Ultimatum

Ultimatum (pronounced uhl-tuh-mey-tuhm or uhl-tuh-mah-tuhm)

(1) A final, uncompromising demand or set of terms issued by a party to a dispute (used especially of governments and WAGs (wives & girlfriends)), the rejection of which may lead to a severance of relations, the imposition of sanctions, the use of force etc.

(2) A final proposal or statement of conditions; any final or peremptory demand, offer or proposal.

1731: From the New Latin, a specialized use of the Medieval Latin ultimatum (a final statement), noun use of neuter of Latin adjective ultimātus (last possible, final; ended, finished), past participle of ultimāre (to come to an end), from ultimus (extreme, last, furthest, farthest, final).  The Latin plural ultimata was used by the Romans as a noun in the sense of “what is farthest or most remote; the last, the end”.  In mid-1920s slang ultimatum described also “the buttocks” (a use which deserves to be revived).  In English, the plural form had an interesting trajectory.  Although the Anglo-Irish satirist & Anglican cleric Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) used “ultimatums”, that didn’t until the twentieth century convince the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) to displace ultimata as the recommended form.  In diplomacy (a world of “gray areas”), the comparative is “more ultimative”, the superlative “most ultimative”.  Ultimatum is a noun, ultimating & ultimated are verbs and ultimative is an adjective; the noun plural is ultimatums or ultimata. 

The first ultimatum would have been issued in prehistoric times and there have been many since.  History suggests a great many have been bluffs which can be a successful tactic if perceived as plausible but often the “bluff was called” and the ultimatum proved a hollow threat, thus the language of diplomacy including also the (sometimes darkly) satirical or humorous (1) penultimatum (plural penultimatums or penultimata) which describes a statement of terms or conditions made by one party to another, commonly expressed as an ultimatum in the hopes of compelling immediate compliance with demands, but that then is superseded by more negotiation instead of actual dire consequences and (2) antepenultimatum (plural antepenultimatums or antepenultimata) which describes a statement of terms or conditions made by one party to another, essentially a penultimatum, but even more tentative and more repeatedly abandoned in favour of subsequent ignominious compromises.  The trouble with unfulfilled ultimatums is that while rapidly they can lose their persuasive power (in a manner analogous with Aesop's Fable The boy who cried wolf), at some point a party issuing unenforced ultimatums may one day make good on their threats, the high stakes gambler Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) and the rather dim-witted Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) both in September 1939 genuinely surprised when the Anglo-French ultimatum guaranteeing the sovereignty of Poland was honoured, the previous back-downs no longer a guide.  Of course, six year later, Polish sovereignty was sacrificed to political necessity but a war which began with the RAF (Royal Air Force dropping leaflets politely asking the Germans to stop what they were doing and ended with the USAAF (US Army Air Force) dropping A-bombs of Japanese cities had many unintended consequences.

CD cover art for Lindsay Lohan's Spirit in the Dark (2008) album.

For centuries, the word “ultimatum” seems to have been avoided by poets, librettists and lyricists.  Ultimatum is a Latinate “formal” word so perhaps not well-suited to love songs but beyond the register and tone, those studying structural linguistics note the prosody: It’s a four-syllable word with a stress pattern (ul-TIM-a-tum) difficult to “fit into” common meters and melodic phrasing.  That said, while there’s a semantic narrowness, the idea of the ultimatum (a final demand backed by consequences) is hardly rare in opera and poetry but it tends to be described or implied rather than labelled with the specific word.  However, one niche was found in the definitely modern genre of rap, hip-hop and such and that’s attributed to the material putting a premium on conflict, violence and the technique of rhyming on the final syllable.  Undaunted however was Kara DioGuardi (b 1970) who included “ultimatum” in the opening verse of the Lindsay Lohan song Stay (2008).  Its inclusion is a genuine rarity.

Verse 1 of Stay (2008) Kara DioGuardi, sung by by Lindsay Lohan.

Baby, take your coat off and your shoes and just relax
Let your body sink into these arms, that's where it's at
I'll open up a bottle and slip into something else
I hope tonight's the night that all these walls are gonna melt
'Cause when we're out, you're sending me mixed signals all the time
You want me, but you don't just wanna lay it on the line
So baby, here's your ultimatum, are you in or out?
All you have to do is wanna turn this all around, and...

If it was for poets a challenge to splice “ultimatum” into the body of a work, without any discordance it could be used as a title and Philip Larkin (1922-1985) choose it for his first published poem which appeared in The Listener on 28 November, 1940:

Ultimatum (1940) by Philip Larkin.

But we must build our walls, for what we are
Necessitates it, and we must construct
The ship to navigate behind them, there.
Hopeless to ignore, helpless instruct
For any term of time beyond the years
That warn us of the need for emigration:
Exploded the ancient saying: Life is yours.
For on our island is no railway station,
There are no tickets for the Vale of Peace,
No docks where trading ships and seagulls pass.
Remember stories you read when a boy
- The shipwrecked sailor gaining safety by
His knife, treetrunk, and lianas - for now
You must escape, or perish saying no.

Unknown previously, “ultimatum” did occasionally appear in twentieth century poetry, a product probably of the big, multi-theatre wars and the use in modern and experimental poetry of language which borrowed from abstract or formal vocabularies.  While the terrible first half of the twentieth century gave poets plenty of scope to explore the concept (it was an age of ultimatums), in print, it was done almost without mention of the word.

The issuing of ultimatums has shaped a number of turning points in history; variously they have proved decisive, stabilizing or catastrophic.  Probably the most infamous was the “July Ultimatum”, served on Serbia by Austria-Hungary after a Serbian nationalist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863–1914; heir presumptive to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire).  While such a procedure was orthodox politics, what was notable about what Vienna did in 1914 was to make demands it was certain Serbia would be unable to fulfil.  The Austrians hankered for war because they wanted permanently to put an end the “Serbian threat” and Berlin, anticipating a traditional, short, sharp, limited war of a few weeks, gave Vienna the infamous “German blank cheque” of support.  Belgrade accordingly turned to its traditional supporters in Moscow who agreed to offer military support; that came after the Kremlin had received confirmation from Paris that France would honor its treaty arrangement with Russia.  From all this came the outbreak of war in August 1914 by which time the British (for a variety of reasons) had become involved and by 1917 the US had become a belligerent; this was conflict which came to be called “The World War” before in the 1940s being renamed “World War I” (1914-1918).

Even in 1945, the phrase “unconditional surrender” (the origin an apparently chance remark (although subsequently he would cite a precedent from the US Civil War (1861-1865)) by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) at the Casablanca Conference (January 1943)) had been controversial because of the concern it had lengthened the war against Germany by dissuading (the probably chimerical) opposition forces within the country from staging a coup with a view to negotiating peace.  Despite that, at the Potsdam Conference (July-August 1945) the Allied powers (China, the UK & US, the Soviet Union not then at war with Japan) served Tokyo with the Potsdam Declaration demanding exactly that.  After the two A-bombs were dropped, the Japanese agreed to a surrender that fell a little short of being “unconditional” but the Americans decided to accept the offer, concluding having a “puppet emperor”.

