Syzygy

Syzygy (pronounced siz-i-jee)

(1) In astronomy (actually borrowed from astrology!), the descriptor for either of the two positions (conjunction or opposition) of a celestial body when sun, earth, and the body lie in a straight line (since applied to the "straight-line configuration" of firstly three and later any number of celestial bodies in a gravitational system.

(2) Any two related things, either alike or opposite (obsolete except for historic references).

(3) In classical prosody, a group or combination of two feet, sometimes restricted to a combination of two feet of different kinds.

(4) In biology (especially zoology), the aggregation in a mass of certain protozoans, especially when occurring before sexual reproduction but can be used also when describing the asexual exchange of genetic material.

(5) In psychology, an archetypal pairing of contra-sexual opposites, symbolizing the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds.

(6) In mathematics, a relation between generators of a module.

(7) In medical pathology, a fusing of some or all of the organs.

(8) In genetics, the pairing of chromosomes in meiosis

1650-1660:  From the Late Latin sȳzygia (conjunction), from the Ancient Greek συζυγία (suzugía) (yoke of animals, pair, union of two, conjunction), from syzygein (to yoke together), the construct being an assimilated form of syn- (together) + zygon (yoke), from the primitive Indo-European root yeug- (to join).  In the Greek, the word produced also zeugnýnai (to yoke together), sometimes simplified in English transcription as synzugon.  In English, syzygy was adopted by astronomy in 1847.  In science there are a number of terms of classification based on syzygy, the most attractive of which is probably Syzygium samarangense (a taxonomic species within the family Myrtaceae (wax apple or Javan rose apple).  

In progress.

Syzygy was one of those words from the once respectable field of astrology later adopted by a number of scientific disciplines (astronomy, genetics, psychiatry, mathematics, zoology) and retained, even after astrology became widely regarded as disreputable.  In mathematics and the physical sciences, it was a handy descriptor of things which became paired or, however briefly, were in alignment although historically the emphasis was on "pair", a syzygy as able to be applied to an identical pair as two diametric opposites.  That permissiveness is now listed by most dictionaries as obsolete but is something to be noted when reading historic texts.

The origin of the application of the word in disciplines like psychiatry and psychology (noted more by its appearance in literary works than professional or academic papers) is thought by some to have been triggered by Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyova (1853–1900) who used syzygy to denote “close union” and applied the concept in a variety of ways which influenced Russian writers not only in the nineteenth century but also those of the symbolist and neo-idealist movements of the later Soviet era and some critics agree Solovyov was at least one of the sources for Fyodor Dostoevsky's (1821–1881) characters Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov (1880).  Very much in the tradition of   More controversial is the idea his book, The Meaning of Love (1892) (in which syzygy was introduced) is one of the philosophical sources of Leo Tolstoy's (1828-1910) much discussed The Kreutzer Sonata (1889); critics remain divided and opinions are argued with vigour although unusually united was the critical industry built around Carl Jung (1875–1961) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) (particularly the former's theories of the collective unconscious and the balancing of conscious and unconscious elements within an individual's psyche, although this was metaphorical and abstract compared to the use in astronomy and other sciences) which found strands of syzygy in the many themes of the self which so permeates their work.  Given the overarching concepts of (1) the individuation process and (2) the unions of individuals, especially of male and female tending to a totality, even a unity, it’s a word with some appeal to those who seem to value having something with such a range of adaptable meanings to use in works of speculative vagueness.

Propeller

Propeller (pronounced pruh-pel-er)

(1) A person or thing that propels.

(2) A device with a hub to which are attached evenly spaced & shaped radiating blades, rotating on a shaft to pitch against air or water to propel an aircraft, ship etc.

(3) A wind-driven (usually three-bladed) device that provides mechanical energy, as for driving an electric alternator in wind plants (not a universal use).

(4) A steamboat thus propelled; a screw steamer (now rare).

(5) In fishing, a spinnerbait.

