Vampire

Vampire (pronounced vam-pahyuh)

(1) A preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night.

(2) In the folklore of the Balkans, Eastern & Central Europe, a corpse, animated by an un-departed soul or demon, that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaled or burned.

(3) A person who preys ruthlessly upon others; an extortionist or blackmailer.

(4) A woman who unscrupulously exploits, ruins, or degrades the men she seduces (usually truncated to vamp although nuances in meaning exist).  Despite many early references, vampiress and vampirina never caught on.

(5) A type of blood-sucking bat.

(6) A species of crab.

(7) In the theatre, a stage trapdoor.

(8) In medicine, a colloquial term for a patient suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus, with effects such as photosensitivity and brownish-red stained teeth.

1732: From the now archaic vampyre (spectral being in a human body who maintains semblance of life by leaving the grave at night to suck the warm blood of the living as they sleep), from the French vampire and German vampir, from the Hungarian (Magyar) vampir, from the Old Church Slavonic opiri (related to the Serbo-Croatian vampir, Bulgarian vapir & Ukrainian uper).  The Serbian vàmpīr, was an alteration of earlier upir (by confusion with doublets such as vȁzdūh, ȕzdūh and with intrusive nasal, as in dùbrava, dumbrȁva (grove)) and was related to the Czech upír, the Polish upiór, the Old Russian upyrĭ & upirĭ and the Russian upýr.  Some etymologists suggest the ultimate source was the Kazan Tatar ubyr (witch) but not all agree, many suggesting a Macedonian origin more probable.  An Eastern European creature popularized in English by late nineteenth century gothic novels but scattered English accounts of night-walking, blood-gorged, plague-spreading un-dead corpses have been traced back to 1196 and few doubt there was an oral tradition long pre-dating this.  Influenced by the literature, the blood-sucking bat was named in 1774 by the French gentlemen scientist, Georges-Louis Leclerc, the Comte de Buffon (1707–1788).  Related adjectival forms are vampiric and vampirish, the noun vampirism dating from 1737.

Figurative sense of "person who preys on others" is from 1741, the idea of “one who sucks money from others” being little worse than “one who sucks their blood”.  The word vamp (a seductive woman who uses her charms to exploit men" dates from 1911 and was short for vampire; it’s entirely unrelated to the earlier term “vamp” from the trade of cobbling.  Dracula was the name of the vampire king in Bram Stoker's (1847-1912) Gothic horror novel Dracula (1897), a borrowing from Prince Vlad III of Wallachia (circa 1430-circa 1477; remembered in English as Vlad the Impaler and in Romania (where he is celebrated as a national hero) as Vlad Drăculea.

It was Lord Byron (1788-1824) who did most to popularize in Western literature all things vampiric in his epic poem The Giaour (1813), but it was John Polidori (1895-1921) who in 1819 authored the first true vampire story, called The Vampyre.  Polidori was Byron’s personal physician and the vampire of the story, Lord Ruthven, is based partly on him and the "ghost story competition" that spawned this piece was the same contest which tempted Mary Shelley (1797-1851) to write her 1818 Gothic novel Frankenstein (or The Modern Prometheus).  Other early texts include Samuel Taylor Coleridge's (1772-1834) unfinished poem Christabel (circa 1799) and Sheridan Le Fanu's (1814-1873) lesbian vampire story, Carmilla (1872) which remains influential to this day in the depiction of vampires but it’s Bram Stoker's Dracula which remains the definitive version in popular fiction.  The portrayal of vampirism as a disease of contagious demonic possession, with an undertone of sex, blood, and death, suited the zeitgeist of Victorian Europe where tuberculosis, syphilis, typhoid and cholera were common.

In Among the Shadows (2020 (released in some markets as The Shadow Within)), Lindsay Lohan played a vampire (top left), one married to a European Union (EU) politician no less and it’s hard to imagine a more complementary relationship.  In May 2011, Lindsay Lohan was the subject of a vampire-themed session by photographer Tyler Shields (b 1982), called Life is not a fairytale.

On screen, the best evocations of the vampiric remain the Nosferatu films, especially the 1979 re-make of the 1922 original.  Aspiring vampires meet here:

De Havilland Vampire (DH-100) Mark 1.

