Jen in Edinburgh wrote me to say she’d been wondering “why we say that we’re going to ‘wing’ something […] I have actually looked it up in the OED and found out – but it wasn’t a reason I expected at all, so if it surprised me, maybe it will surprise other commenters!” I looked it up and it surprised me too, so I herewith share it. OED s.v. wing v.:
II.11. Theatrical slang. transitive. To study (a part) in or about the wings, having undertaken it at short notice; also intransitive. Hence in to wing it; now usually in slang use (originally and chiefly U.S.), to improvise; to speak or act without preparation, to make statements on unstudied matters (see also quot. 1950).
1885 ‘To wing’..indicates the capacity to play a rôle without knowing the text, and the word itself came into use from the fact that the artiste frequently received the assistance of a special prompter, who..stood..screened..by a piece of the scenery or a wing.
Stage 21 August 12/21886 In the event of an artiste being suddenly called upon to play a part of which he knows nothing..he frequently has to ‘wing’ the part.
Stage Gossip 701933 He must give a performance by ‘winging it’—that is, by refreshing his memory for each scene in the wings before he goes on to play it.
P. Godfrey, Back-stage iii. 391950 Wing it, vb., to lay off an approximate 90° angle by eye.
American Speech vol. 25 238/1
[…]1979 Mr. Trudeau came without notes, choosing to wing it, and struggled..unsuccessfully to establish Mr. Leger’s resemblance to an owl.
Globe & Mail (Toronto) 22 January 8/2
It makes sense, but I don’t think I would ever have guessed it. Thanks, Jen!
‘Wing it’, ‘leg it’ and ‘arm it’ all mean surprisingly different things. ‘Foot it’ is an instruction to dance, I think.
Presumably unrelated to the other not-immediately-transparent sense of the verb “to wing,” viz. (to use merriam-webster’s phrasing) “to wound (as with a bullet*) without killing.”
*The underlying image is presumably from hunting wildfowl, thus presumably without bullets-as-such because using shotguns.
The 1950 quote is from A City Surveying Vocabulary
“foot it” to me is pretty strongly associated with ladder-wrangling – “brace the foot of the ladder (with your foot) so i can climb it safely”.
“To foot” also has a totally different sense as an English verb, albeit perhaps in specialized circles. Wiktionary has this sense as “To sum up, as the numbers in a column; sometimes with up.” I first encountered it as a young lawyer back in the Nineties sitting through the sworn testimony of multiple accountants who had failed to notice (as we would say in 20/20 hindsight) some very dodgy things going on in the financial statements of the company whose accounts they had supposedly audited (before the company imploded and the CEO got a lengthy prison sentence because the reality was at rather dramatic variance with what had been set forth in the audited financial statements). In their jargon, you would ask whether in such-or-such context the numbers footed, meaning whether all the specific numerical entries on a particular page-or-series-of-pages did or didn’t actually sum up or net out to the higher-generality number that was then going to be used in some higher-level financial summary.
“foot it” to me is pretty strongly associated with ladder-wrangling
In the early 1970s I traded a budding career as a philologist for work as a painter and handyman in the employ of a Baltimore slumlord. I often heard “foot it you f______,”
‘Ladder-wrangling’ is new to me. Thanks for that.
i can’t swear (or affirm) to anyone else having used the phrase, but every time i’ve come back to housepainting work it’s certainly involved a lot of it!
Very interesting. I’d kind of assumed that it was connected in some way with “on a wing and a prayer.”
So footing the bill meaning paying it is an extension from the meaning of adding it up?
Ah, news to me, also. Somewhat related to the more passive “waiting in the wings.”
19th C origin theories notwithstanding, I’ve always thought that “winging it” derived from some flight metaphor, like “on a wing and a prayer” mentioned above (although that seems to be a WWI thing), or “on the wing” (as in birds in flight, though I’m not sure that might transform to acting/speaking without preparation). See also “on the fly”. The idea of prepping in the wings of the stage or having a prompter stationed there seems forced.