1780: The construct was propel + -er and the original sense was “one who or that which that propels”, an agent noun from the verb propel.  The verb propel was a mid-fifteenth century form from the Middle English propellen (to drive away, expel), from the Latin propellere (push forward, drive forward, drive forth; move, impel), the construct being pro- (the prefix here use in the sense of “forward direction, forward movement”) + pellere (to push, drive), from the primitive Indo-European root pel- (to thrust, strike, drive).  The meaning “to drive onward, cause to move forward” emerged in the 1650s.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  The alternative spelling propellor dates from the early days of aviation in the first years of the twentieth century and is now extinct.  The standard abbreviation is “prop”, the use noted from military aviation since 1914.  Propeller is a noun; the noun plural is propellers.

Although the concept was used in antiquity and inventors and others (most famously Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519))  had for centuries experimented, the use of the word in mechanical engineering dates from 1809 and was from nautical design describing the application of a “device for moving vessels on or under the water”.  In aircraft design the theory of the use of “propeller” appears in papers and drawings in the 1840s (in what were then described as “flying machines”) and models were built which demonstrated a “proof of concept” although it would be decades before lightweight engines of sufficient power existed to allow experiments in aerodynamics and construction to be powered.  The first known rendering of an aircraft propeller in a recognizably modern form dates from 1853.  The modern propeller uses two or (usually) more twisted, airfoil-shaped blades mounted around a shaft which are spun to provide propulsion of a vehicle through water or air, or to cause fluid flow, as in a pump.  The lift generated by the spinning blades provides the force that propels the vehicle or the fluid although this lift does not of necessity have to induce an actual upward force; its direction is simply parallel to the rotating shaft.

Lindsay Lohan getting off the propeller driven (technically a turbo-prop) NAPA Shuttle, The Parent Trap (1998).

The term “to disembark” was borrowed from nautical use and of late "to deplane" has entered English which seems unnecessary but the companion “to disemplane” seems more absurd still; real people continue to “get on” and “get off” aircraft.

The terms “impeller” & “propeller” both describe devices which use various implantations of the “rotating blade(s) design and are used in mechanical systems to take advantage of the properties of fluid dynamics to harness specific energy for some purpose.  A propeller is a type of rotating device with blades designed to propel or move a fluid (typically a gas or a liquid) by generating thrust; they are most associated with marine vessels, aircraft and some industrial applications.  In aircraft, propellers can be attached to wing-mounted engines or mounted just about anywhere on a fuselage although historically a location at the front has been most common.  In marine applications, propellers have on specialized vessels been located to the sides of the hull but they almost always emerge at or close to the stern.  An impeller is a rotating component with blades or vanes (almost always enclosed in a housing), typically used for fluid or air distribution, such as a pump or a compressor, the primary purpose being to increase flow or pressure.  The classic impellers those in centrifugal pumps where they spin, creating a flow of fluid (liquid or air) by imparting centrifugal force to the substance; in practice, impellers such accelerate liquids are more common.

So an impeller & propeller do much the same thing, using blades to propel some form of fluid.  The use of different terms is helpful because in practice they are very different devices and the distinction that one is external and the other located within a housing is handy and the origin of that seems to lie in the construct of impeller which came first, dating from circa 1680 (as an agent noun from the verb impel) in the sense of “someone or something which impels”.  What the design of an impeller does is use the energy from the rotation to increase the flow or pressure of the fluid and it that it’s the reverse of a turbine, the rotation of which extracts energy from, and reduces the pressure of the flow.  Engineers also have a number of highly technical rules about what is and is not defined as an impeller base on the whether the entry and exit of the fluids occur axially or radially but it seemed impossible to construct such definitions as absolutes so for most the simpler distinctions are more helpful.  In engineering, impellers have been recorded as a machine or component name since 1836.

News Corp website 22 January 2024.  To refer to a jet engine’s nacelle as a propeller could (almost) be defended on the basis it’s the jet engine which “propels” the aircraft but this is more likely an example of (1) the decline in the quality of journalists and (2) what happens when there are no sub-editors to correct the mistakes.  In time, artificial intelligence (AI) should improve things.    

