Gross (pronounced grohs)
(1) Without
deductions; total (as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc before taking
deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (net ).
(2) Unqualified;
complete.
(3) Flagrant
and extreme.
(4) Indelicate,
indecent or obscene.
(5) Of personal
qualities, tastes, etc, lacking refinement, good manners, education etc; vulgar.
(6) By
extension, not sensitive in perception or feeling (archaic).
(7) Extremely,
repellently or excessively fat.
(8)
Dull, witless (obsolete).
(9) Of
or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects etc.
(10) Obviously
or exceptionally culpable or wrong; flagrant (“grossly inefficient”; “grossly
incorrect” etc).
(11) In
slang, extremely objectionable, offensive or disgusting:
(12) Thick;
dense:
(13) In
slang, to disgust or offend, especially by crude language or behaviour; to
shock or horrify (often used (Gross!) as an exclamation indicating disgust or
disapproval.
(14) In
botany & agriculture etc (especially of vegetation), dense; thick;
luxuriant.
(15) In
textiles, coarse in texture or quality (obsolete but still used in this sense
in material science & engineering (ie dense, heavy)).
(16) Rude;
uneducated; ignorant (archaic).
(17) A
unit of quantity, equal to 12 dozen (ie 144, a “dozen dozen”).
(18) In
science, seen without a microscope (used typically of tissue or an organ); at a
large scale; not detailed (ie macroscopic; not microscopic).
(19) By
extension, easy to perceive (archaic).
(20) Difficult
or impossible to see through (now used only as a poetic or literary device).
1350–1400:
From the Middle English gros (large,
thick, full-bodied; coarse, unrefined, simple), from the Old French gros (large; thus the noun grosse (twelve dozen)), from the Late
Latin grossus (big, fat, thick (which
in Late Latin picked up the additional sense “coarse, rough”). The adjective gross in the fourteenth century
meant “large” but by early in the 1400 it acquired also the senses “thick” and “coarse,
plain, simple”, the development reflecting the influence of the eleventh
century Old French gros (big, thick,
fat; tall; strong, powerful; pregnant; coarse, rude, awkward; ominous,
important; arrogant) which was from the Late Latin grossus (thick, coarse (of food or mind)) which, in Medieval Latin also
picked up the meaning “great, big” (source also of the Spanish grueso and the Italian grosso).
The word is of unknown origin and no ancestor seems to have existed in
the Classical Latin (it’s thought unrelated to the Latin crassus, which meant the same thing, or the German gross (large) but may be cognate with
the Old Irish bres (big) and Middle
Irish bras (big)). Although the evidence is sketchy, some
etymologists suspect some link with the Proto-Celtic brassos (great, violent).
The verb engross (to buy up the whole stock of) dates from the late
1300s (in this sense it had been in Anglo-French for decades) and was from the Old
French en gros (in bulk, in a large
quantity, at wholesale) as opposed to en
detail; The figurative sense (absorb
the whole attention) was in use by at least 1709 while the curious “parallel
engross” (to write (something) in large letters) came from the Anglo-French engrosser, from Old French en gros (in large (letters)).
The
comparative is grosser (or “more gross”) and the superlative grossest (or “most
gross”) but TikTokers and such also use disgrossting (a portmanteau word, the
construct being dis(gust) + gross + ting” and they’re fond also of grossness
and (the non standard but most pleasing) grossnessness. On TikTok, users often are “grossed-out”
(highly disgusted) by stuff although sometimes they will post deliberately
gross content just to “out-gross” each other.
The negative form “un-gross” is recorded but is rare while de-gross & degrossify are humorous terms used when corrective attempts are
being undertaken. On TikTok and such, grossology
is a discipline assiduously pursued and there are many & grossologists. Gross, grossification & grossness are nouns,
verbs & adjectives, grossification, grossology & grossologist are
nouns, grossify, grossed & grossing are verbs, disgrossting, grossish &
grossest are adjectives and grossly is an adverb; the noun plural is gross or
grosses.
Der Grossers: 1938 Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150) Cabriolet F, a seven passenger tourer & parade car, pictured here with the folding soft-top in sedanca de ville configuration (left) and 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100) Pullman Landaulet with “short” folding roof. The 770K was produced in two runs (W07, 1931-1938 & W150, 1938-1943) while the W100 was built between 1963-1981.
