Solecism

Solecism (pronounced sol-uh-siz-uhm or soh-luh-siz-uhm)

(1) In language, a non-standard or ungrammatical usage.

(2) A breach of good manners or etiquette.

(3) Any error, impropriety, absurdity or inconsistency.

1570-1580: From the Latin soloecismus, from the Greek soloikismos, from soloikos (speaking incorrectly), the construct being Sólo(i) + -ic (from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix –kos.  The Ancient Greek form was -ικός (-ikós), the Sanskrit श (śa), क (ka) and the Old Church Slavonic -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); doublet of –y; on noun stems, it carried the meaning “characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to” and on adjectival stems, it acted emphatically) + -ism (ultimately from either the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (from which English gained -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done).  Solecism & solecist are nouns, solecistic & solecistical are adjectives and solecistically is an adverb; the noun plural is solecisms.

A solecism in sandals & socks, the look proscribed almost universally.

The meaning “gross grammatical error” or "any absurdity or incongruity" dates from the 1570s, a borrowing directly from the sixteenth century Middle French solécisme, from the Latin soloecismus (mistake in speaking or writing), which gained the word from the Greek soloikismos (to speak (Greek) incorrectly), from soloikos (an ungrammatical utterance), the literal translation of which was "speaking like the people of Sóloi, an Athenian colony in Cilicia (Mezitli in the modern-day Republic of Türkiye); there, the dialect spoken was a corrupt form of Attic Greek which Athenians condemned as barbarous.  The English, perhaps predictably, later extended the meaning to matters of etiquette, thus the sense of “awkward or rude in manners” and, by the late twentieth century, sins against fashion and good taste.

A solecism in blusher: Lindsay Lohan in court, Los Angeles October 2011.

The zombie-like look presumably wasn't intentional and it attracted some comment from professional make-up techs.  Speculation about how this happened ranged from the blusher being applied (1) in less than ideal lighting conditions, (2) in a car with only the rear-vision mirror available and (3) with bare fingers because a brush couldn't be found.  The consensus was the goal was a contoured blush look which, if applied with some delicacy, can accentuate the cheekbones but this was heavy handed and ended up as a smear across the cheeks.

Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela 2013-2026, left) meeting with Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (1939-2026; Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran 1989-2026, right), the pair watched over by the official portrait of the Islamic Republic’s ever-unsmiling founder, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).

The socks & sandals combo is not not solecistical if on the Supreme Leader's feet.  It’s true that for men the pairing of sandals with socks is probably more than a mere solecism and constitutes an actual crime against fashion but when one is (1) a grand ayatollah and (2) Supreme Leader, one sets the rules.  As a general principle, the Supreme Leader cannot make a fashion mistake because what the Supreme Leader does is the fashion.  Even if challenged (on a basis presumably not theological), the Supreme Leader could cite the precedent of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini having been photographed with his feet in socks and sandals.

The Supreme Leader meets three wise men of the Hamas.

In the Middle East, everything is of course political and that includes clothing, what is in some places demanded of women (which can range from a minimalist (verging on symbolic) hijab to an enveloping burka) the best known but also of interest are the feet, shoes being objects of great significance.  This was in 2024 illustrated when the Supreme Leader met with Ismail Haniyeh (1962-2024; third chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau 2017-2024) and two members of his entourage; on a number of sites what attracted most interest was not the substantive matters discussed but the shoeless feet of the Hamas apparatchiks.  In the ensuing debate what was pondered was whether this was merely Iranian protocols being followed or whether any disrespect had been created or intended.  One theory was the Supreme Leader was wearing “indoor” sandals with his socks while the Hamas operatives, travelling only with “outdoor” shoes, removed them in deference to local practice.  The alternative conjecture was the threesome were compelled by their hosts to appear in socks in an attempt to “undermine their dignity” and diminish their status as leaders of the Palestinian resistance, the rationale for that argument being the Islamic Republic of Iran is regime of the Shia tradition (specifically the Twelver Shi'ism branch) of Islam while the Hamas substantially was Sunni.  The consensus was it was less a conspiracy than an unexceptional example of the custom of removing shoes when entering indoor spaces, customary in homes and places of prayer and widespread also in many Islamic countries.  After the event concluded, Khamenei (Iran’s official news agency) reported that during the meeting the Supreme Leader had observed Iran: “…will not hesitate to support the Palestinian cause and the oppressed and resistant people of Gaza, praising the exemplary resilience of the Palestinian resistance forces and the people of Gaza.  The exemplary patience and steadfastness of the people of Gaza and the resistance forces during these six months, resulting from their strong faith, have prevented the Zionist enemy from achieving any of its strategic objectives in the Gaza war.”  Clearly, the “shoe incident” had not weakened Persian-Palestinian solidarity.

A young lady in Birkenstocks and socks.

Although it has long been an orthodoxy that for men not ayatollahs, wearing sandals over sock is a solecism, that rule does not apply to attractive young women (upon whom a different sub-set of rules is imposed) and for them, the fashionistas have declared the combo is now normcore (used in the attributive sense of describing a look which should be thought unremarkable).  There are still those who for any purpose reject the embrace of socks & sandals but, done well, matched with an over-sized blazer, Vogue calls the look “deconstructed business casual”.