The verb impel dates from the early fifteenth century and was from the Middle English impellen, from the Latin impellere (to push, strike against; set in motion, drive forward, urge on), the construct an assimilated form of in- (into, in, on, upon), from the primitive Indo-European root en- (in) + pellere (to push, drive), from the primitive Indo-European root pel- (to thrust, strike, drive).  The construct of the Latin impellō was in- +‎ pellō (push, drive), from the Proto-Italic pelnō or pelnaō, a nasal-infix present derived from the primitive Indo-European pelh- (to drive, strike, thrust).  The Latin prefix –in could be appended to create a negative (un-, non-, not etc) but here was used as an intensifier, another possible meaning (in, within, inside) coincidental to the mechanical devices being usually mounted within housings.

Propellers and impellers both use blades (although those of the latter are often in the form of a single piece wither cast, molded, or (occasionally) forged.  Turbines also use blade-like parts but these are called vanes and an industry which seems unable to decide on terminology is the burgeoning business of wind-power; the huge rotating assemblies on wind turbines are referred to variously as vanes, blades or rotors.  Rotor blades are familiar for the use in helicopters which is essentially an airframe where a large-scale propeller sits atop the structure, pointing upwards and rather than “propeller blades”, the accepted term is “rotor blades”, the design of which permits both lift and directional thrust although some exotic multi-engined machines have rotors in housings which, to maximize performance, can themselves be rotated to operate as conventional propellers.

Supermarine Seafang (1946) with contra-rotating propellers.  The Seafang was powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon and was the final evolution of the Spitfire-derived Seafire and Spiteful, the trio all designed for use on Royal Navy aircraft carriers, the series enjoying success despite the basic design being hampered by the narrow undercarriage which made landings a challenge (something corrected on the Spiteful & Seafang).  Series production of the Seafang was contemplated but eventually only 18 were built because the jet-powered de Havilland Sea Vampire proved capable of carrier operations, surprising some at the Admiralty who doubted the jets could operate from anywhere but land.

The evolution of aircraft influenced propellers.  Once they had been fashioned from wood before the need for faster, more efficient shapes dictated the use of aluminium or other light metals.  By the time the first modern monoplane fighters appeared in the mid 1930s propellers were still two-bladed but as power increased over the years (something which accelerated during World War II (1939-1945)), three, four and five-bladed solutions were engineered.  The rising output however, although it permitted higher performance, created challenges for engineers, notably the “torque effect” which meant a tendency to cause the aircraft to roll in the direction of the propeller’s spin, a problem especially serious during take-offs.  In twin-engined aircraft the solution was to have the propellers rotate in opposite directions but in airframes with a single power-plant, sometimes used were contra-rotating propellers which, although introducing additional complexity and demanding additional maintenance, did offer advantages including: (1) harnessing more of an engine’s power, (2) increased thrust efficiency by a reduction in energy losses, (3) counteracting the torque effect, (4) improved low-speed manoeuvrability and ground-handling and (5) improved acceleration and climbing performance.

A flight of Republic P-47D Thunderbolts with under-wing drop-tanks.

The propeller also influenced other aspects of the aircraft.  When the prototype Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (1941-1945) first took to the air, it was the largest, heaviest single-seat piston-engined fighter ever produced (a distinction it still enjoys today).  Even the early versions used an engine rated at 2000 horsepower (later this would rise to 2800) and to harness this output demanded a large propeller.  The 12 foot (3.7 m) diameter of this four-bladed monster meant the landing-gear had to be extraordinarily long and the only way it could be accommodated was to have them retract inward, otherwise the heavy wing armament (8 x .50 inch (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (425 rounds per gun)) wouldn’t have fitted.

Chrysler XI-2220 V16.  The splined shaft is where the propeller attaches.

With things like the Thunderbolt, the Hawker Tempest and the later Supermarine Spitfires (and its derivatives), the piston-engined fighter achieved its final evolutionary form, the jet engine offering a path to performance unattainable while the physics of propellers imposed limits.  However, had the use of the A-Bombs not ended the war in 1945, development of the propeller aircraft would have continued because the early jets lacked thrust and reliability as well as suffering a rate of fuel consumption which rendered them unsuitable for long-distance operations.  With the war against Japan envisaged as lasting well into 1946, development of faster, more powerful piston engines continued although, given the parlous state of the Japanese military, it’s dubious at least there was much of a rationale for this but the military industrial complex is a creature of inertia and Chrysler’s research had perfected a new aero-engine for the Thunderbolt.  The XI-2220 was a 2,220 cubic inch (36.4 litre) V16 which was rated at a basic 2450 horsepower with some 4000 hp available when tuned for wartime use but with the end of the conflict, all such developments were cancelled and attention switched to the brave new world of jets and swept wings.  Thus ended the era of the big propeller-driven fighters, the V16 stillborn, as was the other extraordinary aero-engine on the drawing board: Britain's 32-cylinder Napier-Sabre H-32 which was a scaled-up version of their H24.

Asymmetric

Asymmetric (pronounced a-sim-et-rick)

(1) Not identical on both sides of a central line; unsymmetrical; lacking symmetry.

(2) An asymmetric shape.

(3) In logic or mathematics, holding true of members of a class in one order but not in the opposite order, as in the relation “being an ancestor of”.

(4) In chemistry, having an unsymmetrical arrangement of atoms in a molecule.

(5) In chemistry, noting a carbon atom bonded to four different atoms or groups.

(6) In chemistry (of a polymer), noting an atom or group that is within a polymer chain and is bonded to two different atoms or groups that are external to the chain.

(7) In electrical engineering, of conductors having different conductivities depending on the direction of current flow, as of diodes

(8) In aeronautics, having unequal thrust, as caused by an inoperative engine in a twin-engined aircraft.

(9) In military theory, a conflict where the parties are vastly different in terms of military capacity.  This situation is not in all circumstances disadvantageous to the nominally inferior party.

(10) In gameplay, where different players have different experiences

(11) In cryptography, not involving a mutual exchange of keys between sender a7 receiver.

(12) In set theory, of a relation R on a set S: having the property that for any two elements of S (not necessarily distinct), at least one is not related to the other via R.

1870–1875: The construct was a- + symmetric.  The a- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) (ἀν-) (an- if immediately preceding a vowel) and was added to stems to created the sense of "not, without, opposite of".  The prefix is referred to as an alpha privative and is used with stems beginning with consonants (except sometimes “h”); “an-“ is synonymous and is used in front of words that start with vowels and sometimes “h”.  Symmetric was from the Latin symmetria from Ancient Greek συμμετρία (summetría).  Symmetry was from the 1560s in the sense of "relation of parts, proportion", from the sixteenth century French symmétrie and directly from the Latin symmetria, from the Greek symmetria (agreement in dimensions, due proportion, arrangement", from symmetros (having a common measure, even, proportionate), an assimilated form of syn- (together) + metron (measure) from the primitive Indo-European me- (to measure).  The meaning "harmonic arrangement of parts" dates from the 1590s.  The suffix -ic was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically.  In English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Asymmetric & asymmetrical are adjectives, asymmetricity, asymmetricality, asymmetricalness & asymmetry are nouns and asymmetrically is an adverb; the noun plural is asymmetries.

The usually symmetrically attired Lindsay Lohan demonstrates the possibilities of asymmetry.

1975 Kawasaki 750 H2 Mach IV.

Manufacturers of triple-cylinder motorcycles traditionally used single (3 into 1) or symmetrical (3 into 2) exhaust systems (although, during the 1970s, Suzuki offered some of their "Ram-Air" models with a bizarre 3 into 4 setup, the centre cylinder’s header bifurcated) but in 1969 Kawasaki adopted an asymmetric addition for one of the memorable machines of the time.  The Kawasaki 500 H1 Mach III had two outlets to the right, one to the left and was a fast, lethally unstable thing which was soon dubbed the "widow maker".  Improvements to the Mach III made it a little more manageable and its successor, the 750 H2 Mach IV was claimed to be better behaved but was faster still and best enjoyed by experts, preferably in a straight line although, with a narrow power band which peaked with a sudden rush, even that could be a challenge.  The Kawasaki triples remain the most charismatic of the Japanese motorcycles.

1973 Triumph X-75 Hurricane.

Available only during 1972-1973 and produced in small numbers, the Triumph X75 Hurricane was typical of the motorcycles being produced by the British manufacturers which had neglected development and re-investment and consequently were unable adequately to respond to the offerings of the Japanese which had done both aplenty.  Whatever their charms, models like the X75 were being rendered obsolescent, some of the underlying technology dating back decades yet, without the capital to invest, this was as good as it got and some of the fudges of the era were worse.  The X-75 was however ahead of its time in one way, it was a “factory special”, a design influenced by what custom shops in the US had been doing as one-offs for customers and in the years ahead, many manufacturers would be attracted by the concept and its healthy profit margins.  The X-75 is remembered also for the distinctive asymmetric stack of three exhaust pipes on the right-hand side.

1986 Ferrari Testarossa (1984-1991) with monospecchio.

Some of Ferrari's early-production Testarossas were fitted with a single high-mounted external mirror, on the left or right depending on the market into which it was sold and although the preferred term was the Italian “monospecchio” (one mirror), in the English speaking-world it was quickly dubbed the “flying mirror" (rendered sometimes in Italian as “specchio volante” (a ordinary wing mirror being a “specchietto laterale esterno”, proving everything sounds better in Italian)).  The unusual placement and blatant asymmetry annoyed some and delighted others, the unhappy more disgruntled still if they noticed the vent on right of the front spoiler not being matched by one to the left.  It was there to feed the air-conditioning’s radiator and while such offset singularities are not unusual in cars, many manufacturers create a matching fake as an aesthetic device: Ferrari did not.  The mirror’s curious placement was an unintended consequence of a European Union regulation (and it doubtful many institutions have in a relatively short time created as many regulations of such collective length as the EU) regarding the devices and this was interpreted by the designers as having to provide 100% rearward visibility.  Because of the sheer size of the rear bodywork necessitated by the twin radiators which sat behind the side-strakes (another distinctive Testarossa feature), the elevation was the only way this could be done but it later transpired the interpretation of the law was wrong, a perhaps forgivable mistake given the turgidity of EU legalese.

The Blohm & Voss BV 141

Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Eurl (Owl)

In aircraft, designs have for very good reason (aerodynamics, weight distribution, flying characteristics, ease of manufacture et al) tended to be symmetrical, sometimes as an engineering necessity such as the use of contra-rotationg propellers on some twin-engined airframes, a trick to offset the destabilizing effects of the torque when very potent power-plants are fitted.  There has though been the odd bizarre venture into structural asymmetry, one of the most intriguing being the Blohm & Voss BV 141, the most distinctive feature of which was an offset crew-capsule.  The BV 141 was tactical reconnaissance aircraft built in small numbers and used in a desultory manner by the Luftwaffe (the German air force) during World War II (1939-1945) and although it was studied by engineers from many countries, none seem to have been inspired to repeat the experiment. The origin of the curious craft lay in a specification issued in 1937 by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM; the German Air Ministry) which called for a single-engine reconnaissance aircraft, optimized for visual observation and, in response, Focke-Wulf responded with their Fw 189 Eurl (Owl) which, because of the then still novel twin-boomed layout, encountered some resistance from the RLM bureaucrats but it found much favor with the Luftwaffe and, over the course of the war, some nine-hundred entered service and it was used almost exclusively as the German's standard battlefield reconnaissance aircraft.  In fact, so successful did it prove in this role that the other configurations it was designed to accommodate, that of liaison and close-support ground-attack, were never pursued.  Although its performance was modest, it was a fine airframe with superb flying qualities and an ability to absorb punishment which, on the Russian front where it was extensively deployed, became famous and captured examples provide Russian aeronautical engineers with ides which would for years influence their designs.

The RLM had also invited Arado to tender but their Ar 198, although featuring an unusual under-slung and elongated cupola which afforded for the observer a uniquely panoramic view, proved unsatisfactory in test-flights and development ceased.  Blohm and Voss hadn't been included in the RLM's invitation but anyway chose to offer a design which was radically different even by the standards of the innovative Fw 189.  The asymmetric BV 141 design was eye-catching with the crew housed in an extensively glazed capsule, offset to starboard of the centre-line with a boom offset to the left which housed the single-engine in front with the tail to the rear.  Prototypes were built as early as 1938 and the Luftwaffe conducted operational trials over both the UK and USSR between 1939-1941 but, despite being satisfactory in most respects, the Bv 141 was hampered by poor performance, a consequence of using an under-powered engined.  A re-design of the structure to accommodate more powerful units was begun but delays in development and the urgent need for the up-rated engines for machines already in production doomed the project and the Bv 141 was in 1943 abandoned.

