Galaxy

Galaxy (pronounced gal-uhk-see)

(1) In astronomy, a large system of stars, galactic dust, black holes etc, held together by mutual gravitation and isolated from similar systems by vast regions of space.  They exist (in at least the billions) as independent and coherent systems although because not static, can collide and merge.  Planet Earth is in a galaxy called the Milky Way.

(2) Figuratively, an assemblage of things or persons seen as luminous or brilliant.

(3) To gather together into a luminous whole (archaic).

(4) In mathematics, a hyper-real number in non-standard analysis

(5) In fashion or graphic design, any print or pattern reminiscent of a galaxy, constructed usually by blending semi-opaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background.

(6) The Milky Way, the apparent band of concentrated stars which appears in the night sky over earth (now long obsolete and used only in historic reference).

1350–1400: From the Middle English galaxyë, galaxie & galaxias from the Old French galaxie and Medieval Latin galaxia & galaxias (the Milky Way; in the classical Latin via lactea or circulus lacteus), from the Ancient Greek γαλαξίας (galaxías kyklos) (milky circle) from γάλα (gala (genitive galaktos)) (milk) and related to the Latin lac (milk)), from the primitive Indo-European g(a)lag (milk).  Galaxy is a noun and verb, the adjective is galactic the noun plural galaxies; the present participle is galaxying and the past participle galaxied.)  The technical astronomical sense as it’s now understood as a discrete stellar aggregate including the sun and all visible stars emerged as a theory by 1848, the final scientific proof being delivered in the 1920s; the figurative sense of "brilliant assembly of persons or articles" dates from the 1580s.

It will all end badly

The Milky Way, planet Earth’s cosmic suburb was in the late fourteenth century defined as "the galaxy as seen in the night sky", and was a loan-translation of Latin via lacteal which had existed formerly in the Middle English as milky Wey, Milken-Way & Milky Cercle.  The philosophers (natural scientists) of antiquity had speculated on the nature of what they could see when gazing at night sky and some (Democrates, Pythagoras (and even the historian Ovid)) guessed they were looking at a vast array of stars, the matter when Galileo, using his telescope, reported that the whole vista was resolvable into stars and it attracted other names including Jacob's Ladder, the Way to St James's, and Watling Street.

Artist's impression of the Milky Way generated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2019.

The Milky Way was originally thought the entire universe but as telescopes improved astronomers by the mid nineteenth century speculated that some of the spiral nebulae they observed were actually vast and immensely distant structures perhaps similar in size and shape to the Milky Way but the proof of that wasn’t definitive until the 1920s.  Galaxies are held together by the gravitational attraction of the material within them, most coalescing around a nucleus into elliptical or spiral forms although a few are irregular in shape.  Galaxies range in diameter from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of light-years and contain between a few million and several trillion stars, many grouped into clusters, with these often parts of larger super-clusters.

Lindsay Lohan Samsung Galaxy S24 phone case.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was among the first to theorize the Milky Way was not the only galaxy in the universe and coined the term “island universe to describe a galaxy”.  Kant was right and while estimates vary, over one hundred-billion galaxies exist in the observable universe, most of which are moving away from our Milky Way; those farther away receding faster than those nearby.  The Milky Way rotates at about 560,000 mph (900,000 km/h) and completes a full revolution about every two-hundred million years, thus one galactic revolution ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth.  In about four billion years, the Milky Way will begin a slow-motion (in astronomical terms) collision with the Andromeda galaxy, a process which will take at least one hundred million years.  Optimistically, astronomers have suggested the ellipsoidal result be named Milkomeda.

Notable Ford Galaxies, 1959-1970

Initially to augment their range-topping Fairlane, Ford adopted the Galaxie name in 1959 as a marketing ploy to take advantage of public interest in the space race, using the French spelling to add a touch of the exotic.  On the full-sized platform, the name was used until 1974 but it was the brief era of the charismatic high-performance versions built in the early-mid 1960s which are most remembered;  already a force on US circuits, they became also in England, Australia, South Africa & New Zealand, one of the more improbably successful racing cars.  The Galaxie was notable also as the platform which Ford used to create the LTD, essentially a Galaxie bundled with a number of otherwise optional features and some additional appointments, sold at an attractive price.  It was an immediate success and had two side effects, (1) other manufacturers soon used the same tactic, creating most notably the Chevrolet Caprice and (2) the creation of "a luxury Ford" began the process of rendering the Mercury brand, introduced in 1938 as "the luxury Ford", eventually redundant.  In an evolution which would play-out over two decades, the interior fittings of the Ford LTD and its competitors would become increasingly ornate although critics were sometimes divided on the aesthetic success of the result.  A generation after the name was retired in the US, Ford in Europe used the anglicized spelling, in 1995 introducing the Galaxy, a dreary family van.

1959 Ford Galaxie Skyliner.

The Galaxie was a mid-year addition to the line, assuming the role of the top-of-the-range model from the Fairlane 500, a position it would occupy until 1965 when it began to be usurped by the LTD, added that year as a Galaxie option although it would later become a separate model which would outlast the Galaxie by more than a decade.  Best remembered from the 1959 range was the Skyliner, a two-door convertible with the novelty of a retractable hard-top a marvel of analogue-era engineering, the operation of the all-steel apparatus a mesmerizing piece of mechanical choreography from the early space-age, controlled by three drive motors, ten solenoids, many relays & circuit breakers, all connected with a reputed 610 feet (186 m) of electrical cabling.  Despite the intricacy, it proved a reliable system.

