Consecrate

Consecrate (pronounced kon-si-kreyt)

(1) To make or declare sacred; set apart or dedicate to the service of a deity (most often in the context of a new church building or land).

(2) To make something an object of honor or veneration; to hallow.

(3) To devote or dedicate to some purpose (usually in the form “a life consecrated to something”) usually with some hint of solemnly.

(4) In religious ritualism, to admit or ordain to a sacred office, especially (in the Roman Catholic Church) to the episcopate.

(5) In Christianity to sanctify bread and wine for the Eucharist to be received as the body and blood of Christ.

1325–1375: From the Middle English consecraten (make or declare sacred by certain ceremonies or rites), from the Latin & cōnsecrātus & cōnsecrāre (to make holy, devote), perfect passive participle of cōnsecrō, the construct being con- (from the Latin prefix con-, from cum (with); used with certain words (1) to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint or (2) to intensify their meaning) +‎ sacrāre (to devote) (from sacrō (to make sacred, consecrate”), from sacer (sacred; holy).  The most frequently used synonyms are sanctify & venerate (behallow is now rare); the antonyms are desecrate & defile.  The original fourteenth century meaning was exclusively ecclesiastical, the secular adoption in the sense of "to devote or dedicate from profound feeling" is from the 1550s.  The verb was the original for, the noun consecration developing within the first decade of use; it was from the Latin consecracioun (the act of separating from a common to a sacred use, ritual dedication to God) and was used especially of the ritual consecration of the bread and wine of the Eucharist (from the Latin consecrationem (nominative consecratio)), a noun of action from past-participle stem of consecrare.  In the Old English, eallhalgung was a loan-translation of the Latin consecratio.  Consecrate is a verb & adjective, consecration, consecratee, consecratedness & consecrater (also as consecrator) are nouns, consecrates, consecrated & consecrating are verbs and consecratory & consecrative are adjectives; the most common noun plural is consecrations.

The common antonym was desecrate (divest of sacred character, treat with sacrilege), dating from the 1670s, the construct being de- + the stem of consecrate.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  In the Old French dessacrer meant “to profane” and a similar formation exists in Italian.  However, the Latin desecrare meant “to make holy” (the de- in this case having a completive sense).  In Christianity, to deconsecrate is not a desecration but an act of ecclesiastical administration in which something like a church or chapel ceases to be used for religious purposes and is able to be sold or otherwise used.  It means that in Christianity the notion of “sacred sites” is not of necessity permanent, unlike some faiths.  The alternative unconsecrated seems now obsolete but was once used as a synonym of deconsecrated (and also in clerical slang to refer to laicization (defrocking)).  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).

The word "consecrate" is of interest to etymologists because of the history.  By the early fifth century, Rome was forced to recall the legions from Britain because the heart of the empire was threatened by barbarian invasion.  This presented an opportunity and not long after the soldiers withdrew, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes landed on the shores of the British Isles, beginning the Germanic invasion which would come to characterize Britain in the early Middle Ages.  As the invaders forced the native Celts to escape to Wales, Ireland and the northern districts of Scotland, the Celtic language and indeed the last residues of Latin almost vanished; in a remarkably short time, the culture and language in most of what is now England was almost exclusively Germanic.  It was the arrival of Christianity in the sixth century which caused Latin to return; with the faith came nuns & priests and the schools & monasteries they established became centres of literacy and stores of texts, almost all in Latin.  For a number of reasons, the Germanic tribes which by then had been resident for five generations, found Christianity and the nature of the Roman Church attractive and readily adopted this new culture.  At this time words like temple, altar, creed, alms, monk, martyr, disciple, novice, candle, prophet and consecrate all came into use and it was the mix of Latin & the Germanic which formed the basis of The Old English, a structure which would last until the Norman (as in "the Northmen") invasion under William the Conqueror (circa 1028-1087; King William I of England 1066-1087) in 1066 at which point Norman-French began to infuse the language.

Bartholomew I (Dimitrios Arhondonis (b 1940); Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople since 1991) consecrating his Patriarchal Exarch in Ukraine to the episcopate, Istanbul, November 2020.

Additionally, just as buildings, land and other objects can be consecrated and deconsecrated, they can subsequently be reconsecrated (to consecrate anew or again), a verb dating from the 1610s.  In the wars of religion in Europe and places east, when buildings often swapped in use between faiths as the tides of war shifted, this lead even to theological debate, some arguing that when a church was re-claimed, there was no need to perform a reconsecration because there had been no valid act of deconsecration while other though “a cleansing reconsecration” was advisable.  The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

Rose Aymer (1806) by Walter Savage Landor (1775–1864)

Ah what avails the sceptred race,
Ah what the form divine!
What every virtue, every grace!
Rose Aylmer, all were thine.
Rose Aylmer, whom these wakeful eyes
May weep, but never see,
A night of memories and of sighs
I consecrate to thee.

Rose Aylmer is Landor’s best remembered poem, one he dedicated to Rose Whitworth Aylmer (1779-1800), daughter Lord Aylmer and his wife Catherine Whitworth.  Rose sailed to India with an aunt in 1798, dying from cholera within two years. The poem is epigrammatic, written in tetrameters and trimeter iambics with rhyming alternate lines.  It’s a lament for the loss of a divine creature for Rose was imbued with every virtue and grace, the last two lines verse alluding to memories of their night of passion he so vividly recalls, consecrating its memory to her.

Consecration and the Church

Consecrated ground: A church graveyard.

Movie makers sometimes dig into religious themes for plot-pieces or props and one which has been used by those working usually in the horror or supernatural genres is the idea “the dead can’t arise from unconsecrated soil”, one implication being the soul of the deceased cannot ascend to heaven and are compelled for eternity to lie cold and lonely (in horror films there are also other consequences).  However, there’s no basis for this in Christian theology and noting in Scripture which could be interpreted thus but the consecration of burial grounds and the burial of the deceased in consecrated earth seems to have a long tradition in Christianity.  The idea though clearly bothered some and there’s a record of a fifteenth century German bishop assuring seafarers that Seebestattung (burial at sea) is proper, the ceremony alone a sufficient act of consecration.  So, in the Christian tradition, consecrated ground for a burial seems “desirable but not essential”, one’s salvation depending on faith in Jesus Christ and God's grace, not where one’s early remains are deposited.

There were though some other restrictions and in many places the Church did not permit those who had died by their own hand to be laid to rest within the consecrated boundaries of a cemetery; those sinners were buried just outside in unconsecrated ground.  The tradition seems mostly to have been maintained by the Jews and Roman Catholics although it was not unknown among the more austere of other denominations, evidence still extant in the United States.  After the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), rules in the Catholic Church were relaxed and the burial in consecrated ground of those who had committed suicide became a matter for the parish priest, a referral to the bishop no longer demanded.  The attitude within Judaism doubtlessly varies according to the extent to which each sect conforms to orthodoxy but generally there has probably been some liberalization, even those with tattoos now able to have a plot among the un-inked, the old prohibition based on the prohibition of one of the many abominations listed by Leviticus (Vayikra) in Chapter 19 of the Old Testament (the Torah or Pentateuch): You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died].  You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:28).

The Vatican, the USAVC and Legal Fictions

The United States Association of Consecrated Virgins (USACV) is a voluntary association of consecrated virgins living in the world, the purpose of which is said to be “to provide support members in the faithful living out of their vocation to consecrated virginity” and “…to assist one another in service to the Church as befits their state” (Canon 604, Code of Canon Law).

In 2018, a document from the Vatican discussing the role of consecrated virginity drew criticism from some in the USACV which alleged there was a passage in the text which seemed ambiguous.  The issue was whether entering the Church's "order of virgins" requires women genuinely are virgins (in the accepted sense of the word).  Issued on 4 July, by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago (ESI; The image of the Church as Bride) contained a passage the critics claimed was "intentionally convoluted and confusing" and appeared to suggest “…physical virginity may no longer be considered an essential prerequisite for consecration to a life of virginity.”  The dissenting statement called this implication "shocking", pointing out there “are some egregious violations of chastity that, even if not strictly violating virginity, would disqualify a woman from receiving the consecration of virgins”, adding “The entire tradition of the Church has firmly upheld that a woman must have received the gift of virginity – that is, both material and formal (physical and spiritual) – in order to receive the consecration of virgins.”

The USAVC did seem to have a point, the ESI instructing that “it should be kept in mind that the call to give witness to the Church's virginal, spousal and fruitful love for Christ is not reducible to the symbol of physical integrity. Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practiced the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.  The discernment therefore requires good judgment and insight, and it must be carried out individually. Each aspirant and candidate is called to examine her own vocation with regard to her own personal history, in honesty and authenticity before God, and with the help of spiritual accompaniment.”

In the spirit of Vatican II, US-based canon lawyers responded, one (herself a consecrated virgin of the Archdiocese of New York) issuing a statement saying, inter alia: “I don't see this as saying non-virgins can be virgins. I see this as saying in cases where there is a real question, it errs on the side of walking with women in individual cases for further discernment, as opposed to having a hard-dividing line to exclude women from this vocation.  The presumption of the document is that these are virgins who are doing this [consecration].  An important thing to do though is to read the questionable paragraph in context with the rest of the document.  The instruction talks a lot about the value of virginity, Christian virginity, the spirituality of virginity.  The nature of this kind of document as an instruction doesn't change the law that it's intended to explain.  The rite of consecration itself is the law, while the instruction is meant as "an elaboration for certain disputed points; it's just giving you further guidance in places where existing law is vague.”

For those not sure if this helped, she went on, verging close to descending to specifics, saying the ESI was offering a “more generous description” of the prerequisite of virginity in “allowing for people in difficult situations to continue some serious discernment”, adding that what ESI appeared to do was cover those “difficult cases” in which a woman cannot answer whether she is a virgin according to a strict standard; those instances where women might have lost their virginity without willing it or against their will, or out of ignorance. Women might thus have “committed grave sins against chastity but not actually lost their virginity in their minds”.  Such a concept has long been a part of criminal law in common law jurisdictions and the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty and usually clipped to “mens rea” (guilty mind)) and is the basic test for personal liability.

Had the Vatican been prepared to descend to specifics it might have avoided creating the confusion and the president of the USAVC, while noting the potentially ambiguous words, stated where “…a woman has been violated against her will and has not knowingly and willingly given up her virginity, most would hold that she would remain eligible for consecration as a virgin. Such a case would require depth of good judgment and insight carried out in individual discernment with the bishop.”  That seemed uncontroversial but the president continued: “In our society, questions of eligibility for the consecration of virgins are raised by those who have given up their virginity, perhaps only one time, and who have later begun again to live an exemplary chaste life.”  What the ESI should have made explicit, she said, was that “…these women do not have the gift of virginity to offer to Christ.  They may make a private vow of chastity, or enter another form of consecrated life, but the consecration of virgins is not open to them.”  Clearly, in the view of the USAVC, the ESI does not change the prerequisites for consecration into the USAVC.  One who is a victim of a violation has surrendered nothing whereas one who willingly succumbed cannot retrospectively re-assume virginity, however sincere the regret or pure their life since.

Pope Innocent VIII wearing the papal triple tiara.

So, according to the Vatican, the state of virginity can, in certain circumstances, be a “legal fiction”, another notion from the common law which allows certain things to be treated by the law as if they were fact however obvious it may be they are not.  That sounds dubious but legal fictions are an essential element in making the legal system work and are not controversial because they have always been well publicized (in a way which would now be called “transparent”) and if analysed, it’s obvious the alternatives would be worse.  Rome actually had “a bit of previous” in such matters.  For example, during the Renaissance, although the rules about the conduct and character of those eligible to become pope were well documented (and had once been enforced), there was Innocent VIII (1432–1492; pope 1484-1492) who, before drifting into an ecclesiastical career, had enjoyed a dissolute youth (something no less common then as now), fathering at least six or seven illegitimate children, one son and one daughter actually acknowledged.  Despite it all, he was created a cardinal and for reasons peculiar to the time proved acceptable as pope while all others did not, not because their pasts were more tainted still but because of curia politics; plus ça change…  After the vote, all the cardinals added their signatures to the document warranting Innocent VIII was of fine character.  Scandalous as it sounds, there were Renaissance popes who were plenty worse; the Vatican in those decades needed plenty of legal fictions.

Witches are also consecrated (by the coven).  Although now most associated with ecclesiastical ceremony & procedure, secular use in the sense of “to devote or dedicate (to something) from profound feeling" has existed since the mid-sixteenth century.  Just for the record, Lindsay Lohan has not been, and has no desire to be consecrated a witch.

Muffler & Scarf

Muffler (pronounced muhf-ler)

(1) A scarf worn around one's neck for warmth.

(2) Any of various devices for deadening the sound (especially the tubular device containing baffle plates in the exhaust system of a motor vehicle) of escaping gases of an internal-combustion engine; also known as silencers.

(3) Anything used for muffling sound.

(4) In armor, a mitten-like glove worn with a mail hauberk.

(5) A boxing glove (archaic).

(6) A slang term for a kiln or furnace, often electric, with no direct flames (technically a muffle furnace)

(7) A piece of warm clothing for the hands.

(8) The bare end of the nose between the nostrils, especially in ruminants.

(9) A machine with two pulleys to hoist load by spinning wheels, a polyspast (from the Latin polyspaston (hoisting-tackle with many pulleys), from the Ancient Greek πολύσπαστον (polúspaston) (compound pulley); a block and tackle.

(10) In World War I (1914-1918) soldier's slang, a gas-mask (some listings of military slang note it a "rare").

(11) An alternative term for the silencer (or suppressor) sometimes fitted to a gun (usually illicitly).

1525–1535: A compound word, the construct being muffl(e) + -er.  Muffle was from the Middle English muflen (to muffle), an aphetic alteration of the Anglo-Norman amoufler, from the Old French enmoufler (to wrap up, muffle), from moufle (mitten), from the Medieval Latin muffula (a muff), of Germanic origin (first recorded in the Capitulary of Aachen in 817 AD), from the Frankish muffël (a muff, wrap, envelope) from mauwa (sleeve, wrap) (from the Proto-Germanic mawwō (sleeve)) + vël (skin, hide) (from the Proto-Germanic fellą (skin, film, fleece)).  An alternate etymology traces the Medieval Latin word to the Frankish molfell (soft garment made of hide) from mol (softened, worn), (akin to the Old High German molawēn (to soften)) and the Middle High German molwic (soft), (mulch in English) + fell (hide, skin).  The suffix –er was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere (agent suffix), from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz (agent suffix).  Usually thought to have been borrowed from Latin –ārius, it was cognate with the Dutch -er and -aar, the Low German -er, the German -er, the Swedish -are, the Icelandic –ari and the Gothic -areis.  It was related to the Ancient Greek -ήριος (-ḗrios) and Old Church Slavonic -арь (-arĭ).  In English, it was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  Muffler is a noun and mufflerless, unmufflered, demufflered & mufflered are adjectives; the noun plural is mufflers.

Scarf (pronounced skahrf)

(1) A long, broad strip of wool, silk, lace, or other material worn about the neck, shoulders, or head, for ornament or protection against cold, drafts etc.; a muffler.

(2) A necktie or cravat with hanging ends (archaic).

(3) A long cover or ornamental cloth for a bureau, table etc (rare).

(4) To cover or wrap with or as if with a scarf or to use in the manner of a scarf (verb).

(5) In carpentry, a tapered or otherwise-formed end on each of the pieces to be assembled with a scarf joint scarf joint (a lapped joint between two pieces of timber made by notching or grooving the ends and strapping, bolting, or gluing the two pieces together).

(6) In whaling, a strip of skin along the body of the whale, a groove made to remove the blubber and skin.

(7) In steelmaking, to burn away the surface defects of newly rolled steel.

(8) To eat, especially voraciously (often followed by down or up).

1545–1455: From the Old Norse skarfr (end cut from a beam), from skera (to cut) .  The sense of a scarf being a piece of material cut from a larger piece is actually based on the use in carpentry, linked to the Swedish skarf & the Norwegian skarv (patch) and the Low German and Dutch scherf (scarf).  The sense of eating quickly is a now almost extinct Americanism from 1955-1960, thought a variant of scoff, with r inserted probably through r-dialect speakers' mistaking the underlying vowel as an r-less ar.  Etymologists have suggested other lineages such as a link with the Old Norman French escarpe and the Medieval Latin scrippum (pilgrim's pack) but the alternatives have never attracted much support.  Scarf is a noun & verb and scarfie is a noun; the noun plural is scarves or scarfs.  There is no established convention (and certainly no rule) about which plural form is "correct" when referring to the neckwear so all that can be recommended is consistency.  In practice, "scarves" seems more commonly used of the clothing while "scarfs" must always be the spelling in the context of carpentry.    

Lindsay Lohan with Louis Vuitton Sprouse Roses Long Scarf.

Until well into the twentieth century, muffler and scarf were used interchangeably but as the vocabulary associated with motor vehicles became commonplace, "muffler" became increasingly associated with the baffled mechanical device used to reduce the noise emanating from exhaust systems.  The automotive use swamped the linguistic space and muffler became less associated with the neck accessory although it never wholly went away and the upper reaches of the fashion industry maintain the distinction and it of course remains a staple in literary fiction.  Historically, of the garments, muffler was mostly British in use (Americans long preferring scarf) but scarf is now globally the most common form.  One geographically specific use was the "scarfie", a New Zealand slang form which began as a reference to a student at the University of Otago, based on the association with the signature blue-and-yellow scarf said habitually to be worn to signify allegiance to the provincial rugby union team (the Otago Rugby Football Union).  New Zealanders sometime in the mid-twentieth century abandoned mainstream religion and substituted worship of rugby and this was said to be something practiced with the greatest intensity at the University of Otago, the sense of group identity thought to have been reinforced by the country's only medical school having been located there for many decades.  The other great cultural contribution to Western culture was their part in the history of the "chunder mile". 

University of Otago Medical School.

The now-banned chunder mile was similiar in concept to the various "beer miles" still contested in some places, “chunder” being circa 1950s Australia & New Zealand slang for vomiting and of disputed origin.  The rules were simple enough, contestants being required to eat a (cold) meat pie, enjoyed with a jug of (un-chilled) beer (a jug typically 1140 ml (38.5 fl oz (US)) at the start of each of the four ¼ mile laps and, predictably, the event was staged during the university's orientation week.  Presumably, it was helpful that at the time the place was the site of the country’s medical school, thereby providing students with practical experience of both symptoms and treatments for the inevitable consequences.  Whether the event was invented in Dunedin isn’t known but, given the nature of males aged 17-21 probably hasn’t much changed over the millennia, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn similar competitions, localized to suit culinary tastes, have been contested by the drunken youth of many places in centuries past.  As it was, even in Dunedin, times were changing and in 1972, the Chunder Mile was banned “…because of the dangers of asphyxiation and ruptured esophaguses.”

Lindsay Lohan with Burberry scarf.  Made with a heavier fabric this would once have been called a muffler (as Vogue magazine et al still does).

Although not universal (especially in the US), in the better magazines, fashion editors still like to draw a distinction between the two, a scarf defined as an accessory to enhance the look and made from fabrics like silk, cotton or linen whereas a muffler is more utilitarian, bulkier and intended to protect from the cold and thus made from wool, mohair or something good at retaining body-heat.  That doesn't imply that inherently a muffler is associated with cheapness, the fashion houses able to see a market for a high-priced anything.  Occasionally, muffler is used in commerce as a label of something which looks like a small blanket, worn over the shoulders and resembling an open poncho.  They're said to offer great warmth.

So, scarves and mufflers are both accessories worn around the neck for either or both warmth and style but with historic differences in construction, size & shape, those differences no longer of the same significance because the term “muffler” has become a niche and “scarf” tends to prevail for most purposes.  However, for those who enjoy pedantry (or aspire to edit Vogue), the old conventions can be summarized thus:

Scarfs are usually rectangular or square in shape and available in many sizes and are made for a variety of materials including wool, silk, cotton or synthetic fabrics. They can be woven, knitted, or printed with patterns or designs.  Scarves generally are long and narrow compared to mufflers and can be worn in many styles, the most popular including draped around the neck, wrapped, or knotted.  Now often adopted as a fashion accessories to complement outfits or add a splash of color or texture, the seasonal choice will be dictated usually by temperature because, depending on material and thickness, a scarf can be as warming as a traditional muffler.

