Egregious

Egregious (pronounced ih-gree-juhs)

(1) Extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant.

(2) Extraordinary in some good way; distinguished or eminent (archaic).

1525–1535: From the Middle English, from the Latin ēgregius (preeminent; outstanding, literally “standing out from the herd”), the construct being ē- (out (and in Latin an alternative to ex-)) + greg-, stem of grēx (flock, herd) + -ius.  Grēx was from the primitive Indo-European hzger- (to assemble, gather together) which influenced also the Spanish grey (flock, crowd), the Lithuanian gurguole (mass, crowd) and gurgulys (chaos, confusion), the Old Church Slavonic гроусти (grusti) (handful), the Sanskrit गण (gaṇá) (flock, troop, group) and ग्राम (grā́ma) (troop, collection, multitude; village, tribe), and the Ancient Greek ἀγείρω (ageírō) (I gather, collect) (from whence came ἀγορά (agorá)).  The link to the Proto-Germanic kruppaz (lump, round mass, body, crop) is contested.  The English –ous was a Middle English borrowing from the Old French -ous and –eux from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of) and is as doublet of -ose in unstressed position; it was used to form adjectives from nouns and to denote possession or presence of a quality in any degree, most commonly in abundance.  Egregious is an adjective, egregiously is an adverb and egregiousness is a noun; the noun plural is the delicious egregiousnesses.

Meaning adaptation & shift

There are many words in English where meaning has in some way or to some degree shifted but egregious is one of the rarities which now means the opposite of what it once did.  There are others such as nice which used to mean “silly, foolish, simple”; silly which morphed from referring to things “worthy or blessed” to meaning “weak and vulnerable” before assuming its modern sense; awful which used to describe something “worthy of awe” and decimate, once a Roman military term to describe a death-rate around 10% whereas it implies now a survival rate about that number.  In English, upon its sixteenth century adoption from Latin, egregious was a compliment, a way to suggest someone was distinguished or eminent.  That egregiously clever English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was flattering a colleague when he remarked, "I am not so egregious a mathematician as you are…" which would today be thought an insult.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes that in 1534, egregious unambiguously meant "remarkable, in a good sense" but as early as 1573, people were also using it to mean "remarkable, in a bad sense."  The documentary evidence appears sparse but the OED speculates the meaning started to switch because people were using the word sarcastically or at least with some gentle irony.  In the linguistically democratic manner in which English evolves, the latter prevailed, presumably because people felt there were quite enough ways to compliment others but were anxious always to add another insult to the lexicon.  Shakespeare, with his ear for the vernacular, perhaps helped.  Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) employed it in the older sense in his Tamburlaine (1590), writing of “egregious viceroys of these eastern parts…” but within a generation, William Shakespeare (1564–1616) has Posthumus condemn himself in Cymbeline (1611) in the newer condemnatory sense: “egregious murderer”, echoing his earlier use in All's Well That Ends Well (1605).  Both meanings appear to have operated in parallel until the eighteenth century which must have hurt a few feelings or perhaps, in an age of dueling, something more severe.

Imogen Sleeping (from Shakespeare's Cymbeline), circa 1899 by Norman Mills Price (1877–1951).

In southern Europe however, the bard’s words failed to seduce the Romance languages.  The Italian formal salutation egregio is entirely reverential, as are the both the Spanish and Portuguese cognates, egregio and egrégio.

Frango

Frango (pronounced fran-goh)

(1) A young chicken (rare in English and in Portuguese, literally “chicken”).

(2) Various chicken dishes (an un-adapted borrowing from the Portuguese).

(3) In football (soccer) (1) a goal resulting from a goalkeeper’s error and (2) the unfortunate goalkeeper.

(4) The trade name of a chocolate truffle, now sold in Macy's department stores. 

In English, “frango” is most used in the Portuguese sense of “chicken” (variously “a young chicken”, “chicken meat”, “chicken disk” etc) and was from the earlier Portuguese frângão of unknown origin.  In colloquial figurative use, a frango can be “a young boy” and presumably that’s an allusion to the use referring to “a young chicken”.  In football (soccer), it’s used (sometimes trans-nationally) of a goal resulting from an especially egregious mistake by the goalkeeper (often described in English by the more generalized “howler”.  In Brazil, where football teams are quasi-religious institutions, such a frango (also as frangueiro) is personalized to describe the goalkeeper who made the error and on-field blunders are not without lethal consequence in South America, the Colombian centre-back Andrés Escobar (1967–1994) murdered in the days after the 1994 FIFA World Cup, an event reported as a retribution for him having scored the own goal which contributed to Colombia's elimination from the tournament. Frango is a noun; the noun plural is frangos.

The Classical Latin verb frangō (to break, to shatter) (present infinitive frangere, perfect active frēgī, supine frāctum) which may have been from the primitive Indo-European bhreg- (to break) by not all etymologists agree because descendants have never been detected in Celtic or Germanic forks, thus the possibility it might be an organic Latin creation.  The synonyms were īnfringō, irrumpō, rumpō & violō.  As well as memorable art, architecture and learning, Ancient Rome was a world also of violence and conflict and there was much breaking of stuff, the us the figurative use of various forms of frangō to convey the idea of (1) to break, shatter (a promise, a treaty, someone's ideas (dreams, projects), someone's spirit), (2) to break up into pieces (a war from too many battles, a nation) and (3) to reduce, weaken (one's desires, a nation).