The de Havilland Vampire was a British jet fighter.  Although development began as early as 1941 and the aircraft first flew in 1943, the problems associated with jet propulsion meant it entered service too late to see combat during World War II, the first Vampires delivered to Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons only in 1946.  The second jet fighter to be operated by the RAF (the first the Gloster Meteor), it was the first powered by a single engine, a configuration delayed in development because of the poor thrust delivered by the early jets and the Vampire was one of a number of aircraft released in the late 1940s which straddled the engineering and aeronautical practices of the propeller and jet eras of fighters.  The jet engine and the unusual twin-boom configuration aside, it was a conventional design, borrowing much from de Havilland’s wartime practices which had proved so effective including the use of molded plywood for the frame, assembled as a glued sandwich to which was attached the aluminum skin.

De Havilland Vampire (DH 113) NF10 prototype G-5-2.

The hybrid of old and new was a product of so much of the design work having been completed before an understanding of the advantages and possibilities of the swept wing pioneered by the Germans, notably with the Messerschmitt 262, had been gained.  Without a swept wing, the Vampire would never achieve the performance of the more cutting edge designs which increasingly appeared in the late 1940s and was the last really simple interceptor to serve with the RAF.  Despite that, for most of its operational life it was far from obsolescent and remained in front-line service until 1953, during which it set altitude records and was the first jet to fly a trans-Atlantic flight; the Sea Vampire naval variant being in December 1945 the first jet to take off from and land on an aircraft carrier.  The last Vampires were retired from RAF service in 1966 but foreign services maintained them in operational use much longer, the Swiss using them still in the 1980s.  Almost 3300 were built and their simplicity and ease of maintenance has meant many now in private hands continue to fly.

Vampire hunting used to be a thing (and debatably should still be) and for enthusiasts, Affiliated Auctions & Realty recently offered an early nineteenth century vampire slaying kit, fitted in a violin case.  The kit includes a bronze crucifix, two wooden stakes, a 15 inch (380 mm) dagger with tusk grip, sterling pommel & bolster and nickel cross-guard, a flintlock pistol with engraved barrel and functioning stock, a brass powder horn in the style of a swimming fish, a hardwood mallet (for driving stakes through the heart), a brass container for shot powder, a wooden container for silver-shot balls, a glass holy water bottle (without seam lines) and a Holy Bible with mother of pearl inlay.

Nosferatu (1979) trailer. 

Tantrum

Tantrum (pronounced tan-truhm)

(1) A violent demonstration of rage or frustration; a sudden burst of ill temper, most associated with children but widely applied to the childish outbursts of adults.

(2) To have a tantrum.

1714: One of English’s etymological mysteries, other than being derived from the earlier tanterum, the origin is so obscure there’s no evidence on which to base speculation and while the first known reference in writing is from 1714, it’s likely it had been in (presumably colloquial) oral use for some time.  There are conventions of use such as “temper tantrum” & the common intransitive “throw a tantrum”; synonymous words and phrases include angry outburst, flare-up, fit of rage, conniptions, dander, huff, hysterics, storm, wax, hissy fit & dummy spit.  Tantrum is a noun & verb, tantrumming & tantrumed are verbs and tantrumy is an adjective; the noun plural is tantrums.  The noun tantrummery (on the model of constructions like poltroonery) is non-standard but is sometimes used in political commentary.

Social media, SMS or email posts in ALL CAPS or with an extravagant use of question marks (?????) or exclamation marks (!!!!!) convey shouting and are the textual version of a tantrum although this understanding was learned behaviour; many early systems (Telix etc) available only with upper case characters so there was a greater dependency on (?????) & (!!!!!) to denote anger, the asterisk (*****) & hash (#####) symbols inserted to permit vulgarities (f**k, sh## et al) to be understood without being spelled out.  That was a work-around of some significance because the telecommunication legislation in many nations actually prohibited swearing (even on telephone voice calls) over what was then called a “carriage service”, typical wording in the acts being something like: It shall be unlawful for any person in the operation of any telephone installed within the city, to make use of any vulgar vituperation or profane language into and over such telephone.  (Profanity over telephone: (Code of ordinances, Colombus Georgia, USA, (§ 663 (1914)), Section 14-49).  Such laws probably still exist in many places but instances of enforcement doubtless;y are rare.

Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD)

Remarkably, as a definable condition, the temper tantrum wasn’t medicalized (as a distinct diagnosis) until 2013 when the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published.  Named Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD), it was classified as a mood disorder noted as affecting children aged 6-18, an unusual concession by the industry that tantrums in very young children are a normal and healthy (if annoying) aspect of human development.

