Toggle

Toggle (pronounced tog-uhl)

(1) A pin, bolt, or rod placed transversely through a chain, an eye or loop in a rope etc, as to bind it temporarily to another chain or rope similarly treated.

(2) In various types of machinery, a toggle joint, or a device having one.

(3) An ornamental, rod-shaped button for inserting into a large buttonhole, loop, or frog, used especially on sports clothes.

(4) In theatre, a wooden batten across the width of a flat, for strengthening the frame (Also called the toggle rail).

(5) In engineering and construction, a metal device for fastening a toggle rail to a frame (also called a toggle iron.); a horizontal piece of wood that is placed on a door, flat, or other wooden structure, but is not on one of the edges of the structure; an appliance for transmitting force at right angles to its direction.

(6) To furnish with a toggle or to bind or fasten with a toggle.

(7) In informal use, to turn, twist, or manipulate a toggle switch; dial or turn the switch of a device (often in the form “to toggle between” alternate states).

(8) A type of switch widely used in motor vehicles until outlawed by safety legislation in the 1960s.

(9) In admiralty jargon, a wooden or metal pin, short rod, crosspiece or similar, fixed transversely in the eye of a rope or chain to be secured to any other loop, ring, or bight.

In computer operating systems and applications, an expression indicating a switch of view, contest, feed, option et al.

(11) In sky-diving, a loop of webbing or a dowel affixed to the end of the steering & brake lines of a parachute providing a means of control.

(12) In whaling, as toggling harpoon, a pre-modern (believed to date from circa 5300 BC) harvesting tool used to impale a whale when thrown.

1769: In the sense of a "pin passed through the eye of a rope, strap, or bolt to hold it in place" it’s of unknown origin but etymologists agree it’s of nautical origin (though not necessarily from the Royal Navy) thus the speculation that it’s a frequentative form of “tug” or “to tug” (in the sense of “to pull”), the evolution influenced by regional (or class-defined) pronunciations similar to tog.  The wall fastener was first sold in 1934 although the toggle bolt had been in use since 1994.  The term “toggle switch” was first used in 1938 although such devices had long been in use in the electrical industry and they were widely used in motor vehicles until outlawed by safety legislation in the 1960s.  In computing, toggle was first documented in 1979 when it referred to a keyboard combination which alternates the function between on & off (in the sense of switching between functions or states as opposed to on & off in the conventional sense).  The verb toggle dated from 1836 in the sense of “make secure with a toggle” and was a direct development from the noun.  In computing, the toggle function (“to toggle back and forth between different actions") was first described in 1982 when documenting the embryonic implementations of multi-tasking (then TSRs (terminate & stay resident programs).  Toggle is a noun, verb & adjective, toggled & toggling are verbs, toggler, toggery and (the rare) togglability are nouns and togglable (the alternative spelling is toggleable) is an adjective; the noun plural is toggles.  Use of the mysterious togglability (the quality of being togglable) seems to be restricted to computer operating systems to distinguish between that which can be switched between and that which is a stand-alone function which must be loaded & terminated.

The Jaguar E-Type (XKE) and the toggle switches

1964 Jaguar E-Type roadster

Jaguar’s E-Type (XKE), launched at the now defunct Geneva Motor Show in 1961, was one of the more seductive shapes ever rendered in metal.  Enzo Ferrari (1898-1988) was at the show and part of E-Type folklore is he called it “the most beautiful car in the world”.  Whether those words ever passed his lips isn’t certain because the sources vary slightly in detail and il Commendatore apparently never confirmed or denied the sentiment but it’s easy to believe and many to this day agree.  If just looking at the thing was something visceral then driving one was more than usually tactile and more than sixty years on, the appeal remains, even if some aspects in the early models (such as the attractive but frankly uncomfortable seats and the the rather agricultural (no synchromesh on first gear) Moss gearbox were a little too tactile.

