Oral & Verbal

Oral (pronounce awr-uhl or ohr-uhl)

(1) Uttered by the mouth; spoken.

(2) Of, using, or transmitted by speech.

(3) Of, relating to, or involving the mouth.

(4) Done, taken, or administered through the mouth.

(5) In phonetics, articulated with none of the voice issuing through the nose, as the normal English vowels and the consonants b and v.

(6) In psychoanalysis, of or relating to the earliest phase of infantile psychosexual development, lasting from birth to one year of age or longer, during which pleasure is obtained from eating, sucking, and biting.

(7) In psychology, of or relating to the sublimation of feelings experienced during the oral stage of childhood.

(8) In zoology, pertaining to that surface of polyps and marine animals that contains the mouth and tentacles.

1620–1625: From the Late Latin oralis, from ōr, the stem of ōs (genitive oris) (mouth, opening, face, entrance), from the primitive Indo-European root os & ous (mouth) and cognate with the Sanskrit āsya, asan & asyam (mouth, opening), the Avestan ah, the Hittite aish, the Old Norse oss (mouth of a river) and the Old English or (beginning, origin, front).  The meaning in psychology is from 1910, the sexual sense first recorded by US professor of zoology Alfred Kinsey (1894–1956) in his two seminal reports on human sexuality, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) & Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) (usually referred to as "the Kinsey Reports") although, few doubt the actual acts had been practiced for sometime prior.  The noun use is attested from 1876.  Oral is a noun & adjective, oralize is a verb, oralization is a noun & orally is an adverb; the noun plural is orals.

Verbal (pronounced vur-buhl)

(1) Of or relating to words.

(2) Consisting of or in the form of words.

(3) Consisting of or expressed in words (as opposed to actions).

(4) As a technical use in linguistics, of, relating to a word, particularly a noun or adjective, derived from a verb.  Alternative form is verbid.

(5) In formal grammar, used in a sentence as or like a verb, as participles and infinitives.

(6) In the plural, modern slang term of abuse or invective.

(7) A slang term for a criminal's (real or faked) admission of guilt on arrest or under interrogation (the idea of “putting words in the mouth”).

1483: From the Middle English verbal, from the Old French verbal, from the Latin verbālis (belonging to a word; consisting of words) the construct being verb(um) (word) + ālis (the Latin suffix which, when added to a noun or numeral, forms an adjective of relationship with that noun or numeral).  The phrase verbal conditioning dates from 1954 and the colloquial "verbal diarrhea" (needlessly or excessively loquacious) was noted as early as 1823 and then in relation to speech which hints at the long tradition of the word being used in places pedants would have insisted on "oral".  Verbal is a noun, verb & adjective, verballed is a verb, verballing & verbilization are nouns, verbalize is a verb and verbally is an adverb; the noun plural is verbals.

Oral or Verbal?

Lindsay Lohan, Speak (Casablanca Records, 2004).  Usually, whether text is oral or verbal hangs on whether it was spoken.

The classical distinction is that verbal applies to anything put into words, whether written or spoken, while oral pertains to the mouth, like medications taken by mouth and things spoken; the homophone “aural” is related to the sense of hearing.  Whether or not because of oral’s prurient associations, it’s one of those rules modern grammar Nazis like to try to enforce but verbal and oral have become so inextricably conflated that the tautological phrase “verbal and written” has become entrenched and verbal has enjoyed the meaning “spoken” since the late sixteenth century.  There’s a contested attestation of verbal meaning “composed of words” from 1530 but the first confirmed use meaning “conveyed by speech” is “verbale sermons” in 1589 and it was common by 1617 when a description of advocates before a court was phrased “… the Chamber of the Pallace where verball appeales are decided”.

Something like phone sex can be helpfully illustrative.  The provider in speaking is selling a service delivered orally but it's not "oral sex" because that depends on physical contact and phone sex is too remote; even if oral sex comes up un conversation, over the phone it's still not and is just an emulation delivered orally.  Of course, provider & customer can make arrangements to meet and enjoy oral sex in its accepted sense and that would be a contact, entered into by both parties on the basis of oral statements and it’s probably only in law the distinction between oral a verbal remains important.  In contract law, a contract is often verbal, indeed is frequently reduced to writing but contracts can be created in other ways, either by conduct alone or by oral statements, both of which can be enough in the absence of anything in writing.  A plaintiff issuing a writ alleging a verbal contract exists can expect to be asked to produce the appropriately executed document; if they meant there was just a discussion between the parties, they should avoid any ambiguity by claiming the existence of an oral contract.  This is often done when offering evidence to argue the conduct of a party being such that a contract by acquiescence has been created.

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 many a neo-Marxist 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.

Demand

Demand (pronounced dih-mand (U) or dee–mahnd (non-U))

(1) To ask for with proper authority; claim as a right.

(2) To ask for peremptorily or urgently.

(3) To call for or require as just, proper, or necessary.

(4) In law, to lay formal claim to.

(5) In law, to summon, as to court.

(6) An urgent or pressing requirement.

(7) In economics, the desire to purchase, coupled (hopefully) with the power to do so.

(8) In economics, the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.

(9) A requisition; a legal claim.

(10) A question or inquiry (archaic).

1250-1300: From Middle English demaunden and Anglo-French demaunder, derived from the Medieval Latin dēmandāre (to demand, later to entrust) equivalent to dē + mandāre (to commission, order).  The Old French was demander and, like the English, meant “to request” whereas "to ask for as a right" emerged in the early fifteenth century from Anglo-French legal use.  As used in economic theory and political economy (correlating to supply), first attested from 1776 in the writings of Adam Smith.  The word demand as used by economists is a neutral term which references only the conjunction of (1) a consumer's desire to purchase goods or services and (2) hopefully the power to do so.  However, in general use, to say that someone is "demanding" something does carry a connotation of anger, aggression or impatience.  For this reason, during the 1970s, the language of those advocating the rights of women to secure safe, lawful abortion services changed from "abortion on demand" (ie the word used as an economist might) to "pro choice".  Technical fields (notably economics) coin derived forms as they're required (counterdemand, overdemand, predemand et al).  Demand is a noun & verb, demanding is a verb & adjective, demandable is an adjective, demanded is a verb and demander is a noun; the noun plural is demands.

Video on Demand (VoD)

Directed by Tiago Mesquita with a screenplay by Mark Morgan, Among the Shadows is a thriller which straddles the genres, elements of horror and the supernatural spliced in as required.  Although in production since 2015, with the shooting in London and Rome not completed until the next year, it wasn’t until 2018 when, at the European Film Market, held in conjunction with the Berlin International Film Festival, that Tombstone Distribution listed it, the distribution rights acquired by VMI, Momentum and Entertainment One, and VMI Worldwide.  In 2019, it was released progressively on DVD and video on demand (VoD), firstly in European markets, the UK release delayed until mid-2020.  In some markets, for reasons unknown, it was released with the title The Shadow Within.

Video on Demand (VoD) and streaming services are similar concepts in video content distribution but there are differences.  VoD is a system which permits users to view content at any time, these days mostly through a device connected to the internet across IP (Internet Protocol), the selection made from a catalog or library of available titles and despite some occasionally ambiguous messaging in the advertising, the content is held on centralized servers and users can choose directly to stream or download.  The VoD services is now often a sub-set of what a platform offers which includes content which may be rented, purchased or accessed through a subscription.

Streaming is a method of delivering media content in a continuous flow over IP and is very much the product of the fast connections of the twenty-first century.  Packets are transmitted in real-time which enables users to start watching or listening without waiting for an entire file (or file set) to download, the attraction actually being it obviates the need for local storage.  There’s obviously definitional and functional overlap and while VoD can involve streaming, not all streaming services are technically VoD and streaming can also be used for live events, real-time broadcasts, or continuous playback of media without specific on-demand access. By contrast, the core purpose of VoD is to provide access at any time and streaming is a delivery mechanism, VoD a broad concept and streaming a specific method of real-time delivery as suited to live events as stored content.

The Mercedes-Benz SSKL and the Demand Supercharger

The Mercedes-Benz SSKL was one of the last of the road cars which could win top-line grand prix races.  An evolution of the earlier S, SS and SSK, the SSKL (Super Sports Kurz (short) Leicht (light)) was notable for the extensive drilling of its chassis frame to the point where it was compared to Swiss cheese; reducing weight with no loss of strength.  The SSKs and SSKLs were famous also for the banshee howl from the engine when the supercharger was running; nothing like it would be heard until the wail of the BRM V16s twenty years later.  It was called a demand supercharger because, unlike some constantly-engaged forms of forced-induction, it ran only on-demand, in the upper gears, high in the rev-range, when the throttle was pushed wide-open.  Although it could safely be used for barely a minute at a time, when running, engine power jumped from 240-odd horsepower to over 300.  The number of SSKLs built has been debated and the factory's records are incomplete but most historians suggest it was either four or five, all completed (or modified from earlier builds) between 1929-1932.  The SSK had enjoyed success in competition but even in its heyday was in some ways antiquated and although powerful, was very heavy, thus the expedient of the chassis-drilling intended to make it competitive for another season.  Lighter (which didn't solve but at least to a degree ameliorated the high tyre wear) and easier to handle than the SSK (although the higher speed brought its own problems, notably in braking), the SSKL enjoyed a long Indian summer and even on tighter circuits where its bulk meant it could be out-manoeuvred, sometimes it still prevailed by virtue of sheer power.

Sometimes too it got lucky.  When the field assembled in 1931 for the Fünfter Großer Preis von Deutschland (fifth German Grand Prix) at the Nürburgring Nordschleife, even the factory acknowledged that at 1600 kg (3525 lb), the SSKLs, whatever their advantage in horsepower, stood little chance against the nimble Italian and French machines which weighed-in at literally less than half that.  However, on the day there was heavy rain and most of race was conducted on a soaked track and the lightweight, twitchy Alfa Romeos, Maseratis and the especially skittery Bugattis proved less suited to the slippery surface than the truck-like but stable SSKL, the lead built up in the rain enough to secure victory even though the margin narrowed as the track dried.  Time and the competition had definitely caught up by 1932 however and it was no longer possible further to lighten the chassis or increase power so the factory had aerodynamics specialist Baron Reinhard von Koenig-Fachsenfeld (1899-1992) design a streamlined body, the lines influenced by wartime aeronautical experience.  This coaxed from the SSKL, one last successful season.  Crafted in aluminum by Vetter in Cannstatt, it was mounted on Manfred von Brauchitsch's (1905-2003) race-car and proved its worth at the at the Avus race in May 1932; with drag reduced by a quarter, the top speed increased by over 12 mph (20 km/h) and the SSKL won its last major trophy on the unique circuit which rewarded straight-line speed like no other.  It was the last of the breed.  Subsequent grand prix cars would be pure racing machines with none of the compromises demanded for road-use.

Evolution of the front-engined Mercedes-Benz grand prix car, 1928-1954

1928 Mercedes-Benz SS

1929 Mercedes-Benz SSK

1931 Mercedes-Benz SSKL

1932 Mercedes-Benz-SSKL Streamliner

1934 Mercedes-Benz W25

1935 Mercedes-Benz W25B

1937 Mercedes-Benz W125

1938 Mercedes-Benz W154

1939 Mercedes-Benz W165

1954 Mercedes Benz W196R

1954 Mercedes-Benz W196R Streamliner

Malefic

Malefic (pronounced muh-lef-ik)

(1) Productive of evil; malign; doing harm; baneful.

(2) In astrology, as malefic planet, those heavenly bodies believed to exert a negative or challenging influence on individuals when prominent in a person's birth chart or during specific planetary transits.

1645–1655: From the Latin maleficus (evil-doing, wicked), the construct being male- (badly; wrongly) + -ficus (the suffix denoting making or doing).  The Latin male was from malus (bad, wicked), from the Proto-Italic malos and related to the Oscan mallom and mallud (bad) which wqs probably related to the primitive Indo-European mel- (to deceive) and cognate with the Lithuanian melas (lie) and the first element of the Ancient Greek βλάσφημος (blásphēmos) (jinx).  The alternative etymology is that the source was the primitive Indo-European smal- & mal- which would make it a cognate with the English "small".  Historically, it was thought associated with the Ancient Greek μέλας (mélas) (black, dark), but modern etymologists increasingly doubt this and any link with either the Avestan (mairiia) (treacherous) and the Sanskrit मल (mala) (dirtiness, impurity) remains uncertain.  The most familiar modern use of the form is probably the word maleficence.  Malefic is a useful word to have in one’s vocabulary because it’s a handy substitute for “evil” and its rarity adds interest to a text.  Malefic is a noun & adjective, maleficent is an adjective, malefically is an adverb and maleficence is a noun; the plural forms are malefic & malefics depending on the context.

The 2016 US presidential election: malefactor vs malefactress.

A malefactor is “a man who violates the law or is an evildoer”.  It was from the Middle English malefactour, from the Late Latin malefactor, from the Latin malefaciō, the construct being male (evilly) + factus (made or done), past participle of facio (I make or do).  The feminine form is malefactress (a woman who violates the law or is an evildoer).  The -ess suffix was from the Middle English -esse, from the Old French -esse, from the Late Latin -issa, from the Ancient Greek -ισσα (-issa) and was appended to words to create the female form.   It displaced the Old English -en (feminine suffix of nouns).

Lindsay Lohan’s birth chart; malefically speaking, it could have been worse.

In astrology, malefic planets are those believed to exert a negative or challenging influence on individuals when prominent in a person's birth chart or during specific planetary transits, astrologers noting these planets bring difficulties, obstacles, and adverse effects in various aspects of life.  Historically, the malefic planets were Saturn, Mars, Rahu (North Node of the Moon), and Ketu (South Node of the Moon):

Saturn: The most malefic planet in astrology, it’s associated with limitations, delays, restrictions, and hardships while governing areas such as discipline, responsibility, karma, and the lessons of life.

Mars: Mars is associated with energy, aggression, and assertiveness. It can bring forth conflicts, accidents, impulsiveness, and aggressive behavior if poorly positioned or afflicted in a birth chart.

Rahu: The North Node of the Moon, it represents worldly desires, obsession, and illusion.  If well placed in one’s chart, it can bestow material success and create opportunities but when malefic, it induces confusion & makes one a likely victim of deception.

Ketu: The South Node of the Moon, it represents spirituality, detachment, and karmic lessons so it can confer spiritual growth and liberation but its malefic influence will manifest as separation, torment or loss.

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.

Submerge

Submerge (pronounced suhb-murj)

(1) To put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

(2) To cover or overflow with water; to immerse.

(3) Figuratively, to cover over; suppress; conceal; obscure; repress.

(4) To overwhelm (with work, problems etc).

(5) To sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

(6) Literally & figuratively, to be covered or lost from sight.

1600–1610: From the fourteenth century submerger or the Latin submergere (to plunge under, sink, overwhelm), the construct being sub- + mergere (to dip, to immerse; to plunge), the construct in English thus sub + merge.  The sub- prefix was from the Latin sub (under), from the Proto-Italic supo (under), from the primitive Indo-European upó.  The transitive form was the original, the intransitive (sink under water, sink out of sight) dating from the 1650s and becoming common in the twentieth century because of the association with submarines.  Used by submariners and others, the derived forms (resubmerge, resubmerged, resubmerging, unsubmerging et al are coined as needed and the word submerge is a little unusual in that it can be used to describe both an object going underwater (like a submarine) and water flooding somewhere (like a valley when a dam is built).  Submerge, submerged & submerging are verbs, submerse is a verb & adjective, submersible & submergible are nouns & adjectives, submersion, submerger & submergence are nouns and submersive is an adjective; the noun plural is submersibles.

The noun submersion in the sense of “suffocation by being plunged into water” was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was from the Late Latin submersionem (nominative submersio) (a sinking, submerging), the noun of action from the past participle stem of submergere; the general sense emerged in the early seventeenth century.  The transitive verb submerse (to submerge, plunge) was an early fifteenth century form, from the Latin submersus, past participle of submergere and etymologists suggest the modern use (dating from the 1700s) was a back-formation from submersion. The adjective submersible was formed from submerse and was noted first in 1862, the creation necessitated by the building of one of the early “submarines” used by the Confederate forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865).  The term “submersible craft” lasted for a while in admiralty use but was in the early 1900s supplanted by submarine and the alternative adjective submergible (dating from 1820) is probably extinct although there may be the odd technical niche in which it endures.

Lindsay Lohan, partially submerged, Miami, Florida, May 2011.

Fairly obviously, the construct of submarine was sub + marine.  Marine was from the early fifteenth century Middle English marin, from the Middle French marin, from the Old French, from the Latin marinus (of the sea), from mare (sea), from the primitive Indo-European móri (body of water, lake).  It was cognate with the Old English mere (sea, lake, pool, pond), the Dutch meer and the German Meer, all from the Proto-Germanic mari.  Just as obviously then it means “underwater” and that certainly accords with the modern understanding of the concept of a submarine (which the Admiralty once called “submarine-boats” and ever since, submarines, regardless of size, “boats” they have been even though some, such as the Russian Navy’s Typhoon-class submarines with a length of about 175 meters (574 feet) and a displacement of around 48,000 tons (when submerged) are larger and heavier than many ships in the surface fleet) but for the first few decades of their existence, they were better understood as “submersible boats”.  That was because they were compelled to spend most of their time on the surface, submerging only while attacking or when there was fear of detection.  However, despite them being “boats” both the US Navy and Royal Navy continue respectively to prefix their names with USS (United States Ship) and HMS (His Majesty’s Ship), ignoring anyone who points out the inconsistency.

Confederate States of America man-powered underwater boat CSS H. L. Hunley (1863-1864).

Quite when man first pondered the possibility of an “underwater boat” isn’t known but just as flight fascinated the ancients as they gazed at birds, presumably so did the fishes intrigue.  Sketches from the medieval period which appear to be “designs” for “underwater boats” have been discovered but as far as is known, it wasn’t until the 1500s that prototypes were tested and a proof-of-concept exercises some can be considered a qualified success and there were even innovations still used today such as ballast tanks but the limitations imposed by the lack of lightweight, independent power sources meant none appear to have been thought useful, certainly not for the (predictably) military purposes for which so many were intended.  The idea didn’t die however and over the centuries many inventors were granted patents for this and that and the what all seem to have concluded was that, given the available technology, an underwater boat would have to be a short range weapon capable of limited duration while submerged and man-powered by a crew of probably no more than two.  Given that, development stagnated.

The planned German Type 50 U-boat which was never launched (1918).

However, improvements in metallurgy continued and by the mid-nineteenth century, several underwater boats had been built in Europe although the admirals remained sceptical, an attitude which by many wasn’t revised even after 1864 when the one which entered service with the Confederate Navy during the US Civil War succeeded in sinking a warship nearly 200 times her displacement of 7-off tons.  However, because the method of attack was a explosive device on a long spar (the technique to ram the charge into the ship’s hull), the explosion damaged both craft to the extent both were lost.  That seemed to confirm the admirals’ view but technology moved on and by the outbreak of the First World War (1914-1918), submarines were an integral part of many navies, their usefulness made possible by the combination of diesel-electric propulsion and the development of the torpedo which meant charges detonated at a safe distance.  However, they remained submersible boats which could operate underwater only briefly.  Despite that, they proved devastatingly effective and in 1917 the Imperial German Navy’s Unterwasserboot (underwater boat (usually clipped to U-Boat)) flotillas were a genuine threat to the UK’s ability to continue the war.

German Type XII Elektroboot (1945).

In World War II (1939-1945), the course of the war could have been very different had OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the high command of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy 1935-1945)) followed the advice of the commander of the submarines and made available a fleet of 300 rather than building a surface fleet which wasn’t large enough to be a strategic threat but of sufficient size to absorb resources which, if devoted to submarines, could have been militarily effective.  With a fleet of 300, it would have been possible permanently to maintain around 100 at sea but at the outbreak of hostilities, only 57 active boats were on the navy’s list, not all of which were suitable for operations on the high seas so in the early days of the conflict, it was rare for the Germans to have more than 12 committed to battle in the Atlantic.  Production never reached the levels necessary for the numbers to achieve critical mass but even so, in the first two-three years of the war the losses sustained by the British were considerable and the “U-Boat menace” was such a threat that much attention was devoted to counter-measures and by 1943 the Allies could consider the battle of the Atlantic won.  The Germans’ other mistake was not building a true submarine capable of operating underwater (and therefore undetected) for days at a time.  It was only in 1945 when the armaments staff and OKM were assessing their “revolutionary” new design that it was concluded there was no reason why such craft couldn’t have been built in the 1930s because the capacity and technology existed even then.  It was a classic case of what Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US defense secretary 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) would later call an “unknown known”.  The Germans in 1939 knew how to build a modern submarine but didn’t know that they knew.  Despite the improvements however, military analysts have concluded that even if deployed in numbers, such was the strength of forces arrayed against Nazi Germany that by 1945, not even such a force could have been enough to turn the tide of war.

Royal Navy Dreadnought class SSBN (Submarine, Ballistic Missile, Nuclear-powered), due to enter service in the 2030s.The concept the Germans in 1945 demonstrated in the Type XXI Elektroboot (electric boat) provided the model for post-war submarines which, once nuclear-powered, were able to remain submerged theoretically for decades, the only limitations in functional duration being the supply of food and the psychological strain on the crew.  This ability explains why they’re used by members of the “nuclear club” such as China, France, Russia, the UK & US operate them as part of their independent deterrents, equipped with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), armed with nuclear warheads.  At this time, the boats are undetectable and they’re still been updated or replaced but there are suggestions advances in the capability of underwater sensors might erode or even remove this advantage which would mean the submarine would follow the big bomber, the battle ship and debatably the aircraft carrier as a once dominant weapon, the time of which has passed.  Already there are those in think tanks pondering whether the loss invulnerability of the SLMB platform would make war more or less likely.  Certainly, such a situation might change the math of the preemptive strike.