Trump: The Art of the Deal (First Edition, 1987) by Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz.

One once improbable text in 2016 added to the reading lists of political analysts was Trump: The Art of the Deal (1987) by Donald J. Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) with Tony Schwartz (b 1952).  It’s a useful book because in it Mr Trump (or Mr Schwartz depending on one’s spin of choice) provided examples of negotiating techniques.  That book was about commerce, notably property deals, but it gave an insight into why Mr Trump later succeeded so well in reality TV, his understanding of the potency of mixing fact, threats, spectacle and blatant untruths underlining that second career.  He may not, while the book was being drafted, have been contemplating politics as a third career but he did find many of its techniques could be adapted to international diplomacy.  In that he proved an innovator but there are limitations to how well things translate.  One weapon in the arsenal is the ultimatum which can be used in real-estate deals with few consequences beyond the relatively few individuals concerned but in international relations, such things can have cascading global effects.

If within the White House there were any doubts the issuing of ultimatums might have consequences other than what was desired, the path of the conflict in the Middle East should have given them some interesting case studies.  What’s also interesting is whether in the White House the possible reactions to ultimatums were discussed prior to them being presented.  Giving the Ayatollahs 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face withering new airstrikes on Iran’s power generation infrastructure sounded decisive on Truth Social (which definitely is part of the modern calculation in such matters) but Tehran responded by threatening to target the energy and water desalination facilities in the neighboring Gulf states.  As threats go, it was a stark warning because those nations can rely on desalinated water for as much as 90% of their needs and have no practical alternative so it would have been an escalation with potentially devastating regional consequences.

Not a model easily translatable to Iran.  Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela 2013-2026, right) and his lawyer Barry Pollack (b 1964, left), US Federal Court, Manhattan, New York City, March 2026, illustration by Jane Rosenberg (b 1949).

Accordingly, prior to the deadline, Mr Trump announced he’d “temporarily” called of the strikes, claiming that was induced not by Tehran’s counter-threat but by “productive” talks with “the right people”.  He didn’t descent to specifics (something not unusual in back channel diplomacy) but did add the talks had revealed “major points of agreement” and “they want very much to make a deal, we'd like to make a deal, too.”  Apparently unimpressed, Iranian state media, claimed the president had backed down in the face of their threats and denied talks of any significance were taking place.  Again, in diplomacy of this kind, denials are standard procedure.  A few hours later, Mr Trump assured an audience the US was conducting “very, very good discussions” with Iran.  So it’s competing narratives and analysts made no attempt to try to work out how much truthfulness was coming from either side but more than one observed that if the president had realized he’d painted himself into a corner by delivering the ultimatum, revealing previously unannounced back-channel discussions was a quick and face-saving way to buy some time to hope plan A (missiles and bombs) works.  There was though from some sources the notion the mention of “the right people” may put in the mind of the regime the audacious kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela 2013-2026), an operation made possible by the cooperation of “the right people” in Caracas.  Some suspicion of one’s colleagues might be understandable given the extraordinary success achieved in assassinating leading figures in the Iranian political establishment and the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).

While it can be guaranteed US-Iran “talks” are taking place in some form, trying to predict the course of this conflict is difficult because there are relatively few models from the past which might provide something of indicative value.  Since the end of the Cold War, one endlessly repeated admonition issued by those in the Middle East to successive occupants of the White House has been not to do this or that because “you will open the gates of Hell”.  Many probably suspect that at some point in that last few years, those gates were at least pushed ajar but if things do escalate they could be torn from their hinges and the most worrying scenario is that US land forces will be deployed against Iran with the active cooperation of the Gulf States, something unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.  The theory supporting this is based on the notion that the attacks on Iran conducted over the past year have made irrevocable the Ayatollah’s determination to acquire an IND (independent nuclear deterrent), a quite rational response by any regime reviewing military matters since 1945.  Of course, ayatollahs with A-bombs would trigger a chain reaction because a number of states in the region would also demand their own IND with a genuinely autonomous launch capacity because, just as Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970; President of France 1959-1969) felt compelled to acquire the capacity because he doubted “a US president would risk New York to save Paris” the same concerns would extend to the fate of Dubai and Riyadh.

The power behind the curtain: Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei (b 1969; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran since 2026, left) looking at his father Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (1939-2026; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran 1989-2026).  Mojtaba Khamenei’s nickname is reputed to be “The power behind the robes”, an allusion to the power he exercised while his father was supreme leader (something like the role fulfilled by Lieutenant General Oskar von Hindenburg (1883–1960) while serving as ADC (aide-de-camp) Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934; President of Germany 1925-1934).

What Mr Trump has done is to abandon the “power realist” approach to dealing with the Islamic Republic.  As explained by its high priest (Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1973-1977)), the approach was an acknowledgment that “solving” some problems was either impossible or so dangerous to attempt that the preferred approach was endlessly to “manage” things, thereby either maintaining the problem at an acceptable level or allowing it, over time, to “solve itself”.  Mr Trump probably genuinely believes there is not a problem on the planet he can’t solve by “making a deal”, achieved by a combination of threats, inducements, spectacle and ultimatums.  In some fields, such optimism is a virtue but when dealing with Ayatollahs with a nuclear weapons programme and the dream of a global caliphate under their interpretation of Shi'i Islam, it’s at least potentially dangerous.  One can argue about whether the ayatollahs had, prior to the last two rounds of attack, already decided to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon but now there can be no doubt.  No US president before Mr Trump would have dared do what’s been done in the last twelve months but now he’s in the position of not daring to stop because nothing short of regime change can now make things better; all alternatives are worse.  On paper, given the regime’s internal contradictions and the widespread dissatisfaction among the population, there should be paths to regime change without a land invasion but the Ayatollahs and IRGC appear still to possess a formidable defensive apparatus.  As the missile exchanges continue, Mr Trump has announced a ten-day extension to the deadline to re-open the Strait of Hormuz.  Whether this will come to be regarded as ultimatum 1.1 or 2.0 will be one of the footnotes when the histories of this conflict are written.

Birdcage

Birdcage (pronounced burd-keyj)

(1) A cage for confining birds (built traditionally with wire or wicker and used also as bird cage & bird-cage).

(2) Something that in form (at any scale) resembles (even vaguely) the construction of a birdcage.

(3) In aviation industry slang, the airspace over an airport and the aircraft there in flight.

(4) An area on a racecourse where horses parade before a race (“paddock” preferred in US use).

(5) In US slang, a used-car lot (now rare).

