Infinitive

Infinitive (pronounced in-fin-i-tiv)

(1) In English grammar, the infinitive mood or mode (a grammatical mood).

(2) In English grammar, a non-finite verb form considered neutral with respect to inflection.

(3) In English grammar, a verbal noun formed from the infinitive of a verb.

1425–1475:  From the late Middle English, from the Middle French infinitif, the from Late Latin infinitivus (unlimited, indefinite), from the Latin infinitus (boundless, unlimited, endless (indefinite in the grammatical sense)), ivus being the Latin suffix forming adjectives).  In essence, the infinitive is a form of the verb not inflected for grammatical categories such as tense and person and used without an overt subject.  In English, the infinitive usually consists of the word “to”, followed by the verb.  Infinitive is a noun & adjective, infinitival is an adjective and infinitively an adverb; the noun plural is infinitives.

The most fastidious grammar Nazis condemn split infinitives.  In English, a split infinitive exists if an adverb sits between “to” and a verb: “to fully understand” is a split infinitive whereas “fully to understand” is not.  The “rule” exists, unfortunately, because of the influence, however misunderstood, of Classical Latin on the development of Modern English.  Infinitives appear to have been split since at least the 1400s, the practice increasingly common in Middle English before becoming rare in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.  Shakespeare seems to have dabbled only twice and then probably as an artistic device, a syntactical inversion better to suit the rhythm of his prose.  Spenser, Dryden, Pope, and the King James Version of the Bible used none, and Dr Johnson, John Donne & Samuel Pepys were sparing.  Despite this timeline, no reason for the near extinction is known; there’s nothing in the documents of the era to suggest scholarly or other disapprobation.  They reappeared in the eighteenth century, became more common in the nineteenth and it was only then the label emerged to describe the construction; the earliest use of “splitting the infinitive" dating from 1887.

The Split Infinitive as a fetish

It was also in the nineteenth century the dispute began, some authorities condemning, others endorsing.  Objections fall into three categories:

(1) The descriptivist objection: Also known as linguistic snobbery, this (very English) view, first published in 1834, argued the split infinitive was a thing commonly used by uneducated persons but not by people "of the better classes".

(2) The argument from the full infinitive: It’s a very technical point.  That there are two parts to the infinitive is disputed with some linguists asserting the infinitive is a single-word verb form which may or may not be preceded by the particle “to”.  Some modern generative analysts classify “to” as a "peculiar" auxiliary verb; others as the infinitival subordinator.  However, even when the concept of the full infinitive is accepted, it does not necessarily follow that any two words belonging together grammatically need be adjacent to each other. It’s true they usually are, but exceptions are not uncommon, such as an adverb splitting a two-word finite verb ("will not do"; "has not done").

(3) The argument from classical languages: It’s a bit of a linguistic myth the prohibition is because the grammatical rules of Classical Latin were absorbed by Modern English.  An infinitive in Latin is never used with a marker equivalent to the English “to” so there’s thus no parallel for the construction.  Despite this, claims by those who disapprove that they are applying rules of Latin grammar to English has widely been asserted for over a century but they rely on a false analogy with Latin; Latin infinitives appear as a single word.  The rule which prohibits splitting hints at the deference to Latin at a time when it was fashionable to apply its rules to other languages.  It was another variation of snobbery.  As late as the Renaissance, particularly in the churches and universities, there was a reverence for the purity of the languages of antiquity and aspects of English which differed were regarded as inferior.  By the nineteenth century, with English increasingly a world-wide tongue, but for a few pedants such views had faded and there’s anyway the etymological point that there’s no precedent from antiquity because in Greek and Latin (and all romance languages), the infinitive is a single word impossible to sever.  In “educated English”, there has evolved a curious convention in the handling of split infinitives.  The accepted practice is they should be avoided in writing but in oral use are actually desirable if their adoption renders a more elegant sentence (which is almost always the case).  English has similar conventions for written and oral forms such as the use of verbal shorthand of foreign extraction such as inter-alia which appear thus in writing but which, when spoken, are translated into English.

Henry Fowler (1858–1933), whose A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) remains a reliable arbitrator of all things right and wrong in English, rules on the matter with his usual clarity. declaring: The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.  These he reviewed and decided those who neither knew nor cared were the happy majority and should be envied by all the others.  Among the others may or may not have been George Bernard Shaw (GBS; 1856-1950) who, after noticing a proofs-editor had "corrected" his infinitives, remarked: “I don’t care if he is made to go quickly, or to quickly go – but go he must!”

Some girls are so mean they'll correct even Captain Kirk.  William Shatner (b 1931) and Lindsay Lohan in Planet Fitness commercial played during Super Bowl 2022.

Drake

Drake (pronounced dreyk)

(1) The male of any duck.

(2) As “Drake equation”, a formula proposed as a mechanism to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

(3) A small-bore cannon, used mostly in the seventeenth & especially in the 17th and 18th centuries.

(4) A dragon (archaic).

(5) In angling, an artificial fly resembling a mayfly.

(6) A fiery meteor, comet or shooting star (archaic).

(7) A beaked galley or Viking warship.

1250–1300: From the Middle English drake (male duck, drake), from the Old English draca, an abbreviated form of the Old English andraca (male duck, drake (literally “duck-king”), from the Proto-West Germanic anadrekō (duck leader) and cognate with the Middle Dutch andrake, the Low German drake, the Dutch draak (drake), the German Enterich (drake) and the dialectal German drache.  In the Old High German, the equivalent forms were antrahho & anutrehho (male duck).  The archaic meaning in Middle English (a dragon; Satan) dates from before 900 and was from the Old English draca (in the sense of “dragon, sea monster, huge serpent”), from the Proto-West Germanic drakō (dragon), from the Latin dracō (dragon), from the Ancient Greek δράκων (drákōn) (serpent, giant seafish), from δέρκομαι (dérkomai) (I see clearly), from the primitive Indo-European derḱ-.  The Proto-Germanic drako was productive, the source also of the Middle Dutch and Old Frisian drake, the Dutch draak, the Old High German trahho and the German drache.  In a footnote in the long history of the Royal Navy, HMS Marshal Ney, the ship once known as "the worst ship in the navy" was briefly (during her surprisingly long service) re-named HMS Drake.  Drake is a noun, the noun plural is drakes.

Guilty as sin.  Functional necrophilia by a drake: In November 2001, a researcher at Natuurmuseum (Museum of Natural History), Rotterdam, reported the first known case of homosexualnecrophilia in the mallard duck (mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae)).

In idiomatic use, the phrase “ducks and drakes” (usually in the form “playing ducks and drakes”) dates from 1585 and means “recklessly or irresponsibly to behave with something valuable or to waste something precious”.  The origin is believed to lie in the pastime of throwing flat stones across the surface of water (known also as “skipping stones”, “stone skiffing” or “skimming stones”, the allusion being to the behavior of the water as the stones bounce before eventually losing energy and sinking, the effect (the circular rings produced by the skipping stone) said to be something like that created by the splashing of ducks and drakes (and waterfowl in general).  It was thus a a reference to doing something in a haphazard and careless manner, without any particular aim or purpose and over time, came to be used generally to refer to any kind of wasteful or irresponsible behavior.  It accurately described the pointlessness of skimming stones but was something of a slight on the birds; their activities on water an indication of their industriousness.  The sense of “to squander, to throw away” emerged in 1614, the notion being “throwing money away, as if throwing away stones in this pastime”.  The perfectly-shapes stone for the purpose (flattish & disc-like) was called a drakestone and in parts of northern England the pastime was known as drakestoning.

The Drake equation

The Drake Equation is a mathematical formula developed in 1961 by US astrophysicist Dr Frank Drake (1930–2022) to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations that (1) might exist in our Milky Way galaxy and (2) be capable of communicating with us. The equation takes into account various factors, such as the number of habitable planets, the probability of life forming on those planets, and the likelihood of intelligent life evolving.  The equation takes the form:

N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy that are within the parameters capable of communicating with us
R* = the rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of stars that have planets
ne = the average number of habitable planets per star with planets
fl = the fraction of habitable planets that develop life
fi = the fraction of planets with life that develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop technology to communicate with others
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Sixty-odd years ago, Dr Drake was well aware his equation was not a tool of immediately practical application because there was no certainty about any of the values.  Additionally, the formula was designed not to estimate the actual volume of intelligent life in the galaxy but the number of instances where the conditions might exist which would allow an intelligent to broadcast radio transmissions into space.  Since then, science has became able better to quantify two of the variables but the equation remains an interesting, speculative device and it remains a widely used tool for discussion and debate.

Portrait of Sir Francis Drake (circa 1581), oil on panel by an unknown artist, National Portrait Gallery, London.  A navigator and buccaneer (a kind of pirate), Sir Francis Drake (1540–1596) was the first Englishman to sail around the world (1577–80) and is best remembered for his command of the fleet which faced the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Kettle

Kettle (pronounced ket-l)

(1) A container (historically and still usually made of metal) used to boil liquids or cook foods; a specialized kind of pot with a handle & spout and thus optimized for pouring (in some markets known variously as teakettles, jugs, electric jugs etc).

