|
Reader question: Is the economy in "rude health" or in "ruddy health"? My comments: Both are okay, the former being formal and idiomatic, the latter having its merits at face value. The way I learned it, the economy is always in rude health because "in rude health" is a set phrase or set expression. You're not supposed to replace any word in the phrase with another. However, ruddy health makes literal sense, ruddy pointing to the reddish face of a healthy person, such as a ruddy American farmer. More people use "rude health" than "rudder health". A search via Bing confirms this, more than 300,000 items in "rude health" vs. 38,000 articles containing "ruddy health". "Rude health" doesn't make sense at first sight, does it? I think "rude" here obliquely refers to the vigor and swagger of a healthy person. Some people are healthy and they look it and act like it. You know, such a person is full of muscle and bustle, walking fast and briskly, able to easily brush off other passersby in a crowded street. Yes, such a person is full of energy and may indeed appear rude, as in imposing and impolite, to those who are feeble and slow and who find it quite difficult to secure elbow room in a crowd. I'm being speculative. Just remember, though, the set and proper phrase is "rude health". But "ruddy health" also works - especially in America and Australia, where there is much more sunshine and therefore are many more ruddy faces than to be found readily in the old country. | 