A frangō in the sense of the Classical Latin: Lindsay Lohan with broken left wrist (fractured in two places in an unfortunate fall at Milk Studios during New York Fashion Week) and 355 ml (12 fluid oz) can of Rehab energy drink, Los Angeles, September 2006.  The car is a 2005 Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG (R230; 2004-2011) which earlier had featured in the tabloids after a low-speed crash.  The R230 range (2001-2011) was unusual because of the quirk of the SL 550 (2006-2011), a designation used exclusively in the North American market, the RoW (rest of the world) cars retaining the SL 500 badge even though both used the 5.5 litre (333 cubic inch) V8 (M273).

The descendents from the Classical Latin frangō (to break, to shatter) included the Aromanian frãngu (to break, to destroy; to defeat), the Asturian frañer (to break; to smash) & francer (to smash), the English fract (to break; to violate (long obsolete)) & fracture ((1) an instance of breaking, a place where something has broken, (2) in medicine a break in a bone or cartilage and (3) in geology a fault or crack in a rock), the Friulian franzi (to break), the German Fraktur ((1) in medicine, a break in a bone & (2) a typeface) & Fraktion (2) in politics, a faction, a parliamentary grouping, (3) in chemistry, a fraction (in the sense of a component of a mixture), (4) a fraction (part of a whole) and (5) in the German-speaking populations of Switzerland, South Tyrol & Liechtenstein, a hamlet (adapted from the Italian frazione)), the Italian: frangere (1) to break (into pieces), (2) to press or crush (olives), (3) in figurative use and as a literary device, to transgress (a commandment, a convention of behavior etc), (4) in figurative use to weaken (someone's resistance, etc.) and (5) to break (of the sea) (archaic)), the Ladin franjer (to break into pieces), the Old Franco provençal fraindre (to break; significantly to damage), the Old & Middle French fraindre (significantly to damage), the Portuguese franzir (to frown (to form wrinkles in forehead)), the Romanian frânge (1) to break, smash, fracture & (2) in figurative use, to defeat) and frângere (breaking), the Old Spanish to break), and the Spanish frangir (to split; to divide).

Portuguese lasanha de frango (chicken lasagna).

In Portuguese restaurants, often heard is the phrase de vaca ou de frango? (beef or chicken?) and that’s because so many dishes offer the choice, much the same as in most of the world (though obviously not India).  In fast-food outlets, the standard verbal shorthand for “fried chicken” is “FF” which turns out to be one of the world’s most common two letter abbreviations, the reason being one “F” representing the once infamous "F-word", one of English language’s most un-adapted exports.  One mystery for foreigners sampling Portuguese cuisine is: Why is chicken “frango” but chicken soup is “sopa de galinha?”  That’s because frango is used to mean “a young male chicken” while a galinha is an adult female.  Because galinha meat doesn’t possess the same tender quality as that of a frango, (the females bred and retained mostly for egg production), slaughtered galinhas traditionally were minced or shredded and used for dishes such as soups, thus: sopa de galinha (also as canja de galinha or the clipped caldo and in modern use, although rare, sopa de frango is not unknown).  That has changed as modern techniques of industrial farming have resulted in a vastly expanded supply of frango meat so, by volume, most sopa de galinha is now made using frangos (the birds killed young, typically between 3-4 months).  Frangos have white, drier, softer meat while that of the galinha is darker, less tender and juicer and the difference does attract chefs in who do sometimes offer a true sopa de galinha as a kind of “authentic peasant cuisine”.

There are also pintos (pintinhos in the diminutive) which are chicks only a few days old but these are no longer a part of mainstream Portuguese cuisine although galetos (chicks killed between at 3-4 weeks) are something of a delicacy, usually roasted.  The reproductive males (cocks or roosters in English use) are galos.  There is no tradition, anywhere in Europe, of eating the boiled, late-developing fertilized eggs (ie a bird in the early stages of development), a popular dish in the Philippines and one which seems to attract virulent disapprobation from many which culturally is interesting because often, the same critics happily will consume both the eggs and the birds yet express revulsion at even the sight of the intermediate stage.  Such attitudes are cultural constructs and may be anthropomorphic because there’s some resemblance to a human foetus.

Lindsay Lohan at Macy's and Teen People's Freaky Friday Mother/Daughter Fashion Show, Macy's Herald Square, New York City, August 2003.  It's hoped she had time for a Frango.

Now sold in Macy’s, Frangos are a chocolate truffle created in 1918 for sale in Frederick & Nelson department stores.  Although originally infused with mint, many variations ensued and they became popular when made available in the Marshall Field department stores which in 1929 acquired Frederick & Nelson although it’s probably their distribution by Macy's which remains best known.  Marshall Field's marketing sense was sound and they turned the Frango into something of a cult, producing them in large melting pots on the 13th floor of the flagship Marshall Field's store on State Street until 1999 when production was out-sourced to a third party manufacturer in Pennsylvania.  In the way of modern corporate life, the Frango has had many owners, a few changes in production method and packaging and some appearances in court cases over rights to the thing but it remains a fixture on Macy’s price lists, the troubled history reflected in the “Pacific Northwest version” being sold in Macy's Northwest locations in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon while the “Seattle version” is available in Macy's Northwest establishments.  There are differences between the two and each has its champions but doubtless there are those who relish both.

