Argle-bargle

[Dr. Goodword]

• argle-bargle •

Pronunciation: ahr-gêl-bahr-gêl • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Noun

Meaning: (UK Slang) This bit of British slang refers to an argument, a row, a spat, a mild quarrel: a disputatious bandying of words back and forth between two people.

Notes: Argle-bargle is widely used in the UK, as its many variants attest: argy-bargy, argie-bargie, argue-bargue, or simply argy or bargy. These forms suggest a diminished importance of the argument in question, which is to say, an argument that shouldn't be taken seriously, a spat. However, it belongs to the realm of slang and hence should not be used in your college applications.

In Play: The thrust of argle-bargle is a mild quarrel or argument, even a civil debate: "Archie should have been a lawyer rather than a salesman; he enjoys the argle-bargle of contract negotiation more than closing the deal." Since this funny word is colloquial rather than formal, you can push the envelope of English grammar a bit when you use it. Mom might warn the kids, "OK, kids, cut out the argy-bargy before it becomes pushy-hitty."

Word History: This funny word is a nonsense rhyming compound (like willy-nilly, piggly-wiggly, boogie-woogie) made up of two rhyming words. Their history is interesting: argle emerged in the 16th century as a blend of argue and haggle. Bargle was added much later, in the early 19th century, simply because it rhymes with argle. The spelling has varied between what you see here and a slightly Greekier argol-bargol, but the spelling given here is now the most widely used. (This word was included in The 100 Funniest Words in English, but was neglected in the Good Word series. Here it is.)

[call_copse]

I've honestly never come across the argle-bargle version in my long life in the UK. Argy-bargy all the way round here.

[LukeJavan8]

totally foreign here.

[Audiendus]

I've honestly never come across the argle-bargle version in my long life in the UK. Argy-bargy all the way round here.

Same here.

From this graph it appears that 'argle-bargle' was the more common form from about 1890 to 1950, but now 'argy-bargy' is much commoner.

But I have never heard 'argle-bargle', in the 1960s or since.

[call_copse]

Love the ngram viewer, not seen that before. I'll be bookmarking that for future reference, cheers.

[G Kovac]

Perhaps, as Dr. Goodword cautions, you should not use the phrase “argle-bargle” in your college applications. But you might use it in your opinions if you are a Supreme Court justice who delights in hectoring his brethren with peppery language.

Justice Scalia is very smart, but he is also widely known for his purple, intemperate, condescending and sometimes just bizarre prose. For example, he used the phrase “argle-bargle” in his dissent in United States vs. Windsor (the 2013 case which overturned the Defense of Marriage Act). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia wrote “As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. ... How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

Well, actually, Justice Scalia’s predication came true: that very same “argle-bargle” prevailed two years later in the subsequent case Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court overturned state laws which denied same-sex couples the right to marry. In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Scalia criticized the majority opinion as a “judicial putsch” and used the phrases “Really?” “Huh”? and “Ask the nearest hippie,” all of which are the argot of talk-radio, not of Supreme Court opinions or even college applications. Justice Scalia’s legal analysis in the argle-bargle case was accurately predictive, even though folks who respect the usage of (and distinctions among) levels of language may object to the appropriateness of his diction and temperament in that forum.

Moreover, because this website is strictly about the meaning and proper usage of language, and not about politics or ideology, I will not here question the quality of the bombastic and wrong-headed conclusions Justice Scalia reached in those two cases, just as I refuse to descend into apophasis. I will leave that discussion to the arglers and barglers.

Cheers, dear readers.

[call_copse]

I take your point - I think? - nicely bargled G Kovac.