…

No comments: