Viscacha or vizcacha

Viscacha or vizcacha (pronounced vi-skah-chuh)

A gregarious burrowing hystricomorph rodent (Lagostomus maximus), of the genera Lagidium and Lagostomus, within family Chinchillidae, about the size of a groundhog, inhabiting the pampas of Paraguay and Argentina and allied to the smaller chinchilla, also from the family Chinchillidae.  It’s known also at the mountain viscacha, a related rodent of the genus Lagidium (of the Andes), about the size of a squirrel, having rabbit-like ears and a squirrel-like tail.

1595–1605: From the Spanish viscacha from Quechua wisk’acha or Quechuan wiskácha.  The Spanish Quechua is from qhichwa (literally “temperate valley”).  With use depending on prevailing practice, both the spellings viscacha & vizcacha are used in various branches of biology and zoology, the older alternatives biscacha, biscacho & bizcacha now rare except in historic citation.  The noun plural is viscachas and the derived term is viscachera (plural viscacheras) which describes a warren inhabited by viscachas.

Vizcacha moments: Time for the world weary to take a nap; Lindsay Lohan (left) joining a viscacha (right) in a yawn.

The viscachas or vizcachas, of which there are five extant species, are rodents of the genera (Lagidium and Lagostomus) within the family Chinchillidae.  Native to South America, despite looking similar to rabbits or hares, they’re not related to either and are thus of interest to evolutionary biologists because they’re an example of convergent evolution.  When biologists first saw the viscacha they noted the question of heritage: mammals part of the Leporidae family (rabbit) or the Chinchillidae family (Chinchilla)?  Sharing the large ears, powerful hind legs, and small front paws, Vizcachas do bear a striking resemblance to the rabbit family but are distinguished by their long bushy tail, a trait unique to the Chinchillidae family.  Helpful for biologists as a species indicator, for the small rodent, it’s a marker of their state of mind, the tail is extended when distressed and curled when at ease.

Residing throughout southern and western South America, they tend to stay close to their underground burrows but possess surprising dexterity as climbers, able to jump from rock to rock so effortlessly and with such alacrity observers report their progress is hard to track with the naked eye.  They live in colonies that can be barely a dozen or number in the hundreds and have acquired an extensive repertoire of vocalizations used in social interactions.  Small they may be but Vizcachas are voluble and, belying their sleepy appearance, are noted for their gregarious behavior.

Up to two feet (.6 m) in length and weighing typically around 3.5 lbs (1.6 kg), Vizcachas are relatively large by rodent standards but are small compared to their carnivorous neighbors, the Puma and Culpeo Fox.  These two are fierce predators but the fast, agile Vizcacha has the advantage of inhabiting a mountainous environment littered with boulders and rocks which is difficult hunting ground so doesn’t suffer greatly from predation induced population decline.  The main threat is humans, less from the habitat loss which threatens some species but because of illegal hunting for their meat and fur, luxury items in some markets.

There are spiritual traditions in which exists the concept of the spirit animal, a creature the spirit of which is said to help guide or protect a person on a journey and the characteristics of which that person shares or embodies.  The apparently ancient concept is prominent in a number of indigenous (notably Native American) religions and cultures and was embraced by Pagan and Wiccan communities as recently as the 1990s and the term totem was sometimes used.  Totem was from the Native North American Ojibwe ᑑᑌᒼ or ᑑᑌᒻ (doodem) and referred to a sacred object, symbol or spirit and in a sense can be thought of as the equivalent of a flag (in the case of a tribe) or coat of arms (in the case of a clan).  The word totem became widely used by anthropologists when discussing cultural practices in many places (and not just in North America).  In academic use where it's a neutral descriptor this is usually not controversial but in general use it can be a form of cultural misappropriation.  In the West, the idea of spirit animals was picked up in the weird world of the new age, dolphins and other charismatic creatures predictably popular.  The concept turned out also to have appeal to some among the less spiritual who adopted the viscacha as their spirit animal because there is seemingly no living thing on earth with an appearance which so encapsulates the qualities of the melancholic, world-weariness and the need to take a nap.

Vizcacha moments: Jiang Zemin (1926–2022; General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (and thus paramount leader) 1989-2002 & President of the People's Republic of China (PRC) 1993-2003), yawning (left) and resting his eyes (right) during one of the less interesting speeches delivered as part of the otherwise riveting proceedings of the nineteenth congress of the CCP, Beijing, October 2017.  Western diplomats noted that, unusually among those in the senior echelon of the CCP, Mr Jiang could at times seem almost "exuberant" (a contrast to his two more dour successors) but in retirement he may have adopted the viscacha as his spirit animal, the creature quite suited to his more somnolent lifestyle.

The Ciano Diaries, 1939-1943.  Although a literary genre not always renowned for accuracy, historians regard Ciano's among the more reliable.