In the context used by Mercedes-Benz, in the English-speaking world, the use of “grosser” is sometimes misunderstood. In German, groß means “large” while the Kompatativ (comparative) is größer and the Superlativ (superlative) größte; Der große Mercedes thus translates as “the big Mercedes”. In that sense groß is used in the sense of “physically large” but it can be used also to be “highest” as in the naval rank Großadmiral (a five-star rank translated in English usually as “grand admiral” and equivalent to admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral). The idea of the "big Mercedes" wasn't unique and to this day collectors still use the phrase "big Healey" (the Austin-Healey sports car, introduced as the 100 BN 1 (1953-55) which evolved into the 3000 (1959-1968), the term coined in 1958 to distinguish those cars from the smaller Austin Healey Sprite (1958-1970), produced also as the Austin Sprite (1971) and MG Midget (1961-1979)). In English, “gross” went on to prove itself a word of great versatility.
Lindsay Lohan never forgave dictator Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001). When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.” When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!” Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of coups d'état and believes soldiers should "stay in the barracks", allowing due constitutional process to be followed.
From
the meaning “coarse in texture or quality” developed by the 1520s the sense “not
sensitive, dull stupid” while that of “vulgar, coarse in a moral sense” emerged
within a decade. The early fifteenth
century meaning “entire, total, whole, without deductions came via the earlier
notion “general, not in detail” and in that sense became part of the standard
language of accounting (the idea of a “gross profit” being the “before tax”
number as opposed to the post-tax “net profit” was known in the 1520s) although
the familiar GNP (GNP) didn’t appear until 1947. The meaning “glaring, flagrant, monstrous”
was in use by at least the 1580s and despite it sounding like “valley girl” dialect from the 1980s, the use of “gross” to mean “disgusting” was in US student
slang in use by at least 1958; this meaning developed from the earlier use as an
intensifier of unpleasant things ("gross stupidity" etc). The phrase “gross-out” (make (someone)
disgusted) became common in the early 1970s while that other favourite
(grossness) was in use (purely as a marker of size) by the early 1400s with the
more familiar sense of “state of being indelicate, rude, or vulgar” documented in the 1680s. “Grossness”
became a popular word on social media meaning variously “ugly, smelly,
disgusting etc) and grossnessness was
a twenty-first century adaptation applied more for amusing effect than emphasis. The idea of a gross being “a dozen dozen” (ie
144) dates from the early fifteenth century from the Old French grosse douzaine (large dozen) although
earlier it meant measure of weight equal to one-eighth of a dram. The verb developed from the adjective in that
the late nineteenth century meaning “"to earn a total of” may be compared
with the adjectival use “whole, total”.
Historically,
a grocer (used as a surname as early as the mid-thirteenth century) was a
trader who owned or managed a grocery store in which were sold groceries; a
specialized type was the greengrocer who stocked fresh fruits & vegetables
from small shops, typically dotted around suburbs. The origin of such folk being “grocers” is
that they purchased their goods in bulk (ie “by the gross”) at a lower unit
cost than if supplied individually or sold in small quantities. It’s an idea probably as old as commerce
itself (indeed, the very essence of trade is selling stuff for more than the
cost of purchase/transport/storage etc) but “grocers” in a recognizably modern
sense emerged in late thirteenth century Europe (they were known also as
“providors” “spicers” or “purveyors”) when traders in the dry goods (sugar,
spices etc and eventually tea, cocoa & coffee) which had become available
in bulk as a result of European explorers reaching remote countries. The trader bought
their stock in bulk from wholesalers, splitting the items into the smaller
quantities purchased by individual consumers.
Buying in bulk didn’t by definition imply everything bought “by the
gross” (ie 12 dozen (144)) because different standard measures were used for
different types of commodities but the principle was the same. The word grocer came from grossier (French for “wholesaler”), from
the from the Medieval Latin grossarius
(wholesaler (literally “dealer in quantity” and the source also of the Spanish grosero and the Italian grossista), from the Late Latin grossus.
From the late 1600s until the 1850s, the word “grocery” referred to a
place where people went to drink.