A patent application (with a supporting trademark document) for the Frango was filed in 1918, the name a re-purposing of a frozen dessert sold in the up-market tea-room at Frederick & Nelson's department store in Seattle, Washington.  The surviving records suggest the “Seattle Frangos” were flavoured not with mint but with maple and orange but what remains uncertain is the origin of the name.  One theory is the construct was Fr(ederick’s) + (t)ango which is romantic but there are also reports employees were told, if asked, to respond it was from Fr(ederick) –an(d) Nelson Co(mpany) with the “c” switched to a “g” because the word “Franco” had a long established meaning.  Franco was a word-forming element meaning “French” or “the Franks”, from the Medieval Latin combining form Franci (the Franks), thus, by extension, “the French”.  Since the early eighteenth century it had been used when forming English phrases & compound words including “Franco-Spanish border” (national boundary between France & Spain), Francophile (characterized by excessive fondness of France and all things French (and thus its antonym Francophobe)) and Francophone (French speaking).

Hitler and Franco, photographed at their day-long meeting at Hendaye, on the Franco-Spanish border, 23 October 1940.  Within half a decade, Hitler would kill himself; still ruling Spain, Franco died peacefully in his bed, 35 years later.

Remarkably, the Frango truffles have been a part of two political controversies.  The first was a bit of a conspiracy theory, claiming the sweet treats were originally called “Franco Mints”, the name changed only after the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) in which the (notionally right-wing and ultimately victorious) Nationalist forces were led by Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) and the explanation was that Marshall Field wanted to avoid adverse publicity.  Some tellings of the tale claim the change was made only after the Generalissimo’s meeting with Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) at Hendaye on 23 October 1940.  Their discussions concerned Spain's participation in the War against the British but it proved most unsatisfactory for the Germans, the Führer declaring as he left that he'd rather have "three of four teeth pulled out" than have to again spend a day with the Caudillo.  Unlike Hitler, Franco was a professional soldier, thought war a hateful business best avoided and, more significantly, had a shrewd understanding of the military potential of the British Empire and the implications for the war of the wealth and industrial might of the United States.  The British were fortunate Franco took the view he did because had he agreed to afford the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces) the requested cooperation to enable them to seize control of Gibraltar, the Royal Navy might have lost control of the Mediterranean, endangering the vital supplies of oil from the Middle East, complicating passage to the Indian Ocean and beyond; it would have transformed the strategic position in the whole hemisphere.  However, in the archives is the patent application form for “Frangos” dated 1 June 1918 and there has never been any evidence to support the notion “Franco” was ever used for the chocolate truffles.

Macy's Dark Mint Frangos.

The other political stoush (late nineteenth century Antipodean slang meaning a "fight or small-scale brawl") came in 1999 when, after seventy years, production of Frangos was shifted from the famous melting pots on the thirteenth floor of Marshall Field's flagship State Street store to Gertrude Hawk Chocolates in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, the decision taken by the accountants at the Dayton-Hudson Corporation which had assumed control in 1990.  The rationale for this shift was logical, demand for Frangos having grown far beyond the capacity of the relatively small space in State Street to meet demand but it upset many locals, the populist response led Richard Daley (b 1942; mayor (Democratic Party) of Chicago Illinois 1989-2011), the son of his namesake father (1902–1976; mayor (Democratic Party) of Chicago, Illinois 1955-1976) who in 1968 simultaneously achieved national infamy and national celebrity (one’s politics dictating how one felt) in his handling of the police response to the violence which beset the 1968 Democratic National Convention held that year in the city.  The campaign to have the Frangos made instead by a Chicago-based chocolate house was briefly a thing but was ignored by Dayton-Hudson and predictably, whatever the lingering nostalgia for the melting pots, the pragmatic Mid-Westerners adjusted to the new reality and, with much the same enthusiasm, soon were buying the Pennsylvanian imports.

Macy's Frango Mint Trios.

Doubtlessly to the delight of economists (sweet-toothed or not), there appears to be a “Frango spot market”.  Although the increasing capacity of AI (artificial intelligence) has improved the mechanics of “dynamic pricing” (responding in real-time to movements in demand), as long ago as the Christmas season in 2014, CBS News ran what they called the “Macy's State Street Store Frango Mint Price Tracker”, finding the truffle’s price was subject to fluctuations as varied over the holiday period as movements in the cost of gas (petrol).  On the evening of Thanksgiving, “early bird” shoppers could buy a 1 lb one-pound box of Frango mint “Meltaways” for US$11.99, the price jumping by the second week in December to US$14.99 although that still represented quite a nominal discount from the RRP (recommended retail price) of US$24.00.  Within days, the same box was again listed at US$11.99 and a survey of advertising from the previous season confirmed that in the weeks immediately after Christmas, the price had fallen to US$9.99.  It may be time for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) to open a market for Frango Futures (the latest “FF”!).

Molyneux

Molyneux (pronounced mol-un-ewe)

(1) A habitational surname of Norman origin, almost certainly from the town of Moulineaux-sur-Seine, in Normandy.

(2) A variant of the Old French Molineaux (an occupational surname for a miller).

(3) An Anglicized form of the Irish Ó Maol an Mhuaidh (descendant of the follower of the noble).

(4) In law in the state of New York, as the “Molineux Rule”, an evidentiary rule which defines the extent to which a prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes, not to show criminal propensity, but to “establish motive, opportunity, intent, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”

(5) In philosophy, as the “Molyneux Problem”, a thought experiment which asks:”If someone born blind, who has learned to distinguish between a sphere and a cube by touch alone, upon suddenly gaining the power of sight, would they be able to distinguish those objects by sight alone, based on memory of tactile experience?”

Pre 900: The French surname Molyneux was from the Old French and is thought to have been a variant of De Molines or De Moulins, both linked to "Mill" (Molineaux the occupational surname for a miller) although the name is believed to have been habitation and form an unidentified place in France although some genealogists have concluded the de Moulins came from Moulineaux-sur-Seine, near Rouen, Normandy.  Despite the continental origin, the name is also much associated with various branches of the family in England and Ireland, the earliest known references pre-dating the Norman Conquest (1066).  The alternative spelling is Molineux.

The "Molyneux Problem" is named after Irish scientist and politician William Molyneux (1656–1698) who in 1688 sent a letter to the English physician & philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), asking: Could someone who was born blind, and able to distinguish a globe and a cube by touch, be able to immediately distinguish and name these shapes by sight if given the ability to see?  Obviously difficult to test experimentally, the problem prompted one memorable dialogue between Locke and Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753 (who lent his name, pronounced phonetically to the US university) but it has long intrigued those from many disciplines, notably neurology and psychology, because sight is such a special attribute, the eyes being an outgrowth of the brain; the experience of an adult brain suddenly being required to interpret visual input would be profound and certainly impossible to imagine.  Philosophers since Locke have also pondered the problem because it raises issues such as the relationship between vision and touch and the extent to which some of the most basic components of knowledge (such as shape) can exist at birth or need entirely to be learned or experienced.

The Molineux Rule in the the adversarial system 

The Molineux Rule comes from a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of People v Molineux (168 NY 264 (1901)).  Molineux had at first instance been convicted of murder in a trial which included evidence relating to his past conduct.  On appeal. the verdict was overturned on the basis that as a general principle: “…in both civil and criminal proceedings, that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible.”  The rationale for that is it creates a constitutional safeguard which acts to protect a defendant from members of a jury forming an assumption the accused had committed the offence with which they were charged because of past conduct which might have included being accused of similar crimes.  Modified sometimes by other precedent or statutes, similar rules of evidentiary exclusion operate in many common law jurisdictions.  It was the Molineux Rule lawyers for former film producer Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) used to have overturned his 2020 conviction for third degree rape.  In a 4:3 ruling, the court held the trial judge made fundamental errors in having “…erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.” and therefore the only “...remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Harvey Weinstein and others.

Reaction to the decision of the appellate judges was of course swift and the opinion of the “black letter” lawyers was the court was correct because “…we don't want a court system convicting people based on testimony about allegations with which they’ve not been charged.”, added to which such evidence might induce a defendant not to submit to the cross-examination they’d have been prepared to undergo if only matters directly relevant to the charge(s) had been mentioned in court.  Although the Molineux Rule has been operative for well over a century, some did thing it surprising the trial judge was prepare to afford the prosecution such a generous latitude in its interpretation but it should be noted the Court of Appeal divided 4:3 so there was substantial support from the bench that what was admitted as evidence did fall within what are known as the “Molineux exceptions” which permit certain classes of testimony in what is known as “character evidence”.  That relies on the discretion of the judge who must weigh the value of the testimony versus the prejudicial effect it will have on the defendant.  In the majority judgment, the Court of Appeal made clear that in the common law system (so much of which is based on legal precedent), if the trial judge’s decision on admissibility was allowed to stand, there could (and likely would) be far-reaching consequences and their ruling was based on upholding the foundations of our criminal justice system in the opening paragraphs: "Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality. It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict."

The strict operation of the Molineux Rule (which this ruling will ensure is observed more carefully) does encapsulate much of the core objection to the way courts operate in common law jurisdictions.  The common law first evolved into something recognizable as such in England & Wales after the thirteenth century and it spread around the world as the British Empire grew and that included the American colonies which, after achieving independence in the late eighteenth century as the United States of America, retained the legal inheritance.  The common law courts operate on what is known as the “adversarial system” as opposed to the “inquisitorial system” of the civil system based on the Code Napoléon, introduced in 1804 by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) and widely used in Europe and the countries of the old French Empire.  The criticism of the adversarial system is that the rules are based on the same principle as many adversarial contests such as football matches where the point of the rules is to ensure the game is decided on the pitch and neither team has any advantage beyond their own skill and application.