One can understand Mr Jiang taking a moment to rest his eyes during the congress.  After half a lifetime in politics, some of it in the era when “a fatal error” was not a figurative phrase, he’d probably heard it all before and could sense when he could “tune out” for a while.  Cases have often been documented of those for whom continued attention becomes just too much and one who caused more vizcacha moments than most was Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) whose repetitive and seemingly endless monologues (touching discursively on subjects such as art, architecture, dog breeding, artificial honey, the church, philosophy and vegetarianism) came to be dreaded by almost all compelled to sit and endure a session.  Count Galeazzo Ciano (1903–1944; Italian foreign minister 1936-1943 (and the son-in-law of Benito Mussolini who ordered his execution)) was, like us all, a flawed character but he had a diarist’s eye and in his entries left some of the most vivid recollections of the World War II era.  In the Austrian city of Salzburg in May, 1942 he attended a series of meetings along with Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) and the two senior figures from the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (the German military's high command)), Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Wilhelm Keitel (1882–1946; chief of OKW 1938-1945) and Generaloberst (Colonel General) Alfred Jodl (1890–1946, chief of the OKW operations staff 1939-1945), noting in his diary one “epic struggle”:

“Hitler talks, talks, talks, talks.  Mussolini suffers—he, who is in the habit of talking himself, and who, instead, practically has to keep quiet.  On the second day, after lunch, when everything had been said, Hitler talked uninterruptedly for an hour and forty minutes. He omitted absolutely no argument: war and peace, religion and philosophy, art and history.  Mussolini automatically looked at his wrist watch, I had my mind on my own business, and only Cavallero, who is a phenomenon of servility, pretended he was listening in ecstasy, continually nodding his head in approval.  Those, however, who dreaded the ordeal less than we did were the Germans.  Poor people.  They have to take it every day, and I am certain there isn’t a gesture, a word, or a pause which they don’t know by heart.  General Jodl, after an epic struggle, finally went to sleep on the divan. Keitel was reeling, but he succeeded in keeping his head up.  He was too close to Hitler to let himself go as he would have liked to do.”

Deodand

Deodand (pronounced dee-uh-dand)

(1) In English law (prior to 1846), an animal or a personal chattel (the scope later extended) that, having been the immediate, accidental cause of the death of a human being, was forfeited to the Crown to be sold with the money gained applied originally to pious uses.

(2) In English law (prior to 1846), A fine paid to the Crown, equal to the value of a deodand, paid by the owner of the object and subsequently applied originally to pious uses.

1520–1530: From the late thirteenth century Anglo-French deodande, from the Medieval Latin deōdandum (a thing) to be given to God, the construct being the Classical Latin deō (to God (dative singular of deus (god)) + dand(um) to be given (neuter gerund of “dare to give”) from the primitive Indo-European root do- (to give).  Deus was from the primitive Indo-European root dyeu- (to shine and (in derivatives” “sky, heaven, god”).  Deodand is a noun; the noun plural is deodands.

That the doctrine of deodand was a medieval legal relic (the earliest recorded instances of use in England dating from the eleventh century) is not that remarkable because in that it was one of a number; what’s remarkable is it remained part of the common law until the mid-1800s.  The concept was first well documented in thirteenth century legal texts and historians have concluded this “semi-codification” reflected the earlier religious tradition which held an object which caused a death was “tainted” and should be removed from profane use.  In that, it inherited older notion from Roman civil law of noxae deditio (literally “surrender for the wrongdoing” and in English law written usually as “noxal surrender”), the construct being noxae (harm, injury, wrongdoing) + deditio (surrender, giving up).  Noxae deditio was a legal mechanism (in response to what would now be called a writ) with which the owner of an animal or slave (The Romans really did make a distinction) could avoid liability for delicts (wrongs) committed by them by surrendering the animal or slave to the injured party as an alternative to paying damages.  Intriguingly, at certain times, the doctrine was extended to sons (though apparently not daughters) in circumstances where an action was brought against a paterfamilias (the head of a household), on the basis he was held to be responsible for the son’s acts.  Literally, the son could be “handed over”, either until they attained statutory adulthood or for a specified period, depending on the damages assessed.  A similar idea was the Old English wergeld, from the Proto-West Germanic werageld, the construct being wer (man) +‎ ġield (payment).  It was a form of compensation paid by a transgressor to a victim, or (as “blood money) to the victim's family if the victim were dead (the quantum decided by social rank).  The concept is familiar in many societies and is sometimes formalized in Islamic systems using the Sharia Law where the victim’s family can be involved in determining not only how much blood money should be paid but also whether there should be a payment as an alternative to a death sentence.

What evolved in English common law was the rule under which, if a person was killed by an animal, vehicle, tool or other inanimate object, that object was declared a “deodand” to be forfeited to the Crown.  Reflecting the theological basis for this, notionally the surrender was “to God”, but quickly the standard practice became to appraise the value of the beast or object and levy a fine in that sum.  Although the documentary evidence is patchy, it appears originally the forfeited property (or cash from the fine) was devoted to pious uses such as alms (ie charity for the poor) or (as was the usual trend when a revenue stream was identified) ecclesiastical purposes such as building churches or stained glass windows.  Later (another trend being squabbles between church & state), deodans became a source of consolidated royal revenue.  The rationale was partly religious (atonement), partly superstitious (removing the dangerous object), and partly fiscal (Crown revenue).

The school bus scene: In Mean Girls (2004), had Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978)) been killed by the school bus, the vehicle would have been declared a deodand and forfeited to the state although the usual practice was for its value to be assessed and an order for a payment in that sum to be served on the owner.

