Swish

Swish (pronounced swish)

(1) Something smart or stylish (mostly UK & Commonwealth use and said historically to be most applied to things with shiny surfaces such as leather); sophisticated; fashionable; (figuratively) smooth.

(2) To move with or make a sibilant sound, as a slender rod cutting sharply through the air or as small waves washing on the shore.

(3) To rustle (especially of flowing fabrics, on the model of the sound made by moving silk).

(4) To move or behave in an exaggerated manner (often described as “effeminate” or “mincing”).

(5) To flourish, whisk, etc with a swishing movement or sound.

(6) To bring, take, cut, etc with such a movement or sound.

(7) To flog or whip (now rare).

(8) A movement (and sometimes (though not necessarily) the sound) of liquid flowing inside a container.

(9) In mathematics (as swish function), a mathematical activation function in data analysis.

(10) A stock or rod used for flogging or the stroke of such a device (now rare).

(11) A contemptuous term used to refer to an effeminate gay man (regarded as an offensive slur and now rare).

(12) A form of table tennis (ping-pong) able to be played both by people who are blind or vision impaired and by those who are sighted.

(13) A building material used mainly in West Africa and composed originally of mortar and mud or laterite; of late it has been made with a xix of earth & cement.

(14) In basketball, a successful shot that does not touch the rim or backboard.

(15) In slang (in and outside prisons), an alcoholic drink made (1) by fermenting whatever ingredients are available or (2) adding small quantities of water to “empty” bottles to obtain whatever alcohol content remains.

(16) As an interjection, a hissing or whistling sound, imitative or suggestive of something travelling quickly through the air.

1756: Of imitative origin, an onomatopoeia covering a range of sounds.  The intransitive verb in the sense of “move with a swish or flourish or with a sound like swish” was the first form, the transitive verb, used in the sense of “cause to swish” (hence “flourish, brandish”) in use by 1799.  Etymologists conclude it was almost certainly imitative of the sound made by something brushing against or through something else (the “rustle” of silk the classic example).  The most attractive derived form is probably the adjective swishity (characteristic of swish or swishing).  The swish noun emerged in the 1820s (as in “with a swish”) was expressive of the sound of something moving through the air, a development from the verb.  The use as a slur directed at “a particularly effeminate homosexual” was a creation of 1930s US slang, based presumably the idea of the stereotypical “mincing motion”.  The slang use meaning “to flog or last” (the noun swish later adapted to describe the whip) was in use by at least 1856 and despite citations, there little to suggest the origin was in the Royal Navy, that institution already having a rich lexicon of slang related to flogging.  Although the British Army formerly abolished flogging in 1881, it the navy it was only ever “suspended” although it's said no sentences have been imposed since 1879.  In idiomatic use, the noun swish-swash is now used to describe “a repeated swishing action or sound, going back and forth”.  An obsolete meaning, dating from the 1540s was “a weak, wishy-washy drink” although it’s documented that by the 1580s, a swish-swash was a “violent or swaggering person”.  From the connection to the weak drink came the use of swish to describe “an alcoholic beverage obtained by filling an (empty) cask from a distillery with water to leech out the residual liquor”.  Swish is a noun, verb & adjective, swisher is a noun & adjective, swishing is a noun & verb, swishness & swishiness are nouns, swished is a verb, swishest & swishity are adjectives and swishingly is an adverb; the noun plural is swishes.

Swishy Ping-Pong

Swish is a form of ping-pong which permits people who are blind or vision impaired to compete with the sighted on close to equal terms; the preferred description of Swish is Vision Impaired Table Tennis.  Played at both a recreational and competitive level, the idea is similar to mainstream ping-pong except that rather than the ball having to be hit over the net, it must travel along the table’s surface with the “net” set at a certain height to ensure players with various degrees of sight don’t enjoy an advantage over the blind.  Like “blind cricket”, the ball has a bell inside to make it audible and is roughly the size of a tennis ball, made of plastic with holes in it to amplify the sound.  The bats are rectangular with a handle (something like a cricket bat in miniature) with one of the long edges positioned flat against the table.  Like ping-pong, the game can be played either as singles or doubles with a variety of rules in competition ranging from single games to matches of up to eleven.  Some competitions exist for “mixed” teams (sighted and not) and there are "handicap" events in which the sighed competitors wear masks, rendering them completely blind.

The swishy skirt

Lindsay Lohan in three dresses illustrating the possibilities offered by the swishy skirt: thigh high (mini, left), calf length (midi, centre) and ankle length (maxi, right).

The movement of a swishy skirt tends to exaggerate the perception of the volume of fabric used and this can convey the impression of something intricately constructed and while elaborate underpinnings are possible, most are simply an A-line skirt, made with vertical seams, a waistband and hem, the ensemble typically secured with a zipper.  The design does however offer wide scope, not only in terms of length (swishiness increasing the more the hemline approaches the ankles) but the bulk of fabric used makes the style highly suited to the provision of pockets, a feature designers often avoid including in women’s clothing because if actually used, they can spoil the line.  In a swishy skirt, the pockets can be both larger and located lower (in the “swish zone”), meaning that unless really stuffed with stuff, the very presence of a pocket can often be imperceptible.  Designers however caution that pockets do need to be done with some precision; they need to be sufficiently deep and wide to accommodate the hand with the weight of anything put in the pocket to be borne by the waistband and not the more fragile.  As a general principle the pockets should be folded toward the front of the skirt although, anyone tempted to try the more challenging asymmetric pocket might prefer to make it a feature and reverse the geometry.  However it’s done, what matters is that any weight introduced into a pocket should not distort the silhouette.  A signature trick used in the making of swishy skirts is the “Hong Kong Finished waistband” (KHFW).  The KHFW is achieved by sewing a piece of fabric around the raw edge of another, the advantages being the edge does not then need to be turned under for a finish, the trick in the technique used by dressmakers being the use of bias tape or a seam binding product to wrap the raw edges of the seam allowances before pressing open the seams.  The KHFW is used on a wide variety of garments but it’s often the technique of choice with swishy skirts because it removes a layer from what is the bulkiest part of the construction.

How swishy is done:  The basic A-Line pattern (left) and a swishy skirt with pockets (right).

Artifice

Artifice (pronounced ahr-tuh-fis)

(1) A clever trick or stratagem; a cunning, crafty device or expedient; wile.

(2) Trickery; guile; a crafty but underhanded deception.

(3) Cunning; ingenuity; inventiveness; a trick played out as an ingenious, but artful, ruse.

(4) A skilful or artful contrivance or expedient.

(5) A strategic manoeuvre that uses some clever means to avoid detection or capture; a tactical move to gain advantage.

(6) To construct by means of technical skill or some specialised art (cited by many sources as archaic but still used and useful in this sense).

1525–1535: From the Middle English in the sense of “workmanship, the making of something by craft or skill”, from the fourteenth century Middle French artifice (skill, cunning), from the Old French from the Latin artificium (art, craft, skill, talent, craftsmanship; profession, trade, an employment) from artifex (genitive artificis) (artist, actor; craftsman, master (of a craft or trade); mastermind, schemer; one possessed of a specific skill), the construct being ars- (art; skill) + -fex (from facere (to make; to do)), from the primitive Indo-European root dhe (to set; to put).  As a suffix in Latin, -fex was used to represent a maker or producer.  Synonyms include subterfuge, deception, deceit and duplicity but there’s also an array of associative words such as gimmick, contrivance, duplicity, inventiveness, dodge, manoeuvre, play, scam, savvy, stratagem, machination, ploy, subterfuge, ruse, racket, tactic, expedient, device, wile and gambit.  The original meanings survive but have tended to have receded in use compared with the sense of “crafty; a device; trickery” which emerged in the 1650s.  Artifice is a noun & verb, artificer is a noun and artificing & artificed are verbs; the noun plural is artifices.

Some artifice involved: Pamela Anderson (b 1967), mostly real.

The adjective artificial dates from the late fourteenth century in the sense of “something not natural or spontaneous”, from the Old French artificial, from the Latin artificialis “of or belonging to art”, again from artificium.  The adverb artificially (by art or human skill and contrivance) dates from the early fifteenth century while the noun artificiality (appearance of art; insincerity) emerged in the 1760s, the earlier form was artificialness, documented in the 1590s; the Middle English artificy survived until the early fifteenth century.  In English, the earliest use seems to be the phrase “artificial day” (that part of the day from sunrise to sunset (as opposed to the “natural” days 24 hours)).   The early fifteenth century idea of something artificial being something The meaning “made by man, contrived by human skill and labor” was the basis of the morphing in the 1700s to “anything made in imitation of, or as a substitute for, what is natural, whether real (light, tears) or not (teeth, flowers).  The third sense (these all still running in parallel) of “full of affectation, insincere” was in use by the 1590s, the subtlety different “fictitious, assumed, not genuine” by the 1640s.  So the use depends on context: when people no peak of artificial intelligence, the implication is of “a machine which can emulate and improve upon human thought processes” and not “fake intelligence” which means something else, although, given some of the dubious results which have been provided by the early implementations of generative AI, it’s clear some fake intelligence has been produced.

The Artifice.

Founded in 2009 and based in Sweden, the Artifice is an English-language on-line magazine focusing on popular culture topics such as film, manga, anime, television, comics, on-line gaming and such.  It's a most interesting venture because the model is a platform available to anyone writing in English, submissions vetted by an editorial panel which provides criticism and suggests improvements, those published subsequently invited to contribute to the editorial process.  It's an intriguing collaborative approach, something really practical in the on-line environment and vaguely analogous with open-source software, the difference being Artifice's authors provide their content as a finished product, not something intended for others to modify and distribute though doubtlessly that happens.

The abbreviation AI is now familiar because of the sudden rise in interest in packaged generative artificial intelligence, prompted by the availability of products such as ChatGPT, ClickUp or the still embryonic extensions which bolt a version onto Google’s & Microsoft’s web browsers (Chrome and Bing respectively); Collins Dictionary named “AI” their “word of the Year 2023”, noting the sudden spike of interest in the topic wasn’t reflected in an increase on-line of the use of the words “artificial” or “intelligence” because both in general use and as a search term, “AI” had become ubiquitous.  Artificial intelligence (the science and engineering of making intelligent machines) was coined in 1956 but the abbreviation came into use only in 1971.  Since 1894, within various parts of veterinary science and livestock management, AI had been used to refer to “artificial insemination”, a mechanical form of introducing semen where required.  Most associated with cattle, when some artificiality was introduced to human reproduction, the term “in vitro fertilisation” (IVF) was preferred although it is a very different process in which fertilisation is achieved by combining an egg with sperm in vitro (from the Latin, translated literally as “in the glass”, hence the memorable (if misleading) early phrase “test-tube baby.  Because “in vitro” has become so common in English it’s probably assimilated and thus (in this context) no longer italicized.  In this it’s similar to something like the even more common de facto which, because assimilated for most purposes, is not italicized except when used in the context of legal proceedings, a nod to its status as Latin legal language.

Beware of imitations: Bees can’t be fooled but humans need a guide.

Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) "table talk", his meandering discussions (often monologues) over meals or other informal gatherings were notoriously repetitive and quite a strain for his regular audience to sit through.  Some of the topics were predicable but one subject often mentioned was artificial honey, his interest in the concocted stuff apparently because he was provided with much of the sticky syrup in his rations while serving in the Imperial German Army (1871–1919) during World War I (1914-1918).  His sweet tooth was well-documented and whether or not it was his influence, the substance appeared in the list Ernährungsrichtlinie für die Verbrauchslenkung (Nutrition guidelines for consumption control), published in the March 1939 edition Zeitschrift für Spiritusindustrie (Spirit Industry Magazine), the presence of artificial honey and milk powder indicating the regime's multi-pronged approach to food security (although they also sponsored research on fat made from coal which sounds less tempting).  Of late, artificial honey has become controversial in a number of jurisdictions, not because of concerns about the safety of the product but because it is sometimes represented as “natural honey”.

Fecund & Fertile

Fecund (pronounced fuh-khunt, fee-kuhnd or fek-uhnd)

(1) Producing or capable of producing offspring, fruit, vegetation, etc in abundance; prolific; fruitful.

(2) Figuratively, highly productive or creative intellectually; innovative.

Circa 1525: From the mid-fifteenth century Middle English fecounde from the Middle French fecund, from the Old French fecund & fecont (fruitful), from the Latin fēcundus (fruitful, fertile, productive; rich, abundant (and related to the Latin fētus (offspring) and fēmina (“woman”)), from fe-kwondo-, an adjectival suffixed form of the primitive Indo-European root dhei or dhe- (to suck, suckle), other derivatives meaning also “produce” & “yield”.  Fē in this case wasn’t a prefix but a link to fetus whereas -cundus was the adjectival suffix.  It replaced the late Middle English fecounde.  The spelling fecund was one of the “Latinizing” revisions to spelling which was part of the framework of early Modern English, (more or less) standardizing use and replacing the Middle English forms fecond, fecound & fecounde.  The Latin root itself proved fecund; from it came also felare (to suck), femina (woman (literally “she who suckles”)); felix (happy, auspicious, fruitful), fetus (offspring, pregnancy); fenum (hay (which seems literally to have meant “produce”)) and probably filia (daughter) & filius (son), assimilated from felios (originally “a suckling”).  The noun fecundity emerged in the early fifteenth century and was from the Latin fecunditatem (nominative fecunditas) (fruitfulness, fertility), from fecundus (fruitful, fertile).  The old spelling fœcund is obsolete.  Fecund is an adjective and fecundity & fecundation are nouns; the noun plural is fecundities.

In his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted without comment the shift in popular pronunciation but took the opportunity to cite the phrase of a literary critic (not a breed of which he much approved) who compared the words of HG Wells (1866-1946) & Horace Walpole (1717–1797): “The fecund Walpole and the facund Wells”.  The critic, Henry Fowler noted: “fished up the archaic facund for the sake of the play on words”.  Never much impressed by flashy displays of what he called a “pride of knowledge”, his objection here was that there was nothing in the sentence to give readers any idea of the change in meaning caused by the substituted vowel.  Both were from Latin adjectives, fēcundus (prolific) and facundus (elegant).

Fertile (pronounced fur-tl or fur-tahyl (mostly UK RP))

(1) Of land, bearing, producing, or capable of producing vegetation, crops etc, abundantly; prolific.

(2) Of living creatures, bearing or capable of bearing offspring; Capable of growth or development.

(3) Abundantly productive.

(4) Conducive to productiveness.

(5) In biology, fertilized, as an egg or ovum; fecundated; capable of developing past the egg stage.

(6) In botany, capable of producing sexual reproductive structures; capable of causing fertilization, as an anther with fully developed pollen; having spore-bearing organs, as a frond.

(7) In physics (of a nuclide) capable of being transmuted into a fissile nuclide by irradiation with neutrons (Uranium 238 and thorium 232 are fertile nuclides); (a substance not itself fissile, but able to be converted into a fissile material by irradiation in a reactor).

(8) Figuratively, of the imagination, energy etc, active, productive, prolific.

1425–1475: From the Late Middle English fertil (bearing or producing abundantly), from the Old French fertile or the Latin fertilis (bearing in abundance, fruitful, productive), from ferō (I bear, carry) and .akin to ferre (to bear), from the primitive Indo-European root bher (to carry (also “to bear children”)).  The verb fertilize dates from the 1640s in the sense of “make fertile” although the use in biology meaning “unite with an egg cell” seems not to have been used until 1859 and use didn’t become widespread for another fifteen years.  The noun fertility emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, from the earlier fertilite, from the Old French fertilité, from the Latin fertilitatem (nominative fertilitas) (fruitfulness, fertility), from fertilis (fruitful, productive).  Dating from the 1660s, the noun fertilizer was initially specific to the technical literature associated with agriculture in the sense of “something that fertilizes (land)”, and was an agent noun from the verb fertilize.  In polite society, fertilizer was adopted as euphemism for “manure” (and certainly “shit”), use documented since 1846.  The noun fertilization is attested since 1857 and was a noun of action from fertilize; it was either a creation of the English-speaking world or a borrowing of the Modern French fertilisation.  The common antonyms are barren, infertile and sterile.  Fertile is an adjective, fertility, fertilisation & fertileness are nouns, fertilize fertilized & fertilizing are verbs.  Technical terms like sub-fertile, non-fertile etc are coined as required.

The term “Fertile Crescent” was coined in 1914 was coined by US-born University of Chicago archaeologist James Breasted (1865-1935); it referred to the strip of fertile land (in the shape of an irregular crescent) described the stretching from present-day Iraq through eastern Turkey and down the Syrian and Israeli coasts.  The significance of the area in human history was it was here more than ten-thousand years ago that settlements began the practice of structured, seasonal agriculture.  The Middle English synonym childing is long obsolete but the more modern term “at risk” (of falling pregnant) survives for certain statistical purposes and was once part of the construct of a “legal fiction” in which the age at which women were presumed to be able to conceive was set as high as 65; advances in medical technology have affected this.

