racked or wracked?

[manyeyedhydra]

As in:

Bright flashes of pain w/racked Albert's body.

I used to think it was wrack, but that has the spellchecker in angry underline mode. I looked it up and rack is the more accepted usage, but that doesn't seem quite as flavourful as it also has so many other meanings.

Can anyone shed any light?

thanks

 

[CopperSkink]

Wracked

 

[butters]

wracked!

 

[sr71plt]

Webster's Collegiate dictionary, the one most used by fiction editors, prefers "racked."

Which was a surprise to me when I looked it up. ("wracked" wasn't put into use as a verb in this context at all until 1955).

 

[AsylumSeeker]

That surprises me as well. Thanks, SR. Here's what I came up with online:

Origin:
bef. 900; ME wrak (n.), OE wræc vengeance, misery, akin to wracu vengeance, misery, wrecan to wreak

Always eager to learn.

 

[CopperSkink]

"Wreak" sounds like things are getting broken.

"Reak" sounds like something stinks.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

In phrases like "racked my brains" it is obviously "racked" as in inflicting torture with the mediaeval stretching device known as the rack to extract information. WARNING - not for the squeamish - see http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OfpZQm4cpao/SWF8ym4BmTI/AAAAAAAABL0/sgtCQLrBCsk/s400/TortureRack.jpg or http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Witch Trials/Rack.jpg and you will get the idea.

"Wrack" has strong nautical wreck connotations.

 

[sunandshadow]

In phrases like "racked my brains" it is obviously "racked" as in inflicting torture with the mediaeval stretching device known as the rack to extract information. WARNING - not for the squeamish - see http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OfpZQm4cpao/SWF8ym4BmTI/AAAAAAAABL0/sgtCQLrBCsk/s400/TortureRack.jpg or http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Witch Trials/Rack.jpg and you will get the idea.

"Wrack" has strong nautical wreck connotations.

Um no it's "wracked my brains", should never be "racked". "Wrack" means to shake, like storms wrack a ship or coughs/sobs wrack a person, and also means to search 'wildly', like turning something upside down and shaking it until what you are looking for hopefully falls out.

The only thing "racking" applies to is when you are lining things up or hanging them up - racking up bills, racking billiard balls, a rack of clothes in a department store.

 

[sr71plt]

Um no it's "wracked my brains", should never be "racked".

What is your authority source for making this statement?

It's not true in the U.S. market--as I noted above. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary rules in most U.S. publishing publishing houses. Webster's lists "racked" as preferred in this context and "wracked" (and more modern, not having entered in this form until 1955) as a secondary option. (When you find a word referring back to another spelling in a Webster's definition, it's signaling that the word being referenced is preferred.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

In phrases like "racked my brains" it is obviously "racked" ...

Um no ...

Once again we are "divided by a common language". Merriam-Webster agrees with you; the Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me!

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Hehe, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one confused on this

Is there a British/American difference here?

Personally, if there's an element of choice I'd rather use 'wracked' as 'racked' brings to mind shelving to me. I don't want to use it if 'wracked' is flat out wrong though

 

[sr71plt]

The only ones confused by this are the ones who don't know how to use the tools of the editorial trade. And, no, I don't think there's any difference on the U.S. and British market application of "rack" in this context as a verb. (The British Collins dictionary doesn't even list "wrack" as a word in its own right--just giving it as a secondary rendering of "rack.")

 

[driphoney]

The only ones confused by this are the ones who don't know how to use the tools of the editorial trade. And, no, I don't think there's any difference on the U.S. and British market application of "rack" in this context as a verb. (The British Collins dictionary doesn't even list "wrack" as a word in its own right--just giving it as a secondary rendering of "rack.")

I thought the British used the Oxford Dictionary as their 'bible'?

And I looked it up when this came up. It seemed to accept both spellings, but listed 'racked' as the primary. 'Wrack' had other things listed as primary uses, and 'wrack' in the verb manage this thread is going for only occurred inside the 'racked' definition.

 

[_Lynn_]

I thought the British used the Oxford Dictionary as their 'bible'?

And I looked it up when this came up. It seemed to accept both spellings, but listed 'racked' as the primary. 'Wrack' had other things listed as primary uses, and 'wrack' in the verb manage this thread is going for only occurred inside the 'racked' definition.

Then it would depend on where you looked it up. As sr said, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary rules in most U.S. publishing publishing houses. So if you checked anything else, there could be different information.