It was a simple concept but because there was much variation in the circumstances in which a deodand could be declared, the case law reveals inconsistencies in the verdicts.  Were someone to be killed by being run over by a horse-drawn cart, depending on this and that, the deodand might be found to be the cart and horse, the cart or horse alone or even just the particular wheel which crushed the unfortunate deceased.  One of the reasons for the variance is that in many instances the matter was determined not by a judge or magistrate working from precedent but (at coroners’ inquests) by juries which would both define the deodand and assess its value.  Given that, on what appear to be similar facts (a sailor who drowned after being struck by a mast), the deodand might be found to be the whole vessel or merely the mast.  In such cases, the issue was which object (or part of an object) should be held to be the “guilty instrument” and that was a process not simple to define, things made more difficult still by the opinions of jury members being so diverse and prone to be influenced by the identity of both the victim(s) and the owner of the object(s).

Aftermath of the explosion of a locomotive’s steam boiler.  If reduced to scrap by the event in which someone died, the jury could assess the value of the object in its "pre-event" condition.

By the eighteenth century, deodands had become largely devices of reference in that actual confiscation of objects was rare with an assessment of their monetary value to set the fine to be paid the standard practice.  Lawyers, politicians and (especially) those in commerce were critical of the system as irrational and even then there were traces of what would evolve as the modern notions of negligence and responsibility; critiques of deodand came both from what would now be described as “the right” and “the left”.  Those who owned the objects which became lethal instruments argued it was unfair they be punished so severely for what were, however tragic, “mere accidents”, pointing out the system discouraged industrial enterprise while those advocating for victims pointed out it was the state which gained the proceeds of the fines while victims’ families (many of which had lost their sole breadwinner) gained nothing.  What finally brought about the end of deodand was it being overtaken by the industrial age in which deaths came routinely to occur in clusters.  It was the multiple fatalities in marine and train accidents (infamously the Hull Tragedy (1838) and the Sonning Cutting Disaster (1840)) which attracted press coverage and public debate; in each case a “certificate of deodand” was attached to the machinery and, given the cavalier attitude of railway operators towards safety, it was hardly surprising coroners’ juries had little hesitation in declaring a locomotive and its rolling-stock a deodand.  That was obviously an expensive threat to capitalism and the lobbying by these vested interest resulted in parliament abolishing deodands by the Deodands Act 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c.62).

Tallahassee Democrat, 13 October 1991.

The Daytona Yellow 1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 coupé is the rarest and most valuable C3 Corvette (1968-1982) made, the “other ZL1” a Monaco Orange Roadster having a less pure pedigree (although at auction in January 2023 it realized US$3.14 million.  The yellow ZL1 last changed hands in October 1991 when it was sold in a government forfeiture auction for US$300,000 (then a lot of money) after being seized by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency).

The Act however was part of a reform process and the early initiatives included the statutes which would by the mid twentieth century evolve into modern negligence and compensation law, the most significant of the early steps being the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (Lord Campbell’s Act) which for the first time codified the idea of the “wrongful death claim” and permitted families to sue on this basis.  Although now largely forgotten, the 1846 act was a significant marker of the transition of English law from a medieval, semi-religious system of atonement to a modern, rationalized law of tort, product liability and compensation.

Echoes do however remain in certain legal doctrines of forfeiture (such as state seizures of the proceeds of crime) and the US practice of civil asset forfeiture does, at least in a philosophical sense, sometimes treat property as “guilty”.  The US law provides for property (cars, boats, money etc) connected with the commission of a crime to be seized by the state even if the owner, personally, wasn’t “guilty”; it’s a modern interpretation of the medieval view the object itself bore responsibility.  What this means is the legal rationale is structurally similar to what once was the religious justification: What once was “given to God” as expiation as atonement for sin translates now into deterrence as an expression of public policy (removing dangerous tools or preventing criminals from profiting).  As a kind of “legal fiction”, under both regimes the object is treated as if it possesses some kind of independent agency.  Intriguingly, as an administrative convenience, that idea survived in Admiralty Law under which vessels can in suits be “personified”, thus cases like “The SS <ship name> v. Cargo”, the model for civil asset forfeiture procedures in which the object is the defendant (such as “United States v. One 1969 Chevrolet Corvette”).

Building from Biblical tradition, the idea of independent agency had a curious history in the legal systems of Christendom and in Europe from the Middle Ages through the early modern period, animals could be put on trial (in both secular courts and ecclesiastical courts) for murder.  These trials followed legal procedures similar to those in which a human was the accused although, obviously, cross-examination was somewhat truncated.  The most commonly tried animals were pigs, simply because it wasn’t uncommon for them freely to roam in urban areas and attacks on babies and infants were frequent.  In Normandy in 1386, a sow was dressed in human clothing and publicly executed for killing a child while at Châlons in 1499, a sow and her six piglets were tried; the sow was executed for killing a man, while the piglets were acquitted due to “lack of evidence.”  Nor were the defendants exclusively porcine, bulls and horses occasionally executed for killing people and in ecclesiastical courts there are many records of rodents and insects being charged with damaging crops.  Presumably because every day of the week rodents and insects were killed just for “being guilty of being rodents and insects”, ceremonial executions wouldn’t have had much symbolic value so the usual result handed down was excommunication(!) or a demand (from God, as it were) the creatures vacate the fields in which they were consuming the crops.