The difference

So often are “fecund” & “fertile” used interchangeably that there may be case to be made that in general use they are practically synonyms.  However, the use is slanted because fertile is a common word and fecund is rare; it’s the use of fertile when, strictly speaking, fecund is correct which is the frequent practice.  Technically, the two have distinct meanings although there is some overlap and agriculture is a fine case-study: Fertile specifically refers to soil rich in nutrients and able to support the growth of plants.  Fecund can refer to soil capable of supporting plant growth but it has the additional layer of describing something capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth.  This can refer to animals, humans, bacteria or (figuratively), ideas.  Used interchangeably, expect between specialists who need to differentiate, this linguistic swapping probably doesn’t cause many misunderstandings because the context of conversations will tend to make the meaning clear and for most of use, the distinction between a soil capable of growing plants and one doing so prolifically is tiresomely technical.  Still, as a rule of thumb, fertile can be thought of as meaning “able to support the growth of offspring or produce” while fecund implies “producing either in healthy volumes”.

Ultimate fecundity: Fast breeding

Although there are differences in meaning, fertile and fecund tend to be used interchangeably, especially in agriculture.  As adjectives, the difference is that fecund means highly fertile whereas fertile is the positive side of the fertile/infertile binary; capable of producing crops or offspring.  Fecundity may thus be thought a measure of the extent to which fertility is realised.  In nuclear physics, fertile material is that which, while not itself fissile (ie fissionable by thermal neutrons) is able to be converted into fissile material by irradiation in a reactor.  Three basic fertile materials exist: thorium-232, uranium-234 & uranium-238 and when these materials capture neutrons, respectively they are converted into uranium-233, uranium-235 & fissile plutonium-239.  Artificial isotopes formed in the reactor which can be converted into fissile material by one neutron capture include plutonium-238 and plutonium-240 which convert respectively into plutonium-239 & plutonium-241.

Obviously fertile and recently fecund.  In July 2023 Lindsay Lohan announced the birth of her first child.

Further along the scale are the actinides which demand more than one neutron capture before arriving at an isotope which is both fissile and long-lived enough to capture another neutron and reason fission instead of decaying.  These strings include (1) plutonium-242 to americium-243 to curium-244 to curium-245, (2) uranium-236 to neptunium-237 to plutonium-238 to plutonium-239 and (3) americium-241 to curium-242 to curium-243 (or, more likely, curium-242 decays to plutonium-238, which also requires one additional neutron to reach a fissile nuclide).  Since these require a total of three or four thermal neutrons eventually to fission, and a thermal neutron fission generates typically only two to three neutrons, these nuclides represent a net loss of neutrons although, in a fast reactor, they may require fewer neutrons to achieve fission, as well as producing more neutrons when they do.

Fast breeder (fusion) reactors have existed in labs for decades but, because of the need to contain sustainably very high temperatures, the challenge has always been to build something which (1) produces more energy than it consumes and (2) does so indefinitely.  On paper (and physicists admit the design is now so well understood a conceptual diagram can be sketched on a sheet in minutes) the science and engineering works so all that stands in the way is economics.  The lure of the fast breeder reactor is that, theoretically endlessly, one can produce more fissile material than it consumes (they're constructed using fertile material either wrapped around the core or encased in fuel rods).  Because plutonium-238, plutonium-240 and plutonium-242 are fertile, their accumulation is more manageable than that produced in conventional thermal reactors.  On planet Earth, the economics remain un-compelling, practical application of the technology having been thirty years off since the mid-1950s.  One proposal however transcends economics because it solves an otherwise insoluble problem.  If a facility for the manufacture of fissile material for spacecraft nuclear propulsion could be located on a space facility located at a point beyond the gravitational pull of Earth, it would be safe both to transport fertile materials to the facility and there manufacture fissile material which could provide the energy required for space exploration.

Adiaphoron

Adiaphoron (pronounced add-e-ah-for-on or eh-dee-ah-for-on)

(1) A matter of indifference.