1962 Jaguar E-Type roadster with toggle switches.

Another feature of the early (1961-1967) cars admired both for their appearance and pleasure of operation touch was the centrally-located array of toggle switches which controlled functions such as lighting and windscreen wipers.  Even by the slight standards of the 1960s, ergonomically the arrangement wasn’t ideal but, sitting under the gauges, it was an elegant and impressive look the factory would retain across the range for more than a decade, the E-type using the layout until production ended in 1974 (and it endured on the low-volume Daimler DS420 limousine until 1992).  However, while the layout survived, the toggle switches did not, the protruding sharpness judged dangerous by the NHSB (the National Highway Safety Bureau (which in 1970 became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the newly established Department of Transportation) which, since the publication of Ralph Nader’s (b 1934) Unsafe at any Speed (1965) had begun to write legislation which stipulated standards for automobile safety, this in parallel with the growing body of law designed to reduce emissions.

1970 Jaguar E-Type roadster with rocker switches.

In 1968, the new wave of legislation applied almost exclusively to vehicles sold in the US but such was the importance of that market it made little sense for Jaguar to continue to produce a separate line with toggle switches for sale in other countries so the decision was taken to standardize on the flatter, more rounded rocker switches.  At much the same time, other changes were made to ensure the E-Type on sale in 1968 would conform also to a number of other new rules, the most obvious being the banning of the lovely covered headlights which necessitated their replacement with higher-mounted units in a scalloped housing.  In view of the extent of the changes required, it was decided to designate the updated cars as the “Series 2” (S2) E-Type.  Despite the perceptions of some, now fuelled by internet posts and re-posts, by 1967 Jaguar, while not a mass-production operation along the lines of a computerized Detroit assembly line, had long since ceased to be a cottage industry and as a change was made in a model’s specification, that was applied to all production after a certain date.  Despite the factory’s records documenting this the urban myths continue to circulate, stimulated by “unicorns” such as the handful of 3.8 litre Mark 2 sedans built after 1967 when the line was rationalized (as the 240 & 340) and restricted to the 2.4 & 3.4 litre XK-Six; those 3.8s were “special orders” and not ad-hoc aberrations from the line.  However, nothing in the era has resulted in as much speculation & misinformation as the specification of what came (unofficially) to be called the Series 1.25 & 1.5 E-Types, the most common myth being that before S2 production proper began, some cars left the factory with a sometimes unpredictable mix of S1 & S2 parts, this haphazardness accounted for by the expedient of “using up stock”.  In the industry, (even in computerized Detroit) the practice was not unknown but there’s now no doubt it never applied to the 1967 E-Types.  Continuous product development had been a long Jaguar practice and for the S1 E-Type there were revised seats, a larger (4.2 litre) engine and fully synchronized gearbox but there were also (sometimes unannounced) minor changes and improvements, many of which meant certain features (such as the “flat floor”, the unique aluminum interior trim on the early-build cars, the type of hood (bonnet) louvers and the external hood latches) became markers of rarity and thus desirability to collectors.  Noted among these collectors is the phenomenon of “overlap”: a Jaguar might be found to include some “later” or “earlier” features than the build date would indicate should be fitted.  It's part of the charm of the breed but it’s thought to be the result of the recorded “build date” reflecting when a car passed the final quality control checks so one with an earlier chassis number could be returned for rectification, thus picking up what appears to be an “out-of-sequence” date.  

The pure lines of the S1 E-Type (top) were diluted, front and rear, by the need to comply with US safety legislation, the later head & taillights more clunky.  The collector market slang for the later headlight treatment is "sugar scoop".

The process by which S1 evolved into S2 was transitional which is why the designations S1.25 & 1.5 became accepted; not used by the factory, they’re said to have been “invented” by JCNA (Jaguar Clubs of North America).  The S1.25 run began on 11 January 1967 after production resumed following the Christmas holiday and these were a batch for the North American (NA) market (US & Canada) which featured the open headlights but were otherwise built to the same specification as the other S1 cars built for the rest of the world (RoW) which continued to be equipped with the glass covers, toggle switches, triple SU carburetors, polished aluminum cam covers, teardrop taillights and so on.  The S1.5 entered production early in August 1967 (for the 1968 US model-year) and were distinguished by raised open headlights (the "sugar scoops" without glass covers), rocker switches, twin Zenith-Stromberg carburetors replaced the triple SUs (on cars exported to North America) and other detail changes although the teardrop tail lights were still fitted.  The switch from three to two carburetors was necessitated by the emission control regulations and the claimed horsepower dropped from 265 to 246 hp; while not many took the original rating too seriously but the down-rating was reflected in the drop in performance, especially in the upper speed ranges.