Perpetually hungry weevils enjoying lunch in a granary.

Sometimes the ecclesiastical courts could be imaginative.  In the Italian region of Tyrol in 1713, the priests ordered the hungry weevils to leave the vineyards where they were such a plague but in compensation granted their occupation of a barren piece of land as an alternative habitat.  The reaction of the insects to the ruling would have been rather as King Cnut (better known as Canute, circa 990–1035; King of England 1016-1035) would have predicted but despite that, there’s no record of the weevils being held in contempt of court.  Regrettably, there's no generally accepted collective noun for weevils but weevilage (a portmanteau word, the blend being weevil + (vill)age) seems more compelling than Adelognatha (the scientific term referring to a group of Curculionidae (a family of weevils) characterized by a specific anatomical feature).  There was at least some theological basis for the ecclesiastical courts claiming entomological jurisdiction because in scripture it was written beasts are God’s creatures like all others and over them God granted dominion to man (Genesis 1:26-28 (King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611)):

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Bovine trial in progress, rendered as a line drawing by Vovsoft.

The principle was animals could be held accountable for causing harm and this was taken especially seriously when the harm caused was something like that of a crime a human might commit (like murder) and in the secular courts, if the victim was someone of some importance, the proceedings could involve defense lawyers, witnesses, and formal sentencing.  In the ecclesiastical courts, it was more symbolic or ritualistic: insects and rodents might be “summoned” but of course they never turned up so excommunication or other curses were invoked.  By the eighteenth century, the thinkers of the Enlightenment had prevailed and the idea of animals as moral agents was so ridiculed the practice of charging them was almost wholly abandoned although in certain circumstances an owner could be held liable for the damage they caused.  There was though the odd, rural holdout.  In Normandy in 1845 a sow was executed for killing a child (in the legal archives listed as the last “classic pig trial” (the last in the US held in New Hampshire in 1819)) and in Switzerland in 1906 a dog was sentenced to death for a similar offence (this believed to be Europe’s last “animal trial”).

Snack

Snack (pronounced snak)

(1) A small portion of food or drink or a light meal, especially one eaten between regular meals.

(2) In the phrase “go snack”, to share profits or returns (mostly archaic).

(3) In slang, someone physically attractive and sexually desirable (regionally limited).

(4) To have a snack or light meal, especially between regular meals.

1300–1350: From the Middle English verb snacchen, snacche, snache & snak & noun snacche, snak & snakee (to snap at, bite, seize (as of dogs) and cognate with the Middle Dutch snacken (to snap (as of dogs), from snakken and a variant of snappen (to snap)) and the Norwegian dialect snaka (to snatch (as of animals)).  In many European languages, snack is used in the same sense though in Swedish technically it’s deverbal of snacka (to chat, to talk).  The pleasing recent noun snackette is either (1) A small shop or kiosk selling snacks or (2) smaller than usual snacks (the word often used by dieters to distinguish their snacks from the more indulgent choices of others).  The synonyms include morsel, refreshment, bite, eats, goodies, nibble, pickings & tidbit (often misused as "titbit").  Specific classes of snack include "halal snack" (one which would be approved by a ayatollah, mufti, mullah etc as conforming to the strictures of Islam) and kosher snack (one which would be approved by a rabbi (or other rabbinical authority) as conforming to the dietary rules in Judaism).  Snack is a noun, adjective & verb, snackability, snackette & snackery are nouns, snackable is a noun & adjective snacking & snacked are verbs and snacky, snackish & snakelike are adjectives; the noun plural is snacks.

Cadbury Snack.

The original Middle English verb (to bite or snap (as of dogs), probably came either from the Middle Dutch or Flemish snacken (to snatch, snap; chatter), the source of which is uncertain although one etymologist traces it to a hypothetical Germanic imitative root snu- used to form words relating to the snout or nose.  The sense of "having a bite to eat; a morsel or light meal” dates from 1807.  The noun snack (a snatch or snap (especially that of a dog) developed from the verb and emerged circa 1400.  The meaning extended to "a snappish remark" by the 1550s and "a share, portion, part" by the 1680s (hence the now archaic expression “go snacks” which meant "share, divide; have a share in").  The familiar modern meaning "a small dish morsel to eat hastily" was first noted in 1757.  The first snack bar (a place selling snacks) seems to have opened in 1923 and the similar (often smaller, kiosk-type operations) snackettes were a creation of US commerce in the 1940s.  Snack bars could be either stand-alone businesses or something operating within a stadium, theatre, cinema etc.  The commercial plural form "snax" was coined in 1942 for the vending machine trade and the term “snack table” has been in use since circa 1950.

Nestlé Salted Caramel Munchies.