1960 Ford Galaxie Starliner.

As the 1960s dawned, the muscle car thing was still years away, the intermediate and pony-cars on which they would be based not yet in production and by choice, Ford probably wouldn’t have produced any high performance versions of the Galaxie.  For some time, Detroit had been putting more powerful versions of their biggest engines into their top-line models but these tended to be early interpretations of what would later come to be known as the “personal car”, heavyweight coupés laden with power accessories, air conditioning and luxury fittings but those big engines were increasingly and extensively being modified by those seeking competitive advantage in what rapidly had become the wildly popular racing series run by the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR).  With some alarm, the sanctioning body, concerned both at the extent to which the cars being used differed from their “stock car” concept and the high speeds being attained, imposed rules designed to restrict the use of components used on the track to those genuinely available to customers.  Thus was born the 352 cubic inch (5.8 litre) (FE) “Special” V8, a US$204.70 option available on all 1960 Fords except the wagons although, reflecting the intended market, niceties like air conditioning, power steering and power brakes weren’t available.  Rated at 360 (268 kW) horsepower, the 352 Special actually out-powered the 430 cubic inch (7.0 litre) (MEL) V8, which, at 350 horsepower (261 kW), was available in the Thunderbird but was so bulky and heavy that its use on the track had been curtailed although it would enjoy some success in powerboat racing.  The 352 Special also provided quite a jump in performance from other 352s which offered a (standard) 235 horsepower (175 kW) or 300 (224 kW) in the 352 Super, neither exactly sparkling performers although typical for the era; a Special-equipped Galaxie managing a standing quarter-mile five seconds quicker than a Super, admittedly one hampered by one of Ford’s early, inefficient automatic transmissions.  The 352 Super wasn’t available for long but the streamlined Starliner body to which most of them were fitted proved to have aerodynamic properties close to idea for use on NASCAR’s ovals but public enthusiasm for the style soon waned and it was replaced by something thought more elegant but which proved less slippery, inducing Ford to try (unsuccessfully) one of the more blatant cheats of the era and one which would prove to be the first shot in what came to be called the “aero-wars”.

1961 Ford Galaxie.

The power-race had for a while been raging on the ovals but NASCAR’s rules dictating all the bits be available for public sale and produced in sufficient number to make purchase genuinely possible meant the race moved to the showroom and thus, public roads, something which produced a remarkable generation of cars but which would have implications for the public, the industry and, ominously, the laws which would follow.  Facing competition with more power and displacement, Ford in 1961 released a version of the new 390 cubic inch (FE) (6.5 litre) this time with an induction system which used three two-barrel carburetors rather than the single four barrel which had sat atop the 352 Special.  Strangely, most owners had to go a circuitous route to get their six-barrel 390, few assembled that way by the factory, the cars instead delivered equipped with a high-performance version of the 390 which included in the trunk (boot), a kit with the parts and accessories to upgrade from the supplied single four barrel carburetor to a triple, two barrel apparatus.  Intended for installation by the dealer, thus equipped, power jumped from 375 horsepower (280 kW) to 401 (299 kW).

1962 Ford Galaxie 406 (replica).

The power race however was accelerating faster than the vehicles it inspired and in 1962, the Galaxie’s new high-performance engine was a 406 cubic inch (FE) (6.6 litre) V8, offered either with a single four-barrel carburetor and rated at 385 horsepower (287 kW) or a 405 horsepower (302 kW) version with the triple two-barrel Holleys.  The 406 certainly delivered increased power but the internal stresses this imposed, coupled with effects of the higher speeds now possible exposed weaknesses in some aspects of underlying engineering, some components being subject to forces never envisaged in the late 1950s when the design was finalized.  The most obvious and frequent failure afflicted the main (bottom-end) bearings and, part-way during the production run, change was made to add a second set of bolts to secure the main-bearing caps, the novelty being that they were drilled sideways, entering through the skirt of the block, thus gaining the moniker “cross-bolted”.

Ford Galaxie 427s, Brands Hatch, 1963.

The 406 however had a production life of less than two years, replaced in 1963 by a the 427 cubic inch (FE) V8, an engine which would be offered in so many configurations that the stated power ratings were more indicative than calculated but the versions available for the street versions of the Galaxie were rated at 410 horsepower (360 kW) if fitted with a single four barrel carburetor and 425 (317 kW) if running a pair.  The 427 would go on to a storied and decorated history on the street, strip and circuit including twice winning the 24 hour classic at Le Mans but unexpectedly, it had a successful career in saloon car racing in England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.  Predicted at the time to be briefly fast, loud and spectacular before its hunger for brake linings and tyres ended its outings, it instead proved competitive, stable and reliable, dominating the 1963 British Saloon Car Championship, ending the reign of the 3.8 litre Jaguars.  In the US however, although the 427 had powered the Galaxie to trophy winning successes in the 1964 NASCAR season, the larger displacement had further increased internal pressures and reliability issues with the bottom end had again been encountered.  The cross-bolting had solved the issues caused by vibration but now the lubrication was proving inadequate, the oiling system setup to first to lubricate the top end and then to the crankshaft.  The solution was another oil galley along the side of the block, delivering priority lubrication to the bottom end; introduced in 1965 as a running change, these engines came to be known as “side-oilers”, the earlier versions retrospectively known as “top oilers”.

1966 Galaxie 7 Litre.

By 1966, the era of the Galaxie as a race car was nearly over, Ford finding the Lotus Cortina and the Mustang quicker on tighter circuits while on the big NASCAR ovals, the race teams during the year switched from the full-sized cars to the intermediates, the Fairlane (the name re-applied to a smaller vehicle after 1962) now the platform of choice.  In 1966 & 1967, the 427 remained available but demand was muted, the two-door Galaxie gaining an option called "7 Litre" (they really did use the European spelling (presumably to avoid a linguistic clash with "Galaxie") and the choice was between the 427 (noisy, cantankerous, an oil burner, expensive and powerful) or the 428 (mild-mannered, smooth, quiet & cheap) and the market spoke, the sales breakdown between the 427/428 in 1966/1967 being 11035/38 and 1056/12.  The message was clear; there were many who wanted high-performance cars but fewer and fewer wanted the package in a big machine, the attention of the market now focused on the intermediates and pony cars.