Blohm & Voss BV 141 prototype with full-width rear elevators & stabilizers.

Production Blohm & Voss BV 141 with port-only rear elevator & stabilizer.

Despite the ungainly appearance, test-pilots reported the Fw 141 was a nicely balanced airframe, the seemingly strange weight distribution well compensated by (1) component placement, (2) the specific lift characteristics of the wing design and (3) the choice of opposite rotational direction for crankshaft and propeller, the torque generated used as a counter-balance.  Nor, despite the expectation of some, were there difficulties in handling whatever behavior was induced by the thrust versus drag asymmetry and pilots all indicated some intuitive trimming was all that was needed to compensate for any induced yaw.  The asymmetry extended even to the tail-plane, the starboard elevator and horizontal stabilizer removed (to afford the tail-gunner a wider field of fire) after the first three prototypes were built; surprisingly, this was said barely to affect the flying characteristics.  Focke-Wolf pursued the concept, a number of design-studies (including a piston & turbojet-engine hybrid) initiated but none progressed beyond the drawing-board.

Asymmetric warfare

In the twenty-first century, the term “asymmetric warfare” became widely used.  The concept describes conflicts in which there are significant disparities in power, capability and strategies between opposing forces and although the phrase has become recently fashionable, the idea is ancient, based often on the successes which could be exploited by small, mobile and agile (often irregular) forces against larger, conventionally assembled formations.  Reports of such tactics are found in accounts of conflicts in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe from as early as reliable written records have been found.  The classic example is what came later to be called “guerrilla warfare”, hit-and-run tactics which probe and attack a weak spots as they are detected, the ancestor of insurgencies, “conventional” modern terrorism and cyber-attacks.  However, even between conventional national militaries there have long been examples of the asymmetric such as the use of small, cheap weapons like torpedo boats and mines which early in the twentieth century proved effective against the big, ruinously expensive Dreadnoughts.  To some extent, the spike in use of the phrase in the post-Cold War era happened because it provided such a contrast between the nuclear weapon states which, although having a capacity to destroy entire countries without having one soldier step foot on their territory, found themselves vulnerable to low-tech, cleverly planned attacks.

Although the term “asymmetric warfare” covers encompasses a wide vista, one increasingly consistent thread is that it can be a difficult thing for "conventional" military formations to counter insurgencies conducted by irregular combatants who, in many places and for much of the time, are visually indistinguishable from the civilian population.  The difficulty lies not in achieving the desired result (destruction of the enemy) but managing to do so without causing an “excessive” number of civilian causalities; although public disapproval has meant the awful phrase “collateral damage” is now rarely heard, civilians (many of them women & children) continue greatly to suffer in such conflicts, the death toll high.  Thus the critique of the retaliatory strategy of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) in response to the attack by the Hamas on 7 October 2023, Palestinian deaths now claimed to exceed 20,000; that number is unverified and will include an unknown number of Hamas combatants but there is no doubt the percentage of civilian deaths will be high, the total casualty count estimated early in January 2024 at some 60,000.  What the IDF appear to have done is settle on the strategy adopted by Ulysses S Grant (1822–1885; US president 1869-1877) in 1863 when appointed head of the Union armies: the total destruction of the opposing forces.  That decision was a reaction to the realization the previous approach (skirmishes and the temporary taking of enemy territory which was soon re-taken) was ineffectual and war would continue as long as the other side retained even a defensive military capacity.  Grant’s strategy was, in effect: destroy the secessionist army and the secessionist cause dies out.