DMDD was thus a new diagnosis but it really was a shift in classification, reflecting the early twenty-first century view that both the autism spectrum and bipolar disorder (BD, the old manic-depression) were being over-diagnosed.  Also a condition that can cause extreme changes in mood, it was noted that misdiagnosing BD can result in unnecessary medications being prescribed, the long-term use of which were associated with side effects including weight gain, lipid & glucose abnormalities and  reduced brain volume (and a diminished number of neurons in the brain).  Thus it being undesirable that BD be over-diagnosed in the young, DMDD exists as an alternative and, although many of the mood-related symptoms overlap with BD, there are as yet no FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) approved medications for children or adolescents with DMDD and in the recent history of the DSM, that’s unusual.  There have been instances of updates to the DSM removing diagnoses while the specified drug remains on the FDA schedule but it’s rare for one to appear without an approved medication, the symbiosis between the industries usually well-synchronized.  Advice to clinicians continue to include the note that stimulants, antidepressants, and atypical antipsychotics can be used to help relieve a child’s DMDD symptoms but that side effects would need to be monitored, individual and family therapy to address emotion-regulation skills a desirable alternative to be pursued where possible.  The behavioral distinction between DMDD and BD is that subjects don’t experience the episodic mania of a child with BD and they’re at no greater risk of later developing BD although there is a higher anxiety as an adult.  Because of the potentially stigmatizing effects (possibly for life) of a diagnosis of BD, that’s something which should be applied only with a strict application of the criteria.

The tabloid press like the word "tantrum" and uses it often of certain celebrities, politicians and such.

It’s further noted that DMDD is a diagnosis that should apply to a specific type of mood (the tantrum) distinguished by being extreme and/or frequent; it should thus (as parents have doubtless always regarded tantrums) be thought a spectrum condition.  The markers include (1) severe, chronic irritability, (2) severe verbal or behavioral tantrums, several times weekly for at least a year, (3) reactions out of proportion to the situation, (4) difficulty functioning because of outbursts and tantrums, (5) aggressive behavior & (6) a frequent transgression of rules.  Observationally, DMDD may be indicated by (7) trouble in socializing and forming friendships, (8) physically aggression towards peers and family and even (9) difficulties in the cooperative aspects of playing team sports (although not merely a preference for individual disciplines).  The diagnostic criteria for DMDD require a child to have experienced tantrums (which are severe and/or of long duration) at least three times weekly for at least a year’ especially if between episodes they’re also chronically irritable.  However, if the tantrums are geographically or situationally specific (ie happen only at school or only at church etc) then DMDD may not be the appropriate diagnosis and other disorders (childhood bipolar disorder (CBD), autism, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)) may need to be considered.  A particular difficulty in the diagnostic process is that not only is there a significant overlap of symptoms in these disorders but instances of conditions themselves can co-exist.  With children, it’s recommended that when possible, DMDD treatment begins with therapy (psychotherapy and parent training), medications prescribed only later in treatment or at least starting in conjunction with therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) thought helpful.

Noted temper tantrums

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

Details of President Trump’s (Donald Trump, b 1946, US president 2017-2021) 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.

Warren Harding (1865–1923; US president 1921-1923) was once observed strangling a government official with his bare hands although that might have been understandable, his administration notoriously riddled with corruption.  When Harding dropped dead during his term, it was probably a good career move.  Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; head of state (1934-1945) and government (1933-1945) in Nazi Germany) ranting meltdown in the Führerbunker on 21 April 1945 as the Red Army closed on Berlin became a tantrum of legend and was the great set piece of the film Downfall (2004) about the last days of the Third Reich, a scene which has since generated hundreds of memes.  Even before the Watergate scandal began to consume his presidency, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) was known for his temper tantrums, often under the influence of alcohol.  His aides would later recount his expletive-laden tirades during which, apparently seriously, he would order bombings, missile launches and assassinations.  All such instructions Nixon issued during these drunken tantrums were ignored and if informed the next day that the relevant military action or murder had not been carried out, usually he would respond: "Good".  His predecessor’s, (Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969)) moods were said to be just as volatile and during episodes he would sometimes wish for whole countries to be destroyed although he stopped short actually of ordering it.

Admiring glance: George Stephanopoulos looking at crooked Hillary Clinton.