19th C origin theories notwithstanding, I’ve always thought that “winging it” derived from some flight metaphor […] The idea of prepping in the wings of the stage or having a prompter stationed there seems forced.
So you prefer your completely unsubstantiated idea over the facts (not “origin theories”) presented above? How exactly do you explain the 1885 quote from The Stage, which very clearly lays out how and why it was used, not to mention the subsequent citations that support it? It never ceases to amaze me how attached people are to their own guesses, which they maintain no matter what the contrary evidence.
One problem is that the supposed 19th-century theatrical practice is now itself outside the usual semantic scope of “winging it.” I don’t think an actor who hasn’t memorized the script but is being fed his scripted lines by someone in the wings who has memorized them and/or has the physical script at hand is really “winging it” in the 21st century sense of the idiom, because he is not actually improvising on the fly* in lieu of having prepared or rehearsed. Such semantic shifts happen of course, and don’t mean the origin story is wrong, but this makes the origin story almost worse than opaque. Many people will use such an idiom without any concern about how it relates to some other sense of the word “wing” (which of course has a variety of senses), but those who are concerned about such things will probably settle upon some satisfactory-feeling folk etymology that has the advantage over the scholarly etymology of actually making sense in terms of the current meaning.
*Does “on the fly” itself imply a wing, of the sort you fly with?
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE STAGE.
Date: Saturday, Aug. 4, 1883
Publication: The Era (London, England)
Issue: 2341
Having recovered from her stage fright, Miss Menken, by what is termed “winging it”–that is, by throwing down the book between the wings of the scene when going on […] contrived to get through the part.
Antedating OED.
British Newspaper Sources, Gale.
Great antedate!
Such semantic shifts happen of course, and don’t mean the origin story is wrong, but this makes the origin story almost worse than opaque.
I have no idea what this means. It’s like complaining that the earth going around the sun is opaque because it’s not obvious to the uninstructed earthling. This use of “wing” comes from the theater, end of story; who cares that it’s no longer used that way? The history is what it is. Does the fact that we no longer use bead to mean ‘prayer’ make it somehow “opaque” that that’s where it comes from? I mean, yes, you have to look it up, if that’s what you mean.
It may be that the modern sense of wing it is actually of mixed origin. At least partially it certainly derives from the theatrical sense attested from the 1880s. However, I don’t think we can rule out that the modern sense (“improvise”) was also influenced by on the wing, which has been used in a figurative way (“Moving or travelling swiftly or briskly; astir, active, on the move,” per the OED) since the earliest days of Modern English.
Sure, that’s a definite possibility.
Two months earlier:
“Well, you can wing it, you know.”
“Wing it? As how?”
“Why read the part behind the scenes before you go on , and then tip them the dilog.
“Autobiography of an Actor”, The Theatre, volume 10, June 1, 1883.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7TinbyplU0YC&pg=PA333
The conversation supposedly took place in 1818.
And here’s a somewhat puzzling one from an American book, The Amateur, or Guide to the Stage… by a Retired Actor, which according to Google Books was published in 1850.*
“How to “Wing a Part,” or to manage one in case of hurry or accident” (p. 42)
“Should it become your task in case of accident, to go on for a part, without sufficient possible time to commit the words to memory, and if you are obliged, in a theatrical phrase, to ‘wing it,’ or cut it down, your best mode of proceeding is, I think, to read it over coolly, and then copy from it a skeleton part, containing such sense, or lines, as are absolutely indispensable to the plot of the piece in each speech, and end it with the last line or cue in full, in which you should be perfect, so that you may not ‘put out,’ or confuse the other performers.” (p. 43)
“WING,—to reduce a part down to the mere sense, or to the ‘cues.'” (p. 64, in the non-alphabetical glossary)
(It glosses “THE WING” as “The half-scene that is shoved on the side of the stage.”)
That has more emphasis than we’ve seen on cutting it down and less specific connection to the wings.
*The versions of the book on Google Books, which the site dates to 1850 and 1851, don’t contain a publication date, but much later books give it as 1850 or 185-?.