In the US Civil War (1861-1965) that approach worked though at an appalling cost, the 1860s a period when ballistics had advanced to the point horrific injuries could be inflicted at scale but battlefield medical tools and techniques were barely advance from Napoleonic times.  The bodies were piled high.  Grant’s success was influential on the development of the US military which eventually evolved into an organization which came to see problems as something not to be solved but overwhelmed by the massive application of force, an attitude which although now refined, permeates from the Pentagon down to platoon level.  As the US proved more than once, the strategy works as long as there’s little concern about “collateral damage”, an example of this approach being when the Sri Lankan military rejected the argument there was “no military solution” to the long running civil war (1983-2009) waged by the Tamil Tigers (the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)).  What “no military solution” means is that a war cannot be won if the rules of war are followed so the government took the decision that if war crimes and crimes against humanity were what was required to win, they would be committed.

In the 1990s, a number of political and military theorists actually advanced the doctrine “give war a chance”, the rationale being that however awful conflicts may be, if allowed to continue to the point where one side gains an unambiguous victory, the dispute is at least resolved and peace can ensue, sometimes for generations.  For most of human history, such was the usual path of war but after the formation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 things changed, the Security Council the tool of the great powers, all of which (despite their publicity) viewed wars as a part of whatever agenda they were at the time pursuing and depending on this and that, that meant their interests sometimes lay in ending conflicts and sometimes in prolonging them.  In isolation, such an arrangement probably could have worked (albeit with much “collateral damage”) but over the years, a roll-call of nations run by politicians appalled by the consequences of war began to become involved, intervening with peace plans,  offering mediation and urging the UN to deploy “peacekeeping” forces, something which became an international growth industry.  Added to that, for a number of reasons, a proliferation of non-government organizations (NGO) were formed, many of which concerned themselves with relief programmes in conflict zones and while these benefited may civilians, they also had the effect of allowing combatant forces to re-group and re-arm, meaning wars could drag on for a decade or more.

In the dreadful events in Gaza, war is certainly being given a chance and the public position of both the IDF and the Israeli government is that the strategy being pursued is one designed totally “to destroy” not merely the military capacity of Hamas but the organization itself.  Such an idea worked for Grant in the 1860s and, as the Sri Lankan military predicted they would, end-game there was achieved in 2009 on the basis of “total destruction”.  However, Gaza (and the wider Middle East) is a different time & place and even if the IDF succeeds in “neutralizing” the opposing fighters and destroying the now famous network of tunnels and ad-hoc weapons manufacturing centres, it can’t be predicted that Hamas in some form won’t survive and in that case, what seems most likely is that while the asymmetry of nominal capacity between the two sides will be more extreme than before, Hamas is more likely to hone the tactics than shift the objective.  The IDF high command are of course realists and understand there is nothing to suggest “the Hamas problem” can be solved and being practical military types, they know if a problem can’t be solved it must be managed.  In the awful calculations of asymmetric conflict, this means the IDF calculate that while future attacks will happen, the more destructive the response now, the longer will be the interval before the next event.

Surplus

Surplus (pronounced sur-pluhs)

(1) Something that remains above what is used or needed.

(2) In agricultural economics, produce or a quantity of food grown by a nation or area in excess of its needs, especially such a quantity of food purchased and stored by a governmental program of guaranteeing farmers a specific price for certain crops.

(3) In accounting, the excess of assets over liabilities accumulated throughout the existence of a business, excepting assets against which stock certificates have been issued; excess of net worth over capital-stock value.

(4) In public finance, an excess of government revenues over expenditures during a certain financial year.

(5) In international trade, an excess of receipts over payments on the balance of payments.

(6) In economic theory, an unsold quantity of a good resulting from a lack of equilibrium in a market.  For example, if a price is artificially high, sellers will bring more goods to the market than buyers will be willing to buy.  In classical economics, the opposite of shortage.

(7) In Chancery law (and its successor courts), the remainder of a fund appropriated for a particular purpose.

