Lotus

Lotus (pronounced loh-tuhs)

(1) In Greek mythology, a plant believed to be a jujube or elm, referred to as yielding a fruit that induced a state of forgetfulness and a dreamy languor in those who ate it.

(2) Any aquatic plant of the genus, Nelumbo nucifera, of the water lily family, having shield-like leaves and showy, solitary flowers usually projecting above the water.

(3) Any of several water lilies of the genus Nymphaea.

(4) A decorative motif derived from such a plant and used widely in ancient art, as on the capitals of Egyptian columns.

(5) Any shrubby plant of the genus Lotus, of the legume family, having red, pink, yellow, or white flowers.

(6) An English manufacturer of lightweight sports and racing cars, best known for its successes in Formula One between 1962-1978.

1530–1540:  From the Classical Latin, lōtus or lōtos, perfect passive participle of lavō (wash), from the Ancient Greek λωτός (lōtós) (the lotus plant), the origin of which is unknown but thought probably related to Semitic plant names such as Hebrew לוט‎ (lōt) (myrrh).  The feminine was lōta, the neuter lōtum.  The circa 1500 lote was an Englished form of lotus and it survives as Lote-tree.  The yogic sense is attested from 1848.

From the 1540s, the name was, rather casually, bestowed on many plants, some related, some not even alike and that had been the pattern of the Greek lōtós which was applied to several plants before it came exclusively to mean Egyptian white lotus (a sense attested in English from 1580s), a plant prominent part in the mythology of India, Egypt, China.  The Homeric lotus later was held to be a North African shrub, from which "a kind of wine" can be made and historians conclude that was a reference to the effects rather than the taste.  The name has also been given to several species of water-lilies and a bean that grows in water.   The noun lotion is from the circa 1400 Middle English loscion (liquid preparation for application to the skin), from the fourteenth century Old French lotion, from the Latin lotionem (nominative lotio) (a washing), a noun of action from lotus (varied contraction of lavatus (a popular form of lautus, past participle of lavere (to wash) from the primitive Indo-European root leue- (to wash)).

The circa 1600 noun lotophagi (literally “lotus-eaters”) was from the Greek lotophagoi (plural), the construct being lotos + -phagos (eating), from the primitive Indo-European root bhag- (to share out, apportion; to get a share), the more common literary form of which was lotophagous.  The lotus was believed to induce a dreamy forgetfulness, hence the mention of the lotus-eater as "one who finds pleasure in a listless life" (1812) from the Greek lotophagoi, mentioned in book IX of Homer’s Odyssey.  Odysseus had to force his lethargic sailors back on board after the lotus-eaters had shared with them the narcotic fruit.  It’s one of the earliest warnings against drug use.

Of the plural

Lindsay Lohan with former special friend Samantha Ronson at a charity fundraiser for the Children’s Miracle Network, Lotus Lounge,  Washington DC, October 2008.

The use of plural forms in English is not consistent, though the wise attempt always to append just s or es as required.  This linguistic pragmatism (or Anglo-Saxon laziness if you prefer) simplifies things and plurals like stadia and referenda, while not extinct, are probably now archaic.  That said, plurals can sometimes need to end in an i, aux or a, often more for elegance than sticking to the rules.  Rare plurals persist because they’re useful within niche communities; scientists and statisticians being punctilious in the use of datum, the rest of us calling all such stuff, singular or plural, data.  Patterns of use in English, if of sufficient longevity (though not of necessity breadth of adoption), can re-define words borrowed from other languages.  The modern English agenda (from the Latin agenda (things that ought to be done)) is now singular, the plural being agendas and the individual components, items.  In the original, agenda was plural of agendum.  However, criterion is singular and criteria plural; any other use is a more recent lapse and remains wrong.  English is best evolving its own rules.  Lotuses isn’t pretty which is a good a reason as any for a word to vanish but under Latin rules the plural would be loti which is no better but anyway, lotus is of Greek origin.  So, because both lotos and lotus appear in the Latin texts and the plural in Greek was oi, not i, lotoi can exist in the same same documents.   That’s also why the persistent octopi is wrong and that’s a shame because it’s better than the standard English plural which is octopuses.  However, octopus comes from the Ancient Greek; the correct plural form is octopodes.