Reports of Bill Clinton’s (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) tantrums tend to emphasize their frequency and intensity but note also how quickly they subsided.  In the memoir of George Stephanopoulos ((b 1961; White House Communications Director 1993 & presidential advisor 1993-1996)) focusing on his time as communications director, it’s recounted that Clinton regularly lost his temper and would yell at the staff, the in-house code for the outbursts being “purple fits”, so named because of how red Clinton’s face became during the SMOs “Standard Morning Outbursts”.  Secret Service staff later interviewed were kinder in their recollections of the president but seemed still traumatized when describing his wife’s volcanic temper and Bill Clinton’s outbursts do need to be viewed in the context of him being married to crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).

Anthony Eden (1897–1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) was elegant, stylish and highly strung; one of his colleagues, in a reference to his parentage, described Eden as “half mad baronet, half beautiful woman” and his great misfortune was to become prime-minister, the role for which he’d so long been groomed.  Ill-suited to the role and in some ways unlucky, his tantrums became the stuff of Westminster and Whitehall folklore, reflected in the diary entry of Winston Churchill’s (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1965 & 1951-1955) physician (Lord Moran, 1885-1975) on 21 July 1956: “The political world is full of Eden's moods at No 10 (Downing Street, the PM’s London residence)”.  The tales of his ranting and raging appeared in much that was published after his fall from office but in the years since, research suggests there was both exaggeration and some outright invention, one contemporary acknowledging that while Eden certainly was highly strung, “…he seldom became angry when really important matters were involved, but instead did so over irritating trivialities, usually in his own home, and very seldom did he lose his temper in public”.  Unfortunately, the best-known "tantrum" story of the 1956 Suez Crisis in which Eden is alleged to have thrown an full inkwell at someone with whom he disagreed (a rubbish bin said to have been jammed on his head in response), is almost certainly apocryphal.

Paraphernalia

Paraphernalia (pronounced par-uh-fer-neyl-yuh or par-uh-fuh-neyl-yuh)

(1) Tools, equipment, apparatus or furnishing used in or necessary for a particular activity (sometimes used with a singular verb).

(2) Personal belongings (used with a plural verb).

(3) At common law, a historic term for the personal articles, apart from dower, reserved by law to a married woman as goods the title of which did not pass to her husband upon marriage (used with a singular verb).

1470-1480: From the Medieval Latin paraphernālia, from the Ancient Greek παράφερνα (parápherna) (goods which a wife brings over and above her dowry), the construct being παρά (pará) (beside) +‎ φερνή (phernḗ) (dowry), + the Latin -ālia, (noun use of neuter plural of –ālis), thus the “things additional to a dowry”.  Among the propertied classes, title to the possessions of a wife (the dowry) passes to the husband upon marriage while the paraphernalia which she brought remained her property. Paraphernalia is a noun and paraphernal is an adjective.  Paraphernalia, perhaps strangely, is now inherently singular because a paraphernalia is a granular construct made of a number of items.  The Medieval Latin paraphernālia was the neuter plural of paraphernlis, pertaining to the parápherna (a married woman's property exclusive of her dowry) so in the Latin it was a plural and the singular was paraphernlis but the word has been absorbed into English as a plural.  Paraphenalium has been suggested but is likely just undergraduate humor.

Twenty-first century paraphernalia.

Paraphernalia in what is now the normal conversational sense refers to the “stuff” associated with and sometimes specific to some activity, modern usage by analogy, unrelated to status of ownership.  Hooks, and sinkers are part of the paraphernalia of fishing, brushes and easels those of painting.  The word has become a favorite of police who, when searching for drugs, don’t actually need to find any to bring charges, drug paraphernalia being enough to convince some judges, especially if accused has “a bit of previous”.  The more elaborate synonyms of paraphernalia are appurtenances, accoutrements, parapherna or trappings but most useful and certainly best understood is “stuff”.

Public service announcement: Lindsay Lohan sends the message.

In the context of the illicit use of narcotics, the term “paraphernalia” is sometimes referenced in legislation but there’s often not any attempt to list exactly which items may be considered thus, the definition hanging on purpose rather than form.  It refers to any equipment, product or material used primarily or intended for use in connection with the production, preparation, or consumption of illicit drugs.  Drug users can be imaginative in the adoption of hardware for purposes other than what was in the designer’s mind and a wide range of stuff has appeared as exhibits in prosecutions.  In some jurisdictions, possession, sale or distribution of drug paraphernalia can be unlawful, even if there’s no evidence of the presence of narcotics.  Examples of drug paraphernalia include:

(1) Smoking devices: Pipes, bongs, water pipes, hookahs, and rolling papers used for smoking marijuana, crack cocaine, or methamphetamine.  Obviously, some of these items can also be used lawfully to consume (dual-use in the language of sanctions) substances like tobacco so the possibility of prosecution depends on the circumstances of each case.