 

[sr71plt]

I thought the British used the Oxford Dictionary as their 'bible'?

I don't have a copy of the Oxford dictionary. (The two British publishers I've edited for both specified the Collins), although I too understand that Oxford is the most-used dictionary in UK publishing.

In any event, Snooper has weighed in on this thread on the Oxford preference--which is "racked."

listed 'racked' as the primary.

This is the crux of the issue. U.S. publishers use the primary spellings listed in the dictionary in preference to secondary ones. Once you learn how to discern how they mark primary and secondary choices in the dictionary, it's not that difficult to decide which spelling is preferred in U.S. publishing--certainly not confusing to anyone with actual editorial training.

 

[ishtat]

I have a shorter Oxford English Dictionary which in British style is the 2600 page version in two volumes!

It gives 12 different definitions of rack and under 'stretching and torture' it also says "to strain, task severely the mind or brain"

Interestingly it continues "to strain the meaning of words" which in this context seems especially apposite. Earliest use 1583. from Dutch, rekken - to stretch

The whole entry covers 15 column inches.

Wrack gets less coverage , about 9 column inches for 4 basic definitions including :-

retributive punishment/revenge from oe wreak(var wreacan) 1699

or wreckage as in "hath he not lost much wealth by wrack of sea" (All's well that ends well WS) about 1600.

or a ship wreck or wreckage, 1579

or anything of inferior or poor quality often of flax cloth, 1472

Interestingly the OED also has an entry for Wr - " a consonantal combination occurrring initially in a number of words frequently implying twisting or distortion... the combination is normal in Gothic, Old Saxon, Old Frisian and Old English but in Old High German and Old Norse was generally reduced to r... the w began to be dropped from English pronunciation by the mid 15th century. In standard English the pronunciation of the w was dropped by the 1750's "

So it seems to me that this is not another example of the differences between American and British uses but one where both nations are confused. Personally as an Aussie ex Brit I would write " wrack and ruin " and "racked my brain" and be happy with both.

 

[mynameisben]

I don't know if flashes of pain are ever "bright", unless maybe the dood in question is being being attacked with a laser.

 

[butters]

I have a shorter Oxford English Dictionary which in British style is the 2600 page version in two volumes!

It gives 12 different definitions of rack and under 'stretching and torture' it also says "to strain, task severely the mind or brain"

Interestingly it continues "to strain the meaning of words" which in this context seems especially apposite. Earliest use 1583. from Dutch, rekken - to stretch

The whole entry covers 15 column inches.

Wrack gets less coverage , about 9 column inches for 4 basic definitions including :-

retributive punishment/revenge from oe wreak(var wreacan) 1699

or wreckage as in "hath he not lost much wealth by wrack of sea" (All's well that ends well WS) about 1600.

or a ship wreck or wreckage, 1579

or anything of inferior or poor quality often of flax cloth, 1472

Interestingly the OED also has an entry for Wr - " a consonantal combination occurrring initially in a number of words frequently implying twisting or distortion... the combination is normal in Gothic, Old Saxon, Old Frisian and Old English but in Old High German and Old Norse was generally reduced to r... the w began to be dropped from English pronunciation by the mid 15th century. In standkeard English the pronunciation of the w was dropped by the 1750's "

So it seems to me that this is not another example of the differences between American and British uses but one where both nations are confused. Personally as an Aussie ex Brit I would write " wrack and ruin " and "racked my brain" and be happy with both.

went a did a little looking up -# seems to be more a context thing:

If you are racked with pain or you feel nerve-racked, you are feeling as if you were being stretched on that Medieval instrument of torture, the rack. You rack your brains when you stretch them vigorously to search out the truth like a torturer. “Wrack” has to do with ruinous accidents, so if the stock market is wracked by rumors of imminent recession, it’s wrecked. If things are wrecked, they go to “wrack and ruin.”
so you could be 'wracked' by pain as well as 'racked' by it. go figure the misunderstanding seems to be through most of us having seen it written both ways in various contexts as we've grown up reading. I still think the use of the 'w' is more common in the UK.

 

[ishtat]

. I still think the use of the 'w' is more common in the UK.

I think it is more interesting than that. The OED says the w form survived more strongly in the western counties of England and Scotland especially the latter. The Atlas of English dialect supports that view.