That’s admirable in sport but many do criticize court cases being conducted thus, the result at least sometimes being decided by the skill of the advocate and their ability to persuade.  Unlike the inquisitorial system where the object is supposed to be the determination of the truth, in the adversarial system, the truth can be something of an abstraction, the point being to win the case.  In that vein, many find the Molineux Rule strange, based on experience in just about every other aspect of life.  Someone choosing a new car, a bar of chocolate or a box of laundry detergent is likely to base their decision from their knowledge of other products from the same manufacturer, either from personal experience or the result of their research.  Most consumer organizations strongly would advise doing exactly that yet when the same person is sitting on a jury and being asked to decide if an accused is guilty of murder, rape or some other heinous offence, the rules don’t allow them to be told the accused has a history of doing exactly that.  All the jury is allowed to hear is evidence relating only to the matter to be adjudicated.  Under the Molineux Rule there are exceptions which allow “evidence of character” to be introduced but as a general principle, the past is hidden and that does suit the legal industry which is about winning cases.  The legal theorists are of course correct that the restrictions do ensure an accused can’t unfairly be judged by past conduct but for many, rules which seem to put a premium on the contest rather than the truth must seem strange.

Muppet

Muppet (pronounced mup-it)

(1) A usually derogatory slang term for somebody conspicuously stupid (never capitalised).  Can be used affectionately and references intelligence; distinct from cultural references such as bogan, chav, redneck etc although they can (indeed sometimes should) be used in conjunction.

(2) Any puppet character so named in various TV programmes (always capitalised).

1955: The Muppets were created by puppeteer Jim Henson (1936-1990) who variously would claim the word was (1) a construct of m(arionette) + (p)uppet and (2) it had no specific etymology and was coined because he liked the sound.  The US trademark dates from 1972 with usage claimed from 1971 (and in print from 1970) and the eponymous US network TV programme was broadcast between 1976-1981.  Well-scripted and meta-referential, Muppets aren’t stereotypically stupid; the slang term apparently applied to dopy people because Muppets look stupid.  Use of the slang appears restricted to parts of the English-speaking world though not North America, having currency only in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

They are everywhere

Muppet & muppet: Kermit the frog with crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).

The clusters are self-replicating; as one muppet departs, one or more appears and often, muppets reach critical-mass.  Think about it, at one time there must have been only a few muppets; now look how many there are.  Muppets are everywhere, seeming sometimes to populate whole streets or even suburbs.  In workplaces also they tend to cluster and there are corporations in which entire departments appear staffed by muppets.  Although low in productivity, muppet departments are harmonious workplaces and one muppet, witnessing some act of egregious stupidity by another, will playfully chide them, usually with the phrase “you muppet!”  That’s also often heard in shopping centre car-parks when muppets have locked their keys in the car or can’t remember where it’s parked.

Lindsay Lohan (left) with Telly the Muppet (right), The Letter Z Decides to Quit the Alphabet, Sesame Street (1995).

Wypipology

Wypipology (pronounced wahy-pee-pol-uh-jee)

A (usually darkly) humorous slang term for the (uncredentialed) branch of cultural anthropology in which a “researcher”, usually a person of color, “observes or studies” the behavior of wypipo (white people).

2017: A compound word, the construct being wypipo (African-American slang for “white people” generally, especially those perceived to be racist, unaware of their own privilege, or engaging in cultural appropriation) based on African-American colloquial pronunciation of the phrase “white people” + -ology (formed from -o- (as an interconsonantal vowel) +‎ -logy).  The origin in English of the -logy suffix lies with loanwords from the Ancient Greek, usually via Latin and French, where the suffix (-λογία) is an integral part of the word loaned (eg astrology from astrologia) since the sixteenth century.  French picked up -logie from the Latin -logia, from the Ancient Greek -λογία (-logía).  Within Greek, the suffix is an -ία (-ía) abstract from λόγος (lógos) (account, explanation, narrative), and that a verbal noun from λέγω (légō) (I say, speak, converse, tell a story).  In English the suffix became extraordinarily productive, used notably to form names of sciences or disciplines of study, analogous to the names traditionally borrowed from the Latin (eg astrology from astrologia; geology from geologia) and by the late eighteenth century, the practice (despite the disapproval of the pedants) extended to terms with no connection to Greek or Latin such as those building on French or German bases (eg insectology (1766) after the French insectologie; terminology (1801) after the German Terminologie).  Within a few decades of the intrusion of modern languages, combinations emerged using English terms (eg undergroundology (1820); hatology (1837)).  In this evolution, the development may be though similar to the latter-day proliferation of “-isms” (fascism; feminism etc).  The alternative spelling is wipipology, a practitioner in the discipline is thus a wypipologist or wipipologist.  Wypipology and wypipologist are nouns; the noun plural is wypipologists. 

Michael Harriot, world-renowned wypipologist.

Technically, wypipology is a back-formation from wypipologist, the term coined by journalist Michael Harriot (b 1972), formerly a contributor to the Black-focused website theroot.com and still writing for certain mainstream publications such as the Guardian.  Mr Harriot appears first to have used the word on-line in 2017 although there are unattested references to instances of use in 2016; in his self-edited biographical note on the Root website, Mr Harriot describes himself as a “world-renowned wypipologist.”  The core of wypipology lies in creating something of a parody of (what to some extent may itself be a caricature) the manner in which generations of white cultural anthropologists and sociologists used a language of “otherness” to describe Black societies, contrasting the civilized (white) cultures with those of the Blacks which were characterized variously as uncivilized, primitive, backward, savage etc.

Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America (2024) by Michael Harriot.  The work is described as a comprehensive appraisal of American history in which the dominant narrative is directly confronted and corrected to showcase the perspectives and experiences of Black Americans.