1325–1375: From the Middle English surplus, from the Old French sorplus (remainder, extra), from the Medieval Latin superplūs (excess, surplus), the construct being super (over) + plūs (more).  Surplus in Italian is a borrowing from modern French where surplus has existed since the twelfth century.  In English, surplus has been used as an adjective since the fourteenth century.  Enjoying the same pronunciation, surplice and surplus are often confused.  A surplice is a liturgical vestment of the Christian Church, usually styled as a tunic of white linen or cotton material, with wide sleeves and often some lace embellishment or embroidered edges.  Lengths vary; in medieval times it reached almost to the ground but tends now to be shorter; some still retain the longer garments for the ceremonial.  As surplis, it was a thirteenth century Middle-English borrowing from the Anglo-French surpliz, a syncopated variant of Old French surpeliz, derived from the Medieval Latin superpellīcium (vestīmentum) over-pelt (garment), neuter of superpellīcius.  Construct was super (over) + pellīt(us) (clothed with skins or fur) + -ius (the adjectival suffix).  A clerical surplice is thus a kind of frock; a clerical surplus means too many priests.

Surplus Repression

German-American Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was a sociologist and philosopher, highly influential in the mid-late twentieth century.  Even today, Marcuse enjoys a cult following.

A critique of capitalism’s culture and economic arrangements, Marcuse's book Eros and Civilization (1655) drew, inter alia, from Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and described an alternative structure for society.  He didn’t reject Freud’s idea that repression of mans’ instinctive desires was necessary for civilization to endure but Marcuse distinguished between basic (or necessary) repression and surplus repression, detailing the differences between the biological vicissitudes of the instincts and the socially imposed.  His construct was that basic repression is that which man suppresses to permit peaceful societies to form; a repression or modification of the instincts being necessary “…for the perpetuation of the human race in civilization.”  Surplus repression meant those “…restrictions necessitated by [the] social domination” of the particular ruling-class or hegemony.  The purpose of surplus repression was to shape the instincts of individuals to conform to the requirements of modern capitalism, a surrender to what Marcuse called the “performance principle”, a construct building on Marx’s theories of alienation and surplus value.

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

Marcuse's writing did have the attraction of being more accessible than that of Marx or Freud (and certainly that of many neo-Marxists or Freudians) but that also meant it was easier for critics to cherry pick the points they found most objectionable.  For an explanation of why society need to be organized the way it was, conservatives seemed to prefer the rationalization of the "harsh but deliciously clever" English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) best known for his book Leviathan (1651) in which appeared the memorable passage describing the life of man in a world where there existed no restraining authorities forcing people to repress their worst instincts:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Such a culture Hobbes called the "state of nature" by which he meant not an environmentally sustainable hippie commune but a place in which there was bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all) and murder went unpunished except by another murder.  Although the distinction is now an unfashionable one to draw, conservatives liked the way Hobbes seemed to know not all cultures were civilizations and that a little surplus repression was a small price to pay for for its benefits.  Hobbes lived through troubled times and his views on the importance of stable, strong governance should be understood as the writings of one who had seen what the alternative looks like but as a list of exculpatory bullet-points, it's something which can be ticked off by by the Ayatollahs in Tehran or the Chinese Communist Party.  Marcuse is not so transportable.

Sometimes, it really was read for the articles.  Michael G Horowitz's profile of Marcuse was published in the September 1970 edition of Playboy.

Marcuse’s work was acknowledged as a landmark in the synthetization of Marxist and psychoanalytic theories but was criticized for being just another of the utopian visions written of since antiquity, work cut adrift from the moorings of the political reality which seemed in the 1960s more urgently to demand attention.  Marcuse acknowledged the distance of his work from reality and conceded his theories could reach actualization only by revolution or gradual infiltration of the structures of the power-elite and, after the disappointments of the moments in 1968 when revolution fleeting was in the air, he preferred the latter.  German student activist Rudi Dutschke (1940–1979) had advocated a "…march through the institutions of power", radically to change society from within government and cultural institutions by becoming part of the machinery and structures under which capitalism operated.  This too owed a debt to the theories of hegemony and Marcuse wrote to Dutschke in 1971 saying he “regarded your notion of the "march through the institutions" as the only effective way.”  It all failed.  It was the highly unusual coincidence of circumstances in the post war (1948-1973) Western world which briefly in 1968 made the system seem internally vulnerable and the hegemony learned the lesson: they would control who manned the institutions that matter and the troublemakers could march through things like theatre trusts, literary festivals and art gallery committees.

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.