Solecism (pronounced sol-uh-siz-uhm or soh-luh-siz-uhm)
(1) In language, a non-standard or ungrammatical usage.
(2) A breach of good manners or etiquette.
(3) Any error, impropriety, absurdity or inconsistency.
1570-1580: From the Latin soloecismus, from the Greek soloikismos, from soloikos (speaking incorrectly), the construct being Sólo(i) + -ic (from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix –kos. The Ancient Greek form was -ικός (-ikós), the Sanskrit श (śa), क (ka) and the Old Church Slavonic -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); doublet of –y; on noun stems, it carried the meaning “characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to” and on adjectival stems, it acted emphatically) + -ism (ultimately from either the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (from which English gained -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done). Solecism & solecist are nouns, solecistic & solecistical are adjectives and solecistically is an adverb; the noun plural is solecisms.
A solecism in blusher: Lindsay Lohan in court, Los Angeles October 2011.
The zombie-like look presumably wasn't intentional and it attracted some comment from professional make-up techs. Speculation about how this happened ranged from the blusher being applied (1) in less than ideal lighting conditions, (2) in a car with only the rear-vision mirror available and (3) with bare fingers because a brush couldn't be found. The consensus was the goal was a contoured blush look which, if applied with some delicacy, can accentuate the cheekbones but this was heavy handed and ended up as a smear across the cheeks.
In the Middle East, everything is of course political and that includes clothing, what is in some places demanded of women (which can range from a minimalist (verging on symbolic) hijab to an enveloping burka) the best known but also of interest are the feet, shoes being of great significance. This was in 2024 illustrated when the Supreme Leader met with Ismail Haniyeh (1962-2024; third chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau 2017-2024) and two members of his entourage; on a number of sites what attracted most interest was not the substantive matters discussed but the shoeless feet of the Hamas apparatchiks and in the ensuing debate what was pondered was whether this was merely Iranian protocols being followed or whether any disrespect had been created or intended. One theory was the Supreme Leader was wearing “indoor” sandals with his socks while the Hamas operatives, travelling only with “outdoor” shoes, removed them in deference to local practice. The alternative conjecture was the threesome were compelled by their hosts to appear in socks in an attempt to “undermine their dignity” and diminish their status as leaders of the Palestinian resistance, the rationale for that argument being The Islamic Republic of Iran a regime of the Shia tradition of Islam while the Hamas substantially was Sunni. The consensus was it was less a conspiracy than an unexceptional example of the custom of removing shoes when entering indoor spaces, customary in homes and places of prayer and widespread also in many Islamic countries. After the event concluded, Khamenei (Iran’s official news agency) reported that during the meeting the Supreme Leader had observed Iran” “…will not hesitate to support the Palestinian cause and the oppressed and resistant people of Gaza, praising the exemplary resilience of the Palestinian resistance forces and the people of Gaza. The exemplary patience and steadfastness of the people of Gaza and the resistance forces during these six months, resulting from their strong faith, have prevented the Zionist enemy from achieving any of its strategic objectives in the Gaza war.” Clearly, the “shoe incident” had not weakened Persian-Palestinian solidarity.