(2) Syringes and needles: These typically are associated with intravenous drug use, most infamously heroin and other opioids but there are many substances (including Diazepam (Valium) and other pharmaceuticals) which can appear in liquid form.

(3) Spoons and straws: Small spoons or hollow tubes (often depicted in popular culture being rolled from high-value US$ bills) are used to “snort” drugs supplied or rendered in powdered form, of which cocaine is the best known.  The popular association of spoons with cocaine led to the comparison “silver spoon vs paper plate” to contrast the user profile with that of the much cheaper crack cocaine.

(4) Grinders: Devices used to break down marijuana buds into smaller particles for smoking or vaporization.  There are specialized products for this but others use the regular kitchen item intended for grinding herbs such as mint when making mint sauce.  Weed smokers like to give their grinders affectionate names like “mull-o-matic”.

(5) Scales: High-precision scales are used to weigh drugs for distribution or sale.  Modern electronics mean these can now be very small.

(6) Roach clips: There are metal or plastic clips used to hold the end of a joint, allowing users to smoke without risk of burning the finger tips.  It’s just common sense really.

(7) Pill bottles and pill crushers: These are used to store and crush prescription medications for illicit use.  In recent years there’s also been a crackdown on pill making devices which also have a legitimate purpose in communities such as the “holistic health” set who make their own pills from (non-narcotic) herbs.

(8) Freebase kits: One of the part-numbers associated with the trade of the dark web, the kits include the tools needed to convert cocaine hydrochloride into a smokable form, such as crack cocaine.

Historically, at common law, upon marriage, a woman’s assets became possessions of her husband, title passing automatically.  The exception was her paraphernalia which tended to include things inherently personal (clothes, sewing equipment, shoes etc) but could in certain circumstances include items of jewelry.  A husband could neither appropriate nor sell paraphernalia without her explicit consent and they did not accrue to his estate upon death but a woman could include paraphernalia in her will.  Concept is now obsolete in all common law jurisdictions but can still be cited in disputes over wills, though only in argument and the scope is limited.

Medieval paraphernalia.

Inherited from Greek and Roman law, in English law, paraphernalia differed from some of the property rights granted to women and mentioned in various iterations of the Magna Carta (1215-1225) in that it wasn't mentioned and assumed an at times strained co-existence with customary practice, the procedures of the Church, common law and civil law, judges feeling often constrained to distinguish between "our law" and "spiritual law", the latter tending always to be more generous to a widow.  All the medieval evidence however does hit that attempts to enforce ecclesiastical law were probably fitful although it may be that matters involving disputes about paraphernalia were either rare or nor recorded.  Where matters are recorded, they concerned not stuff like pins and needles but variations of apparel, a wide category which could include anything a woman might wear and that might be shoes, gowns or jewelry; in other words, like just about any dispute brought to court, money was involved.  Some jurisdictions were more accommodating still, The late-medieval and early-modern Court of Canterbury recognizing a "widow's chamber" which included her bed, the contents of her bedchamber, her apparel, her jewels and the chest in church all was stored.  There exists even records of proto-feminist husbands counter-signing their wife's list of what she considered her paraphernalia; a kind of early pre-nuptial arrangement.  The common law courts of course always preferred the rules of common law to any recognition of customary practice but in the Chancery courts of equity, successive chancellors recognized the local rules of London and York which, although abolished respectively in 1692 and 1724 and neither had anyway mentioned paraphernalia.  Despite the abolition however, at least in some instances, courts in London continued to make awards to widows based on the old rules.

Eighteenth century paraphernalia.