Now two further sources suggest that the w form in the USA survived best among the immigrants who can date their predecessors to the 17th and 18th centuries. Not surprising because many in that period were forced to emigrate by the Scottish clearances. And again as has often proved to be the case this form of spoken English probably survived in isolated Appalacian communities later than in its homeland. This finding is of course consistent with the fact that the majority of old English and Scottish folk songs collected by Cecil Sharpe(1859 - 1924) in the early 20th century were found in the remote Appalacians, not in England. This part of America is almost a museum of 17th century English usage

 

[vrosej10]

As in:

Bright flashes of pain w/racked Albert's body.

I used to think it was wrack, but that has the spellchecker in angry underline mode. I looked it up and rack is the more accepted usage, but that doesn't seem quite as flavourful as it also has so many other meanings.

Can anyone shed any light?

thanks

I think it's wracked. The only to uses of racked for the human body and they are slang would be refering to a womans breasts i.e. she is racked. Or in the case of a man copping one in the testicles; dude, her just got racked, ouch!

 

[driphoney]

I have a shorter Oxford English Dictionary which in British style is the 2600 page version in two volumes!

It gives 12 different definitions of rack and under 'stretching and torture' it also says "to strain, task severely the mind or brain"

Interestingly it continues "to strain the meaning of words" which in this context seems especially apposite. Earliest use 1583. from Dutch, rekken - to stretch

The whole entry covers 15 column inches.

Wrack gets less coverage , about 9 column inches for 4 basic definitions including :-

retributive punishment/revenge from oe wreak(var wreacan) 1699

or wreckage as in "hath he not lost much wealth by wrack of sea" (All's well that ends well WS) about 1600.

or a ship wreck or wreckage, 1579

or anything of inferior or poor quality often of flax cloth, 1472

Interestingly the OED also has an entry for Wr - " a consonantal combination occurrring initially in a number of words frequently implying twisting or distortion... the combination is normal in Gothic, Old Saxon, Old Frisian and Old English but in Old High German and Old Norse was generally reduced to r... the w began to be dropped from English pronunciation by the mid 15th century. In standard English the pronunciation of the w was dropped by the 1750's "

So it seems to me that this is not another example of the differences between American and British uses but one where both nations are confused. Personally as an Aussie ex Brit I would write " wrack and ruin " and "racked my brain" and be happy with both.

That would be what I got from doing a minimal look online at several US online dictionaries and the Oxford online. But it was good of you to do all this legwork for us. Thanks.

Then it would depend on where you looked it up. As sr said, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary rules in most U.S. publishing publishing houses. So if you checked anything else, there could be different information.

I looked at several. Manyeyedhydra asked later about there being a difference. I was surprised that SR used the Collin's dictionary because I thought the British standard was the Oxford. I figured you learned something new everyday. And from what SR said and I read, both Collins and Oxford agree.

I had had this question myself recently, so was glad Manyeyed brought it up.

 

[sr71plt]

I was surprised that SR used the Collin's dictionary because I thought the British standard was the Oxford.

No big mystery there. I edit almost exclusively to U.S. standard. The only two British publishers I edited books for used CMS for style and Collins for spelling--which is the reason I have a Collins dictionary. I do think Oxford is the British dictionary of choice normally, though.

 

[ishtat]

No big mystery there. I edit almost exclusively to U.S. standard. The only two British publishers I edited books for used CMS for style and Collins for spelling--which is the reason I have a Collins dictionary. I do think Oxford is the British dictionary of choice normally, though.

The OED is the academics dictionary of choice for Etymology and the history of words in literature but the full scale version runs to 24 volumes last time I looked at it which is hardly practical. Even the 2 volume 'Shorter' is relatively uncommon with most people plumping for the 'Concise' which is still 1600 pages or the 'Pocket' for school children.

Collins is particularly good for spelling especially since it took over from Chambers as the official Scrabble dictionary

My favourite dictionaries are the Macquarie which is an Australian dictionary which borrows from both American and British traditions equally and an Archaic Word dictionary by James Orchard Halliwell (published 1850).

 

[driphoney]

No big mystery there. I edit almost exclusively to U.S. standard. The only two British publishers I edited books for used CMS for style and Collins for spelling--which is the reason I have a Collins dictionary. I do think Oxford is the British dictionary of choice normally, though.

Wasn't surprised after you 'splained it.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

I use Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - 2232 pages <smile> It was on sale at Amazon a few years ago for a mere $5, and if you bought any 3 books or more the shipping was free. Thing weighs a ton. I got with a few others I work with and for $20 we bought four, had them all shipped to me at no charge and I took them to work to the others. Still laughing about that one!