Mufflers are also long pieces of fabric, but they tend to be wider and thicker than the traditional, more decorative, scarves.  Being bulkier and there for warmth, mufflers are often knitted or crocheted and may have a more substantial texture to enhance the thermal properties.  The design of a muffler succeeds or fails on the basis of (1) the protection against the elements afforded and (2) the ease with which it snugly will wrap around the neck.  Inherently that means they don’t always offer the same versatility in styling offered by scarves but because the surface area is large, a sympathetic choice of colors or patterns offers interesting possibilities.  Strangely perhaps (and an indication of the way use has shifted), the neckwear worn by supporters of football clubs and such, although they are, in the conventional sense, mufflers, are always describes as scarfs although, in places like Cardiff Arms Park on a cold winter day, those with one wrapped around will be grateful for the warmth.

Avoiding the muffler

An electrically controlled exhaust system "cut-out", the modern version of the old, mechanical, "by-passes".

On cars, trucks and other vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE) which generate their power by the noisy business of detonating hydrocarbons, mufflers are valued by most people because they make things much quieter.  That's almost always good although in the right place, at the right time, the unmuffled sound of a BRM V16 at 12,000 rpm remains one of the great experiences of things mechanical and on the road, a well-designed chosen combination of engine and muffler can produce a pleasing exhaust note, witness the Daimler V8s of the 1960s.  The BRM, like most racing cars in the era, was unmuffled because there's a price to be paid for quietness and that price is power, the addition to the exhaust system robbing ICE of efficiency.  To try to have the best of both worlds (and seem to comply with the law), some inventive types use "outlaw" (or "special") pipes which work by offering exhaust gasses a "shortcut" to the atmosphere.  In ICEs, there are both down-pipes and dump-pipes.  Their functions differ and the term down-pipe is a little misleading because some down-pipes (especially on static engines) actually are installed in a sideways or upwards direction but in automotive use, most do tend downwards.  A down-pipe connects the exhaust manifold to exhaust system components beyond, leading typically to first a catalytic converter and then a muffler (silencer), most factory installations designed deliberately to be restrictive in order to comply with modern regulations limiting emissions and noise.  After-market down-pipes tend to be larger in diameter and are made with fewer bends improving exhaust gas flow, reducing back-pressure and (hopefully) increasing horsepower and torque.   Such modifications are popular but not necessarily lawful.  Technically, a dump-pipe is a subset of the down-pipes and is most associated with engines using forced aspiration (turbo- & some forms of supercharging).  With forced-induction, exhaust gases exiting the manifold spin a turbine (turbocharger) or drive a compressor (supercharger) to force more of the fuel-air mixture into the combustion chambers, thereby increasing power.  What a dump-pipe does is provide a rapid, short-path exit for exhaust gases to be expelled directly into the atmosphere before reaching a down-pipe.  That obviously avoids the muffler, making for more power and noise, desirable attributes for the target market.  A dump pipe is thus an exit or gate from the exhaust system which can be opened manually, electronically, or with a “blow-off” valve which opens when pressure reaches a certain level.  In the happy (though more polluted) days when regulations were few, the same thing was achieved with an exhaust “by-pass” or “cut-out” which was a mechanical gate in the down-pipe and even then such things were almost always unlawful but it was a more tolerant time.  Such devices, lawful and otherwise, are still installed.

Hood

Hood (pronounced hood)

(1) A soft or flexible covering for the head and neck, either separate or attached to a cloak, coat and similar garments.

(2) Something resembling or suggestive of such a covering (especially in shape) and used in botany to describe certain petals or sepals.

(3) In North America and other places subject to that linguistic influence, the (usually) hinged, movable part of an automobile body covering the engine (the bonnet in the UK and most of the old British Empire).  Despite geographical spread, the phrase “under the hood” is now close to universal, referring to (1) the engine of an automobile & (2) by extension, the inner workings or technical aspects of anything (a computer’s specifications etc).

(4) In the UK and most of the old British Empire, the roof of a carriage or automobile, able to be lowered or removed (ie on a convertible, cabriolet, roadster, drophead coupé (DHC) et al).  In North America and other places subject to that linguistic influence such things tend variously to be called soft-tops or convertible tops.

(5) A metal cover or canopy for a stove, fitted usually with a ventilation system (a flue or extractor fan).

(6) In falconry, a cover for the entire head of a hawk or other bird, used when not in pursuit of game.

(7) On academic gowns, judicial robes etc, an ornamental ruffle or fold on the back of the shoulders (in ecclesiastical garments, and in cults such as the Freemasons, also used as a mark of one’s place in the hierarchy).

(8) In nautical use, as hooding ends, one of the endmost planks (or, one of the ends of the planks) in a ship’s bottom at bow or stern which fits into the stem and sternpost rabbets.  When fitted into a rabbet, these resemble a hood (covering).

(9) In zoology, a crest or band of color on the head of certain birds and other animals (such as the fold of skin on the head of a cobra, that covers or appears to cover the head or some similar part).

(10) In anatomy (the human hand), over the extensor digitorum, an expansion of the extensor tendon over the metacarpophalangeal joint (the extensor hood (dorsal hood or lateral hood).

(11) In colloquial use in palaeontology, the osseous or cartilaginous marginal extension behind the back of many dinosaurs (also known as the “frill”).

(12) As the suffix –hood, a native English suffix denoting state, condition, character, nature, etc, or a body of persons of a particular character or class, formerly used in the formation of nouns: childhood; likelihood; knighthood; priesthood and of lad appended as required (Twitterhood, Instahood etc, subsets of Twitterverse & Instaverse respectively).

(13) In slang, a clipping of hoodlum.

(14) In slang, a clipping of neighborhood, especially an urban neighborhood inhabited predominantly by African Americans of low socioeconomic status (a part of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and adopted also by LatinX) although use in these communities does now transcend economic status.

(15) To furnish with or fit a hood; to cover with or as if with a hood.

(16) In medieval armor, a range of protective cloakings or coverings

Pre 900: From the Middle English hode, hod, hude, hudde & hoode (hoodes apparently the most common plural), from the Old English hōd, from the Proto-Germanic hōdaz, (related to the Old High German huot (hat), the Middle Dutch hoet and the Latin cassis helmet) and cognate with the Saterland Frisian Houd, the Old Frisian hōde, the West Frisian & Dutch hoed, the Proto-Iranian xawdaH (hat), the German Low German Hood and the German Hut (hat).  The Old English hād was cognate with German –heit and was a special use used to convey qualities such as order, quality, rank (the sense surviving academic, judicial & ecclesiastical garments).  The ultimate source is uncertain but most etymologists seem to support the primitive Indo-European kad & kadh (to cover).  Hood is modified as required (chemical hood, clitoral hood, un-hood, de-hood, fume hood, hood-shy, hood unit, hoodwink, range hood, riding hood etc) and something thought hood-shaped is sometimes described as cuculliform.  Hood is a noun & verb, hooded & hooding are verbs, hoodless hoodesque & hoodlike are adjectives; the noun plural is hoods.

Hooded: Lindsay Lohan in hoodie, JFK Airport, New York City, NYC April 2013. The bag is a Goyard Saint Louis Tote (coated canvas in black).

Hood as clipping of hoodlum (gangster, thug, criminal etc) dates from the late 1920s and would influence the later use of “hoodie” as a slur to refer to those wearing the garment of the same name, the inference being it was worn with nefarious intent (concealing identity, hiding from CCTV etc.  Hood as a clipping of neighborhood (originally especially an urban (inner-city) neighborhood inhabited predominantly by African Americans of low socio-economic status) dates from circa 1965 and became part of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and was adopted also by LatinX) although use in all communities does now transcend economic status.  It was an alternative to ghetto (a word with a very different tradition) and encapsulated both the negative (crime, violence, poverty) & positive (group identity, sense of community) aspects of the low-income inner city experience.  Although a part of AAVE, it never formed part of Ebonics because its meaning was obvious and, to an extent, integrated into general US vernacular English.  The phrase “all good in the hood” is an example of the use of the clipping.

Blu-Ray & DVD package art for Red Riding Hood (2006).  In US use, "alternate" seems to have been accepted as a synonym for "alternative".  Few seem to mind.

The verb hood in the sense of “to put a hood” & “to furnish with a hood” on dates from circa 1400 while although hooded & hooding aren’t attested until decades later, it’s possible the use emerged at much the same time.  The Old English hod was typically "a soft covering for the head" which extended usually over the back of the neck but only in some cases did it (permanently or ad-hoc) attach to some other garment.  The modern spelling emerged early in the fifteenth century and indicated a “long vowel” although that pronunciation is long extinct.  The word was picked up in medicine, botany & zoology in the seventeenth century while the use to describe the “foldable or removable covers on a carriage which protects the occupants from the elements” was documented since 1826 and that was used in a similar context by the manufacturers of prams and baby-carriages by at least 1866.  The meaning “hinged cover for an automobile engine” was in use in the US by 1905 while across the Atlantic, the British stuck to “bonnet”.  The fairy tale (some read it as a cautionary tale) Little Red Riding Hood (1729) was a translation of Charles Perrault's (1628-1703) Petit Chaperon Rouge which appeared in his book Contes du Temps Passé (Stories or Tales from Past Times (1697)).

The suffix -hood (a word-forming element meaning “state or condition of being”) was an evolution of the Old English -had (condition, quality, position) which was used to construct forms such as cildhad (childhood), preosthad (priesthood) & werhad (manhood); it was cognate with German –heit & -keit, the Dutch -heid, the Old Frisian & Old Saxon -hed, all from the Proto-Germanic haidus (manner, quality (literally “bright appearance”, from the primitive Indo-European skai & kai- (bright, shining) which was cognate with the Sanskrit ketu (brightness, appearance).  It was originally a free-standing word but in Modern English survives only in this suffix.

HMS Hood in March 1924.  The last battlecruiser built for the Royal Navy, it was 860 feet (262 metres) in length, displaced 47,000 tons and had a main armament of eight 15 inch (380 mm) guns.

HMS Hood (1918-1941) was a Royal Navy battlecruiser named after Admiral Samuel Hood, first Viscount (1724–1816), one of five admirals the family would provide.  Although the Battle of Jutland (1916) had exposed the inherent limitations of the battlecruiser concept and the particular flaws in the British designs, the building of the Hood anyway continued and the revisions made in the light of the Jutland experience in some way exacerbated the ship’s problems; weight was added without fully affording the additional protection required.  The Admiralty was aware of this and of the four battlecruisers of her class planned, Hood was the only one completed as the Navy embarked on a re-design but the naval disarmament agreed between the major powers in the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918) meant none were built (indeed no navy would launch a new battlecruiser until the 1980s and even then the notion was thought strange) and for almost two decades Hood remained the largest warship in the world.

Naval architecture, fire control ballistics and aviation had however moved on in those years and although the biggest warship afloat (the “Mighty Hood” in the public imagination), Hood was outmoded but as late as the early 1930s this mattered little because the prospect of war between the big powers seemed not only remote but absurd.  Hood is still thought one of the most elegant warships ever and it spent those years touring the empire and other foreign ports, her fine lines and apparent might impressing many although the Admiralty was well aware the days of Pax Britannica were over.  Much comment has been made about the design flaw which resulted in the Hood sinking in minutes after a shell from the German battleship Bismarck, fired from a range of some ten miles (16,000 m), penetrated the deck (some modern analysts contest this because of technical details relating to the angle of fire available to the German gunners), causing the magazine to explode, essentially splitting the hull in two.  In fairness to the Kriegsmarine (the German navy), it was a good shot but at that range, it was also lucky, that essential element in many a battle.

In structural linguistics, the term “Americanisms” is used to describe several sub-sets of innovations in English attributed to those (and their descendents) who settled in North America.  They include (1) spellings (color vs colour), most of which make more sense than the originals, (2) simplification of use (check used for cheque as well as its other meanings), (3) coinings (sockdolager (decisive blow or remark), a nineteenth century American original of contested origin) and (4) alternatives (suspenders vs braces).  Hood was one word where used differed in the US.  In the UK, the hood was the (traditionally leather but latterly a variety of fabrics) folding top which began life on horse-drawn carriages and later migrated to cars which eventually were, inter alia, called cabriolets, drophead coupés or roadsters.  In the US the same coachwork was used but there the folding tops came to be called “soft tops”, one reason being the hood was the (usually) hinged panel which covered the engine.  In the UK, that was called a bonnet (from the Middle English bonet, from the Middle French bonet (which endures as the Modern French bonnet), from the Old French bonet (material from which hats are made), from the Frankish bunni (that which is bound), from the Proto-Germanic bundiją (bundle), from the primitive Indo-European bend- (to tie).  The origins of the use of bonnet and hood as engine coverings were essentially the same: the words were in the nineteenth century both used on both sides of the Atlantic to describe cowls or coverings which protected machinery from the elements, impacts etc (the idea based on the familiar garments) and it was only chance that one use prevailed in one place and one in the other.  There were other differences too: what the British called the boot the Americans said was the trunk which on the early automobiles, like many of the stage coaches they replaced, indeed it was.

Unhinged: Not all hoods were hinged.  In 1969, some Plymouth Road Runners (left) and Dodge Super Bees (right) could be ordered with a lightweight, fibreglass hood held in place by four locking pins.  Known as the "lift-off hood", it need two conveniently to remove the thing so it wasn't the most practical option Detroit ever offered but to the target market, it was very cool.

Versus

Versus (pronounced vur-suhs or vur-suhz)

(1) Against, used especially to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sporting contest.

(2) As compared to or as one of two (or more) choices; as alternative to; in contrast with.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Latin versus (facing; literally “towards” ie “turned so as to face (something), opposite, over against) and originally the past participle of vertere (to turn, change, overthrow, destroy), from the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn, wind) from the root *wer (to turn, bend).  Versus is a preposition, the accepted abbreviations are “v” & “vs”.  The Latin vertere being a word of conflict, it’s been predictably productive in English.  In psychology, ambivert & ambiversion were coined in 1927 to describe a "person exhibiting features of an extrovert and an introvert.  Advert was an adaptation of the mid-fifteenth century averten (to turn (something) aside) from the twelfth century Old French avertir (later advertir) (to turn, direct; turn aside; make aware, inform) from the Latin advertere (turn toward, turn to).  English restored the -d- in the sixteenth century.  Versus is a preposition.

Averse was a mid-fifteenth century form meaning "turned away in mind or feeling, disliking, unwilling", from the Old French avers (hostile, antagonistic) and directly from the Latin aversus (turned away, turned back), past participle of avertere (to direct one's attention to; give heed, literally "to turn toward”).  Averse in English is used almost exclusively in the mental sense, while averted is applied to physical acts.  Advertise was from the early fifteenth century advertisen (to take notice of (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French advertiss-, present-participle stem of the twelfth century advertir (the earlier form was avertir) (make aware, call attention, remark; turn, turn to), again from the Latin advertere.  The mid-fifteenth century transitive sense of "give notice to others, inform, warn; make clear or manifest" was by influence of advertisement; the specific commercial meaning "call attention to goods for sale, rewards, etc" not in use until the late eighteenth century.  The idea of the adversary (unfriendly opponent, enemy) emerged originally in religious writing as a descriptor of Satan as the enemy of man.  It was from the mid-fourteenth century aduersere (hostile opponent, enemy), from the thirteenth century Anglo-French adverser and the twelfth century Old French adversarie (which in Modern French is adversaire), from the Latin adversarius (an opponent, rival, enemy) the noun use of the adjective meaning "opposite, hostile, contrary.  The Classical Latin was glossed in Old English by wiðerbroca.