(2) In philosophy, a matter held to be morally neutral.

(3) In Christian theology, something neither forbidden nor commanded by scripture and thus neither prescribed nor proscribed in church law.

(4) In Christian theology, the position that adherence to certain religious doctrines, rituals or ceremonies (even if non-standard) are not matters of concerned and may be practices or not, according to local preference.

1630s: From the Latin adjective adiaphoron, an inflection of adiaphoros (indifferent, non-essential, morally neither right nor wrong), neuter of Ancient Greek ἀδιάφορος (adiáphoros) (not different; indifferent), the construct being from a- (used in the sense of “not”) + diaphoros (different).  The Greek ἀδιάφορον (not different or differentiable) was thus the negation of διαφορά (diaphora) (difference).  The noun adiaphoria (a failure to respond to stimulation after a series of previously applied stimuli) is unrelated in meaning, the construct being a- (not) +‎ dia- (through) +‎ -phor (bearer) +‎ -ia (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  Adiaphoron is a noun & adjective, adiaphorist & adiaphorism are nouns, adiaphorous, adiaphoristic & adiaphoric are adjectives; the noun plural is adiaphora.

In the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, adiaphorism was an aspect in more than one school of thought.  To the Cynics it was used in the sense of “indifference” to both unfortunate events and the “stuff” which, then as now, functioned as the markers of success in society: power, fame & money.  The ancestor of the anti-materialists of the modern age, Cynicism understandably had more admirers than adherents.  The Stoics were more deterministic, dividing all the concerns of humanity into (1) good, (2) bad and (3) indifferent (adiaphora).  What they listed as good & bad was both predictable and (mostly) uncontroversial, something like a form of utilitarianism but without that creed’s essential component of distributive justice.  The implication, which retains much appeal to modern libertarians, was that for anything to be thought a matter of ethical concern, it needed to be defined as “good” or “bad”, the adiaphora being outside the scope of morality.  Acknowledged or not, this is what all but the most despotic legal and social systems can be reduced to although, being culturally and historically specific, the results can vary greatly.  In Athenian thought, the word also had a technical meaning wholly removed from morality.  To the Pyrrhonists (the most uncompromising of the philosophical sceptics) who essentially discarded all forms of imposed values in favor of defining everything by objective truth alone, the significance of the adiaphora was that these were things which, as a technical point, could not logically be differentiated.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

In Christianity, the adiaphora are those matters which, while they might be a significant or traditional part of worship either universally or sectionally, are not regarded as essential components of belief but may be practiced where the preference exists.  Within the schismatic world of Christianity, views differ and what is essential doctrinal orthodoxy in some denominations can be mere adiaphora in others.  Historically, the matter of what is and is not adiaphoric has been a matter of dispute and was a significant factor in the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, a movement much concerned with the appropriateness of non-biblical ritual, rites, decorations and “…the other detritus of Popery”.  It took some time to work out but what emerged was a political compromise which defined adiaphora essentially as those traditions “neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God”, thus permitting the ongoing observation of the “bells & whistles” of worship which had evolved over centuries and despite the entreaties of the iconoclasts, continued to be clung to by congregations.  The lesson of this compromise to accommodate “harmless regionalisms” was well learned by some later leaders, religious and secular.

Between the Christian denominations, the same thing can variously be dogma, heresy or mere adiaphora and an illustrative example of disagreement lies in the cult of Mary (Mariology to the theologians).  In the Roman Catholic Church, the cult of Mary is based on dogma worked out over centuries: (1) that Mary was a pure virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Christ, (2) that Mary was the “Mother of God”, (3) that Mary, at her conception was preserved immaculate from Original Sin and (4) that at the conclusion of her earthly existence, Mary was assumed, body and soul into heaven (it has never been made explicit whether Mary died on earth although this does seem long to have been theological orthodoxy, the essential point being the physical assumption (from the Latin assūmptiō (taking up)) meant her body did not remain to be corrupted).