1480–1490: The construct was bird + cage.  Bird was a pre-900 form, from the Middle English byrd, from the Old English bridd & brid (which in the Northumbrian dialect was “bird”) (young bird, chick; feathered, warm-blooded vertebrate animal of the class Aves).  The Old English bird was an unusual collateral form of bridd and originally meant “young bird, nestling” whereas the typical Old English for bird was fugol, related to the noun fowl, of uncertain origin with no known cognates in any other Germanic language (speculated links to umlaut dismissed by etymologists).  Because birds are a creature doubtlessly noticed and in some form named by people since the early days of human evolution, it’s not surprising it believed variants in Middle English may go back to “an ancient period”.  From the early to mid-fourteenth century, “bird” increasingly supplanted “fowl” as the most common term.

Cage dates from 1175–1225 and was from the Middle English cage (and the earlier forms kage & gage), from the Old French cage (prison; retreat, hideout), from the Latin cavea (hollow place, enclosure for animals, coop, hive, stall, dungeon, spectators' seats in a theatre), the construct being cav(us) (hollow) + -ea, the feminine of -eus (the adjectival suffix); a doublet of cadge and related to jail.  The Latin cavea was the source also of the Italian gabbia (basket for fowls, coop).  The noun (box-like receptacle or enclosure, with open spaces, made of wires, reeds etc) typically described the barred-boxes used for confining domesticated birds or wild beasts was the first form and from circa 1300 was used in English to describe “a cage for prisoners, jail, prison, a cell”.  To “rattle someone's cage” is to upset or anger them, based on the reaction from imprisoned creatures (human & animal) to the noise made by shaking their cages.  The noun bird-cage (also birdcage) was in the late fifteenth century formed to describe a "portable enclosure for birds", as distinct from the static cages which came to be called aviaries.  The verb (to confine in a cage, to shut up or confine) dates from the 1570s and was derived from the noun.  The synonyms for the verb include crate, enclosure, jail, pen, coop up, corral, fold, mew, pinfold, pound, confine, enclose, envelop, hem, immure, impound, imprison, incarcerate, restrain & close-in.  Cage is a noun, verb and (occasional) adjective, caged & caging are verbs (used with object) and constructions include cage-less, cage-like, re-cage; the noun plural is cages.  Birdcage is a noun; the noun plural is birdcages.

The term gilded cage (often heard in the form “trapped in a gilded cage” describes a place (or situation) which superficially is attractive but is in some way constraining; a comfortable but confined situation.  The point of the “gilded cage” is the “effective confinement” is achieved not by the “cage” but by the unwillingness of the confined to relinquish the luxury of their “gilded lifestyle”; it’s thus a self-imposed “imprisonment”, certain comfort valued more than the uncertainties of freedom.  The term is thought to have been coined by the writers of the popular song A Bird in a Gilded Cage (1900).  History (some of it recent) is littered with examples of those “trapped in a gilded cage” and overwhelming they’re well-bred women, compelled for various reasons (dynastic, financial, political etc) to marry someone not of their choice.  A classic example of the adage “for everything you do there’s a price to be paid”, the best documented are the most miserable but the phenomenon is an illustration of the way what ultimately matters is not the situation in which one finds oneself but how one reacts.

Consuelo Vanderbilt (circa 1900), oil on canvas by Paul César Helleu (1859–1927).

Consuelo Vanderbilt (1877-1964) was the most illustrious of the American “dollar princesses” who crossed the Atlantic to marry increasingly impoverished members of the British aristocracy.  Unhappily (and tearfully), aged 18, she became Duchess of Marlborough, diligently and dutifully (for a while) fulfilling the role her father’s money had purchased.  The French painter Paul César Helleu was noted for his portraits of society women of the Belle Époque and, working on commission, he was not above flattery but there’s no doubt he captured the beauty of the slender Consuelo and they may have had had an affair, a diversion not uncommon among dollar princesses chaffing against the bars of their gilded cage.  While in the history texts most in gilded cages are there because they led tortured, unhappy lives, there were some who resolved to “make the best of things” and just try to enjoy the gild: taking the rough with the smooth as it were.  F Scott Fitzgerald (1896–1940) in The Great Gatsby (1925) described Daisy Buchanan as a “golden girl” who had opted for the security of marrying money and was thus consigned to life as a “beautiful little fool” in a “gilded cage of class and gender politics.”  There are worse ways to live and as George Bernard Shaw (GBS; 1856-1950) observed, while money may not buy happiness, surely it is better to be miserable and rich than miserable and poor.   

Lindsay Lohan in The Birdcage, Flemington Racecourse, Melbourne, Victoria, Spring Carnival Derby Day, 2 November, 2019.

The origin of the curious use of “birdcage” to describe the enclosed area where horses are saddled and walked before and after a race lies in an architectural analogy, the space enclosed traditionally by light iron railings, often decorative, painted white and closely spaced.  Spectators standing beyond the perimeter looked at the horses, much as one looks at birds inside an aviary; the metaphor thus “perspectival”.  In truth, the usually the circular or polygonal enclosure didn’t really resemble a large ornamental cage but the construction of the ironwork did recall the sides of a “birdcage” although obviously there was no need exactly to replicate the design, horses being unable, Pegasus-like, to “fly away”.  The term remains in common use in the UK, Australia and New Zealand where it had become part of the “social scene” of race days, the photographs published on society pages or Instagram often taken from “the birdcage”; at some tracks the spectator area has been remodelled for exactly that purpose with appropriate promotional backdrops.  In North America, used of “birdcage” in this context is rare, “paddock” the preferred term.

A similar linguistic adaptation was the “bullpen” (in baseball, an enclosed area for pitchers to practice in or “warm up”), the word possibly borrowed from rodeos where it literally was the (well-fenced) holding area for bulls.  In baseball, “bullpen” became a collective noun for pitchers and functioned as a synecdoche.  From the sport, it spread and came to be used figuratively to describe (1) “a place for someone or something to get prepared for some purpose” and (2) a military prison or its enclosing stockade.  Some decades after bullpen entered the vernacular of the sport, leagues were formed for women’s baseball and although in ranching the term “cowpen” (fenced area for holding cows) was well-known, baseball sensibly decided its nomenclature etymologically was detached from biological sex so assembled female pitchers also warmed-up in a bullpen and despite a recent trend towards gender-neutrality in sporting terminology, “bullpen” survived as fossilized baseball jargon.  Linguistically uncontroversial in the sport was “birdcage mask” which was the protective mask worn by catchers, the “birdcage element” referring to the thick wire structure protecting the face while still permitting adequate vision.

Lindsay Lohan (birdcage scene), Rumors (Official Music Video) from Speak (2004).

The origin of the use in baseball is contested although all seem to agree it came into use very early in the twentieth century.  One explanation is that by then it had become common for late-coming spectators to be cordoned off in a “standing room” area in “foul territory” (to the sides of the field where any ball hit was deemed “out of bounds”) and, noting the laggards were “herded like cattle”, “bullpen” was borrowed from the rodeo.  When those areas were re-purposed as the pitchers warm-up space, the designation stuck and the notion relief pitchers were once viewed “bullish” in temperament is thought one of baseball’s many myths.  An alternative theory is the use was at least influenced by the outfield fences at baseball grounds once often displaying advertisements for Bull Durham tobacco and in front of these relief pitchers would wait to be called into play and the use was thus associated with the billboards but for this there’s no documentary evidence. 

The Berghof, circa 1940.

By definition, a birdcage is of course “something in which one keeps one’s pet bird” but they can be also, certainly in their more elaborate forms, a decorative piece of furniture, a symbol of domesticity in the same way George Orwell (1903-1950) in Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) used the Aspidistra plant as an identifier of the middle-class though in fairness to the reputation of the perennial herbaceous plant, their popularity in English houses owed much to them being among the species most tolerant of the sometimes smoky atmosphere in an era when coal and wood burned on open fireplaces was a common form of heating.  They were thus an ideal house plant, being tolerant of neglect and suited to shade while their luxuriant growth meant they were effective oxygenators of air high in CO₂.  

Art Nouveau brass birdcage on conforming tripod stand.  The piece featured a domed tops, lift-out trays, swing perch and two small bird-seed feeders.

Tough, the Aspidistra wasn’t exactly “unkillable” but one really had to try and the plants thus were for generations something of a middle class fixture; it was in this sense Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945), in his (sometimes reliable) memoir Erinnerungen (Memories or Reminiscences) and published in English as Inside the Third Reich (1969) noted the birdcage in Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) country house, some years before it was enlarged in the sprawling complex centred on the Berghof:  “After Berchtesgaden came the steep mountain road full of potholes, until we arrived at Hitler's small, pleasant wooden house on Obersalzberg.  It had a wide overhanging roof and modest interior: a dining room, a small living room, and three bedrooms. The furniture was bogus old-German peasant style and gave the house a comfortable petit-bourgeois look.  A brass canary cage, a cactus, and a rubber plant intensified this impression. There were swastikas on knickknacks and pillows embroidered by admiring women, combined with, say, a rising sun or a vow of ‘eternal loyalty.’  Hitler commented to me with some embarrassment: ‘I know these are not beautiful things, but many of them are presents.  I shouldn't like to part with them.’”  Speer made no mention of a canary or any other bird sitting in the cage and nor is there a reference in contemporary accounts; that is in keeping with Hitler’s known views on how animals should be treated and while his attitudes to humanity proved reprehensible, those on wildlife were quite enlightened.

Art Deco birdcage.

Although there’s obviously some functional overlap, as well as birdcages, there are birdhouses, coops, aviaries, pigeon lofts.  A birdhouse is a “small house” for birds (and known also as a nest box).  Made usually of wood and mounted somewhere the residents will be protected from ground-dwelling predators, birdhouses are outdoor structures designed not to imprison wild birds but provide them a shelter where they can build nests.  A coop (in this context) is a place where birds are kept but while a birdcage is for a household pet, a coup is for productive (egg-laying and sometimes feathers or meat) birds and are enclosures built outside, partially enclosed (“chicken coops” the best known).  The word aviary has a wide vista and can be anything from a relatively small structure housing two or more birds to vast zoo-like areas in which there may be a mix of captive and wild creatures.  A pigeon loft (known also as a dovecote) is a specialized type of birdhouse, often placed on a building’s roof or other elevated spot in which domestic pigeons are bred and housed, usually for use in the sport of pigeon racing; the element “loft” tends to be used irrespective of the location of the structure.  A synonym was columbarium, from the Latin columbārium, the construct being columb(a) (pigeon) +‎ -ārium (place for) and because the sport became popular among the aristocracy of the Ancien Régime (circa 1500-1789) in France, the construction of columbaria because something of a contest (al la the “size race” in luxury yachts between today’s billionaires) and architects were engaged to design large, elaborate structures, sometimes emulating the style of the owner’s chateau.

Birdcaged: An airliner's dimmed cabin.

In the airline industry, “birdcaging” is a term which has come into vogue among passengers; it describes the request from cabin crew to close window blinds or (in aircraft configured with electronically dimmable windows) turn down the settings.  Apparently, if passengers don’t conform, the staff will enforce the onset of darkness.  Theories have circulated on the sites where disgruntled passengers complain about the antics of airlines (they are most active sites) with the most popular suggestion being it’s an attempt to keep the cabin’s environment “subdued”, encouraging “better behaviour”.  The airlines seem not to have commented and “birdcaging” is neither acknowledged industry jargon nor admitted to be any company’s policy.  Flight attendants have however taken to TikTok to subdue the debate, claiming airlines “encourage” the dimming to created “a comfortable environment for those who wish to sleep”.  Those keeping birds in cages will note the calming effect of placing a shroud over the wires, emulating night-time.  At least one flight attendant did concede: “I will say this does affect the calmness of the cabin, but that is not the reason we do this.”  From all this, bird-caged passengers will draw their own conclusions.

Coming maybe within a decade to economy class near you: A depiction of a  “windowless” airliner.

Whether windows will continue to be fitted to passenger aircraft isn’t clear because the manufacturers have been attempting to tempt decision-makers (Flexjet in 2025 signed a contract to buy 300 of Otto’s Phantom 3500 nine-seat executive jets) with windowless winged tubes, outside views (or anything else) emulated with shaped-screens which form part of the cabin lining.  The manufacturers say eliminating the windows will make airframes lighter, stronger and cheaper to produce.  It would also lower running costs and emissions because (1) even with flush-fitting fittings, there is some drag induced by the window frames and (2) the heat-soak from sunlight means more energy has to be expended to maintain cabin temperatures.  Additionally, without windows, passengers will be less exposed to radiation and although not many would fly frequently enough for the effect to be measured, it would benefit cabin crew.  Depending on what’s displayed on the screens, the experience could be surreal or hyper-realistic because HD (high-definition) cameras mounted in the fuselage enable the display (using seamless OLED (organic light-emitting diode) panels of a more expansive vista than is possible through a small window.  For now, although flight attendants would probably prefer passengers to be sedated upon taking their seats, bird-caging us will likely remain plan B.

C3 Chevrolet Corvette T-Top birdcage.

From its debut in 1953, the Chevrolet Corvette’s body has always been made from non-steel composite materials ranging from simple GRP (glass-reinforced plastic and better known as fiberglass) to materials of increasing complexity so rust has never afflicted the external panels but beneath all those curves and angels is much vulnerable ferrous metal including the frame and “birdcage”, the latter an object of veneration or despair, depending on its condition.  A crucial component in the overall strength and structure of some Corvettes, the birdcage was first integrated into the design when the C2 (1962-1967) was released and the same concept was used for the C3 (1968-1982): a reinforced frame surrounding the cabin, the nickname from the overall shape which vaguely recalled a birdcage.  Similar in outline to the “safety cell” for which Mercedes-Benz was in 1952 granted Patent 854157 (rigid passenger cell with front and rear crumple zones), the birdcage consisted of boxed steel channels with pillars running from the base of the windshield (A-pillars), along the rear of the cabin, and down to the frame kick-up behind the seats.  Although not really a complex piece of engineering, the fact that so integral to the car is the structure, for extensive repairs to be performed considerable disassembly is required and the cost of out-sourcing such a task often can exceed the value of the car; economics thus suggest it’s usually advisable to find a car with birdcage in sound condition, repairs often financially viable only if the car is rare (ie with a highly desirable specification or even a celebrity association).  A visual inspection is best left to experts because unless it has just emerged from a comprehensive restoration, the birdcages on all C2 & C3 Corvettes will have at least some light, surface rust but it can take an expert eye to tell the difference between that and rot which demands attention.  Fortunately, the Corvette community is vibrant with publications and on-line guides detailing the features & foibles of the structure.

