Discussion Groups / English Usage / September 2010

Modern usage, as you may know, is either "viola da gambist" or "violist
da gamba".  I prefer the latter, but alas most editors who have a
preference (or a dictionary) seem to prefer the former.  The instrument
itself gets a plural of "violas da gamba" or, for the more Italianately
inclined, who probably say like "celli" all the time, or want to make
people think that they do, "viole da gamba", pronounced very
approximately as in Italian.  Of course there's nothing wrong with "viol"
and "viols", and we especially favor those plain English words when sizes
other than the bass are involved (either by themselves or in addition to
the bass): "bass viol" having been skunked by its ambiguity for well over
a couple hundered years by now, it keeps things simple if we skip that
and say "(bass) viola da gamba".

Informally, the player is just a "gambist"--who informally plays a
"gamba".  "Violist" is very usable in speech--but problematic in writing,
for the reasons mentioned upthread, which tends to reduce its use in
speech, I think, quite a bit.

I find it interesting that the form "viola da gamba" --  the usual one
nowadays -- seems not to have been used in English during the
instrument's heyday in the 17th century.  First OED citation is 1724 and
that seems about right from what I've seen.  (I.e., I don't think I can
antedate it, certainly not with a Google Books search which turns up
several pre-1724 hits but only in Italian or German.)  Earlier, when it
wasn't just "viol" or "bass viol" it was "viol de gamba", gambo viol
(early in the century--though I've also got "Viol gambo" in Salisbury in
1759 thanks to a letter to The Musical Times), etc.

Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night famously got his hoboys (oboes/shawms)
and his gambo viols mixed up and produced "viol de gamboys". Well perhaps
not so famously: this is, I am sure, a deliberate malapropism (one among
many) that Shakespeare put in his mouth, although that is never explained
when the term is glossed in any of the recent editions of the play that I
have examined--though Rolfe did identify it as a "blunder" in his edition
over a hundred years ago.  The OED cites it without comment s.v. "Viol da
gamba". (All the Shakspeare editors do manage to pick up that "Castellano
vulgo" several lines later is utter and complete nonsense--whether due to
Sir Toby or to the printer or someone else is just about anyone's guess--
illustrating perhaps that Shakespeareans commonly know more about
language than about music.)

Dylan Thomas knew about gambos--but that seems to be a different sort:
it's a dialect word for some kinds of farm cart or sledge, attested only
since the 19th century.

To me, it sounds a bit too much like "kill da wabbit".