In the intricate interplay of theology and church politics, what really appealed to nineteenth century popes was linked to Gnosticism, the notion of “the dual realms of darkness and light beyond the mere veil of appearances, where reside the Godhead, the Virgin Mary, Michael, and all the angels and the saints, opposed by the powers of the Prince of Darkness and his fallen angels who wander through the world for the ruin of souls” as Leo XIII (1810–1903; pope 1878-1903) wrote in a prayer to be recited at the end of every Mass.  In other words, whatever happens depends on Mary’s intercession with her Christ child “to so curb the power of Satan that war and discord will be vanquished.”  In turn, this depends on Marian revelations sanctioned as authentic by the pope, whose power is thus parallel to Mary’s.  It's something which has been criticized as "opportunistic constructed symbiosis".

Assumption of the Virgin Mary (circa 1637) by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Liechtenstein Museum, Vienna.

Modern popes, if they hold such a view, no longer dwell on it but it remains church dogma and because it was in the 1950s proclaimed with the only (formal) invocation of papal infallibility since the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870), any change would be something extraordinary.  In some other denominations Mary is more a historical figure than a cult and in the Anglican Church the doctrine of the Assumption ceased to be part of orthodoxy in the sixteenth century; while the Protestant Reformation wasn’t a project of rationalism, it was certainly about simplicity and a rejection of some of the mysticism upon which whole the clerical class depended for their authority.  Despite that, in Anglicanism, the Assumption of Mary seems never to have been proscribed and in the twentieth century it re-appeared in the traditions of the so-called “Anglo-Catholics” who adore the "Romish ways".  For most of the Anglican communion however, it seems to be thought of as adiaphora, one of those details of religious life important to some but which seems neither to add much or threaten anything.

Synecdoche

Synecdoche (pronounced si-nek-duh-kee)

In the study of rhetoric, a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special; a member of the figurative language set, a group which includes metaphors, similes and personification; it describes using part of a whole to represent the whole.

Late 1400s: As a "figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole or vice versa," synecdoche is a late fifteenth century correction of the late fourteenth century synodoches, from the Medieval Latin synodoche, an alteration of the Late Latin synecdochē, from the Ancient Greek συνεκδοχή (sunekdokhḗ) (the putting of a whole for a part; an understanding one with another (and literally "a receiving together or jointly" (ekdokhē the root of interpretation)) from synekdekhesthai (supply a thought or word; take with something else, join in receiving).  The construct was syn- (with) + ek (out) + dekhesthai (to receive), related to dokein (seem good) from the primitive Indo-European root dek- (to take, accept).  The construct of the Greek form was σύν (sún) (with) + ἐκ (ek) (out of) + δέχεσθαι (dékhesthai) (to accept), this final element related to δοκέω (dokéō) (to think, suppose, seem).  The alternative spellings syndoche & synechdoche are rare.  Synecdoche, synecdochization & synecdochy are nouns, synecdochic & synecdochical are adjectives, synecdochize is a verb and synecdochically is an adverb; the noun plural is synecdoches.  

Synecdoche vs. Metonymy

It’s one of those places in English where rules or descriptions overlap and it's easy to confuse synecdoche and metonymy because they both use a word or phrase to represent something else (and there are authorities which classify synecdoche as merely a type of metonymy although this appals the more fastidious).  Technically, while a synecdoche takes an element of a word or phrase and uses it to refer to the whole, a metonymy replaces the word or phrase entirely with a related concept.  Synecdoche and metonymy have much in common and there are grey areas: synecdoche refers to parts and wholes of a thing, metonymy to a related term. The intent of synecdoche is usually either (1) to deviate from a literal term in order to spice up everyday language or (2) a form of verbal shorthand.  In the discipline of structural linguistics, it's noted the distinction is between using a part to represent the whole (pars pro toto, from the Latin, the construct being pars (part) + prō (for) + tōtō, the ablative singular of tōtus (whole, entire)) or using the whole to represent a part (totum pro parte , from the Latin, the construct being tōtum (whole) + prō (for) + parte, the ablative singular of pars (part)).

The Pentagon, Arlington County, Virginia, USA.  Advances in technology have made the site vulnerable to long-range attacks as early as the 1950s and many critical parts of the military's administration are now located elsewhere.  After construction ended in 1943, for some 80 years the Pentagon was (in terms of floor area) the world's largest office building.  It's place on this architectural pecking order has since been supplanted by the Surat Diamond Bourse in Gujarat, India, opened in 2023.

Forms of Synecdoche

(1) A part to represent a whole: The word "head" can refer to counting cattle or people; hands for people on a specific job or members of a crew etc.