The most significant definitional development regarding paraphernalia dates from 1585 and it turned on the meaning of "apparel", extending the meaning of the term at common law.  What it did was confirm what some earlier judgements had at least implied: That it was no longer confined to pins and petticoats, items of little financial value, the wife in this case claiming as paraphernalia jewels and items of precious metal.  The plaintiff, citing medieval authorities, claimed it was established law that all the apparel of a woman was not paraphernalia but only that which was necessary and essential, ad necessitatem, not baubles and jewels which were ad ornamentum. How the court might have ruled on that as a general principle isn’t known because the matter appears to have been decided on the basis of the social status of the widow, a viscountess, the fourth wife of the viscount and some forty years his junior.  Whether the age difference attracted a sympathetic eye from the bench isn’t noted but the judge agreed that “parapherna” should be allowed to a widow according to her degree and viscountess being of a suitably high degree, he allowed he claim.  She kept the jewels.  While she may not have set a precedent in the narrow technical sense, the report of the case suggests this was not the first occasion where judges had been called upon to define what could be considered apparel based on the social and economic position of the widow, the viscountess certainly seems to have started a trend.  Just about every reported case thereafter, the paraphernalia sought was almost always jewelry.

So there was progress and by the end of the eighteenth century a widow was likely to keep many more of her personal possessions than women six-hundred years earlier, both the common law and equity courts expanding the definitional framework of paraphernalia well beyond the clothes on her back and case law existed to establish a husband could not by the operation of his will deprive his widow of her rights.  However, much still lay ahead, a husband’s debts in some cases still able to absorb paraphernalia, nothing prevented a husband giving away any of his wife’s possessions during his lifetime and a cleverly arranged trust could still defeat just about anything.  Still, progress there had been.

The legal progress attracted not just the odd viscountess but also the author Anthony Trollope (1815–1882), one with an eye for antics of an avaricious aristocracy.  In The Eustace Diamonds (1871), he tracks the progress of the beautiful but entirely unprincipled and recently widowed Lizzie Eustace through the dual plot of her husband-hunting and attempts to keep a cluster of diamonds, it being consequential whether they were an heirloom and therefore the property of her late husband’s heirs, or part of her paraphernalia and thus her own.  Most modern fiction may be worthless but Trollop is rewarding; everyone should read the Chronicles of Barsetshire (1855-1867).

Ketchup

Ketchup (pronounced kech-uhp or kach-uhp)

(1) A condiment consisting of puréed tomatoes, onions, vinegar, sugar, spices etc.

(2) Any of various other condiments or piquant sauces for meat, fish (mushroom ketchup; walnut ketchup etc).

1711: From the Malay (Austronesian) kichap or kəchap (fish sauce), possibly from the dialectal Chinese kéjāp (Guangdong) or ke-tsiap (Xiamen) (akin to the Chinese qié (eggplant) + chī (juice)) or from the Chinese (Amoy) kōetsiap (koechiap) (brine of pickled fish), the construct being kōe (seafood) + tsiap (sauce).  Linguistic anthropologists concluded that if came from the latter, it was probably from the Chinese community in northern Vietnam.  Catsup and the even earlier catchup (1680s) were earlier anglicized forms which died out, except in the US where, south of the Mason-Dixon Line, catsup is still in use.

Tomato came later

Ketchup was originally a fish sauce made from various plant juices but came to be used in English for a wide variety of spiced gravies and sauces.  In the seventeenth century, the Chinese mixed pickled fish and spices and called it (in the Amoy dialect) kôe-chiap or kê-chiap (鮭汁) meaning the brine of pickled fish (鮭, salmon; 汁, juice) or shellfish.  By the early eighteenth century, the table sauce had arrived in the Malay states (present day Malaysia and Singapore) and colonists took it home to England.  The Malaysian-Malay words for the sauce were variations of kicap & kecap and those evolved into the English "ketchup". 

Published in London, William Kitchiner’s (1775-1827) Apicius Redivivus (Cook's Oracle, 1817), included seven pages of recipes for different types of catsup (1 spelled ketchup, 72 catsup), including walnut, mushroom, cucumber, oyster, cockle and mussel, tomato, as well as more exotic concoctions made with vinegar and anchovies, suggesting the word was adopted to describe just about any spiced sauce.  By the 1870s, English cookbooks and encyclopedias noted mushroom, walnut, and tomato ketchup were the predominate flavors; in the US, tomato ketchup emerged circa 1800 and dominated by the late nineteenth century.  In the English-speaking word, despite Ketchup’s English origins, it seems now regarded as a US form and “tomato sauce” is elsewhere generally preferred.  In German use, Ketchup is now the approved form, the alternative spelling Ketschup now proscribed after being deprecated in a 2017 German spelling reform.

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.