The verso (reverse, back, or other side of some object," especially a printed page or book) dates from 1839 and was from the Latin verso (folio), ablative singular neuter of versus, past participle of vertere (to turn).  Retroversion was first noted in the 1580s in the sense of a “tilting or turning backward" noun of action or state from the Latin retroversus (turned or bent backwards).  The late fourteenth century controversy (disputation, debate, prolonged agitation of contrary opinions) was from the from Old French controversie (quarrel, disagreement" from the Latin controversia (a turning against; contention, quarrel, dispute), from controversus (turned in an opposite direction, disputed, turned against), the construct being contra "against" + versus (turned toward or against), past participle of vertere.  Vice versa (the order being changed) dates from circa 1600, the construct being vice, ablative of vicis (a change, alternation, alternate order) + versa, feminine ablative singular of versus, past participle of vertere.  The Century Dictionary notes the phrase has the “complete force of a proposition”, meaning “a transposition of antecedents, the consequents also transposed".

Sinister, the idea being the left being opposite the right is also involved.  When, in 1856, botanists needed a word to describe the direction of spiral structures in nature, they coined the adjective sinistrorse, from the Latin sinistrorsus (toward the left side), the construct being sinister (left) + versus (turned), past participle of vertere.  It was paired with dextrorse but, in the pre-internet age, communication between scientists in different places was slow or limited and confusion arose about what was the proper point of view to reckon leftward or rightward spiraling, both interpretations used and documented as sinistrorse.  It limited the utility of the word.  Universe dates from the 1580s in the sense of "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things", from the twelfth century Old French univers, from the Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of the neuter of the adjective universus (all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all, literally "turned into one), from unus (one (from the primitive Indo-European root oi-& no- (one, unique)) + versus, past participle of vertere.

The word verse came from late Old English, replacing the earlier Old English fers which was an early West Germanic borrowing directly from Latin and meant "line or section of a psalm or canticle" which by the fourteenth century had extended to "line of poetry", from the Anglo-French and Old French vers (line of verse; rhyme, song), from the Latin versus (a line, row, line of verse, line of writing), again from the primitive Indo-European wer-.  The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another, in the sense of vertere (to turn) as the plowman does at the end of each furrow.  The New Testament in English translation was first divided fully into verses in the 1550s Geneva version.  The metrical composition dates from circa 1300 but, perhaps surprisingly, as the non-repeating part of a modern song (ie the text which exists between repetitions of the chorus), verse wasn’t used until 1918.  That was noted in the book Negro Folk-Songs (1918) by US ethno-musicologist Natalie Curtis Burlin (1875-1921) which documented the traditions and forms of what used to be called “negro spirituals”.  Seemingly for the first time, the structure was defined as consisting of "chorus and verses, the chorus being a melodic refrain sung by all which opens the song; then follows a verse sung as a solo, in free recitative; the chorus then repeated; then another verse, the chorus again and so on until the chorus, sung for the last time, ends the song.”

In law reporting, versus, and, & against

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s offer to the whole world.

In the English speaking world, in the reporting of legal actions which reach the stage of being filed by a court register (or equivalent), the convention is that the first party named is the plaintiff (appellant) and the second the defendant (respondent).  So, in the famous case in English contract law of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal, Mrs Carlill was the appellant and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company the respondent.  The carbolic smoke ball case remains interesting because it established in English law the principle that advertisements offering something can constitute a binding contract even if the person claiming to have entered the contact hasn’t advised the author of the offer of their intent to perform the acts required in the terms of the offer.

Doubling down: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company wasn't discouraged by the loss in the Court of Appeal, subsequently increasing both the reward to £200 and the small print to discourage claims.

During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £12,000 in 2021) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although, it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after catching influenza.

In the UK and most of the Commonwealth, civil cases are reported in the form of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company but in oral use spoken as Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (although for notorious cases like this, an informal shorthand such as “carbolic” or “carbolic smoke” usually emerges).  Where a proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, the construct becomes “In the matter of”, spoken and written usually as “In re” or, more commonly “Re”.  In the US, the written form is the same for civil and criminal proceedings but when spoken, the “v” or “vs” is pronounced “vee” or “versus”.  Neither system appears helpful and it would be an improvement if both could agree to use “and” and “against” as required and write them in that form too.  It will never happen.

Criminal matters are written using the same convention but the “v” is spoken as “against”.  In Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (969 1 QB 439) a defendant’s conviction, for refusing to move his car after having inadvertently reversed over a policeman’s foot, was upheld.  Absurd as the facts of the case turned out to be, it was a useful illustration of the relevant legal principles.  In criminal law, there’s the requirement that both actus reus (act) and mens rea (intention) be present for a crime to take place.  Fagan argued that when he made the actus reus, because it was an accident, he had no men’s rea, but when he obtained mens rea, there was no corresponding actus reus.  There have been philosophers who would have found the logic of that compelling but the judges proved earthier, ruling that while omission cannot establish an assault, the actus reus of driving onto the foot and deciding to remain there constituted a continuing criminal act which was present when the mens rea occurred.  Mr Fagan’s conviction thus stood.

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.