(2) A whole to represent a part: The word "Pentagon", while literally a very big building, often refers to the few decision-making generals who comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff or more generally, the senior ranks of the US military.  However, the use of "the White House" (a smaller building) operates synecdochically to refer to "the administration" rather than "the president" and while it should be reasonable to assume some interchangeably, under both Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021), it's been not uncommon to hear "the White House" being quoted "clarifying" (ie correcting" something said by the president .    

(3) A synecdoche may use a word or phrase as a class to express more or less than the word or phrase actually means: The USA is often referred to as “America” although this is a term from geography while "USA" is from political geography.  The word "crown" is often used to refer to a monarch or the monarchy as a whole but in some systems (notably the UK and Commonwealth nations which retain the UK's monarch as their head of state) the term "The Crown" is a synecdoche for "executive government".  

(4) Material representing an object: Cutlery and flatware is often (and often erroneously) referred to as "silver" or "silverware" even though there may not be a silver content in the metal although, "silver" being also a term referencing a color, the use is thought acceptable.

(5) A single (acceptable) word to suggest to the listener or reader another (unacceptable) word; commonly used as a linguistic work-around of NSFW (not suitable for work) rules on corporate eMail or other systems: “crock” or “cluster” are examples, pointing respectively to “crock of shit” and “cluster-fuck”.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.

The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

US market 1964 MG Princess 1100 brochure.  The advertising theme may have been ambitious but BMC also described MG's other US market ADO16 (a LHD (left-hand-drive) version of the home market MG 1100) as a "sports sedan" which, although legally "mere puffery", seems at least misleading.

BMC's six-brand spread for ADO16 is well-known and often used as a case-study for the way the approach should and should not be pursued.  A neglected footnote however also existed: the MG Princess 1100, sold in the US between 1964-1966.  The MG Princess was the by then familiar Vanden Plas 1100 (all with a manual transmission, no automatic ever offered) modified to the extent of being adorned with an MG badge on the boot (trunk) lid and hubcaps although it must have been though that wasn't getting the message across because in mid-1964 the octagonal symbol was added also to the Vanden Plas grill.  The rationale behind this curious hybrid was the perception the US market would respond well to a “luxury version” of the basic vehicle (and how the US industry would handle that notion in the next two decades proved the idea was sound) but the “Vanden Plas” name was essentially unknown in the US whereas MG had strong “brand recognition” because of the post-war success of first the updated pre-war “square riggers” (the TC, TD & TF (1945-1955)) and the later MGA (1955-1962) & MGB (1962-1980) sports cars.  Thus the MG Princess 1100 was introduced in February 1964 at the New York Motor Show but while the MGB and smaller MG Midget (1961-1979) enjoyed strong demand, BMC shifted a paltry 156 of the MG Princess and in 1966 the model was withdrawn from the US market.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Grounds of the Mercedes-Benz factory decorated in honor of a visit to Stuttgart by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), the display visible from his aircraft (1936, top left), a Mercedes-Benz showroom in Munich, Lenbachplaz (1935, top right) and 1938 Mercedes-Benz W125 Rekordwagen (bottom).  Although, tucked away in a corner of the corporate website there is a single page which contains a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of company’s complicity in some of the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime between 1933-1939 there’s little attempt to discuss the matter, an understandable reticence and quite a gap in the otherwise extensively documented history which dates back to 1886 with the debut of what is claimed to be the world’s “first automobile”.  Brand-management can be as much about what is left unsaid or hidden as what is projected. 

When used in events other straight-line speed record attempts (ie where corners needed to be negotiated) the streamlined version of the W125 Formel-Rennwagen (race car built in accord with defined rules) didn’t use the spats (fender-skirts) covering the wheels.  It was used thus on Berlin’s high-speed Avusrennen with its two, uniquely long straights and differed from the conventional W125 in that it was powered by V12 engine rather than the usual big-bore straight-eight, the lower hood (bonnet) line further reducing drag.  Fitted with the spats, W125 Rekordwagen (record car) was used in 1938 to achieve a speed of 432.7 km/h (269 mph) over the flying kilometre, then the fastest timed speed achieved on a public road and a record which stood until 2017.  It’s now on display in the Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart, although, the swastika with which it was once adorned has been removed from the aluminum skin (displays of the swastika banned in Germany except as authorized).

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.