Reagent

Reagent (pronounced ree-ey-juhnt)

In chemistry, a substance that produces a chemical reaction, used in analysis and synthesis.

1785: A compound word, the construct being re(act)- + agent.  The prefix re- is from the Middle English re-, from the Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wret-, a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  Agent is from the Latin agēns, present active participle of agere (to drive, lead, conduct, manage, perform, do) from the Proto-Italic agō, from primitive Indo-European hzéǵeti.  It was cognate with the Old Irish aigid, the Ancient Greek ἄγω (ágō) (I lead), the Old Norse aka (move, drive), the Avestan azaiti and the Sanskrit अजति (ájati) (to drive, propel, cast).  The difference between a catalyst and a reagent is that catalysts are not consumed during the chemical reaction, whereas reagents may be.  A catalyst is a substance which can increase the reaction rate of a particular chemical reaction, while a reagent is a substance used in chemical analysis or to induce another chemical reaction.

Novichok

A Novichok (Russian: новичо́к (novičók) (newcomer)) agent is one of a number of chemical weapons developed by the state chemical research institute (GosNIIOKhT) in the Soviet Union (USSR) and Russia between 1971-1993.  Said to be the deadliest nerve agent ever created, Novichok was designed in a way that evaded the restrictions on chemical weapons imposed by treaties to which the USSR was a signatory.  Novichok agents have become well-known because they’ve been used to poison several opponents of the Russian government, most notably Sergei Skripal (b 1951; a former officer in the Russian military agent of UK intelligence) and his daughter, Yulia Skripal (b 1985) who were poisoned in the city of Salisbury, UK.  The Kremlin denied complicity and accused the UK government of whipping-up anti-Russian hysteria.

The design requirements for Novichok included it being undetectable using standard equipment, being able to penetrate personal protective equipment, being easier to handle in its transportable form and able to circumvent the various chemical weapons treaties the USSR had signed.  The use of reagents made many of these objectives possible.  As a binary weapon, in which precursors are mixed to produce the nerve agent immediately prior use, handling is easier because, in un-mixed form, the reagents are less hazardous and thus simpler to store and transport.  The reagents are also chemically less unstable and have a long shelf life although western analysts note at least one liquid form of Novichok is sufficiently stable to be able to remain deadly for decades if stored in a controlled environment.

In July 2018, a UK distillery was forced to apologize after releasing a 75% abv vodka named Novichok, days after a woman and her partner were poisoned with the same nerve agent that almost killed Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury earlier in the year.  Bristol Dry Gin’s limited edition Novichok vodka quickly sold out and the company has made clear there are no plans for a second batch.  Amesbury woman Dawn Sturgess (b 1974), who lived some eight miles (13 km) north of Salisbury, fell ill on 30 June 2018, dying within days after being exposed to what experts said must have been a sizable dose of the Novichok substance.  Her partner, Charlie Rowley (b 1973), was for some time critically ill but recovered.

Just before Ms Sturgess’ death, Bristol Dry Gin posted to its Facebook page an image of its new “limited edition” Novichok vodka, along with a promotional blurb: "Our new limited edition vodka is out! Set at 75%, this smooth drinking spirit is no laughing matter."  "Available as a 35cl bottle, perfect for manbags and gym bottles, or as a pack of three 5cl minis, a great solution to body cavity searches. Get em from our web store or distillery.”  Not so much the product as the timing of the release attracted criticism, many finding it in “poor taste” and the distillery in its statement of apology agreed, admitting the timing “may have lacked sensitivity” and was named and launched only after the Skripals had recovered.  “It was intended to lighten the mood and ease tensions, not to cause offence, and reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. We sincerely apologize if any offence was caused, especially to the families of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, and understand the timing of the release of this product may have lacked sensitivity.  The Novichok Edition is a limited edition, which sold out within a hours of being released, and we have no plans to produce any more.”

Capitalism in Russia proved a little more robust, a Russian entrepreneur capitalizing on the poisoning in the UK of Sergei & Yulia Skripala by releasing the новичо́к (novičók or Novichok) brand of cooking oil.  Ulyanovsk-based farmer Alexei Yakushev explained he was inspired to choose the name for his new brand of sunflower oil after watching a news report of the events in Salisbury.  “I regularly watch the news” Mr Yakushev informed an interviewer and as the product wasn’t available in store, he decided to produce and bring it to market himself.

Said to be the ideal oil for sukhariki (oven-toasted stale bread strips), the Novichok oil was marketed under the slogan “products for a long life” and, in a nice touch, the label included the famous insignia of the KGB.  On Mr Yakushev’s webpage, to counter Western propaganda, he included in the “About us” section the line “We don’t hide money offshore,” in rhyme.

HODLing

Hodling (pronounced hodd-ling or hold-ing)

The continuing to hold one’s position in a market regardless of movements in that market.  Rationale is that value of that which one is holding will again rise again and selling will result only in actual or nominal (opportunity cost) losses.

2013: Word created on 18 December 2013 when a contributor to a Bitcoin forum, bitcointalk.org, apparently after enjoying most of a bottle of whisky (or whiskey, the sources differing), misspelled hold, a transposition probably not uncommon after too much drink given where the “o” and “l” keys sit on the qwerty keyboard.  Meme-makers soon decided hodl a backronym for hold on for dear life, a sentiment probably familiar to many who once held Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers paper.  Most frequently used related form is hoddle and use appears restricted to the cryptocurrency community; preferred spelling is HODler.  Which of the pronunciations hodd-ling or hold-ing will emerge as a standard is unclear, as is whether hodl will even survive as a word.

Dictionaries cite dozens of definitions for hold so hodl is potentially a handy addition to English because its meaning is so specific, either in the context of cryptocurrencies or markets generally.  Whether use moves beyond its niche or even survives won’t for some time be clear.  The markets have managed with hold for some centuries and it may be that the trade in cryptocurrencies, however it evolves, may find hold adequate.  HODler manifestos have been published:

Rule 1: A True HODLer Does Not Sell Their Coin

HODler The first and most important rule of the HODLer Manifesto is to never sell your coin. A HODLer may spend their coin (see rule 5), but a HODLer does not sell. Only the weak sell, and they soon regret doing so.

Rule 2: A True HODLer Buys the Dip

If the fiat price of their coin drops, a HODLer will buy more, provided they have the means to do so. Under no circumstances would a HODLer panic sell because they see the price going down. The only case where a HODLer is not regularly buying the dips is when all their fiat is already invested.

Rule 3: A True HODLer Remains Steadfast In Spite of FUD

Whether there’s news that China is banning your coin again, or your favourite exchanged got hacked, you as a HODLer will continue to HODL. A HODLer stays the course regardless of who is sowing seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Disregard the news. Remember that the naysayers are usually those who have a lot to lose from your coin’s success, or those who resent HODLers for going to the moon.

Rule 4: A True HODLer Keeps Their Coins Off Exchanges and Online Wallets

Wallet No exchange or online wallet is immune from rogue employees, security mistakes, or simple negligence. A HODLer will keep their coins secure by using a paper or hardware wallet, instead of relying on any third parties for custody or safe keeping. A HODLer always controls their own private keys.

Rule 5: A True HODLer Buys Goods and Services With Their Coin

Should you decide to spend your coins, find vendors who accept your coins directly rather than selling or using fiat-based bridges (such as prepaid Visa cards). By spending your coins, you fuel the ecosystem of fellow HODLers. Do not become a spendthrift either, or you will soon find yourself without coin.

Rule 6: A True HODLer Spreads the Good Word

Sharing is Caring Do tell your friends and family about the goodness of your coin, but do not be pushy, or pressure others into buying your coin. They may not share the same values as you. Try to educate them without being patronizing, and stick to the facts rather than appealing to emotions (like FOMO). Refer them to good resources, and let them make up their own mind.

Rule 7: A True HODLer Does Not Get FOMO When Another Coin Rises

When you see other coins quickly rising in market cap rankings, you will not be distracted. They too will fall back from whence they came. Resist the temptation to dump your coin and pump another. This is usually a futile exercise, and is a quick way to make a big fortune into a small fortune. If you do, in spite of better sense, decide to purchase a new coin, weight your holdings by market cap to manage your risk.

Rule 8: A True HODLer Will Run Their Own Full Node

To ensure their coin remains healthy, and to participate in consensus, a HODLer runs their own full node if possible. There is truth in numbers, and a HODLer will always remain true to their coin. By participating in consensus a HODLer is in complete control of their own destiny, free from tyranny, censorship, and oppression.

It bounces round a bit: The trendline for HODLers.  Bitcoin against US$: Q4 2010-Q1 2022.

HODLers beware: The SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) is watching you.