1970 Ford XL.

By 1970, except for a run heavy-duty units for police fleets which used the old 428, for its top-line option, the full-sized range switched to the new 429 cubic inch (385) (7.0 litre) V8, designed with emission control systems in mind, which had for a couple of seasons been offered in the Thunderbird.  Although available in a version rated at 360 horsepower (265 kW) which was rather more convincing than the perhaps optimistic numbers granted to some of the 428s used in the earlier Galaxies, the emphasis was now on effortlessness rather than outright performance although, Ford was the last of the big three still to offer a four-speed manual gearbox in the big cars and the option lasted until 1970 although the deletion from the option list must have been a late change because while brochures printed for that year’s range included it, it seems none were built.  Actually, technically, by then such things were no longer Galaxies, the two-doors after 1967 called just the “Ford XL” although everyone seemed still to call them Galaxies and for those who still lusted for the way full-size things used to be done, Plymouth did offer their triple carburetor 440 cubic (7.2 litre) inch V8 but only with an automatic transmission.  It would last only until 1971.

Honorific

Honorific (pronounced on-uh-rif-ik)

(1) Conveying honor, as a title or a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a superior, elder etc.

(2) In certain languages (including Chinese and Japanese) a class of forms used to show respect, especially in direct address.

(3) A title or term of respect.

(4) Of a pronoun, verb inflection etc, indicating the speaker's respect for the addressee or his acknowledgment of inferior status

1640–1650: The construct was honor + -ific, from the Latin honōrificus (honor-making).  Honor as a noun dates from circa 1150–1200, from the Middle English honour, honor & honur (glory, renown, fame earned), from the Anglo-French honour & Old French onor, honor & honur (honor, dignity, distinction, position; victory, triumph) (which persists in Modern French as honneur), from the Latin honōr- (stem of honor & the earlier honōs), from honorem (nominative honos).  The verb was from the Middle English honouren & honuren, from the Anglo-French honourer & honurer, from the Latin honōrāre, derivative of honor.  It displaced the Middle English menske (honor, dignity among men), from the Old Norse menskr (honor).  In Middle English, it also could mean "splendor, beauty; excellence" and until the seventeenth century, honour and honor appears to have been equally popular forms, the former still used in places most influenced by British use, the latter long the preferred form in North America.  Meaning "feminine purity, a woman's chastity" dates from the late fourteenth century.  The idea of the “honor roll” is attested in an academic context from 1872 and from here it spread to sporting and other organizations.  The initial "h" is merely etymological, the sound having disappeared even prior to it entering Middle English.

The verb was from the Middle English honouren & honuren (to do honor to, show respect to) from the Old French onorer, honorer (respect, esteem, revere; welcome; present (someone with something)), from the Latin honorare (to honor) from honor (honor, dignity, office, reputation).  It was a Latinate correction that began to be made in early Old French and from circa 1300 was used to mean “confer honors on; action of honoring or paying respect to; act or gesture displaying reverence or esteem; state or condition inspiring respect; nobleness of character or manners; high station or rank; a mark of respect or esteem; a source of glory, a cause of good reputation" and shortly after "to respect, follow teachings & instructions etc”.  In commercial transaction, the meaning "accept a bill due etc, is attested from 1706, via the notion of "perform a duty of respect toward".  The meaning "one's personal title to high respect or esteem" is from the 1540s.  The suffix -ific (creating or causing something) was from the Latin -ficus, from the Proto-Italic -fakos and related to faciō, from the Proto-Italic fakjō, from the primitive Indo-European dheh- (to put, place, set), perhaps via a later intermediate root dh-k-yé/ó- and cognate with the Ancient Greek τίθημι (títhēmi), the Sanskrit दधाति (dádhāti), the Old English dōn (which begat the English do) and the Lithuanian dėti (to put).  Facere (to make) was the present active infinitive of faciō.  Honorific is an adjective & noun; honorifically is an adverb.  The rare adjective honorifical is used when describing the doing or conferring of an honor.

performance.

Lindsay Lohan on the panel of The Masked Singer (2019).  The term "diva" can be used as a honorific.

Divas (real and imagined) are popular figures to parody and the word has produced a number of derived forms including (1) the nouns divaism (diva-like behavior) & divadom (the condition of being a diva; the sphere of divas) and (2) the adjectives divaesque (behavior reminiscent of a diva (the comparative more divaesque, the superlative most divaesque)), divalike & divaish (pertaining to the manner expected of a diva (some noting of the latter the anagram was HIV/AIDS)).  The adjective divaistic and the verbs divaed & divaing (doing something in a divaish way) are non-standard and used for jocular effect.  In music, the noun “diva house” described a late 1980s subgenre of house music, much associated with booming vocals (handbag house listed usually as the synonym although, being pop culture, there are likely some who find a distinction)).  The noun divo is used of “a male diva” (a man with the traits characteristic of a typical diva (used also with the implication the word should summon in the mind "deviant" (ie he's a bit gay)).  Diva (in the sense used in English) was also borrowed from the Italian in un-adapted form in Catalan, Dutch, French, Norwegian Nynorsk, Portuguese, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish.

A honorific is a title that conveys esteem or respect when used in addressing or referring to a person.  In the modern age, until the late twentieth century, the most common honorific forms were Mr, Mrs & Miss which became so procedural they could hardly any longer be though honorific except in the most narrow technical sense.  Feminist thought came to preferred Ms which caught on and the LGBTQQIAAOP movement introduced Mx which didn’t although it did intriguingly turn the honorific from a matter of etiquette into something political.  Although less common a practice now, English also had a tradition of the anti-honorific (despective or humilific) first person forms such as an expressions like “your most humble servant”, the effect of which is to enhance the relative honor accorded to the person addressed.

There are some who define the term quite widely, even to the point where it’s essentially synonymous with “title” although, at the margins, the distinction can be difficult to determine.  In the US, senators and ambassadors are so styled while holding the office and that’s because it’s a title proper yet, upon retirement, they continue to be addressed so and at that point, it becomes a honorific.  In the English-speaking world this extends also to military ranks.  A retired general is properly styled General (rtd) but is addressed as “general” which is a honorific whereas those of five-star rank (field marshal and equivalent) are deemed technically never to retire and thus retain the title proper.  Pedants insist, in the narrow technical sense, the title doctor is honorific if used by those who actually don’t hold doctorates (most dentists, vets and physicians and these days even osteopaths & chiropractors are often so-styled) yet some of those holding honorary doctorates use the titles.  In the Commonwealth, the title “honourable” is given to members of the executive and legislative bodies during their term of service.  It can also be retained by royal licence (ie the approval of the Governor-in-Council) after a certain number of years’ service although there appear to be no formal rules requiring the subject actually to be in any way honorable, the effluxion of time apparently deemed sufficient.  In some fields, titles are wholly informal and may be though honorific even if technically outside the usual understanding.  In music, a distinguished conductor or virtuoso instrumentalist may be known as maestro (from the Italian maestro, from the Latin magister (master)) and a great (or possibly troublesome) soprano may be a diva (from the Italian diva, from Latin dīva (goddess), feminine of dīvus (divine, divine one; notably a deified mortal)).

In the intricate world of the British peerage, and the related order of precedence, honorifics abound; the younger son of a duke is styled Lord though he’s not actually a lord; it’s just a courtesy title.  Winston Churchill, fond of decorations but with little interest in titles, upon accepting the Garter, suggested he might continue to be called Mr Churchill as a "discourtesy title".  In society, the order of precedence is a thing of some importance and one that even experts need sometimes to check to ensure the youngest daughter of a duke is in the right place in relation to the oldest son of a viscount.  Get it wrong and there could be a comment in Tatler.

The B-san: Boeing B-29 Superfortress, 1945.  The cost to develop the B-29 far exceeded what was spent on the Manhattan Project which built the first atom-bombs.  Coincidently, the cost was similar to that spent by Nazi Germany on another influential delivery system, the V2 (Aggregat 4 (A4)) rocket project.  

Probably every country on the planet has an array of honorifics though some apply them more formally.  In Japan, san is the most commonplace honorific and is a title of respect typically used between equals of any age, the closest analogues in English being Mr, Miss etc.  San is sometimes used with company names; the offices or shop of Nippon Denso might be referred to as Nippon Denso san by those in another corporation.  On the small maps in phone books and on business cards in Japan, names of companies are written using san and it can be attached to the names of animals or even inanimate objects; a pet rabbit might be called usagi-san, and fish used for cooking can be referred to as sakana-san though being akin in English to Mr Fish, some might avoid the term in mixed company.  Married people often refer to their spouse attaching san and during the Second World War, even enemy aircraft attracted the honorific; Japanese civilians the target of the United States Army Air Force’s (USAAF) Boeing B29 bombers called them the B-san.  Due to san being gender neutral and commonly used, it can be used to refer to people who are not close or to whom one does not know but it may not be appropriate when using it on someone who is close or when it is clear other honorifics should be used.  Rules for this are doubtlessly best understood by the Japanese.  San is a simple form but a myriad of other Japanese honorifics such as Sama, Kun, Chan, Tan, Bō, Senpai, Sensei, hakase, Sensi, and Shi are applied under a more complex matrix of rules.

Phonetic

Phonetic (pronounced fuh-net-ik)

(1) Of or relating to speech sounds, their production, or their transcription in written symbols.

(2) Corresponding to pronunciation; agreeing with pronunciation; spelling in accord with pronunciation.

(3) Concerning or involving the discrimination of non-distinctive elements of a language (in English, certain phonological features, as length and aspiration, are phonetic but not phonemic); denoting any perceptible distinction between one speech sound and another, irrespective of whether the sounds are phonemes or allophones.

(4) As a noun, (in Chinese writing) a written element that represents a sound and is used in combination with a radical to form a character.

(5) In the language of structural linguistics, relating to phones (as opposed to phonemes).

1803: From the New Latin phōnēticus, from the Ancient Greek φωνητῐκός (phōnētikós) (vocal), the construct being phōnēt(ós) (utterable; to be spoken (verbid of phōneîn (to make sounds; to speak))) + -ikos (the adjective suffix).  The source was the Latin phōnē (sound, voice), from the primitive Indo-European bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The meaning "relating or pertaining to the human voice as used in speech" was in use by 1861 but the technical use "phonetic science” (scientific study of speech) was in the literature twenty years earlier.  Phonetic is an adjective and a noun (in the technical sense of a element in Chinese writing) and phonetically an adverb.  Phonetical is an adjective which can correctly be used in certain sentences but is largely synonymous with phonetic and thus often potentially redundant.  Fauxnetic (the construct being faux (fake) + (pho)netic) exists to describe a respelling system: not adequately indicating pronunciation and can be used humorously or technically.

The NATO Phonetic Alphabet

Phonetic alphabets were devised as radiotelephonic spelling systems to enhance the clarity of voice-messaging in potentially adverse audio environments, afflicted by factors such as the clatter of the battlefield, poor signal quality or language barriers where differences in pronunciation can distort understanding.  If a universal radiotelephonic spelling alphabet (substituting a code word for each letter of the alphabet) is adopted, critical messages are more likely correctly to be understood.