By 1968, the makers of the Lotus Formula One and sports cars responded to having their machinery called Loti and Lotaux by issuing a press release advising the company would henceforth adopt Lotus as both plural and possessive and hinted everyone should do the same.  Lotus thought all others, including the historically correct Lotuses, “horrible words”.  The press release had no effect.

The footnote: The Lotus 43

BRM H16 engine.

The change from the 1.5 litre (92 cubic inch) voiturette formula (1961-1965) to a 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) displacement for the 1966 Formula One season meant not only would the teams need new engines but also bigger, stronger chassis.  Lotus had an advantage in solving the latter problem because it was able to modify the Lotus 38 which had won the 1965 Indianapolis 500 when fitted with a 4.2 litre (256 cubic inch Ford V8).  The 38 was a strong and adaptable design, many of the elements of which would be incorporated into the later Lotus 49 and many racing cars of the era were to some extent Lotus 38 clones.  For an engine, for a number of reasons, Lotus choose to use the BRM H16, a unit created by reconfiguring the successful 1.5 litre BRM V8 into a 180^o (flat) configuration and mounting one atop another, thereby creating a 3.0 litre H16 which had the advantage of a relatively short development cycle because so many existing components were able to be used but the drawbacks were weight, size and height.

BRM H16 in Lotus 43.

Although commendably short, the H16 was tall which meant a high centre of gravity, something exacerbated by having to mount the block high in the chassis to permit sufficient clearance for the exhaust systems of the lower banks of cylinders.  It was also wide, too wide to fit into a monocoque socket and thus was taken the decision to make the engine an integral, load-bearing element of the chassis.  There was no other choice but that aspect worked well.  Had the H16 had delivered the promised horsepower the Lotus 43 might have been a success but the numbers were never realized.  The early power output was higher than the opposition but it wasn’t enough to compensate for the drawbacks inherent in the design and, these being so fundamental they couldn’t be corrected, the only hope was even more power.  The path to power was followed and modest increases were gained but it was never enough and time ran out before the plan to go from 32 to 64 valves could come to fruition, an endeavor some suggested would merely have “compounded the existing error on an even grander scale.”  Additionally, with every increase in power and weight, the already high fuel consumption worsened.

Lotus 43, US Grand Prix, Watkins Glen, 1966.

In winning the 1966 US Grand Prix at Watkins Glen, the Lotus 43 delivered the H16 its sole victory, something BRM never managed when the engine was mounted in their chassis.  The 1.5 litre BRM V8 had enjoyed outstanding reliability but of the forty times the H16 started a race, twenty-seven ended prematurely.  The irony of the tale is that in the two seasons BRM ran the 400 horsepower H16 with its sixteen cylinders, two crankshafts, eight camshafts and thirty-two valves, the championship in both years was won by the Repco-Brabham, its engine with 320 horsepower, eight cylinders, one crankshaft, two camshafts and sixteen valves.  Adding insult to the exquisitely bespoke H16’s injury, the Repco engine was based on an old Oldsmobile block which General Motors had abandoned several year earlier (the engine blocks used by Brabham could be purchased by any customer for around US$20, a number which must have astonished outfits like Scuderia Ferrari).  After two seasons the H16 venture was retired, replaced by a conventional V12; Lotus sold the two 43s to a privateer who installed 4.7 liter (289 cubic inch) Ford (Windsor) V8s and campaigned them in Formula 5000 events.  The new Lotus 49 used the 3.0 litre Ford Cosworth (DFV) V8, a combination which enjoyed, remarkably, three successful seasons.