Until
1971-1972, US car manufacturers quoted power outputs in “gross horsepower”
(usually described as HP (horsepower) or BHP (brake horsepower) which meant the
measure was taken on an engine dynamometer (the “brake” in BHP) without any
power-sapping accessories (generator, alternator, power steering pump, water
pump, AC (air-conditioning) compressor etc) being attached. Additionally, optimised ignition timing was
set, low-restriction exhaust headers were installed and neither air cleaners
nor anti-emissions equipment were fitted.
What this produced was a number of interesting to engineers and those
writing advertising copy but there was often quite a distant relationship to a
customer’s experience with what they drove off the showroom floor. By contrast net horsepower (defined by both
the US SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm (German industrial standard)) tested the engine with all standard accessories installed (including regular
induction & exhaust systems) and in all aspects tuned to factory
specifications (ie the form in which the things would appear in showrooms).
For the
consumer, use of the gross number wasn’t the only misleading thing about
Detroit’s rated power outputs in the 1950s & 1960s. Sometimes they were over-stated (exaggeration
long the most common element in advertising) but increasingly the number came to be set artificially low. In the
latter cases, this was done variously to try to (1) fool the insurance companies
(which had noted the striking correlates between horsepower and males aged
17-29), (2) not upset the politicians who were becoming aware of the increasing
carnage on the roads) or (3) fool those setting the rules in competition (most
infamously the 1968 Ford 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) CobraJet V8 which was rated
at a most conservative 335 bhp which enabled it to dominate its class in
drag-racing; after that the sanctioning body ignored manufacturers’ claims and
set their own ratings). So, for a
variety of reasons, many HP claims were little more than “think of a number”
and, late in the era of the crazy muscle cars (1969-1970), a some high-performance V8s were
capable of generating as much as 100 gross bhp more than what was put on the
tin.
Despite
the urban myth (which still appears), the industry’s switch from the use of
gross to net power ratings was not the product of a government edict or
regulation although there was certainly a bit of a nudge because “consumer
protection” and “truth-in-advertising” laws meant Detroit had to move closer to realism. As early as the early 1960s, the
emissions control hardware had made the gross readings even more misleading and
the increasing use of these devices (PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valves,
air pumps & retarded timing) materially reduced real-world power which,
coupled with the reduction in compression ratios which came with the removal of
lead from gas (petrol) meant that in 1970-1971, claimed HP began precipitously
to fall. In 1971-1972, although the
reductions seemed severe, it was the change in method (gross to net) which
accounted for most of the differences but over the next decade, as the emission
rules tightened and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) standards were
imposed, outputs really did fall; the manufacturers to some extent disguised
this by re-tuning the thing to generate prodigious low-speed torque (at the
expense of mid and upper-range power) but the differences really were obvious
and the 1974-1984 period came to be known as the “malaise era” for a reason.
In countries of the common law
tradition which criminalized make homosexual acts, historically, the offence of
“gross indecency” (a non-penetrative sexual act) was the companion to the
“detestable and abominable vice of buggery” (a non-penetrative sexual act). For countries with legal systems base on the common
law tradition, “negligence” & “gross negligence: are conceptually related
but differ in degree (not kind); the practical distinction lies in culpability
thresholds and legal consequences, which vary by jurisdiction and context. Negligence (at law sometimes as “ordinary negligence”)
is the failure to exercise the standard of care a “reasonable person” (also a
concept with a long legal history) would in similar circumstances be expected
to exercise. Depending on the case, negligence
may involve carelessness, inadvertence or a lack of due attention and does not
imply “moral blameworthiness” beyond failing to meet the objective standard. In England, although Lord Denning’s
(1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) quip: “gross negligence is negligence with a vituperative epithet”
is often cited, in operation, the term has substantive effects and in the criminal
law there is the offence of "gross negligence manslaughter". The only ones who seem to continue (except in the most egregious cases) to remain exempt from being subject to the threshold standard of "gross negligence" are the doctors who seem still able to convince all and sundry every inconvenient death is "medical misadventure".