But we are interested not only in the ultimate origin of a word/phrase but how it came to spread and be used over time in different or extended senses. If, hypothetically speaking, the word/phrase ultimately spread and thrived via people who not only didn’t know the “true origin” but who made up various folk etymologies in order for the usage to make sense to them, such that the usage would not have spread/thrived without those folk etymologies, I think that’s, hypothetically speaking, kind of interesting. Put another way, the history of a word/phrase, including the causal factors that determine its subsequent history, does not end with the first attested usage.
I agree that how the phrase came to spread in space, time, and sense is interesting, but we are also interested in antedatings. That is, I’m having fun.
“‘You’ll do capitally well,’ said Elliston, with a most provoking coolness of manner; ‘your scenes are all with me, and you can wing the part.'”
W. T. Moncrieff, Esq., “Ellistoniana, No. VI: Smugging an Author”, The New Monthly Magazine, 1843, Part the Second, p. 261.
But I think I’ll stop here for now. Maybe I’ll try to figure out what “smugging” is.
I’d guess “smugging an author” is from one of the various meanings of smug, v. in Green’s, but which one is not immediately obvious to me.
elaborating a bit on the implications of the various citations: i think JWB is very much on to something about the specificity of 19thC theater practice; i think a big part of that is about the role of the prompter.
especially in a touring rep company, where at the more extreme end you could be doing a four-day stand of five different plays (and were certainly always doing more than one play at a time), prompting wasn’t noteworthy – everyone would need it sometimes, and the task was to make it as invisible to the audience as possible. but as we can pretty clearly see from all these early uses, winging is about not being able to be prompted, because you haven’t learned the lines in advance to be reminded of them. it specifically names the most improvisatory version of performing in a scripted play: trying to hit key phrases if possible, but mainly just sustaining the motion of the scene and doing your best not to screw up other people’s cues or make them have to revise their lines too much. not quite doing lazzi, but not so far off.
i’ve done similar things, both as a performer and in an on-stage-director role, and even when you’re working script-in-hand (as i have been in most of those experiences) it can be scary for everyone involved. less so for a seasoned trouper of the 19thC, for certain, but i suspect that’s partly because of expectations of a certain amount of flex in the text, which have shifted strongly towards The Author’s Precise Words since then.
But we are interested not only in the ultimate origin of a word/phrase but how it came to spread and be used over time in different or extended senses.
Absolutely! But I was responding in the first place to someone who was pooh-poohing the dictionary version and plumping for his own folk etymology. I’m always happy to discuss subsequent history as long as we agree on the starting point.
We can be interested in lots of different things! Let a great-gross of flowers bloom!
one of the various meanings of smug, v. in Green’s
it’s not at all clear to me why* Green’s (8) should be separate in any way from (1). hugging, kissing, and caressing are not heterosexually specific in the u.s. (and are often used to metonymize or/and synechdochize all sexual activities), and i assume the same holds true of ireland.
.
* setting aside blatant homophobia, which i assume isn’t something jonathan green indulges in.
This “smug” is apparently the “steal” meaning applied to a person. The author (Moncrieff), in London, was inveigled into a coach by the comedian Elliston and taken to Northampton because [spoiler] the manager of the theater there insisted on Moncrieff’s collecting the ticket receipts for the next night’s benefit, because Elliston owed him money, or something, I was kind of skimming.
He’s a Jonathon – a Jonathan and a marathon at the same time!
I’m pretty sure there’s a Johnathon out there somewhere.
@rozele:
Yes: the context is completely consistent with Green (1), so even if Green is right, his citation doesn’t support it.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_Portrait_of_the_Artist_as_a_Young_Man_(Huebsch_1916).djvu/52
It looks rather like some source has attempted to guess Joyce’s meaning from context, without being familiar with sense (1). But maybe there are other sources for this meaning.
@Jerry Friedman: Sounds like Elliston was as well.
“Never let yourself be inveigled into a coach by a comedian” is one of those lessons we try to teach our daughters and we are perhaps naive if we do not do the same for our sons.
NSIT.
The antonym was VVSITPQ. (This, you understand, is from the point of view of a nicely-brought-up young heterosexual debutante. Those were different times … all the poets, they studied rules of verse, and those ladies, they rolled their eyes …)
The Amateur, or Guide to the Stage
Whence I learn (p. 64), “Clap-trap.—Any trick to gain applause.”
Seems obvious in hindsight. Our ancestors’ tearjerker/clickbait.
(The book is tiny, BTW — 2½×4½ in. / 6×11 cm.)
only accept inveiglments from tragedians! (or, um, historicists, i suppose?)
@DE: that makes sense to me!
@DM: my apologies to jonathon for the name-mangling – the proper version is one i find particularly satisfying, and i’m embarassed to have screwed it up!
Maybe you won’t mind if I mention that the surname Tolkien, which you mentioned in the Olondria thread, follows the i-before-e rule.
i never mind that kind of correction – my own names are too misspellable for me to be anything but abashed!
(especially when i’ve poked fun at the poor man’s other names for years)
sorry, reuel. i won’t do it again. (the misspelling, that is – i reserve the right to milne)
the task was to make it [prompting from the wings] as invisible to the audience as possible.
At a performance of John Godber/Hull Truck Company/Bouncers (I think was the play), the audience was just settling in/waiting for the lights to go down, when there was a large crash from backstage, then a stunned silence. (I say “backstage”, of course this being Hull Truck it was an open stage, but the crash was somewhere out of sight.)
After some delay, someone came out from the wings to announce so-and-so was indisposed; their part was to be played by a stand-in; we apologise they’ll be reading from the script.
‘Bouncers’ is about yoof culture going to a night club. The cast played variously the ‘lads’, the ‘girls’, and the bouncers. (If you’ve seen ‘Up’n’Under’ with barely a half-dozen actors playing two rugby teams and the crowd, you’ll get the idea.)
The stand-in was portly, balding, not wearing ‘Saturday night going out’ attire, and indeed conspicuously read from the script in his hand throughout, and was … John Godber.
Best. Production. Ever.
John Godber: “The Plays and Players Yearbook of 1993 rated him the third most performed playwright in the UK after William Shakespeare and Alan Ayckbourn.” Great heavens, the things you learn! I’d never heard of him. And he is “known mainly for observational comedies,” which I’d also never heard of. This is a very educational blog.
This “smug” is apparently the “steal” meaning applied to a person. The author (Moncrieff)
That must be right, since that same Moncrieff is quoted (from another work) under that meaning!
This verb was not considered obsolete by the OED when they entered it in 1912; they haven’t revised it since.
the third most performed playwright in the UK
Yes I was surprised to hear that. The incident I related was when Godber was regarded as vaguely subversive and gritty/before his plays got on TV. I guess he’s become a National Treasure after I emigrated (DE might know more).
I’da picked Tom Stoppard in third slot, as of the early ’90’s.
Me too.
Yeah, I was also surprised Stoppard didn’t make the top three.
They are probably including performances by amateurs. Godber and Ayckbourn (or is he dated now?) can probably guarantee more bums on seats for a struggling amateur drama group than Stoppard. Is Agatha Christie counted as a playwright? I don’t know what creative control she exercised over stage adaptations.
Christie was certainly a playwright. Wikipedia lists fifteen plays by her that were performed during her life, including The Mousetrap. Also two were discovered after her death, one of which has been performed.
I appreciate reading that. I would have thought it had something to do with pilots.
Godber and Ayckbourn (or is he dated now?) can probably guarantee more bums on seats for a struggling amateur drama group
I’d say Ayckbourn is dated, but yes probably still much performed by amateur groups.
Godber, whatever “observational comedy” means/despite the plebeian settings, I’da thought very difficult to play for amateurs. There’s no costumes or scenery to hide behind, no grand entrances or exits. All players are on stage for the whole of each act, and required to switch parts in an instant. Needs precise timing and all the skills of ‘stage business’.
(Not even the semi-professional theatres have put on Godber in my town. We have had touring professional productions.)