inkhorn term

(redirected from Inkhorn terms)

inkhorn term

n
(Literary & Literary Critical Terms) an affectedly learned and obscure borrowing from another language, esp Greek or Latin

ink′horn term`


n.
an obscure, affectedly or ostentatiously erudite borrowing from another language, esp. Latin or Greek.
[1535–45]
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Other chapters uncover connections between George Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie and sugar, Ben Jonson's Poetaster and inkhorn terms, Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece and the lately introduced concept of zero.
So incensed does Wilson become at this violation of decorum by his fellow-countrymen that he then composes a satirical letter attributed to an anonymous "Lincolnshire man" (163) and filled with the worst inkhorn terms imaginable.
According to Puttenham, inkhorn terms and words borrowed from "strangers" can only please the vulgar crowd, the common people, who prefer interludes and popular drama, just as they enjoy the jangling rhymes of "Cantabanqui" and "blind harpers" (96-97).
Just as inkhorn terms were condemned by Wilson and Puttenham for being "dark," so Furetiere implies that such words are obscure by supplying glosses for them in his footnotes.
Wilson, for instance, calls clerks who cannot dress their thought in appropriate language "slouens" (161), that is, people who are poorly clothed and hence, lower class; Puttenham notes that inkhorn terms especially delight "the common people" (96); and Furetiere says that no one of noble birth lives in Pedanterie, whose leader comes from the "dregs of the people" and whose inhabitants are all "dirty," their clothing consisting of "robes crotees, souliers plats, [et] linge sale" (100: filthy robes, fiat shoes, [and] dirty linen).
Moreover, Puttenham acknowledges that one must sometimes use words from Greek and Latin (and other languages), that is, inkhorn terms, simply because native English words are lacking.
Both Wilson and Furetiere also waffle on the issue of inkhorn terms.
The importance of this paper for its approach towards a statement of general validity on editorial method is somewhat concealed by the writer's convoluted expression ('a very significant non-congruency of handwritten and typeset situations' is the kernel of one knotty formulation) and by his liking for inkhorn terms.
Larded with pretentious inkhorn terms ("processually," "identitarian," "equivalential," "counterhegemonic," "celebrityness," "hierachicalizing," "heteronormative," "historicalities," "multidimentional positionality," "reparameterizes," "subfluxation," "biunivocal," "subjunctified," "non-state-promoting entities," "Marlowespace") and marred by lapses in grammar and euphony, this analysis invites us to "tango with [alternative] perspectives" as reflected in "materialist and constructivist accounts" of "Mary/Moll" "as a means by which to chasse into our own alternative theoretical understanding of deviant identity formations" (66-67).