The point was not that white sub-cultures weren’t studied or observed; indeed, in the era of massive growth in sociology during the post-war years, many sub-sets of white society, divided across many lines, were the subject of many studies.  However, just as Edward Said (1935-2003) in Orientalism (1978) created a critique of the (Western) field of Oriental Studies in which he deconstructed the distorted cultural representations which he claimed were the product of centuries of Eurocentric prejudice against what lies east and south of Suez, Hariott identified the prevalent white attitude as one of cultural insularity which, combined with a feeling of superiority to non-whites, meant the prevailing attitude could be only inherently racist and oblivious to their multi-layered privileges of whiteness.  One advantage of Hariott’s wypipology was that it was couched in the style of darkly absurdist humor, not something that could be said of Said’s inch-thick polemic and the instances cited by an observant wypipologist might range from the ridiculous to the deadly.  In recent years, theroot has given awards to the white folks thought to have committed the most egregious offences but there were none in 2021, perhaps because Mr Hariott ceased his association.  

Variations on the idea of subverting the constructs of white civilization and their comparison with Black backwardness have often used the language of cultural anthropology and sociology to make the point: 

The fictitious tribe Nacirema ("American" spelled backwards) was first described in a satire of academic anthropology in the June 1956 edition of American Anthropologist and is still used in universities to demonstrate to students the extent to which they are racially pre-conditioned.  In a passage describing seemingly ritualistic practices involving cleaning the mouth, because it's written in a style usually associated with that detailing the practices of pre-modern people, most students when asked, associate it with Black people gathered in a clearing in the jungle.  It's actually a description of 1950s middle-class white Americans brushing their teeth.

Babakiueria (1986) (released on VHS Tape & DVD as Babakiueria (Barbeque Area)) was a satire in which the history of a white invasion of an indigenous nation was reversed.  The events stayed much the same, only the colors were changed.

The 1992 Austrian film Das Fest des Huhnes (The festival of the chicken) was a presentation of the customs and lifestyles of the "native peoples" of Upper Austria, described by a team of Black African anthropologists, using the language and style of white anthropologists.

Of white people and their birds

They may not be aware they are the subject of on-going observation studies but the white folks are being watched by amateur wypipologists and, in the way things are now done, they post their findings on social media.  While “white people food” has long been well-explored, one recent addition is “bird theory”.  Identified in December, 2025 by TikToker @corndogcalamari (who wished to maintain anonymity beyond revealing being a Vietnamese American female aged 31, resident in Brooklyn, New York), what “bird theory” suggests is that white folk tend to have in the places they live, many images or other depictions of birds.  Interviewed by Newsweek, she observed: “I realized there was always bird decor over at my white friends’ houses and even at the houses of people whom I’ve dated.  It was particularly noticeable because they’d often be large metal sculptures, taxidermied birds, or just something that stood out!  There is a bird somewhere in a white person’s home.  I’m not talking about a physical bird: I’m talking about sculptures, little figurines, paintings—just decor; bird décor.”

White girl realizes the wypipologists are right.

What she’d seen included steel sculptures of chickens, paintings of sea gulls, ducks and everything in between, one (perhaps extreme) example being the apartment of one man time she was dating in which she counted some fifty “birds”.  She didn’t reveal to Newsweek whether her avian audit was done with the knowledge of her prospective beau or accomplished surreptitiously but did conclude: “White people love birds”, the average suburban white household has at least three bird-centric decorations I swear.  This isn’t even considering the bird feeder.”  While her findings obviously are impressionistic and there will be many exceptions (both in the sense of some white people having no such décor while those of other ethnicities might have some) but her study included nuances such as noticing it was “older people” who tended to decorate this way; to illustrate her point she recounted the example of an acquaintance of white & Asian ancestry who initially “thought she didn’t have any bird decor, but then realized she had one that was gifted to her—by her white grandmother.”

A pregnant Lindsay Lohan at home in her nursery in Dubai, 2023.  The birds in the sky are a nice touch but the aeroplane (seemingly a World War II (1939-1945) era dive-bomber with the lighthouse its apparent target) may be sending mixed messages.

A clip of the interview almost immediately went viral with many referencing their own experience, either to “confirm” or “invalidate” the theory and one of the most convinced debunkers wrote: “Black autistic person whose special interest is birds, me and my 500+ bird decorations are single-handedly leveling the demographic playing field.”  Another interesting trend noted in the response was that many viewers asserted their residence was “avian free” before conducting their own, more careful, survey, during which they noticed something like the wallpaper on which there were birds in flight.  In some cases, people had for years lived with their birds without noticing them.  Sure enough, birds seemed to appear obvious once looked for, even if for years they’d apparently blended into the background: table lamps shaped like a peacock, drink coasters with images of toucans and, of course, any house with young children is likely to have at least one rubber duck in the bathroom.  Even the “three ceramic ducks flying up the wall” motif which was once definitely a thing of “old white people” had survived in a niche, used ironically rather as lava lamps sometimes appear.

Three ducks flying up the wall is definitely a white people thing.