Functionally (though not etymologically) related was munchies (food or snack) from 1959, the plural of the 1917 munchie (snack eaten to satisfy hunger) from the 1816 verb munch (to eat; to chew).  The familiar (to some) phrase “got the munchies” in the sense of "craving for food after smoking weed (marijuana)" was US stoner slang which was first documented in 1971 but Nestlé corporation’s Munchies weren’t an opportunistic attempt to grab the attention of weed smokers.  The chocolate Munchies pre-date the slang use of the word by over a decade, introduced in 1957 by the Mackintosh company, Nestlé acquiring the brand in 1988 when it acquired Rowntree Mackintosh and it’s not known if the slang use can be attributed to some stoner coming back from the shop with a bag-full of the snacks and telling his grateful and ravenous companions “I’ve got the Munchies” but it's such a good explanation it should be accepted as verified fact; etymologists who disagree have no soul.  Munchies were originally milk chocolates with a caramel and biscuit centre but the range has in recent years proliferated to include centres of mint fondant, chocolate fudge, cookie dough and salted caramel.  The latest variation has been to use a white chocolate shell; this described as a “limited-edition” but it’s presumed if demand exists, it will become a standard line.

Lindsay Lohan stocking up her snack stash, London, 2008.

This is use of the word "snack" in the most modern sense: pre-packaged items designed usually for one or for a small group to share.  Although most associated with "treats and indulgences" (chocolate bars the classic example), not all snacks can be classified as "junk food" and there's a whole sub-section of the industry dedicated to the production (and, perhaps more to the point, marketing) of "healthy snacks".  Critics however caution that unless it's simply a convenient packaging of a "whole food" (such as nuts which have been processed only to the extend of being shelled), the label should be studied because even food regarded in its natural state as a "healthy choice" can be less so when processed.  The markers to assess include the obvious (fat, salt, sugar) as well as chemicals and other additives, some with names only an industrial chemist would recognize.

Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the Australian Liberal Party 2022-2025) enjoying a “Dagwood Dog”, Brisbane Ekka (Exhibition), August 2022.  Because of the context (event, location, not sitting at a table, dish, time of day), this he would probably have regarded “a snack” rather than “a meal”.  The “Dagwood Dog” was a local variant of the “HotDog” or “Corn Dog” and Mr Dutton never denied being a Freemason.

A “snack” is by definition both (1) of a lesser quantity than a “meal” and (2) eaten at a different time than the meal (as conventionally defined: breakfast, lunch, dinner) but there are nuances.  For some, the infamous “midnight snack” (a late-night or early-morning trip to the bridge for those who awake with hanger pangs or who can’t sleep because they are so hungry) sometimes evolves, ad-hoc, into what others would call “a meal” while the curious “supper” can be anything from a “light snack” to a synonym for “dinner”.  Additionally, it’s variable by individual: what a Sumo wrestler calls a “snack” might well for a week feed a ballerina.  So there’s nothing which exactly defines the point at which a “snack” should properly be called a “meal” because it’s something geographically, culturally and individualistically deterministic.  A hot dog presented on a plate might be called “a meal” whereas one eaten while wandering around the Minnesota State Fair might be though “a snack”.  It’s tempting to imagine (at least in Western culture) that if utensils (knife, fork, chopsticks et al) are used it must be a meal and snacks are inherently finger food but the list of exceptions to that will be long.

Snack-shaming: A specific sub-genre of "fat-shaming", the modern convention is that when seen with shopping carts laden with processed snacks, fat people may be photographed and posted on social media, provided their identity adequately is concealed.

A snack for one can also be something like an apple or banana (the latter pre-packaged by nature with its own bio-degradable wrapping) and "snack" was used to describe such quick and easy "bites to eat" by the early eighteenth century, building on the slightly early use meaning "a quickly prepared meal" (as opposed to an elaborate dish) and the term became popular to describe meals carried by workers (the sandwich the exemplar) to eat on their break.  Prior to that "to snack" was to suggest one was having just part of the whole (such as a "slice of cake") and that use was from the traditional use of the word to mean "a portion" of just about anything (land, money, food etc).  As English evolved, the word came to be associated almost exclusively with food and the now rare slang use in the finance industry is the only survivor of earlier use.  It has though become an idiomatic form: (1) A person with an obviously high BMI (body mass index (ie looks fat)) can be "snack-shamed" if (1a) observed eating unhealthy snacks or (1b) with supermarket cart loaded with them; (2) A "snack-slut" is one who can't resist snacking and is used as a self-descriptor (socially acceptable and usually amusing if subject has low BMI); (3) A "snaccident" (a portmanteau word, the blend being snac(k) + (ac)cident)) refers to a snack eaten "by accident" and the validity of such excuses must be assessed on a case-by-case-basis (again, tends to be BMI-dependent); (4) A "snackery" is (4a) a place where one buys one's snacks or (4b) an informal term used to describe the place where dead fat people are sent (on the model of "knackery" (a slaughterhouse where animal carcasses unfit for human consumption or other purposes are rendered down to produce useful materials such as adhesives)); (5) A "snackette" is variously (5a) an especially small snack, (5b) a small outlet selling snacks (on the model of "luncheonette" (a small restaurant with a limited range of dishes)) or (5c) a (usually one-off) sexual partner about whom one has no future plans.               

Lunch

Lunch (pronounced luhnch)

(1) A light midday meal between breakfast and dinner; luncheon.

(2) Any light meal or snack.