The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) phonetic alphabet became effective in 1956 and soon became the established universal phonetic alphabet but the one familiar today took some time to emerge, several adaptations earlier trialed.  The early inventors and adopters of what were then variously called voice procedure alphabets, (radio-)telephony alphabets & (word-)spelling alphabets, were branches of the military anxious, as the volume of radio communication increasingly multiplied, to adopt a standardized set of standards as they had in Morse Code for cable traffic and semaphore for signals.  A surprising array of systems were developed by the military and the cable & telephony operators which, obviously worked well within institutions but as communications systems were tending to become interconnected, the utility for interoperability was limited by the confusion which could arise where the choices of name didn’t coincide.

Probably the first genuinely global models were those standardized during the 1920s by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the latter adopted by many post offices (and other authorities administering regional telephone systems).  It featured mostly the names of cities across the globe although substituted kilogramme (sic) for the Khartoum or Kimberley used earlier by others:

Amsterdam, Baltimore, Casablanca, Denmark, Edison, Florida, Gallipoli, Havana, Italia, Jerusalem, Kilogramme, Liverpool, Madagascar, New York, Oslo, Paris, Quebec, Roma, Santiago, Tripoli, Uppsala, Valencia, Washington, Xanthippe, Yokohama, Zurich.

City names had long been a popular choice because they were usually well-known with (at least in the English-speaking world), more-or-less standardized pronunciations but the military, always interested in specific (if not general) efficiencies, preferred words with no more than two syllables and preferably one.  The joint Army/Navy project in the US (called the Able Baker alphabet after the first two code words) was adopted across the entire service in 1941 and its utility, coupled with the wealth of documentation available saw it quickly and widely used by allied forces, something encouraged by their dependence on US materiel and logistical support.  In the muddle of war, adoption was ad hoc and it seems nothing was formalized until the 1943 when the British Royal Air Force (RAF) advised all stations that Able Baker was the RAF standard, codifying what had for some time been standard operating procedure.  The Able Baker set used:

Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox, George, How, Item, Jig, King, Love, Mike, Nan, Oboe, Peter, Queen, Roger, Sugar, Tare, Uncle, Victor, William, X-ray, Yoke, Zebra.

The demands of war meant there was little time for linguistic sociology but after the war, concerns began to be expressed that almost all (and by then dozens had been created) the phonetic alphabets were decidedly English in composition.  A new version incorporating sounds common to English, French, and Spanish was proposed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), one of the alphabet soup of international organizations which emerged after the formation of the United Nations (UN); their code-set was, for civil aviation only, adopted in 1951 and was very similar to that used today:

Alfa, Bravo, Coca, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Gold, Hotel, India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima, Metro, Nectar, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Union, Victor, Whiskey, eXtra, Yankee, Zulu.

Most agreed the IATA system was technically better and certainly more suited to communications conducted by a multi-language community, for whom many English was neither a first nor sometimes even a familiar tongue.  However, the military in this era was still using the Able Baker system and the difficulties this created were practical, many airfields and the overwhelming bulk of air-space shared between civil and military operators.  It was clear the need for a universal phonetic alphabet was greater than ever and accordingly, reviews were begun, soon coordinated by the newly formed NATO.  After some inter-service discussion, NATO provided a position paper proposing changing the words for the letters C, M, N, U, and X.  This was submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization (IACO) and, having a world-wide membership structure, the IAOC took a while to consider thing but eventually, a consensus was almost to hand except for the letter N, the military faction wanting November, the civil Nectar and neither side seemed willing to budge.  Seeing no progress, NATO in April 1955 engaged I a bit of linguistic brinkmanship, the North Atlantic Military Committee Standing Group advising that regardless of what the IACO did, the alphabet would “be adopted and made effective for NATO use on 1 January 1956.”

This created the potential for an imbroglio in that there were many civilian institutions and not a few branches of militaries with which they interacted, hesitant to adopt the alphabet for national use until the ICAO decided what to do which would have created the unfortunate situation in which the NATO Military Commands would be on the one system and others on a mixture.  Fortunately, the ICAO responded with new-found alacrity and approved the alphabet, November prevailing.  NATO formalized the use with effect from 1 March 1956 and the ITU later adopted it which had the effect of it becoming the established universal phonetic alphabet governing all military, civilian and amateur radio communications.  Although it was substantially the work of other, particularly the various civil aviation authorities around the world, because it was NATO which was most associated with the final revision, it became known as the NATO Phonetic Alphabet.

Russian military phonetic alphabet compared with NATO set.

There were objections.  In the word-nerdy world of structural linguistics, there are objections to the very phrase "phonetic alphabet" because they don’t indicate phonetics and cannot function as genuine phonetic transcription systems like the International Phonetic Alphabet, reminding us the NATO system is actually the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet.  Those few who note the argument tend politely to agree and move on.  There are also those who use the NATO set but disapprove of the Americans, NATO, the West, capitalism etc; they call it something else if they call it anything at all.  Then there are countries which speak languages other than English.  English is the international language of civil aviation so they’re stuck with that but foreign militaries and security services often have their own sets.

There’s never been the same interest in or effort devoted to a system of numeric code words (ie the numbers from zero to nine) and the IMO defines a different set than does the ICAO: 0 (Nadazero), 1 (Unaone), 2 (Bissotwo), 3 (Terrathree), 4 (Kartefour), 5 (Pantafive), 6 (Soxisix), 7 (Setteseven), 8 (Oktoeight) & 9 (Novenine).  The divergence has never created much controversy because the nature of the words which designated numbers tend not easily to be confused with others and the fact they were often spoken is a context which made obvious their numerical nature added to clarity.  Indeed, although NATO created a comple set of ten names for numbers, the only ones recommended for use were : 3 (Tree), 4 (Fowler), 5 (Fife) & 9 (Niner), these the only ones thought potentially troublesome.  In practice, in NATO and beyond, these are rarely used and that very rarity means they’re as likely to confuse as clarify, especially if spoken between those who speak different languages.

Pronunciation can of course be political so therefore can be contextual.  Depending on what one’s trying to achieve, how one chooses to pronounce words can vary according to time, place, platform or audience.  Some still not wholly explained variations in Lindsay Lohan’s accent were noted circa 2016 and the newest addition to the planet’s tongues (Lohanese or Lilohan) was thought by most to lie somewhere between Moscow and the Mediterranean, possibly via Prague.  It had a notable inflection range and the speed of delivery varied with the moment.  Psychologist Wojciech Kulesza of SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland identified context as the crucial element.  Dr Kulesza studies the social motives behind various forms of verbal mimicry (including accent, rhythm & tone) and he called the phenomenon the “echo effect”, the tendency, habit or technique of emulating the vocal patters of one’s conversational partners.  He analysed clips of Lilohan and noted a correlation between the nuances of the accent adopted and those of the person with who Ms Lohan was speaking.  Psychologists explain the various instances of imitative behaviour (conscious or not) as one of the building blocks of “social capital”, a means of bonding with others, something which seems to be inherent in human nature.  It’s known also as the “chameleon effect”, the instinctive tendency to mirror behaviors perceived in others and it’s observed also in politicians although their motives are entirely those of cynical self-interest, crooked Hillary Clinton’s adoption of a “southern drawl” when speaking in a church south of the Mason-Dixon Line a notorious example.

Memo: Team Douglas Productions, 29 July 2004.

Also of interest to students of nomenclature is the process by which the names of people can become objects applied variously.  As Napoleon, Churchill and Hitler live on as Napoleonic, Churchillian and Hitlerite, on the internet is a body of the Lohanic.  Universally, that’s pronounced lo-han-ick but Lindsay Lohan has mentioned in interviews that being a surname of Irish origin, it’s “correctly” low-en, a form she adopted early in 2022 with her first posting on TikTok where it rhymed with “Coen” (used usually for the surname “Cohen” which is of Hebrew origin and unrelated to Celtic influence).  For a generation brought up on lo-han it must have been a syllable too far because it didn’t catch on and by early 2023, she was back to lo-han with the hard “h”.  Curiously, while etymologists seem to agree that historically lo-en was likely the form most heard in Ireland, the popular genealogy sites all indicate the modern practice is to use lo-han so hopefully that’s the last word.  However, the brief flirtation with phonetic h-lessness did have a precedent:  When Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005) was being filmed in 2004, the production company circulated a memo to the crew informing all that Lohan was pronounced “Lo-en like Coen” with a silent “h”.

Protagonist

Protagonist (pronounced proh-tag-uh-nist)

(1) The leading character or hero of a performance or literary work.

(2) A proponent for or a political or other cause (from an incorrect construction but now widely used).

(3) The leader or principal advocate of a political or other cause.

(4) The first actor in ancient Greek drama, who played not only the main role, but also other roles when the main character was off-stage and was thus first amongst deuteragonists and tritagonists.

1671: From the Ancient Greek πρωταγωνιστής (prōtagōnistḗs) (actor who plays the first part; principal character in a story, drama), the literal translation being “first combatant” and according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the word first appeared in English in 1671 in the writings of the English poet, literary critic, translator and playwright John Dryden (1631–1700).  The construct was πρῶτος (prôtos) (first) + ἀγωνιστής (agōnistḗs) (one who contends for a prize; a combatant; an actor), from the primitive Indo-European root per (forward (hence "in front of, first, chief")) + agōnistēs (actor, competitor), from agōn (contest), from the primitive Indo-European root ag- (to drive, draw out or forth, move).  The link between the two is the notion of one who contends for some prize in a contest (agōn).  The general meaning "leading person in any cause or contest" is from 1889. The mistaken sense of "advocate, supporter" (1935) is from misunderstanding of the Greek prōt- meaning the same as the Latin pro- (for; in favor of) (thus the comparison with antagonist).  The Deuteragonist "second person or actor in a drama", is attested from 1840.  The general meaning "leading person in any cause or contest" seems first to have been used only as late as 1889.  Linguistic sloppiness saw some, by 1935, add the sense of "advocate or supporter", probably from a misreading of the Greek prōt & prōtos, either equating or confusing it with the Latin pro (for).  More than tolerated, it seems in English to have become a standard meaning and is often used in sub-electoral politics.  The relatively rare silver medallist, the deuteragonist (second person or actor in a drama), is attested from 1840.

The protagonist’s opponent is the antagonist (from the Ancient Greek ἀνταγωνιστής (antagōnistḗs) (opponent)) and in classical Greek drama, the protagonist was the hero, the antagonist the villain.  A protagonist was central to the plot, although, there could be sub-plots, each narrative with its own protagonist.  There were plays with two protagonists tangled in one plot, but that happened where the first had died, the second then assuming the role.  Some playwrights would introduce false protagonists, soon to vanish.  Modern material (as opposed to the modernist), does not always adhere to the classical Greek form.  For content-providers, especially on screens, having multiple protagonists within the one plot is far from unusual.

In his highly recommended book The Surgeon of Crowthorne (1998), historian Simon Winchester (b 1944) noted the dispute between two of the great authorities in the matter of the English language: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Henry Watson Fowler (1858–1933), author of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926).  The OED quoted Dryden’s passage from 1671 (the first known instance in English of “protagonist”) in which the poet used the word in the plural whereas, as Henry Fowler well knew, in any Greek drama there could only ever be one protagonist.  It had of course always been possible for a critic to write about protagonists if comparing two or more productions but that was a function of syntax, not meaning.  Henry Fowler disapproved of much which was modern and in the matter of a play with two protagonists, he rules not only was that wrong but also “absurd” because, a protagonist being the most important figure in the text, there couldn’t be two: “One is either the most important person or one is not”.  So Fowler’s entry of 1926 and the OED’s of two years later stood for decades as contrary judgements, factions in support of one or the other presumably forms from the handful of earnest souls on the planet who care about such things.  When Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966) revised A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (the second edition published in 1965), he retained Fowler’s original condemnatory paragraphs but added a coda, noting the original sense from Antiquity but acknowledging that in a dynamic, living language like English, meanings can shift and words can be re-appropriated, adding that in the case of “protagonist”, it seemed “The temptation to regard protagonist as the antonym of antagonist seems irresistible…”  In 1981 when the OED published one of their supplements, it was made clear Fowler was correct if the word is used in the context of Greek theatre (for which it was coined) but that English had moved on and there had for at least centuries been works of fiction with two or more characters of equal importance and it was both convenient and well understood by all when they were so labelled.            

Lindsay Lohan, vampiric protagonist

Directed by Tiago Mesquita with a screenplay by Mark Morgan, Among the Shadows is a thriller which straddles the genres, elements of horror and the supernatural spliced in as required.  Although in production since 2015, with the shooting in London and Rome not completed until the next year, it wasn’t until 2018 when, at the European Film Market, held in conjunction with the Berlin International Film Festival, that Tombstone Distribution listed it, the distribution rights acquired by VMI, Momentum and Entertainment One, and VMI Worldwide.  In 2019, it was released progressively on DVD and video on demand (VOD), firstly in European markets, the UK release delayed until mid-2020.  In some markets, for reasons unknown, it was released with the title The Shadow Within.

It was Lindsay Lohan’s first film since The Canyons (2013).  In Among the Shadows, she plays a character married to an EU politician, a hint it’s somewhere on the horror continuum, the twist being she’s also a vampire.  Which makes sense.  When you think about it.  What unfolds is a murky mix of political intrigue and mass-murder in which the vampire and a woman with her own secrets are thrown together as protagonists struggling to stop the politician being horribly slaughtered by a pack of werewolves.

That may have been the flaw in the plot.  A film in which most of the members of the European Council, European Commission and (perhaps especially) the European Parliament are murdered by werewolves, preferably in the bloodiest ways imaginable, would probably have been a blockbuster.  Even without social distancing, from Bristol to Berlin, the queues outside cinemas would likely have stretched for blocks.  As it was, without the bodies of eurocrats piled high, critical and commercial reaction was muted, some interesting technical points raised about the editing and even the sequence of filming.  Still, it’s Lohan-noir, Lindsay as a vampire, gruesome killings, werewolves and a Scottish detective, just the movie for a first date during a pandemic.  There is a trailer.

Tactile

Tactile (pronounced tak-til or tak-tahyl)

(1) Of, pertaining to, endowed with, or affecting the sense of touch.

(2) Perceptible to the touch; tangible.

(3) Capable of being touched; tangible (archaic).

1605–1615: From the Middle French tactile, from the Latin tāctilis (tangible), from tāctus, past participle of tangere (to touch)), from the primitive Indo-European root tag (to touch; to handle).  The construct was tact(us) + ile.  The –ile suffix was from the Latin –īlis (neuter -ile, comparative -ilior, superlative -illimus or -ilissimus; the third-declension two-termination suffix), from the Proto-Italic -elis, from the primitive Indo-European -elis, from -lós.  It was used to form an adjective noun of relation, frequently passive, to the verb or root.  The meaning "of or pertaining to the sense of touch" is attested from the 1650s.  Tactile is an adjective; tactility is a noun.

Work of art: 1992 IBM (Blue Label) Model M keyboard.

In the few decades computing has been a mainstream activity, there has been such a variety of hardware, operating systems, languages and software at various points in the application layers, that there’s little general agreement about what’s best in any particular field but most with any exposure to the IBM Model M keyboard agree it’s probably the finest keyboard ever made.  Even those not attracted to the tactility which is its most obvious feature (and there are those who prefer a “squishy” to a “clicky” keyboard) will usually concede the build quality is exceptional, compared especially to some of the sad devices bundled with systems in recent years.  It shouldn’t be surprising IBM was able to build something like the Model M keyboard at scale given the company’s decades of experience in engineering a construction and there are Model M nerds prepared to believe all those years were but preparation for what was required to make the tactile devices. 

1973 IBM Selectric with three elements (golfballs).

International Business Machines (IBM) began in New York in 1888 (adopting the IBM name in 1924), its early core-business mechanical “tabulating systems” for accounting and time-keeping and by the 1930s, some of the mechanical engineering used in these systems was applied to typewriter technology after it acquired the tools, patents and production facilities of Electromatic Typewriters of Rochester.  The result of the R&D effort was the Model 01 IBM Electric Typewriter which was released in 1935 and became the first really successful electric typewriter in the US, the beginning of a line which, in 1961 produced the IBM Selectric, famous for its “element” which the rest of the world called the “golfball”.  The almost spherical “golfball” (which appears in some IBM documents both also as “typeball”) contained the impressions of the letters which struck the ribbon and was interchangeable with other made with other font sets.  That was not a new idea, other manufacturers using the principle of interchangeability in the late nineteenth century but with “type wheels” which were larger and tended to be fragile, the three-dimensional “golfball” both more robust and, having to travel a smaller distance per key stroke, permitting a faster typing rate.  It was with the Selectric that the evolution of what became the Model M keyboard really began.

1984 IBM Model F keyboard; the IBM mouse of the era was a ghastly to use as it looks.

The first version of the definitively tactile, stand-alone IBM keyboard was the Model 14 which, although most associated with the original IBM PC-1 released in August 1981, had actually debuted with the System/23 Datamaster (1981-1985), a short-lived corporate workstation which proved a dinosaur, unable to compete with the IBM PC, the success of which was also the death knell for the earlier 6580 Displaywriter (1980-1986) which had actually enjoyed some success as a hefty and expensive but capable corporate word-processor.  The Datamaster, introduced just five weeks prior to the PC-1, used the same Model 14 keyboard, initially with an 83 key layout and the nerdiest of nerds note its technical superiority over the Model M in that it uses a buckling spring over a capacitive PCB (printed circuit board) rather than the later membrane.  The Model F remained in general production until 1985, being then built in limited numbers (by both IBM and Lexmark) until 1985 and was notable for innovations such as the revisions to the layout to accommodate the PC-AT protocols and the availability of specialized models with as few as 50 or as many as 127 keys.

Customized IBM Model F keyboard with LED module.

Model F aficionados can be snobby, pointing out even IBM admitted one of the design objectives with the Model M was to reduce manufacturing costs but their attraction is real, the intricacies of the Model F intriguing and their labour-intensive production process does mean nothing like them is likely again to be made.  The internal assembly uses two curved metal back-plates and the PCB is flexible, thus also curved when attached to the back-plate and while just about every other keyboard's curves are simulated by the molding of the keycap profiles, the Model F's curve is integral to the frame, thus allowing all keycaps to be the same shape and size, a great advantage for those who like to tinker and customize.  Freaks customizing keyboards are perhaps less frequently found than once they were but still exist in dark rooms living on pizza and Coca-Cola.  Snobbery or not, the freaks do have a point, up to a point because the mechanical advantages are real.  The capacitive design is superior, requiring a lighter actuation force and delivering a crisper feel and a slightly sharper feedback; it’s also more robust, IBM guaranteeing each key with a MTBF (mean time between failure) of over 100 million key-presses.  The switch from PCBs to membranes meant these characteristics were to some degree toned down in order to lower manufacturing costs although the MTBF was still rated an impressive 80 million.

1988 IBM Model M keyboard (122 key version).

Pace the freaks but the Model M is preferable, if for no other reason than simply because it (more-or-less) standardized the core keyboard layout (most others now conform) and in use, the tactility is little different from its predecessor.  Regarding the layout, the case can be made that the Model F’s location of the function keys to the left may actually make more sense but the planet has settled on the Model M layout.  Introduced in 1985 with the 3161 terminal, the PC-compatible version appeared in 1987 when it was included with the PS/2.  In use the Model M is a solid (9 lb (4 kg)) tactile experience which feels little different from the Model F and users have a long time to become accustomed to that feel; the keyboards, the oldest of which are now some forty years old, appearing not to have a life expectancy, many in continuous use for decades and a servicing ecosystem exists should any parts need to be replaced although it’s said rectifying the consequences of spills (of coffee, red wine, G&Ts etc) is a more common request.  The best source for the tactile IBMs is ClickyKeyboards.

United States Patent # 4,118,611 Buckling Spring torsional snap actuator. Harris, 1978:

It will be appreciated with regard to the figures that depression of the key button 1 moves the key button and its stem 6 into the housing 3, creating longitudinal compression and lateral deflection of the helical compression spring 2. An initial counter-clockwise moment is exerted on the rocker member 4 which is approximately equal to the force F times the distance between the pivot point 8 of the rocking member 4 and the center line of the spring. The upper end of the helical spring 2 is held squarely against the key button 1 by a clockwise moment created by a force equal to approximately F times the diameter of the spring divided by two. The rocker member 4 will initially be held firmly over the contacts 5A and 5B. As the lateral motion of the center of the helical compression spring 2 increases, both the top and bottom reaction moments in spring 2 are decreased because F is transmitted through the center section of spring 2. Shortly after these moments approach 0, the rocker member rocks to a position squarely over contacts 5A and 5C and the top of spring 2 rocks about the right hand edge of its topmost coil. The constraints upon the depression column spring have changed from an initial end clamped condition to an end clamped-pinned condition. This sudden change provides the tactile response of the key and is accompanied by a sudden rocking action of the rocker member 4 which creates an acoustic feedback as well.

The "buckling spring torsional snap actuator" is the core of the Model M’s charm.  Unlike mechanical switches that are depressed straight down like plungers, the Model M has springs under each key that contract, snap flat, or "buckle," and then spring back into place when released.  This provides the audible “click” so associated with the model and which some don’t like but for those who become accustomed to typing on one, it’s hard to go back to anything else; they have the feel of a pre-modern (circa 1980 and earlier) Mercedes-Benz.  Because of the physicality, typing on a Model M is a tangible experience; like a typewriter, the tactility and the feedback of the click gives every letter a physical presence.

IBM Model M user Lindsay Lohan in Life-Size (2000, Walt Disney Television).

NASA's Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility (LSLF) is a repository and laboratory facility at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston.  Since 1979 it's housed geologic samples returned from the Moon by the Apollo program missions to the lunar surface (1969-1972).  The facility preserves in a secure vault most of the 842 lb (382 kg) of lunar material returned to Earth as well as some other material and the associated data records.  The facility also contains clean-environment laboratories so samples can be processed and studied in a contamination-free environment.

The LSLF houses the only eight lunar rocks (some nearly four billion years old) on earth available to be touched by the general public.

The LSLF also includes an IBM Model M keyboard and PS/2 PC (it’s not known if it’s running PC-DOS or OS/2) in an exhibit which is a replica of a room in the Space Centre during the 1980s.

Layout Model F, PC & XT, (1981).

Layout Model F, PC-AT (1984).

Layout Model M, 3161 Terminal (1985) & PS/2 (1987).