“Gross negligence” is not at law a separate tort (although it can operate as if it is) and is an aggravated form of negligence, understood generally as a great departure from the standard of care, demonstrating reckless disregard or indifference to the safety or rights of others, thus judges having included in the judgments phrases such as “utter disregard for prudence”. “want of even scant care” and “conduct bordering on recklessness”. While “gross negligence” does fall short of intentional wrongdoing, it can approach or even approximate recklessness on the spectrum of culpability and in many cases, contractual exclusions or liability waivers may bar claims for ordinary negligence but cannot exclude liability for gross negligence. It’s also a standard administered on a “case-by-case” basis and certain immunities (such as statutory protections for volunteers or professionals) may not apply to gross negligence. Were a medically untrained “good Samaritan”, attending to an injured person they’d stumbled upon, to do something which if done by a nurse or doctor might be thought “negligent”, they’d almost certainly not be held liable on that basis and even had it been a passing medical professional who had done the same act, the threshold of “gross negligence” still might not be met.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNP (Gross National Product) were once the most commonly used metrics economics calculated to measure a nation’s macroeconomic performance. GDP measured the total market value of all final (ie end of process which may be multi-national) goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific period (usually a year or quarter although faster reporting mechanisms have resulted in some also producing “provisional” monthly outcomes). GDP’s core principle is the “location of production” and included all domestically produced products, regardless of the corporate ownership structure which meant off-shore production by domestically owned companies was not included. For economists and policy-makers, GDP remains attractive because (1) its movements tend to track (though not necessarily in unison) markers like employment & inflation and (2) it is relatively easy to accurately to measure; it continues to be used by most governments (including some of the larger, sub-national units) and institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations), World Bank, OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development) and BIS (Bank for International Settlements).
GNP (usually) is broader in that it measures the total market value of all final goods and services produced by a country’s nationals, regardless of where that production occurs, the core principle being ownership of the means of production & distribution. Essentially, what GNP measures is (1) value of output produced by domestic-owned firms at home and off-shore and (2) income earned by individuals & companies from overseas investments; thus excluded is output produced domestically by foreign-owned firms meaning the difference between GDP & GNP can vary greatly between economies depending on their structure. What links GDP & GNP is a mysterious formula (which began as an add-on for modelling tools) called NFIA (net factor income from abroad) explained as: FI earned by residents from abroad – FI earned by non-residents in the country meaning GNP = GDP + income earned by residents abroad. NFIA is important to those wishing to analyse GNP because of the effect large multinational corporations (Japan, the UK & US emblematic examples) have on the calculations and, as a general principle, GDP tends better to reflects domestic economic activity while GNP is a better measure of aggregate national income available to residents. The long-standing (if not always understood except as a comparative) GDP remains the standard “headline measure” most familiar to general observers while GNP is more useful for economists and other specialists. Essentially, GDP is a measure of the value of local production while GNP calculates national income. Economics being about money, GDP was thus something of an abstraction but GNP had limitations which is why economists created the newer GNI (Gross National Income) as a refinement GNP; it measure the same underlying concept (income accruing to a country’s resident) but is framed explicitly in terms of income terms rather than production.
GNI is the total income earned by a country’s residents and businesses, including income from abroad and excluding income earned domestically by non-residents (ie GNI = GDP + net primary income from abroad) where “income” included (1) wages & salaries, (2) profits, operating surpluses and self-employment income and (3) property income (dividends, interest, reinvested earnings & rents). GNI frequently aligns almost exactly with GNP and although GNP focuses on production by nationals whereas GNI emphasizes income received by residents, most major trans-national institutions (UN, IMF, BIS etc) tend to use GNI rather than GNP because (1) income is easier to interpret for welfare, savings and consumption analysis, (2) there is structural consistency with accounting frameworks and (3) the numbers are most adaptable to integration with modelling software handling inputs such as NDI (national disposable income), savings rates and balance of payments outcome. Importantly, it’s also “meaty” for policy makers because governments tax and redistribute income, not gross output statistics. GNI is thus something of an international standard although the government of Bhutan calculates and publishes an index of GNH (Gross National Happiness) which, philosophically, puts a premium on collective happiness over economic growth. Although the formula has over the years been made more sophisticated, it’s based still on “four pillars”: cultural preservation, sustainable development, environmental conservation and good governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment