Concur

Concur (pronounced kuhn-kur)

(1) To accord in opinion; to agree.

(2) To cooperate; work together; combine; be associated.

(3) To coincide; occur at the same time.

(4) To run or come together; converge (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English concur (collide, clash in hostility), from the Latin concurrere (to run together, assemble hurriedly; clash, fight), in transferred use “to happen at the same time", the construct being con (the Latin prefix variation of cum (with; together)) + currere (to run).  The early meaning in English was "collide, clash in hostility," the sense of "to happen at the same time" didn’t emerge until the 1590s; that of "to agree in opinion" a decade earlier.  Ultimate root was the Proto-Italic korzō, derived from the primitive Indo-European ḱers (to run).  Related forms are the adverb concurringly and the adjectives concurring and concurrent.  Despite the rarity, the verbs preconcur, preconcurred & preconcurring, and the adjectives unconcurred & unconcurring are said to exist, at least to the extent no dictionary appears yet to have declared them obsolete or archaic.  The adjective concurrent is noted from the late fourteenth century though concurring is said (surprisingly) not to have been in use until the 1630s.  The first concurring opinion was recorded in 1720.  The sense "to coincide, happen at the same time" is from 1590s; that of "to agree in opinion" dates in English from the 1580s

In praise of the Privy Council

Concurrent is probably the most common adjectival form in general use.  Noted since the late 1300s, in the sense of “acting in conjunction, contributing to the same effect or event", it was from the Old French concurrent or directly from Latin concurrentem (nominative concurrens), present participle of concurrere.  The meaning "combined, joint" is from 1530s and in law, concurrent jurisdiction (that possessed equally by two courts and if exercised by one not usually assumed by the other) is recorded from 1767.

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

Concur is one of many synonyms for “agree” and the one most favoured by judges on appellant courts to indicate they agree with (or at least acquiesce to) a judgment written by another.  That’s good because it means there’s less to have to read.  However, some judges prefer to pen their own judgments, helpful perhaps if they wish to explore some aspect of the case not elsewhere mentioned but otherwise a duplication of effort unless their prose serves to render readable what can be turgid stuff.  Then there are the dissenting judgments, of interest to academic lawyers and historians and sometimes a source of hope to those entertaining thoughts of an appeal.  That notwithstanding, those wishing just to know the state of law with certainty might long for a system in which appellate courts of appeal issued only the majority judgment with the dissenters encouraged to submit essays or letters to the editors of legal journals.

Etching of a sitting of a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (1846).

That only one judgment was issued was the most appealing procedural aspect of the Privy Council, until 1968 and 1986 respectively, the highest court of appeal for Australian state and Commonwealth jurisdictions.  Properly styled The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), the Privy Council remains the ultimate court of appeal for some British Overseas Territories and Commonwealth countries.  Although the Privy Council’s decisions are mostly not binding on the UK’s domestic courts, the rulings are held to be extremely persuasive as other respected tribunals (US Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Canada et al) are regarded.  One quirk of the Australian Constitution is that, the 1986 Australia Acts notwithstanding, the High Court can issue a certificate referring certain cases to the council but none has been granted for a century and the court has long made clear there’ll be no more.  As a bit of a relic of English constitutional history and the established church, in the United Kingdom, the Privy Council retains appellant jurisdiction some domestic matters:

(1) Appeals from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York in non-doctrinal faculty causes.

(2) Appeals from the High Court of Chivalry.

(3) Appeals from the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports and Admiralty prize courts.

(4) Appeals from the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

(5) Disputes under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, a role essentially similar to that the High Court of Australia (HCA) discharges as the Commonwealth’s Court of Disputed Returns.

Historically, the Privy Council dealt with cases thus referred without any known demand for multiple judgments or dissenting opinions; a fine example of judicial clarity and efficiency and one which judges in other courts never to admire, much less emulate.  Despite its exalted place in the legal hierarchy, the council has been a surprisingly flexible and informal court.  In 1949, it found, on technical grounds, the Commonwealth of Australia’s appeal in the bank nationalization case (Commonwealth of Australia v Bank of NSW [1949] UKPC 37, [1950] AC 235; [1949] UKPCHCA 1, (1949) 79 CLR 497 (26 October 1949)) couldn’t proceed but, because so many people had travelled over ten-thousand miles (17,000 km) to London (no small thing in 1949), it anyway heard the case and issued what would have been the substantive judgment.  If ever it’d been prepared to set the example of providing advisory opinions, the Privy Council would have been the best appellant court ever.  Unfortunately, In recent years, dissenting opinions have come to be issued.

Sitting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 18 June 1946.

M.R Jayaker, Lord Du Parcq, Lord Goddard (Lord Chief Justice), Lord Simonds, Lord Macmillan, Lord Simon, The Lord Chancellor (Lord Jowitt), Lord Thankerton, Lord Porter, Lord Uthwatt, Sir Madhavan Nair, and Sir John Beaumont.

Floccinaucinihilipilification

Floccinaucinihilipilification (pronounced flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn)

(1) The estimation of something as valueless.

(2) The act or habit of describing or regarding something as unimportant, of having no value or being worthless.