Troubled birdcage: Rusted C3 windshield frame left-lower outer corner (left) and a replacement corner component (1968-1972) @ US$199.00 from Corvette Central.

On both the C2 & C3, there were two variants of the design, one for the coupe (T-top in the C3) and the one for the roadster (the last such C3 made in 1975) but all shared the susceptibility to rust, especially if used in areas with high salt-exposure (coastal regions or places where the stuff was spread on icy roads) and the part most often affected severely was the “Windshield Frame Lower Outer Corners”, replacement sections available and in two different versions for the C3, reflecting the design changes in the post 1973 cars.  However, while the birdcage's most afflicted components, the windshield frame’s outer corners are not unique and the hinge pillars & lock pillars (including the body mount at the bottom) also are notably rust-prone.

C4 Corvette structure diagram from Mobile Web-Cars.

To call what was used on the C4 Corvette (1984-1996) a “birdcage” was a bit of a gray area because although routinely so described, materially and structurally it was quite different from the classic template set by the C2 & C3.  What was carried over was welded steel structure surrounding the windshield frame, A-pillars, roof rails, B-pillars and rear window frame which created a defined passenger safety cell distinct from the outer composite body panels so it seems reasonable still to use the term but the C4 did not have a “stand-alone” frame onto which the body was mounted, the “birdcage” being an integral part of the frame.  There were a number of design imperatives which dictated the path chosen for the C4 and it was built with a uniframe in which front and rear frame sections were integrated, thereby providing greater rigidity so no longer was the “birdcage” a kind of bolted-on” internal scaffold but an inherent part of the whole.  The C4 was the last Corvette in which something recognizably “birdcagesque” would appear.

Chevrolet’s technical rendering of the C8’s structure.  In engineering, materials science and computing, much has advanced since 1962.

However, the structural integrity the birdcage in 1962 provided needed still to be achieved but the “brute-force” approach of the C2-C3-C4 era was replaced with more advanced techniques and by the time the mid-engined C8 was released in 2019, the platform structurally would have been unrecognizable to anyone familiar with the earlier generations.  The C8 is built around a core element (the so-called “backbone” or “spine”) which can be visualized as a large aluminum tunnel running down the centre of the car and from this the chassis gains its primary torsional stiffness; it was something like bringing the chassis of the 1962 Lotus Elan into the modern age.  The body panels are almost all non-structural and while there is (as is now universal) a reinforced “safety cell” around the cabin, this is protection of occupants in the event of an “impact incident” (better known as a “crash”).

The Birdcage: The Maserati Tipo 60/61 (chassis #2549, clothed & exposed).

Upon released in late 1962, the structure in the C2 Corvette gained the nickname “birdcage” because of the shape but before that, there was the Maserati “Birdcage”, the Tipo 60/61 (1959-1961) so dubbed because it departed from the typical approach of those building space fames in that instead of relatively few, thick tubes and sections, Maserati used many more but they were slender.  Observers were much taken with the apparent delicacy of the construction and although the engineers assured all the intricate latticework of some 200 chromoly steel tubes (welded often in triangulated form in the points of highest stress) was a design delivering both lightness and rigidity to match the more robust-looking creations.  Those admiring the intricacy were struck more by the resemblance to the thin wires of birdcages.  

Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR (W196S, upper) & 300 SL (W198, lower).

One of the reasons the Maserati’s skeleton looked so delicate was that the space-frame had become associated with Teutonic-flavored construction like that used by Mercedes-Benz for its 300 SL & 300 SLR.  Both shared the same method of construction but despite the names and the visual similarity between the two, there were few common components beyond the nuts, bolts & screws.  The 300 SL (W198; 1954-1963) was a road car while the SLR (W196S; 1955) was a lengthened version of the W196R Formula One Grand Prix car with a sexy body and an enlarged (though somewhat detuned) straight-eight engine; in the sport, it would be the last of the straight-8s.

Scale model of Maserati Typo 60/61 Birdcage by CMC.

The final and most remarkable Maserati birdcage was Tipo 63 Birdcage which featured a mid-mounted 3.0 litre V12.  The Tipo 60 & 61 used front-mounted four-cylinder engines in displacements of 2.0 & 2.9 litres and although there were problems which never wholly were solved (although the reliability did over time improved), the platform enjoyed some success because its forgiving nature lent it excellent handling characteristics and in long-distance events, the lack of power was somewhat offset by the modest fuel consumption and relative low tyre wear, time not spent in the pits as valuable as seconds shaved off lap-times.  Unlike some of its competitors, Maserati did not have the financial resources to “keep up with the times” and develop from scratch a mid-engined sports car so the factory took the approach familiar to many an American engineer and hot-rodder: put in a bigger engine.

1961 Maserati Birdcage Typo 63.  Although installing the V12 didn’t realize the hope-for success, the car will always have a place in the annals of “great moments in exhaust systems”.

Actually, the V12 wasn’t that much bigger than the largest of the four cylinder units used but, with a pedigree beginning with a brief (though unsuccessful) career in the Maserati 250F Grand Prix car, it certainly delivered more power.  Because it was a “relatively” simple matter of blending an existing engine and existing platform, the project quickly was accomplished and Maserati had a mid-engined car on the grid before anyone else and one which could top 305 km/h (190 mph) on long straights.  Unfortunately, placing the big lump of a V12 to the rear upset the Birdcage’s fine balance although one did place fourth in the 1961 Le Mans 24 Hours endurance classic (a place where a 190 mph top speed was unusually valuable), a result which proved to be the marque’s high-water mark in the famous event.

Gross

Gross (pronounced grohs)

(1) Without deductions; total (as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (net ).

(2) Unqualified; complete.

(3) Flagrant and extreme.

(4) Indelicate, indecent or obscene.

(5) Of personal qualities, tastes, etc, lacking refinement, good manners, education etc; vulgar.

(6) By extension, not sensitive in perception or feeling (archaic).

(7) Extremely, repellently or excessively fat.

(8) Dull, witless (obsolete).

(9) Of or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects etc.

(10) Obviously or exceptionally culpable or wrong; flagrant (“grossly inefficient”; “grossly incorrect” etc).

(11) In slang, extremely objectionable, offensive or disgusting:

(12) Thick; dense:

(13) In slang, to disgust or offend, especially by crude language or behaviour; to shock or horrify (often used (Gross!) as an exclamation indicating disgust or disapproval.

(14) In botany & agriculture etc (especially of vegetation), dense; thick; luxuriant.