(3) To eat lunch.

(4) In slang, as “out to lunch”, dim, vague, uselessly ineffectual.

(5) In slang as “lunchy”, old-fashioned; passé; out of style (obsolete).

(6) In slang as “eating their lunch”, outwitting an opponent.

(7) In Caribbean slang (among older folk), mid afternoon tea.

(8) In first-class cricket, the break in play between the first and second sessions (confusingly for those new to cricket, although the first session is often called the "pre-lunch session", the second is known as the "lunch session" and not the "post lunch session").

(9) In Minnesota, USA, any small meal, especially one eaten at a social gathering.

1580:  It’s never been clear which came first: lunch or luncheon.  Origin of both is thought to lie in a dissimilated variant of nuncheon, the Middle English nonechenche (noon ling meal and drink), equivalent to none (noon) + schench (from the Old English scenc or scencan (to pour out, give drink)), cognate with the Dutch and German schenken.  Apparent unrelated, Old English had nonmete (afternoon meal, literally "noon-meat").  Nonechenche was possibly altered by the northern English dialect lunch (hunk of bread or cheese) from 1590 which may be from lump or the Spanish lonja (slice, literally “loin”).  Because dinner in the sense of the biggest or main meal of the day) could be eaten either at around noon, in the evening or at night, there was a need for a meal to fill the gap between breakfast and dinner.  Lunch is a noun & verb, luncher is a noun, lunching is a noun & verb and lunched is a verb; the noun plural is lunches.

A montage of a languid Lindsay Lohan lingering over lunch.

The idea of lunch as it’s now understood took a long time to evolve, to “take a lunch” in 1786 is recorded as eating a chunk of something (perhaps evolved from lump), carved sufficiently large to constitute a filling meal and as late as 1817, the US Webster’s Dictionary offered as the only definition of lunch "a large piece of food", a meaning long obsolete and in the 1820s, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) thought it either “a vulgarism or a fashionable affectation".   Nevertheless, lunch’s intrusion into the language in the nineteenth century does suggest some sort of social change was afoot, either in the type, style or timing of meals or at least the words used to describe them.  Lunch-money was attested from 1868; lunch-time from 1821; lunch hour from 1840 and the lunch-break from 1960.  The slang phrase out to lunch in the sense of “a bit vague, dim, clueless (but some way short of actually insane) was first recorded in recorded 1955, the notion of being "not there" and instead at lunch.  The luncheon voucher was a public health measure, introduced in 1946 by the UK’s post-war Labour government (1945-1951).  It was literally a paper voucher which represented the mechanism by which the government would subsidize midday meals taken in private restaurants by employees in workplaces where there was no staff canteen.  Luncheon vouchers were an attempt to improve the national diet by encouraging the consumption of healthy, nutritious food at a time when so many basic items were still subject to the rationing imposed during wartime (indeed, some foodstuffs were subject to rationing only after the conflict ceased).  In an example of bureaucratic inertia, the scheme existed to an extent until 2013 by which time the effects of inflation had made the by then trivial subsidy inconsequential.

Receptacles in which to store one’s lunch for transport have a history.  The lunch-box is documented from 1864, the lunch-pail from 1891.  Those were descriptive nouns whereas lunch-bucket emerged in the 1990s as an adjective indicating working-class men or values, bucket presumably the best word because it was universally understood in the English-speaking world to an extent pail was not.  Lunch-bag seems never to have become a common form despite being widely used but in the 1970s, the verb brown-bag (and the related brown-bagging) referring to bringing lunch or liquor in a brown paper bag.  A long-time staple of a lunch-pail’s contents, lunch-meat (a processed form of meat-based protein produced in a size which, when sliced, was aligned with the slices of standard loaves of bread and thus convenient for making sandwiches) was first documented in 1931.  The lunch-counter (a long, elevated table or bench where customers eat standing or sitting on high stools) is an 1854 invention of US English.

The possible future of lunch: Grilled jellyfish.  Although many fish species are in decline, jellyfish numbers are growing.  The part eaten for lunch is called the umbrella. 

The portmanteau word brunch dates from circa 1890, a British student slang merging of breakfast and lunch, according to the magazine Punch (1 August 1896).  It appeared in 1895 in the defunct Hunter's Weekly, but two years earlier, at the University of Oxford, the students had drawn what must at the time have seemed an important distinction: The combination-meal, when nearer the usual breakfast hour, is "brunch" and, when nearer luncheon, is "blunch".  That’s a linguistic curiosity in that the brunch survived while blunch did not yet the modern understanding of a brunch appears to be something taken closer to the time of lunch than breakfast.  It may be that brunch was just the more pleasingly attractive word, blunch not so well rolling off the tongue.  Several spellings of luncheon were noted in the decades after the 1640s, the now standardised form not widespread until 1706.  Of uncertain origin, in the 1580s was used to describe something like the northern English dialectal lunch (hunk of bread or cheese), though influenced by the Spanish lonja (a slice, literally "loin"), blended with or influenced by nuncheon, from the mid-fourteenth century Middle English nonechenche, (light mid-day meal), from none (noon) + schench (drink), from the Old English scenc, from scencan (pour out).

The possible future of lunch: Fishcakes.  Fishcakes are a way by-products of the industrial processing of seafood can be sold as a protein source (ie make use of what would be otherwise used for agricultural feed, the pet-food business or end up a waste product.

The etymology of all these words is tangled and there are reasons to suspect the similar forms arose independently in different place rather than as forks of anything vaguely lineal, the OED discounting the notion of lunching, which dates from the 1650s, being derived from the verb lunch because that wasn’t to be attested for another century, the OED suggesting there may be some connection (by analogy) with words like truncheon etc to simulate a French origin which is speculative but such things are not unknown in ever class-conscious England.  Whatever the origin, it does seem to have been used to describe an early afternoon meal eaten by those who take dinner at noon.

Sauce

Sauce (pronounced saws)

(1) Any preparation, now presented almost always as a liquid or semi-liquid, added in a variety of way to food to enhance (sometimes disguise) the taste or accentuate the texture.

(2) Stewed fruit, often puréed and served as an accompaniment to meat, dessert, or other food (always with a modifier: apple sauce, cranberry sauce etc).

(3) Figuratively, to make poignant; to give zest, flavor or interest to; to set off; to vary and render attractive.

(4) In informal use, (usually as saucy or sauciness), impertinence; impudence, defiant cheekiness etc.

(5) In the slang of bodybuilding, anabolic steroids or compounds with similar effects.

(6) In the slang of drug users, a variety of substances, usually those taken in liquid form.

(7) In slang (usually as “the sauce” or “on the sauce”) alcoholic drink.

(8) In slang as “the sauce” or “secret sauce”, some additive or attribute which imparts to someone or something a particular vitality or capability.

(9) In slang, to send or hand over (now rare).

(10) In the slang of the internet, an alternative form of source, often used when requesting the source of an image or other posted material (a use mysterious to those over a certain age).

(11) In art, a soft crayon for use in stump drawing or in shading with the stump.

(12) Garden vegetables eaten with meat (archaic and effectively extinct although examples have been cited in “retro” menus).

(13) To dress or prepare with sauce (historically also as “to season”.

(14) To make a sauce of (fruits, vegetables etc).

(15) To give piquance or zest to something (not necessarily something edible); To cause to relish anything, as if with a sauce; to tickle or gratify, as the palate; to please; to stimulate.

(16) To make something more agreeable or seem less harsh (often as “sauced up” or “sauce it up”).

1300–1350: From the Middle English, from the Middle French, from the Old French sauce, sausse & sause, from the Vulgar Latin salsa (things salted, salt food), noun use of feminine of the Latin salsus (salted), the past participle of sallere (to sprinkle with salt), from sāl (genitive salis), from the primitive Indo-European root sal-(salt).  The spelling sawce is obsolete.  Sauce is a noun & verb, sauced & saucing are verbs and oversauced & sauceless are adjectives; the noun plural is sauces.

Dave’s Gourmet White Truffle Marinara Sauce.

A pasta sauce said to be hand-made using artisanal techniques, it contains vine-ripened tomatoes, white truffle and edible gold flakes.  Offered only in a one-off limited-edition and supplied in a hand-crafted wooden box, the RRP (recommended retail price) was US$1000 per jar.

The original use of "sauce" was to describe the food condiment and until the early eighteenth century the spellings sawce & salse remained common in English, reflecting the influence of French cookery terms.  The seemingly mysterious seventeenth century use of sauce to mean “garden vegetables or roots” was a clipping of “garden-sauce”, the idea being that like a liquid sauce, the vegetables worked as a condiment to the meat.  From the late fourteenth century, it was used to describe “a curative preparation, medicinal salt”, referencing also the use in Antiquity to use (salsa) salt to preserve food.  The figurative meaning “something which adds piquancy to words or actions” was in use by the early sixteenth century while the sense of “impertinence” was first recorded in 1835 although etymologists note the connection of ideas in it is much older.  The use related to liquor (“back on the sauce” etc)" emerged during World War II (1939-1945).  The figurative phrase “serued with the same sauce” (subject to the same kind of usage) was in use by the 1520s while the more enduring “what’s sauce of the goose is sauce for the gander” (one who treats others in a certain way should not complain about receiving the same treatment) was first recorded in the 1670s.  William Shakespeare (1564–1616) used “saucy” to indicate a character’s was hot-tempered or impetuous, such as Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet (1597) or Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew (1592).  That use persists but “saucy” is now used also (of women) to suggest a quality of a confident sexiness.

Swamp Dragon's Second Edition Private Reserve Hot Sauce.

The title of "world's hottest sauce" is often contested and chilli breeders are always working to create ever more aggressive peppers.  Blended with a measure of the over-proof dark rum once distilled for the Royal Navy, given the arms race in the field, whether it's still the hottest is doubtful but it apparently remains the most expensive yet advertised at US$500 per bottle.  Unfortunately, it's now sold out so doubtlessly a foodie collectors' item.

In idiomatic use, the now archaic Australian phrase “fair shake of the sauce bottle” was a complaint that one’s fish & chips, meat pie or whatever hadn’t been provided with enough tomato sauce, a cultural comment of some historic significance given the stuff’s role as the nation’s standard all-purpose additive.  The phrase fell from use and is remembered only by the boomer generation and their seniors but it garnered some brief attention when in a television interview Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013) used “fair suck of the sauce bottle”, a variant of “fair suck of the sav”, the idea of that the echo of a complaint once heard from children who believed their sibling might be taking more than their fair portion of a shared saveloy (a type of sausage which in Australia is something like a bigger and more seasoned frankfurter).  The word was a corruption of cervelat (Swiss smoked beef or pork sausage) or the French cervelas (a thick, short sausage) and the name is probably in some way connected with the region of Savoy (which, with border changes, now straddles areas in Italy, France & Switzerland).  Sucking from a sauce bottle is a vivid image, especially if it contains something like chilli sauce.

Quite how many varieties of sauce now exist or have existed isn’t known but it is certainly at least in the hundreds.  The classes include generic indications of use (fish sauce), color (pink sauce), alleged history (admiral's sauce), content (mint sauce), the manufacturer’s name (HP sauce), built in advertising (awesome sauce), identifier or warning (hot sauce), regionalism (Prussian sauce), occasion (coronation sauce), imagery (thousand island sauce), perception (fancy sauce), assertions (magic sauce), strength (XXX sauce) or a specific recipe type (Worcestershire sauce).  Sauce is served in a sauce boat; if serving gravy, then the implement is called a gravyboat.   Some can genuinely be mysterious such as Jezebel sauce, found mostly in the US, south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Made usually with a mix of pineapple preserves, apple jelly, horseradish, and mustard, it's a condiment with a hot, sweet & saucy character and thus thought an allusion to the reputation of the Biblical Jezebel, the wickedness of whom is recounted in 1 Kings 21:5–16.  She was sort of the crooked Hillary Clinton of her time.

In some markets, tomato sauce is called "tomato ketchup" (in general use almost always clipped to "ketchup").  In 2004, US food processing company HJ Heinz conducted its "Four stars fall for Heinz Ketchup" promotion with the debut of Heinz's new Celebrity Talking Labels.  Former Pittsburgh Steelers National Football League (NFL) quarterback Terry Bradshaw (b 1948), dual Olympic gold medalist, and two-time FIFA Women's World Cup champion Mia Hamm (b 1972), actor William Shatner (b 1931) and actor Lindsay Lohan (b 1986) were the subjects of the talking labels campaign and the range was released in what Heinz said were "limited-edition bottles of the condiment", each featuring labels with quotes from each celebrity.  The promotion was well-received and extended until 2006 when Heinz offered consumers the opportunity to create their own labels by ordering customized bottles through a page on the Heinz website.

Although lexicographers, chefs and the authors of cook books will tend to be precise, in general use there’s likely sometimes some overlap in the use of “dressing”, “sauce”, “gravy”, “mayonnaise” & “relish”.  As a general principle, the following characteristics of each is an at least indicative list:  A dressing is a liquid or semi-liquid mixture used to flavor and enhance salads or other dishes and made usually with a combination of oil, vinegar, herbs, spices, and other flavorings, the common types including vinaigrette, ranch & Caesar.  A sauce is a thickened liquid or semi-solid food item that accompanies or is used to enhance the flavor of other foods.  Sauces may be savory or sweet and are served both hot & cold, made from a close to limitless number of ingredients such as tomatoes, cream, stock, fruits, or vegetables.  As an example of the wide range of types, at the one meal one may encounter both barbecue sauce, and chocolate sauce.  Gravy is a particular type of sauce, made classically from juices of cooked meat combined with flour or cornstarch, combined sometimes with a liquid such as broth, milk or cream.  Most associated with meat, it’s commonly served also with chips or mashed potatoes and depending on the intended purpose gravies can be seasoned with herbs, spices or even flavorings such as fruit to enhance the taste.  Mayonnaise is a usually thick, creamy condiment made from oil, condensed milk, egg yolks, vinegar or lemon juice, and seasonings.  Most mayonnaise has a richness to the flavor although some can be sweet and some tart.  Relish is made from chopped fruits or vegetables that are pickled or cooked with vinegar, sugar, and spices and while most are in some way tangy with a hint of sweetness, there are some which are very sweet.  Relishes are extensively used in cooking but the most popular use is as a topping or accompaniment to dishes like hot dogs, hamburgers or sandwiches.  Pickled cucumbers are a popular ingredient as is corn and one of the best known relishes is chutney, of Indian origin and from the Hindi चटनी (caṭnī).

3 Ketchup Bottles (2021) by Kristin Kossi (b 1984), acrylic on canvas, US$8000 at Singulart.

Details of a Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) tantrum which included his ketchup-laden lunch ending up oozing down an Oval Office wall were recounted during the congressional hearings into matters relating to the attempted insurrection on 6 January 2021.  Although apparently not the first time plates were smashed in the Trump White House during episodic presidential petulance, such outbursts by heads of government are not rare.  Indeed, given the stress and public scrutiny to which such folk are subject, it’s surprising there aren’t more although it’s usually only years later, as memoirs emerge, that the tales are told.  However, as far as is known, only Mr Trump has ever been implicated in a "ketchup incident" and it entered the political lexicon as "ketchupgate".