1735–1745: Apparently a coinage by pupils of Latin at England’s Eton College (a public (ie private)), the intent jocular but also something of an exercise in the pleonastic and tautological, the construct built (with the odd phonetic substitution or insertion) from the Latin words floccus (a wisp) + naucum (a trifle) +‎ nihilum (nothing) +‎ pilus (a hair) + -fication.  The elements (floccī + naucī + nihilī + pilī) all conveyed the notion “of little or no value, trifling”.  The -fication suffix was an alternative form of -ification, from the Middle English -ificacioun (ending on words generally borrowed whole from Old French), from the Old French -ification, from the Latin -ficātiō, a noun ending which appears on action nouns formed using the suffix -tiō (the English -tion) from verbs ending in -ficō (English -ify).   It was used to convey the idea of “the process of becoming” and was used in words of French or Latin origin, but in the last half-century the forms have become highly productive in English and the choice between -fication & -ification tends to be dictated by the resultant ease of pronunciation although when applying the suffix -ation to a verb ending in -ify, -ification is used instead of the expected -ifiation.  Modern forms like nerdification (the process of making or becoming nerdy) and hipsterfication (the process of making or becoming a hipster or characteristic of hipsters) have proliferated.  Floccinaucinihilipilification is a noun, floccinaucinihilipilificatious is an adjective and floccinaucinihilipilificate, floccinaucinihilipilificated & floccinaucinihilipilificating are verbs; the noun plural is floccinaucinihilipilifications (which some deny exists).

Modern reprint of the Eton Latin Grammar (1887) by Arthur Campbell Ainger (1841-1919).

Bored or baffled pupils in Latin class presumably coined many fake Latin words and it’s the longest, funniest or most vulgar which tended to survive.  At a hefty (by the conventions of English and most languages) 29 letters, floccinaucinihilipilification certainly is long and also enjoys the distinction of being the longest “non-technical” (ie not from medicine, physics etc) word in English although as something used to convey meaning (the very purpose of language), knowing the word does in itself seem floccinaucinihilipilificatious and for those who want more, that adjectival back-formation is lengthier still at a 30 character count.  Both trump that other schoolboy favorite antidisestablishmentarianism (opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established (state) church) which manages with 28 and attempts to claim the noun antidisestablishmentarianismist (31) exists have always been dismissed.  Etymologists believe the inventive pupils were inspired by a line which appears in various editions of William Lily's (circa 1468–1522) Latin grammars, one of which was the Eton Latin Grammar in which was listed a number of nouns commonly used in the genitive case with some verbs like pendo and facio expressing the idea of evaluating something as worthless.

Floccinaucinihilipilification: Trends of use.

To say the word is rare is stating the obvious but statistically, use spiked after the spread of the internet and that’s because of all the lists of long, bizarre or obscure words, Google’s ngrams increasing the count every time another one was created or shared.  Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

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

Despite appearing on all those lists, by the twenty-first century, actual (ie “real”) use had been so infrequent that to call it “archaic” was misleading but indisputably it was old and that had much appeal for Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (b 1969) an English politician who between 2010-2024 sat in the House of Commons, rising to become Lord President of the Council and later a member of cabinet in the memorable administration of Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022).  As one who deliberately affects an archaic style, Sir Jacob’s amused colleagues soon dubbed him “the honourable member for the eighteenth century” and he made plain his disdain for much of what modernity has delivered (the EU (European Union), the Labour Party, working class people with ideas above their station, pop music etc) and in gratitude for his stellar service, Sir Jacob was created a Knight Bachelor in Mr Johnson’s resignation honours list (which was as entertaining as any in living memory).  Because the Knight Bachelor is the most ancient of the UK’s many classes of knighthood, that would have pleased him but it’s also low in the pecking order (the “order of precedence” which dictates critical things like where one gets to sit (and, more to the point, next to whom) at certain dinners, church services and such) so that would not.  It ranks below all the knighthoods which are part of the organized orders of chivalry (the Garter, the Thistle, the Bath, the Star of India et al) and unlike the chivalric orders, does not confer any entitlement to the use of post-nominal letters, the form “KB” not used (except in historic reference) after 1815 when knighthoods in the order of the Bath (1725) were reorganized as Knight Grand Cross (GCB) & Knight Commander (KCB).  Still, he picked up the right to be styled “the honorable” when his father (William Rees-Mogg, 1928-2012) was in 1988 created a life peer and when in 2019 he was appointed to the Privy Council, he gained for life the style “The Right Honourable” so there was that.

The Right Honourable Sir Jacob Rees Mogg PC, attending the funeral of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022), London, 19 September 2019.

In 2012, Sir Jacob spoke the word “floccinaucinihilipilification” in a debate in the House of Commons, his topic being what he asserted was in the nation a common opinion of the EU and, helpfully, told the house it meant “the habit of regarding something as worthless”.  The 29 letter monster remains the longest word ever to appear in Hansard (a record of parliamentary proceedings) although someone did manage to use pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (a factitious 45 letter creation said to mean “a lung disease caused by inhalation of very fine silica dust usually found in volcanos”) when appearing before a select committee (not being on the floor of the house it didn’t make the Hansard).  An opportunist extension of the medical term pneumonoconiosis, it was coined during the proceedings of the National Puzzlers' League convention in 1935 in an attempt to create English’s longest word but was dismissed by dictionaries as fake, clinicians and textbooks still referring to the disease as pneumonoconiosis, pneumoconiosis, or silicosis.  British dictionaries may feel compelled to include antidisestablishmentarianism but many overseas publications do not, on the basis there’s hardly any record of its use except in lists of long words which some editors treat as lexicographical freak shows.  Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists the longest as electroencephalographically, also from the physician’s diagnostic tool box.