(15) In textiles, coarse in texture or quality (obsolete but still used in this sense in material science & engineering (ie dense, heavy)).

(16) Rude; uneducated; ignorant (archaic).

(17) A unit of quantity, equal to 12 dozen (ie 144, a “dozen dozen”).

(18) In science, seen without a microscope (used typically of tissue or an organ); at a large scale; not detailed (ie macroscopic; not microscopic).

(19) By extension, easy to perceive (archaic).

(20) Difficult or impossible to see through (now used only as a poetic or literary device).

1350–1400: From the Middle English gros (large, thick, full-bodied; coarse, unrefined, simple), from the Old French gros (large; thus the noun grosse (twelve dozen)), from the Late Latin grossus (big, fat, thick (which in Late Latin picked up the additional sense “coarse, rough”).  The adjective gross in the fourteenth century meant “large” but by early in the 1400 it acquired also the senses “thick” and “coarse, plain, simple”, the development reflecting the influence of the eleventh century Old French gros (big, thick, fat; tall; strong, powerful; pregnant; coarse, rude, awkward; ominous, important; arrogant) which was from the Late Latin grossus (thick, coarse (of food or mind)) which, in Medieval Latin also picked up the meaning “great, big” (source also of the Spanish grueso and the Italian grosso).  The word is of unknown origin and no ancestor seems to have existed in the Classical Latin (it’s thought unrelated to the Latin crassus, which meant the same thing, or the German gross (large) but may be cognate with the Old Irish bres (big) and Middle Irish bras (big)).  Although the evidence is sketchy, some etymologists suspect some link with the Proto-Celtic brassos (great, violent).  The verb engross (to buy up the whole stock of) dates from the late 1300s (in this sense it had been in Anglo-French for decades) and was from the Old French en gros (in bulk, in a large quantity, at wholesale) as opposed to en detail;  The figurative sense (absorb the whole attention) was in use by at least 1709 while the curious “parallel engross” (to write (something) in large letters) came from the Anglo-French engrosser, from Old French en gros (in large (letters)).

The comparative is grosser (or “more gross”) and the superlative grossest (or “most gross”) but TikTokers and such also use disgrossting (a portmanteau word, the construct being dis(gust) + gross + ting” and they’re fond also of grossness and (the non standard but most pleasing) grossnessness.  On TikTok, users often are “grossed-out” (highly disgusted) by stuff although sometimes they will post deliberately gross content just to “out-gross” each other.  The negative form “un-gross” is recorded but is rare while de-gross & degrossify are humorous terms used when corrective attempts are being undertaken.  On TikTok and such, grossology is a discipline assiduously pursued and there are many & grossologists.  Gross, grossification & grossness are nouns, verbs & adjectives, grossification, grossology & grossologist are nouns, grossify, grossed & grossing are verbs, disgrossting, grossish & grossest are adjectives and grossly is an adverb; the noun plural is gross or grosses.

Der Grossers: 1938 Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150) Cabriolet F, a seven passenger tourer & parade car, pictured here with the folding soft-top in sedanca de ville configuration (left) and 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100) Pullman Landaulet with “short” folding roof.  The 770K was produced in two runs (W07, 1931-1938 & W150, 1938-1943) while the W100 was built between 1963-1981.

In the context used by Mercedes-Benz, in the English-speaking world, the use of “grosser” is sometimes misunderstood.  In German, groß is used to mean “grand” in the sense of “large” (the Kompatativ (comparative) is größer and the Superlativ (superlative) größte) so Der große Mercedes can be translated as “the big Mercedes” but the connotation really was of something “grand”.  In that sense groß is used in the sense of “physically large” but it can be used also to be “highest” as in the naval rank Großadmiral (a five-star rank translated in English usually as “grand admiral” and equivalent to admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral).  The idea of the "big Mercedes" wasn't unique and to this day collectors still use the phrase "big Healey" (the Austin-Healey sports car, introduced as the 100 BN 1 (1953-55) which evolved into the 3000 (1959-1968)), the term coined in 1958 to distinguish those cars from the smaller Austin Healey Sprite (1958-1970), produced also as the Austin Sprite (1971) and MG Midget (1961-1979)). In English, “gross” went on to prove itself a word of great versatility.

MBNA (Mercedes-Benz of North America) print advertising for der Grosser, placed prior to The 8^th Annual International Auto Show held at the New York Coliseum, 4-12 April, 1964.

In 1964, MBNA had no doubt how groß should be translated.  In Europe, the 600 was thought very big (indeed at 249.6 inches (6.35 metres) the Pullman version was the longest car in series production and even the standard sedan (amusingly often referred to as the SWB (short wheelbase)) was a substantial 219.7 inches (5.6 metres) in length) but its dimensions seemed not so outrageous in the US where even the Chevrolet Biscaynes used by travelling salesmen weren’t much smaller and Buick had even named the range-topping Electra variant sold to bank managers and other Rotarians the “225” to boast of the extent of its length (in inches).  There was a contrast too in what the stylists did, the 600’s severe lines tending to diminish the visual effect of the bulk of the Sedan (though the Pullman obviously was long) and it was only when one was parked next to other vehicles or some other usefully comparative object the sheer size became apparent.  That was not the approach of Detroit where a whole array of design cues were used to emphasize size; the manufacturers wanted to make sure people knew they were getting a lot for the money which, in terms of mass, certainly they were.

MBNA print advertising, The Reader’s Digest, December, 1963.  In the twenty-first century, it may seem curious one of the world’s most expensive cars was being advertised in The Reader’s Digest with a hint at the 600’s role in the transport of diplomats but the publication at the time enjoyed a high penetration among “high net wealth families”.  It was only when it was revealed to be Ronald Reagan’s (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) favourite periodical its reputation among the educated began precipitously to decline.

So, late in 1963 when the advertising copy for the 600 began to appear in publications (which were not yet collectively “print media”), it was the “Grand Mercedes” which was being announced and in case the sense grandeur was lost on anyone, the prices were mentioned without descending to the vulgarity of numerals, the “five passenger sedan” at “nineteen-thousand five hundred dollars” and the “seven passenger limousine” a neat “twenty-four thousand dollars”.  At the time, the MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, exclusive of options and various charges) for Cadillacs ranged from US$5,048 to US$11,960 while standard-bodied Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud IIIs sold typically for around US$13,500 and the more expensive, coach-built Phantom V could be up to US$10,000 more, depending on the extent of the work ordered.  Ferrari’s then large range included the 275 GTB (US$11,750), 330 GTS (US$16,500), 250 GTO (at what sounds now a bargain US$18,000) and the 500 Superfast (US$24,400).  So the 600 was expensive and although Rolls-Royce was an obvious competitor, so was Ferrari; although very different machines, there were some buyers who, needing different cars for different purposes, ordered at least one of each.  The rich are different and while the copy mentions an arrival to the red carpet “without fanfare”, for those with a taste for such things, the 600 was equipped with a two-tone horn, the louder setting being loud.

MBNA print advertising, 1965.

While some of the 600 SWBs were chauffeur driven (a central divider (partition) was optional), exclusively, that was the target market for the Pullmans although one was built without the standard divider for an “owner-driver” (a Hollywood film director with a large family).  Accordingly, stand-alone advertisements for the Pullman were rare with the photographic focus tending to be split between (1) the visual impact on others were one to arrive being driven in one and (2) the opulence of the passenger compartment, enjoyed by those being driven.  Unlike most automotive advertising, when documenting the big limousines, there was little emphasis on the cockpits which were (by comparison with sedans) cramped, with the divider imposing a sometimes uncomfortably upright driving position.  These were cars designed for the comfort of the owners, not the help.  The mohair upholstery (cloth in the rear compartments of limousines a European tradition) rarely was specified in US-delivered 600s, the buyer preference overwhelmingly for leather.  Amusingly, upon request, the factory would trim a 600 in MB-Tex (a high-quality vinyl that was not not quite indestructible but was famously durable) but it’s believed none were built.  Visually indistinguishable from leather all MB-Tex lacked was the pleasure of the olfactory sensations hide provided but aerosol packs are available for those wanting the best of both worlds. 

Lindsay Lohan never forgave dictator Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When in 2011 told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as a victim of the "Arab Spring", she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Ms Lohan doesn’t approve of coups d'état and believes soldiers should "stay in the barracks" and allow due constitutional process to be followed.   

From the meaning “coarse in texture or quality” developed by the 1520s the sense “not sensitive, dull stupid” while that of “vulgar, coarse in a moral sense” emerged within a decade.  The early fifteenth century meaning “entire, total, whole, without deductions came via the earlier notion “general, not in detail” and in that sense became part of the standard language of accounting (the idea of a “gross profit” being the “before tax” number as opposed to the post-tax “net profit” was known in the 1520s) although the familiar GNP (GNP) didn’t appear until 1947.  The meaning “glaring, flagrant, monstrous” was in use by at least the 1580s and despite it sounding like “valley girl” dialect from the 1980s, the use of “gross” to mean “disgusting” was in US student slang in use by at least 1958; this meaning developed from the earlier use as an intensifier of unpleasant things ("gross stupidity" etc).  The phrase “gross-out” (make (someone) disgusted) became common in the early 1970s while that other favourite (grossness) was in use (purely as a marker of size) by the early 1400s with the more familiar sense of “state of being indelicate, rude, or vulgar” documented in the 1680s.  “Grossness” became a popular word on social media meaning variously “ugly, smelly, disgusting etc) and grossnessness was a twenty-first century adaptation applied more for amusing effect than emphasis.  The idea of a gross being “a dozen dozen” (ie 144) dates from the early fifteenth century from the Old French grosse douzaine (large dozen) although earlier it meant measure of weight equal to one-eighth of a dram.  The verb developed from the adjective in that the late nineteenth century meaning “"to earn a total of” may be compared with the adjectival use “whole, total”.

Lindsay Lohan (with un-done shoe laces) leaving the grocery store having stocked up on essentials, Los Angeles, 2008.  It's not known if her fondness for Doritos (Doritos the singular, plural and collective form, a single chip being "a Doritos chip") was formed or strengthened by them being on the product-placement list for Mean Girls (2004).

Historically, a grocer (used as a surname as early as the mid-thirteenth century) was a trader who owned or managed a grocery store in which were sold groceries; a specialized type was the greengrocer who stocked fresh fruits & vegetables from small shops, typically dotted around suburbs.  The origin of such folk being “grocers” is that they purchased their goods in bulk (ie “by the gross”) at a lower unit cost than if supplied individually or sold in small quantities.  It’s an idea probably as old as commerce itself (indeed, the very essence of trade is selling stuff for more than the cost of purchase/transport/storage etc) but “grocers” in a recognizably modern sense emerged in late thirteenth century Europe (they were known also as “providors” “spicers” or “purveyors”) when traders in the dry goods (sugar, spices etc and eventually tea, cocoa & coffee) which had become available in bulk as a result of European explorers reaching remote countries.  The trader bought their stock in bulk from wholesalers, splitting the items into the smaller quantities purchased by individual consumers.  Buying in bulk didn’t by definition imply everything bought “by the gross” (ie 12 dozen (144)) because different standard measures were used for different types of commodities but the principle was the same.  The word grocer came from grossier (French for “wholesaler”), from the from the Medieval Latin grossarius (wholesaler (literally “dealer in quantity” and the source also of the Spanish grosero and the Italian grossista), from the Late Latin grossus.  From the late 1600s until the 1850s, the word “grocery” referred to a place where people went to drink.

1970 Cadillac Eldorado: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 400 HP (gross).

Until 1971-1972, US car manufacturers quoted power outputs in “gross horsepower” (usually described as HP (horsepower) or BHP (brake horsepower) which meant the measure was taken on an engine dynamometer (the “brake” in BHP) without any power-sapping accessories (generator, alternator, power steering pump, water pump, AC (air-conditioning) compressor etc) being attached.  Additionally, optimised ignition timing was set, low-restriction exhaust headers were installed and neither air cleaners nor anti-emissions equipment were fitted.  What this produced was a number of interesting to engineers and those writing advertising copy but there was often quite a distant relationship to a customer’s experience with what they drove off the showroom floor.  By contrast net horsepower (defined by both the US SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm (German industrial standard)) tested the engine with all standard accessories installed (including regular induction & exhaust systems) and in all aspects tuned to factory specifications (ie the form in which the things would appear in showrooms).

For the consumer, use of the gross number wasn’t the only misleading thing about Detroit’s rated power outputs in the 1950s & 1960s.  Sometimes they were over-stated (exaggeration long the most common element in advertising) but increasingly the number came to be set artificially low.  In the latter cases, this was done variously to try to (1) fool the insurance companies (which had noted the striking correlates between horsepower and males aged 17-29), (2) not upset the politicians who were becoming aware of the increasing carnage on the roads) or (3) fool those setting the rules in competition (most infamously the 1968 Ford 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) CobraJet V8 which was rated at a most conservative 335 bhp which enabled it to dominate its class in drag-racing; after that the sanctioning body ignored manufacturers’ claims and set their own ratings).  So, for a variety of reasons, many HP claims were little more than “think of a number” and, late in the era of the crazy muscle cars (1969-1970), a some high-performance V8s were capable of generating as much as 100 gross bhp more than what was put on the tin.

1976 Cadillac Eldorado Convertible: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 190 HP (net).  The notional loss of 210 HP (52.5 %) of engine power was accounted for partly by the change in method from gross to net but the V8 was also detuned in the quest for lower emissions and reduced fuel consumption. Cadillac succeeded in the former; in the the latter not so much and the engine (the industry's biggest in the post-war years) was downsized, firstly to 425 (7.0, 1977-1979) and finally to 368 (6.0, 1980-1984).  When production ended in 1984, it was the last big-block V8 factory-fitted to a US-built passenger car.

Despite the urban myth (which still appears), the industry’s switch from the use of gross to net power ratings was not the product of a government edict or regulation although there was certainly a bit of a nudge because “consumer protection” and “truth-in-advertising” laws meant Detroit had to move closer to realism.  As early as the early 1960s, the emissions control hardware had made the gross readings even more misleading and the increasing use of these devices (PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valves, air pumps & retarded timing) materially reduced real-world power which, coupled with the reduction in compression ratios which came with the removal of lead from gas (petrol) meant that in 1970-1971, claimed HP began precipitously to fall.  In 1971-1972, although the reductions seemed severe, it was the change in method (gross to net) which accounted for most of the differences but over the next decade, as the emission rules tightened and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) standards were imposed, outputs really did fall; the manufacturers to some extent disguised this by re-tuning the thing to generate prodigious low-speed torque (at the expense of mid and upper-range power) but the differences really were obvious and the 1974-1984 period came to be known as the “malaise era” for a reason.

Grossadmiral and grossnessness: Official photograph of Großadmiral Alfred von Tirpitz (1849–1930; State Secretary of the German Imperial Naval Office 1897-1916) with his famous “twin-forked” beard (left) and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) in SA (Sturmabteilung (literally “Storm Division” but better known as the “brownshirts” or “stormtroopers”) uniform at a Reichsparteitag (Party Rally), Nuremberg (believed to be the 1934 event, right).

In countries of the common law tradition which criminalized make homosexual acts, historically, the offence of “gross indecency” (a non-penetrative sexual act) was the companion to the “detestable and abominable vice of buggery” (a non-penetrative sexual act).  For countries with legal systems base on the common law tradition, “negligence” & “gross negligence: are conceptually related but differ in degree (not kind); the practical distinction lies in culpability thresholds and legal consequences, which vary by jurisdiction and context.  Negligence (at law sometimes as “ordinary negligence”) is the failure to exercise the standard of care a “reasonable person” (also a concept with a long legal history) would in similar circumstances be expected to exercise.  Depending on the case, negligence may involve carelessness, inadvertence or a lack of due attention and does not imply “moral blameworthiness” beyond failing to meet the objective standard.  In England, although Lord Denning’s (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) quip: “gross negligence is negligence with a vituperative epithet” is often cited, in operation, the term has substantive effects and in the criminal law there is the offence of "gross negligence manslaughter".  The only ones who seem to continue (except in the most egregious cases) to remain exempt from being subject to the threshold standard of "gross negligence" are the doctors who seem still able to convince all and sundry every inconvenient death is "medical misadventure".   

“Gross negligence” is not at law a separate tort (although it can operate as if it is) and is an aggravated form of negligence, understood generally as a great departure from the standard of care, demonstrating reckless disregard or indifference to the safety or rights of others, thus judges having included in the judgments phrases such as “utter disregard for prudence”. “want of even scant care” and “conduct bordering on recklessness”.  While “gross negligence” does fall short of intentional wrongdoing, it can approach or even approximate recklessness on the spectrum of culpability and in many cases, contractual exclusions or liability waivers may bar claims for ordinary negligence but cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.  It’s also a standard administered on a “case-by-case” basis and certain immunities (such as statutory protections for volunteers or professionals) may not apply to gross negligence.  Were a medically untrained “good Samaritan”, attending to an injured person they’d stumbled upon, to do something which if done by a nurse or doctor might be thought “negligent”, they’d almost certainly not be held liable on that basis and even had it been a passing medical professional who had done the same act, the threshold of “gross negligence” still might not be met.

Map: World GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in PPP (purchasing power parity) 2025.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNP (Gross National Product) were once the most commonly used metrics economics calculated to measure a nation’s macroeconomic performance.  GDP measured the total market value of all final (ie end of process which may be multi-national) goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific period (usually a year or quarter although faster reporting mechanisms have resulted in some also producing “provisional” monthly outcomes).  GDP’s core principle is the “location of production” and included all domestically produced products, regardless of the corporate ownership structure which meant off-shore production by domestically owned companies was not included.  For economists and policy-makers, GDP remains attractive because (1) its movements tend to track (though not necessarily in unison) markers like employment & inflation and (2) it is relatively easy to accurately to measure; it continues to be used by most governments (including some of the larger, sub-national units) and institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations), World Bank, OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development) and BIS (Bank for International Settlements).

GNP (usually) is broader in that it measures the total market value of all final goods and services produced by a country’s nationals, regardless of where that production occurs, the core principle being ownership of the means of production & distribution.  Essentially, what GNP measures is (1) value of output produced by domestic-owned firms at home and off-shore and (2) income earned by individuals & companies from overseas investments; thus excluded is output produced domestically by foreign-owned firms meaning the difference between GDP & GNP can vary greatly between economies depending on their structure.  What links GDP & GNP is a mysterious formula (which began as an add-on for modelling tools) called NFIA (net factor income from abroad) explained as: FI earned by residents from abroad – FI earned by non-residents in the country meaning GNP = GDP + income earned by residents abroad.  NFIA is important to those wishing to analyse GNP because of the effect large multinational corporations (Japan, the UK & US emblematic examples) have on the calculations and, as a general principle, GDP tends better to reflects domestic economic activity while GNP is a better measure of aggregate national income available to residents.  The long-standing (if not always understood except as a comparative) GDP remains the standard “headline measure” most familiar to general observers while GNP is more useful for economists and other specialists.  Essentially, GDP is a measure of the value of local production while GNP calculates national income.  Economics being about money, GDP was thus something of an abstraction but GNP had limitations which is why economists created the newer GNI (Gross National Income) as a refinement GNP; it measure the same underlying concept (income accruing to a country’s resident) but is framed explicitly in terms of income terms rather than production.

Bhutan's construct of GNH (Gross National Happiness).

GNI is the total income earned by a country’s residents and businesses, including income from abroad and excluding income earned domestically by non-residents (ie GNI = GDP + net primary income from abroad) where “income” included (1) wages & salaries, (2) profits, operating surpluses and self-employment income and (3) property income (dividends, interest, reinvested earnings & rents).  GNI frequently aligns almost exactly with GNP and although GNP focuses on production by nationals whereas GNI emphasizes income received by residents, most major trans-national institutions (UN, IMF, BIS etc) tend to use GNI rather than GNP because (1) income is easier to interpret for welfare, savings and consumption analysis, (2) there is structural consistency with accounting frameworks and (3) the numbers are most adaptable to integration with modelling software handling inputs such as NDI (national disposable income), savings rates and balance of payments outcome.  Importantly, it’s also “meaty” for policy makers because governments tax and redistribute income, not gross output statistics.  GNI is thus something of an international standard although the government of Bhutan calculates and publishes an index of GNH (Gross National Happiness) which, philosophically, puts a premium on collective happiness over economic growth.  Although the formula has over the years been made more sophisticated, it’s based still on “four pillars”: cultural preservation, sustainable development, environmental conservation and good governance.