Interestingly, earlier in 2025, there had been discussion of an unrelated “bird theory” which was claimed to be a kind of “litmus paper test” of the state of one’s relationship.  What this involved was an individual telling their partner they “saw a bird that day” and the mechanism was to note the response: If indifference was shown (as opposed to interest and possibly “follow-up” questions), the relationship might not be on a sound footing and may indeed be doomed.  Asked to comment, one psychologist working in the field agreed: “Tests like this can potentially reveal something about your relationship health, but I’d be very cautious about the way they’re employed and avoid over-interpreting the outcome”, adding “If you make a bid for attention at a time when your partner is very busy, stressed, or exhausted, a less-than-enthusiastic response might not be diagnostic of how they actually feel about you or the relationship. It might just reflect a feeling of being overwhelmed.”

Wiglomeration

Wiglomeration (pronounced wig-glom-uh-rey-shuhn)

Needlessly or pointlessly complicated, time-consuming legal wrangling (listed by most sources as “always derogatory” but it’s presumed within the profession it’s sometimes an expression of admiration).

1852: The construct was wig + (agg)lomeration.  Wiglomeration is a noun, the noun plural is wiglomerations.  Although some must have been tempted, there seems no evidence anyone has ever created derived forms such as wiglomerative, wiglomerating, wiglomerator etc.

Wig (a head of real or synthetic hair worn on the head (1) to disguise baldness, (2) for cultural or religious reasons, (3) for fashion, (4) by actors better to resemble the character they are portraying or (4) in some legal systems by advocates or judges during court proceedings) was a shortened form of periwig, from the Middle French perruque which was probably borrowed from the western Lombard perrucca & parrucca which are of uncertain origin, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) suggesting there may be some relationship with the Latin pilus (hair) but, noting the phonetic variations, ponder that instead it could be related to parrocchetto (parakeet), the reference being to the bird’s feathers.  Linguistically, the process might have been similar to the phonetic changes of the intervocalic “L” into “R” of Italian parlare and Sicilian parrari.  Among fisherman, a wig was also “an old seal” although that use is now rare.  The meaning “to reprimand” is thought related to the slang term “bigwig” (that dating from the seventeenth century fashion in England of wearing big (and in the era increasingly bigger) wigs in England, a trend which peaked in early in 1700s) because of the association with aristocrats, nobles, lawyers and judges, the size and grandeur of one’s powdered wig a status symbol used to convey a perception of wealth and social standing.  Fashions however change and during the eighteenth century, the use declined and while among a few they lingered into the early 1800s, the French Revolution (1789) really was their death knell just about everywhere except courtrooms.

Interestingly, academic sources inside the construct was wig + (agg)lomeration rather than the more obvious wig + (g)lomeration, this based on an analysis of the unpublished notes of the author who coined the word.  Glomerate (to gather or wind into a spherical form or mass; to collect certain objects) was from the Latin glomeratus, past participle of glomerāre (to wind or add into a ball; to glomerate).  Agglomerate (the act or process of collecting in a mass; a heaping together; the state of being collected in a mass; a mass; cluster) was from the Latin agglomerātus, past participle of agglomerāre, the construct being ad- (to) + -glomerāre, from glomus (a ball; a mass), from globus (genitive glomeris), (a ball of yarn) of uncertain origin.

Wigs galore: Court of Chancery, Lincoln's Inn Hall (1808-1810), a book illustration created by Rudolph Ackermann, WH Pyne, William Combe, Augustus Pugin & Thomas Rowlandson, British Library collection.

Wiglomeration was coined by Charles Dickens (1812–1870) for a bit of a rant by Mr Jarndyce in the serialized novel Bleak House (1852-1853) which told the tale of the fictional probate case Jarndyce vs Jarndyce (spoken as “Jarndyse and Jarndyse” in the conventions of English legal language) which, over the decades it unfolded in the Court of Chancery Court, absorbed in legal fees all of the vast estate which the proceedings were initiated to distribute to the rightful beneficiaries.  The legal establishment at the time of publication criticized the depiction as “an exaggeration” but while it wasn’t typical, nor was it without basis because cases lasting over a decade were known and one famously ended (with the subject estate exhausted in legal costs) only in 1915 after running for 117 years.  Even well into the twentieth century, judicial sluggishness was not unknown: the House of Lords once took almost 19 years to hand down a decision.  In his youth as a court reporter Dickens had witnessed much wiglomeration.

Bleak House Chapter 8 (Covering a Multitude of Sins):

“He must have a profession; he must make some choice for himself. There will be a world more wiglomeration about it, I suppose, but it must be done.”

“More what, guardian?” said I.

“More wiglomeration,” said he. “It’s the only name I know for the thing. He is a ward in Chancery, my dear. Kenge and Carboy will have something to say about it; Master Somebody—a sort of ridiculous sexton, digging graves for the merits of causes in a back room at the end of Quality Court, Chancery Lane—will have something to say about it; counsel will have something to say about it; the Chancellor will have something to say about it; the satellites will have something to say about it; they will all have to be handsomely feed, all round, about it; the whole thing will be vastly ceremonious, wordy, unsatisfactory, and expensive, and I call it, in general, wiglomeration. How mankind ever came to be afflicted with wiglomeration, or for whose sins these young people ever fell into a pit of it, I don’t know; so it is.”

Lindsay Lohan in blonde bob wig, appearing on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, New York, November 2012.