Jaguar E-Type: S1 with covered headlight light (left), S1.25 with early "sugar scoop" (centre) and S2 with later "sugar scoop" (right). 

After the headlight covers were legislated to extinction, the replacement apparatus on the E-Types came to be called “sugar scoops”, a term earlier used for the Volkswagens & Porsches sold in North America US market which had to be fitted with sealed-beam headlights because of protectionist rules designed for the benefit of US manufacturers.  The use of “sugar scoop” for the E-Type was appropriate because the visual link with the original utensil was much more obvious than on the Volkswagens & Porsches.

A US market 1977 Porsche 911 (1964-1989), fitted with the front bumper assembly of a later 911 (964 (1989-1994)):  The original “sugar scoops” are seen on the left and the replacement Hella H4 lights are to the right (in RoW cars both H2 & H4 units were fitted).  The sugar scoop (centre) is Japanese, circa 1970s.  Sugar scoops are used to scoop sugar from a “sugar scuttle” whereas if one’s sugar is in a “sugar bowl”, a “sugar spoon” is used.  The difference between a “sugar spoon” and a “tea spoon” is the former has a deeper and usually more rounded bowl and most are supplied as part of a “tea set” or “tea service”, often with the same decorative elements.

Finally, the S2 cars proper appeared for the 1968 model year with revised sugar scoop headlights (mounted higher still), taillights below the bumpers, the “knock-off” wheel hubs replaced with “curly” hubs and a number of detail & mechanical changes including RoW adoption of the twin carburettors.  In the collector market, it's the S1 cars which are most coveted and what seems to have muddied the waters is a number of S1.25 & 1.5 E-Types have been retro-fitted with the covered headlights (a bigger and more expensive task than it sounds) and because so many reproduction items have over the years been produced, some later cars have during restoration been fitted with toggle switches.  Such is the appeal of the covered headlights that although the E-Type market is monitored by the originality police (the “matching numbers” crowd which have an extraordinary knowledge of things like “correct” hose clamps or screw heads), there seems to be much untypical forgiveness for “back-dating” headlights to the sleeker look.

Norway’s Motorhistorisk Klubb Drammen (Historic Car Club of Drammen) from Buskerud county reported on an exhibition hosted on 2 July 2014 by the Norsk motorhistorisk museu (Norwegian Motor Historic Museum) in the village of Brund, the event honoring Lindsay Lohan’s birthday.  The S1.5 Jaguar E-Type was recently restored but it would require a detailed examination to determine whether (note the triple carburetors) it remains in exactly the original specification.  Given the location this may have been a RoW car there’s a a lively two-way trans-Atlantic trade in E-Types (many now restored in Poland) so it may originally have been sold in the US or Canada.

The “Shaguar” used in the three Austin Powers movies (1997, 1999 & 2002) was a (US market) 1967 S1.5 E-Type which thus featured the combination of teardrop taillights, "sugar scoop" headlights, rocker switches and twin Zenith-Stromberg carburettors.

Zollverein

Zollverein (pronounced tsawl-fer-ahyn (German) or tsawl-fuh-rahyn (English))

(1) A nineteenth century union of German states for the maintenance of a uniform tariff on imports from other countries, and of free trading among themselves (organized in the early 1830s under Prussian auspices)

(2) Casual term for any similar union or arrangement between states; a customs union.

1833: A Modern German compound word, the construct being zoll (custom, duty, tariff) + verein (union).  Zoll was from the Old High German zol, from the Proto-Germanic tullō (what is counted or told).  An alternatively etymology has been suggested: the Medieval Latin toloneum, from the Classical Latin telōnēum (from the Ancient Greek τελωνεῖον (telōneîon) (custom house) from τέλος (télos) (due, tax, toll) but most scholars prefer the Germanic.  Verein (a union, association or society) is another German compound, the construct being ver- + ein + -en, the colloquial translation being something like “joining one into many”.  Zollverein is a noun, the noun plural is plural Zollvereine (although Zollvereins might be expected in the English-speaking world, possible without the initial capital obligatory in German).