The word does not of necessity imply complex or intricate legal reasoning or argument although that can be part of things.  In the jargon, the trick to successful wiglomeration is to use the court’s processes to prolong proceedings (barristers are usually paid for each day’s appearance), either by causing delays or requiring the other side to respond to matters raised which may be so arcane as to be irrelevant, even if that’s not immediately obvious.  Obviously, the more time consuming (and thus more lucrative) these maneuvers prove the better and even if cases don’t literally become interminable, to some they must seem so.  There is also the possibility wiglomeration can fulfill a strategic purpose: if one party has access to effectively unlimited legal resources (ie money) while the other party is financially constrained, sufficient wiglomeration (which manifest as another day’s fees to be paid) can compel the poorer party either to end proceedings or settle on terms less favorable than might have been achieved had the case been brought to judgment.  The most egregious examples of the practice can be classified as an “abuse of process” but judges are sometimes reluctant to intervene because (1) the tactics being used are usually technically correct and (2) it might be seen as denying a party their rights.  The problem is the system but a wholly equitable solution is not immediately obvious.

Central criminal court Old Bailey 1840.

The tradition of barristers wearing wigs in English courts began in the seventeenth century when powdered wigs were a fashionable upper class accessory.  Culturally, lawyers tend to identify upwards so the adoption would not have been seen as “aping their betters” but just a natural alignment of style.  The courtroom style persisted even after wigs had elsewhere fallen from fashion and are still worn in many jurisdictions with traditions inherited from England.  The rationale offered is (1) the wig & gown have by virtue of long use become a symbol of formality and professionalism which lends dignity to proceedings and (2) the garb helps create a sense of anonymity and impartiality, presenting the officers of the court as representatives of the law rather than individuals with personal biases or prejudices, once a matter of some significance at a time when, for historic and structural reasons, there were perceptions of a lack of impartiality in the legal system.  They’re now not always a feature of proceedings but in most systems where they’ve been retained, barristers seem still to want to cling to the tradition although in recent years there’s been a tendency for judges to avoid them where possible and some more recently convened courts have reserved them only for ceremonial occasions and the odd photo opportunity.  Some courts (notably the UK’s recently established Supreme Court has made it possible for cases to be conducted without anybody be-wigged or gowned although, in a sign of the times, vegan wigs are now available as an alternative to the traditional horsehair.

The opinion the younger Dickens formed of the ways of lawyers has been shared by many.  Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) movement in its early days had much need of the services of lawyers and their efforts saved many Nazis from the consequences of their actions but Hitler showed little gratitude to the profession, declaring more than once “I will not give up until every German realizes that it is shameful to be a lawyer.”  Hitler’s own lawyer was Hans Frank (1900–1946) who in 1939 was appointed Governor General of occupied Poland where his rule was corrupt and brutal by even the Nazi's standards of awfulness and few have ever doubted he deserved the death sentence handed down by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (1945-1946).  Even in 1946 Frank was still describing Hitler as “…that great man” and regretted his one “…conspicuous failing…” was his mistrust of both the law and lawyers.  What Frank wanted was an authoritarian state but one under the rule of law; he was appalled not by the mass murder which would come to be called genocide but by it not being authorized by a duly appointed judge.  In Nuremberg he claimed to have undergone a number of religious experiences and was received into the Roman Catholic Church, apparently anxious either to atone for his sins or avoid an eternity of torture in Hell.  Of his death sentence he remarked “I deserved it and I expected it.” and of Hitler’s “thousand year Reich” he observed “…a thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased.”

There’s a popular view William Shakespeare (1564–1616) shared the general disapprobation of the profession because one of his most quoted phrases is “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”  However, the context is rarely discussed and quite what the bard was intending to convey is open to interpretation.  The words were given to a character Dick the Butcher and spoken in Act IV, Scene II of Henry VI, Part II (1596-1599).

JACK CADE: I am able to endure much.

DICK [aside]: No question of that; for I have seen him whipp’d three market-days together.

JACK CADE: I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH [aside]: He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK [aside]: But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i’ th’ hand for stealing of sheep.

JACK CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–

ALL. God save your majesty!

JACK CADE: I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Dick is a villain and the henchman of Jack Cade, who is leading a rebellion against King Henry and their view is that if they kill all who can read and write and burn all books then they’ll find a population easier to rule.  Knowing that, the more generous interpretation is that civilization depends for its fairness and tranquillity on the protection afforded by law and administered by lawyers, Shakespeare representing the rule of law as society’s most fundamental defense against those hungry for power at any price.  Lawyers of course support this version of Shakespeare’s intent, Justice John Paul Stevens (1920–2019; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1975-2010) even discussing it in a dissenting opinion (Professional Real Estate Investors Inc vs Columbia Pictures Industries Inc (1993)) when he noted “As a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”  However, as neo-Marxists and others would point out “He would say that, wouldn’t he.”  If one’s world view is a construct in which the law and lawyers are agents acting in the interests only of the ruling class (the 1% in the popular imagination), then Dick the Butcher and Cade the labourer in seeking to overthrow an unfair, oppressive system are victims whose only hope of escaping their roles as slaves of the nobility is to revolt, a part of which will be the killing of the lawyers because, as the profession offers their skills only to those who can pay; those with no money have no choice.