Mission Creep

Changes in the Zollverein (Prussia and the Second Reich), 1834-1888

In the second referendum run on the matter, in 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU (Brexit) and for a while the conventional wisdom was that one's position should be something like : "It may or may not be a good idea; it’s too soon to tell".  That moment has passed and it seems now clear it was a very bad idea.  What the UK joined in 1973 was the European Economic Community (EEC), a Zollverein created by the Treaty of Rome (1957) with the intention of achieving economic integration among its member states and, in the English-speaking world, usually referred to as the common market.  Following the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, the EEC was renamed the European Community (EC) to reflect the extension of the community’s remit beyond trade and economic policy, a structure which existed until 2009 Treaty of Lisbon which created the European Union (EU) a more overtly political entity.  The road to Brexit began in Maastricht, remembered in the lore of the Tory Party's many right-wing fanatics in the phrase of Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990): "A treaty too far".

One who can’t be blamed for the Brexit vote resulting in the UK’s departure from the EU was Lindsay Lohan who, in England at the time, operated as one of planet Earth’s more improbable Cassandras, tweeting during the evening in real-time as the vote count was announced.  Unfortunately, although she made a compelling (if at times idiosyncratic) case for remain, of the 72.21% of registered voters who on 23 June 2016 bothered to cast a ballot, 51.89% disagreed and the leave case prevailed.  As an EU pundit, Ms Lohan displayed a good grasp of the issues including the implications for the exchange rate of Sterling and the positive benefits the UK had gained from the adoption of EU workplace safety directives although despite have apparently for a time “lived in Manchester”, needed to ask “where’s Sunderland”, one of the places expected to be among the first to report a result.  Fortunately, for anyone who doesn’t know where Sunderland is, Twitter (now known as X) is the platform to post the question which was soon answered.  Manchester too proved a disappointment, voting to leave, something Ms Lohan seemed to regard a personal affront given the her connection.

Since Brexit, many have expressed the view that had the EU remained a Zollverein and not evolved into a quasi-federal state, there would never have been sufficient public pressure to compel the political class to stage a referendum but Euro-scepticism had quite a pre-Maastricht history in the UK and in June 1975 the Labour government conducted the nation’s first national referendum, asking whether the UK should remain in the EC.  The, there was cross-party support to remain and almost two-thirds of the electorate supported that but then, the movement of people across borders wasn’t the issue it has become and despite all of other matters raised in the 2016 campaign, it was essentially a referendum about immigration, lawful and not.  Those concerns show no sign of going away and for a variety of reasons, the movement of people towards the UK, the EU and the US is likely only to increase but the conditions which were the reasons the UK sought membership in 1963 are not wholly dissimilar to what prevails in 2023.  It seems now unthinkable that London could re-apply for membership but, as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and Lindsay Lohan may yet be vindicated.

Nexus

Nexus (pronounced nek-suhs)

(1) A means of connection, tie or link; a form or state of connection.

(2) A connected series or group (objects or concepts); a network or web.

(3) The core or center or a matter, discussion or situation.

(4) In cellular biology, a specialized area of the cell membrane involved in intercellular communication and adhesion.

(5) In digital anthropology, the world’s first web browser.

(6) In law in many North American jurisdictions, the relationship between a vendor and a jurisdiction taxation purposes.

(7) In formal grammar, a technical term in the work of Danish linguist Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) describing a group of words expressing two concepts in one unit (such as a clause or sentence).

(8) In the civil law of Ancient Rome, a person who had contracted a nexum (obligation) such that, if they failed to re-pay that obliged, a creditor could compel them to work as a servant until the debt was paid; an indentured servant.

1655-1665: From the Latin nexus (the act of binding together; bond), the perfect passive participle of nectō (bind) and past participle of nectere (to bind).  Nectō was from the primitive Indo-European gned & gnod (to bind) and was cognate with nōdus (knot), the Ancient Greek γνάθος (gnáthos) (a jaw), the Avestan naska (bundle), the Old Irish nascim (to bind), the Old Norse knútr (from which German gained knude, Norwegian knute, and Icelandic hnútur).  Related were the Old English cnotta (which survives in Modern English as knot), the Old English cnyttan (which in Modern English is knit), the Old High German knotto (knoten in modern German) and the Middle Dutch cnudde (the Modern Dutch knot).  The suffix created the Latin verb of action.  Nexus is a noun; the noun plural is nexuses, nexusses or (the very rare) nexus although the Latin plural form (written nexūs or nexûs) is used in process philosophy, a highly technical branch of the discipline which administers the school of thought that change (ie alterations in the state of relationship(s) between things) constitute the only experience of life (the alternative schools focused on the process of change being understood as inadvertent or illusory).

Australia's defeated 1967 nexus referendum

Section 24 of the Australian Constitution provides for a numerical nexus between the House of Representatives (lower house) and the Senate (upper house):

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The senate chamber in the new parliament house, opened in 1988.  The scope of works given to the architects required that both chambers should be able (without major structural change) to be re-configured to accommodate up to twice the number of members.  The building is said to have an anticipated life of some two-hundred years so it would appear in the 1970s, nobody expected there was for centuries any possibility of breaking the nexus between the houses.  Despite the ominous prospect, Australians seem rarely to think the quantity of politicians is lacking although they are often sceptical about the quality.  

Lindsay Lohan in Nexxus Style Swap hair campaign, October 2024.

After an abortive attempt in 1966, a referendum was held the following year which sought to remove the nexus, thereby freezing the number of senators at ten per state (an increase from the original six triggered by the enlargement of the lower house in 1949).  The cabinet’s enthusiasm for curbing any proliferation of senators was prompted by concern an increase in the size of the upper house would make it easier for minor parties to win seats.  The referendum was defeated and the problem persists.  As the number of senators to be elected increases, the votes each needed to gain a seat (a quota) reduces and by the 1980s, a quota in a normal half-senate election was well under 20%; in a double-dissolution, less than 8%.  That, when combined with preferential voting, means votes surplus to a quota flow through the system and it’s become successively easier to succeed, a few senators having been elected with but a handful of first-preference votes.  Section 24 is not monocausal, there being many reasons for the decline in the share of the vote enjoyed by the major parties but the recent success of micro-parties would not have been possible without the operation of the clause.  For a generation, political excrement like the Democratic Labor Party (the DLP, a right-wing, predominately Roman Catholic breakaway from the Australian Labor Party (ALP)) was helped by the lower quotas demanded in a senate of sixty rather than thirty-six.  The modern senate of seventy-six is democratically more promiscuous still.

Lindsay Lohan in a lilac dress, desktop wallpaper available from Desktop Nexus.

In Australia, as in all modern Westminster systems, the major parties alternate in their roles as "His Majesty's Government" and "His Majesty's loyal opposition" but they are as one in their attempt to keep others out of the cozy little system they've designed for themselves and, ahead of the 2016 election, changes were implemented to stop preference arrangements between minor parties and independents producing results said to be "a distortion of the electoral process" (ie independents and those from minor parties being elected to seats the majors regarded as "belonging to them").  Further to advantage the majors, a form of optional preferential voting was introduced, said to have been done to assist voters but the most obvious beneficiaries were the major parties because it became harder for independents or minor party candidates to be elected to the Senate.

Phlogiston

Phlogiston (pronounced floh-jis-ton or floh-jis-tuhn)

In chemistry, a hypothetical colorless, odorless, weightless substance once believed to be the combustible part of all flammable substances and given off as flame during burning; sometimes styled poetically as the “fiery principle”.

1610-1620: From the New Latin phlogiston, from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν (phlogistón), neuter of φλογιστός (phlogistós), (burnt up, inflammable), from φλογίζω (phlogízō), (to set fire to), from φλόξ (phlóx) (flame).  The most familiar Greek forms were phlogizein (to set alight) and phlegein (to burn).  Root was the primitive Indo-European bhel (to shine, flash, burn (also “shining white)).  Bhel proved most productive, used especially when forming words for bright colors and was part of beluga; Beltane; black; blancmange; blanch; blank; blanket; blaze (as in "bright flame, fire)" bleach; bleak; blemish; blench; blende; blend; blind; blindfold; blitzkrieg; blond; blue; blush; conflagration; deflagration; effulgence; effulgent; flagrant; flambe; flambeau; flamboyant; flame; flamingo; flammable; Flavian; Flavius; fulgent; fulminate; inflame; inflammable; phlegm; phlegmatic; phlogiston; phlox; purblind; refulgent & riboflavin.  As well as the Ancient Greek phlegein (to burn), the word was apparently related to the Sanskrit bhrajate (shines), the Latin flamma (flame), fulmen (lightning), fulgere (to shine, flash) & flagrare (to burn, blaze, glow), the Old Church Slavonic belu (white) and the Lithuanian balnas (pale).  The related forms were phlogistic, phlogisticating, phlogistication & phlogisticated and the scientific necessity of the age also demanded the creation of the verb dephlogisticate (deprive of phlogiston), thus also dephlogisticated, dephlogisticating & dephlogistication.

Alchemy & Chemistry

As the surgeons emerged from the barber’s shop the chemists were once alchemists.  Chemistry began as alchemy, once a respectable branch of learning concerned, inter alia, with the study and purification of materials, the dubious reputation it now suffers because of the fixation in popular culture on its work in developing the chemical process chrysopoeia, the transmutation of “base metals” such as lead into "noble metals", especially gold.  That particular notion of molecular re-arrangement proved a cul-de-sac but some of the laboratory techniques and experimental models developed in medieval alchemy remain in use today.

One pioneer of modern chemistry was German chemist & physician Georg Stahl (1660–1734) who devoted much attention to the fundamental nature of combustion: What happens when stuff burns?  Developing an idea first proposed in 1667 by German physician & alchemist Joachim Becher (1635–1682), in 1702, Stahl proposed that all inflammable objects contained a material substance he called “phlogiston”, from the Greek word meaning “to set on fire”.  When something burned, it liberated its content of phlogiston into the air and Stahl believed it to be chemically inert.  Stahl’s phlogiston theory would dominate scientific thinking for a century.

Phlogiston theory for a while survived even the odd inconvenient truth.  When experiments revealed that burning (oxidizing) a piece of metal resulted in it weighing more rather than less (contrary to phlogiston theory which suggested it would be lighter by the weight of the evacuated phlogiston), the inconsistency was resolved by postulating that phlogiston was either (1) an immaterial principle rather than a material substance (2), phlogiston had a negative weight or (3), phlogiston was lighter than air.  So much did the theory become scientific orthodoxy that when chemists isolated hydrogen, it was celebrated as pure phlogiston.

The execution of Lavoisier, woodcut by unknown artist.  Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (1743-1794) was a nobleman and a tax collector, neither quality likely much to appeal to the mob which prevailed after the French Revolution.  In 1794 he and twenty-seven other tax-farmers were executed by guillotine in Paris at the Place de la Révolution (now the Place de la Concorde).  A fellow scientist at the time lamented: "It took them only an instant to cut off that head, and one hundred years might not be sufficient to produce another like it.”

It would be decades before those with doubts, and there were a few, systemized their objections into an alternative theory.  In 1775, French chemist Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier delivered a paper he called Memoir on the nature of the principle which combines with metals during their calcination [oxidation] and which increases their weight to a meeting of the French Royal Academy of Sciences.  Subsequently it was published in 1778.  Lavoisier named the combustible part of air principe oxigine (acidifying principle) from the Ancient Greek, the construct being ὀξύς (oxús) (sharp) + γένος (génos) (birth), referring to his erroneous belief that oxygen was a vital component of all acids, this his choice of “acid producing”.  The French adopted the variant principe oxygène and in English it became oxygen.  The fraction of air that does not support combustion he called azote, (no life) from the Ancient Greek, the construct being ἀ- (a-) (without) + ζωή (zōḗ) (life), the idea being the substance was incapable of sustaining life.  Azote is now called “nitrogen”, from the French nitrogène, the construct being the nitro- (from the Ancient Greek νίτρον (nítron) (sodium carbonate) +‎ the French gène (producing).  From this paper, which eventually laid to rest phlogiston theory, emerged the foundations for the understanding of chemical reactions as combinations of elements which form new materials; the birth of modern chemistry.  Lavoisier’s model was convincingly elegant but there were those in the scientific establishment with reputations vested in phlogiston theory and some would prove recalcitrant.  Even when the existence of oxygen and nitrogen had become widely accepted, some remained so inculcated they felt compelled to integrate the old with the new, oxygen and nitrogen a filter with which to view phlogiston; a construction of reality which in the post-Trumpian world would be called “alternative facts”. 

Most famous was the eminent English chemist Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) who, even after personally identifying oxygen and well after Lavoisier's paper had persuaded nearly all others, insisted oxygen was but “dephlogisticated air” and in his 1796 paper Considerations on the doctrine of phlogiston and the decomposition of water, he labeled Lavoisier's devotees as “Antiphlogistians”, objecting to the idea of some “theory so new” and based on “so very narrow and precarious a foundation” suddenly overturning “the best established chemistry”.  Two centuries later, a similarly doomed rearguard action would be fought by the “steady-staters” against the big-bang theory explaining the origins of the universe.  Until his dying day, Priestley never accepted the invalidation of phlogiston theory but the increasingly complicated modifications he, and a dwindling few others, bolted-on to make it conform with the undeniable implications of Lavoisier’s model were unconvincing and by the turn of the nineteenth century, phlogiston’s days were over.

Alternate & Alternative

Alternate (pronounced awl-ter-neyt, or al-ter-neyt (adjective) or awl-ter-nit (noun).

(1) Repeatedly and regularly to interchange with one another in time or place; rotate (usually followed by with).

(2) To change back and forth between conditions, states, actions etc.

(3) To perform or do in succession or one after another.

(4) Being in a constant state of succession or rotation; interchanged repeatedly one for another.

(5) Reciprocal; mutual.

(6) Constituting an alternative (a historic sense in English, revived in US use (and not without controversy).

(7) In botany, placed singly at different heights on the axis, on each side in succession, or at definite angular distances from one another, as leaves; opposite to the intervals between other organs (petals alternate with sepals).

(8) In electric current, voltage etc, to reverse direction or sign at regular intervals, usually sinusoidally ((having the shape or characteristics of a sine wave)), the instantaneous value varying continuously.

(9) In mathematics, designating the members in a series, which regularly intervene between the members of another series, as the odd or even numbers of the numerals; every other; every second (eg 2, 4, 6, 8).

1505-1515: From the Latin alternō (take turns), from alternus (one after another, by turns), the construct being alter (other) + -rnus (a suffix forming adjective from the earlier -r̥inos from -(o)sinos, from -nus or from some -r- or -s- stem + -nus; metanalysis of this suffix led to its free use).  In classical Latin, alternātus was the past participle of alternāre.  Derived forms are the adverbs alternately & alternatingly, the noun alternateness and the adjective nonalternating.

Alternative (pronounced awl-tur-nuh-tiv, al-tur-nuh-tiv)

(1) A choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility.

(2) One of the things, propositions, or courses of action that can be chosen.

(3) A possible or remaining course or choice.

(4) Affording a choice of two or more things, propositions, or courses of action (of two things, propositions, or courses) mutually exclusive so that if one is chosen the other must be rejected.

(5) Employing or following non-traditional or unconventional ideas, methods etc.; existing outside the establishment.

(6) In logic (of a proposition) asserting two or more choices, at least one of which is true.

1580–1590: The construct was alternat(e) + -ive (an adjective suffix signifying relating or belonging to).  The –ive suffix is from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from Latin -ivus. Until the fourteenth century all Middle English loanwords from Anglo-Norman ended in -if (compare actif, natif, sensitif, pensif etc) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms not yet replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (compare hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc.).  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Alternative was from the Middle French alternatif, from the Medieval Latin alternātīvus (alternating), from the participle stem of Latin alternō (interchange, alternate). Derived forms are the adverb alternatively, the nouns alternativeness & alternativity, the adjective quasi-alternative and the adverb quasi-alternatively.

Alternative Facts

The phrase “alternative facts” aroused interest when used in 2017 by Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) campaign strategist and counselor, Kellyanne Conway (b 1967; senior counselor to the president, 2017-2020).  Ms Conway used the words during a Meet the Press interview to describe the use of statistics quoted by Sean Spicer (b 1971; White House Press Secretary & Communications Director, 2017), numbers which, prima facie, seemed dubious.  The matter about which Spicer spoke was not a great affair of church or state; it was squabble about which president attracted the greater live audience to his inauguration, Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) in 2009 or Donald Trump in 2017.  All available evidence appeared to suggest Obama’s numbers were up to twice those of Trump and if Spicer hadn’t brought it up probably nobody else would have mentioned it but for Trump, who borrowed for his campaign so many of the techniques he’d learned from his career in reality television, viewer numbers were professional life and death.

Kellyanne Conway in hoodie: Miss January, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute's annual Conservative Women Calendar (2009).

Ms Conway sought later to clarify “alternative facts” by defining the phrase as "additional facts and alternative information" which, when deconstructed, probably did add a layer of nuance but really didn’t help.  Journalists, not a crew always entirely truthful, decided to help and called the phrase "Orwellian", provoking a spike on the search engines as folk sought out "doublethink" and "newspeak"; sales of George Orwell’s (1903–1950) Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) said overnight to have risen several-dozen fold.  The relationship between the press and the Trump White House was never likely to be friendly but “alternative facts” meant things started badly almost from day one.  Noting journalists rarely seemed to show great energy in pursuing crooked Hillary Clinton’s evasiveness and casual relationship with truthfulness, the administration felt unfairly picked-upon.  Journalists thought “alternatives facts” was just too blatant, beyond spin and actually an expression of contempt; they knew politicians were going to lie but the lack of subtlety was just insulting.  Both sides made good cases.

Watching with amused detachment were those with as little trust in what was being reported as in those being reported.  Some observed that “alternative facts” in political discourse was little different from the arguments offered in court by prosecution and defense; law was a matter for the judge but questions of fact were for the jury and for centuries juries had been choosing between alternative facts.  This was not novel and in an era where the conduct of politics was as adversarial as what’s done in any courtroom, nor did it seem difficult.  It’s never been certain just who first said “the truth is so precious it deserves an escort of lies” but it sits well with many.

The difference

Sometimes expressed is the view that in the days before linguistic promiscuity overtook the land, "alternate" and "alternative" enjoyed quite distinct meanings.  If two things were described as alternate, it meant one came after another in a repetitive pattern; if red switches to black, then red, then black etc, red & black are said to be alternating.  If one has the choice between red & black, the two colors are alternatives.  If one declines coffee, one might be offered tea as an alternative. Thus alternate is where one comes after another and alternative is where one is the option opposed to the other.  That is for many the preferred position but in the sixteenth century the alternative did enjoy the sense pendants insist belongs properly only to alternate so there's history but in English, citing precedents from the sixteenth century to support the revival of some archaic use rarely impresses and the blurring of any distinction is just how the language evolves.  In the US alternate & alternative seem now widely accepted as synonyms and while that's perhaps unfortunate, confusion will presumably be rare because the meaning will usually be clear from the context in which the words appear.

The battle may be lost: The international reach of US English means alternate & alternative may in decades to come be universally regarded as synonyms.  

Beyond US shores, the process has already begun.  Both belong to a class of words which sound similar and have a not-unrelated meaning (like enormous and enormity) and the trend towards interchangeability in use appears usually to favor that which is phonetically preferred so alternate is more often heard.  It’s common now in much of the English-speaking world to hear an opposition leader described as the alternate rather than alternative prime minister, something which should be said only when describing alternating premierships such as those of Gladstone and Disraeli.  Where alternate & alternative went in the US the world may be destined to follow: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definitely blames the Americans but they would say that wouldn't they?

Alternating prime-ministers, each an alternative.  William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898; prime-minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, Feb-July 1886 & 1892–1894) (left) and Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, later First Earl of Beaconsfield; prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) (right).