(2) By extension, a large metal vessel designed to withstand high temperatures, used in various industrial processes such as refining, distilling & brewing (also sometimes referred to as boilers, steamers, vats, vessels or cauldrons).

(3) In geology, as kettle hole, a steep, bowl-shaped hollow in ground once covered by a glacier.  Kettles are believed to form when a block of ice left by a glacier becomes covered by sediments and later melts, leaving a hollow.  They are usually dozens of meters deep and can be dozens of kilometers in diameter, often containing surface water.

(4) In percussion, as kettledrum (or kettle-drum), a large hemispherical brass percussion instrument (one of the timpani) with a drumhead that can be tuned by adjusting its tension.  There was also the now obsolete use of kettledrum to mean “an informal social party at which a light collation is offered, held in the afternoon or early evening”.

(5) In crowd control, a system of UK origin using an enclosed area into which demonstrators or protesters are herded for containment by authorities (usually taking advantage of aspects of the natural or built environment).

(6) To surround and contain demonstrators or protesters in a kettle.

(7) In weightlifting, as kettlebell, a weight consisting of a cast iron ball with a single handle for gripping the weight during exercise.

(8) In ornithology, a group of raptors riding a thermal, especially when migrating.

(9) In the slang of railroads, a steam locomotive

Pre 900: From the Middle English ketel & chetel, from the Old English cetel & ċietel (kettle, cauldron), and possibly influenced by the Old Norse ketill, both from the Proto-Germanic katilaz (kettle, bucket, vessel), of uncertain origin although etymologists find most persuasive the notion of it being a borrowing of the Late Latin catīllus (a small pot), a diminutive of the Classical Latin catinus (a large pot, a vessel for cooking up or serving food”), from the Proto-Italic katino but acknowledge the word may be a Germanic form which became confused with the Latin dring the early Medieval period..  It should thus be compared with the Old English cete (cooking pot), the Old High German chezzi (a kettle, dish, bowl) and the Icelandic kati & ketla (a small boat).  It was cognate with the West Frisian tsjettel (kettle), the Dutch ketel (kettle), the German Kessel (kettle), the Swedish kittel (cauldron) & kittel (kettle), the Gothic katils (kettle) and the Finnish kattila.  There may also be some link with the Russian котёл (kotjól) (boiler, cauldron).  Probably few activities are a common to human cultures as the boiling of water and as the British Empire spread, the word kettle travelled with the colonial administrators, picked up variously by the Brunei Malay (kitil), the Hindi केतली (ketlī), the Gujarati કીટલી (kīṭlī), the Irish citeal, the Maltese kitla and the Zulu igedlela.  Beyond the Empire, the Turks adopted it unaltered (although it appeared also as ketil).  Kettle is a noun & verb, kettled is a verb & adjective and kettling is a verb; the noun plural is plural kettles.

The boiling of water for all sorts of purposes is an activity common to all human societies for thousands of years so the number of sound-formations which referred to pots and urns used for this purpose would have proliferated, thus the uncertainty about some of the development.  The Latin catinus has been linked by some with Ancient Greek forms such as kotylē (bowl, dish) but this remains uncertain and words for many types of vessels were often loanwords.  The fourteenth century adoption in Middle English of an initial “k” is thought perhaps to indicate the influence of the Old Norse cognate ketill and the familiar modern form “tea-kettle” was used as early as 1705.  In percussion, the kettledrum was described as in the 1540s (based wholly on the shape) and in geology the kettlehole (often clipped to “kettle) was first used in 1866 to refer to “a deep circular hollow in a river bed or other eroded area, pothole>, hence “kettle moraine” dating from 1883 and used to describe one characterized by such features.

Lindsay Lohan cooking pasta in London, October 2014.  One hint this is London rather than Los Angeles is the electric kettle to her left, a standard item in a UK kitchen but less common in the US.

In most of the English-speaking world, kettle refers usually to a vessel or appliance used to boil water, the exception being the US where the device never caught on to the same extent and in Australia and New Zealand, it’s common to refer to the electric versions as “jugs”.  Americans do use kettles, but they’re not as widely used as they are in Australia, New Zealand & the UK where their presence in a kitchen is virtually de rigueur.  One reason is said to be that in the US coffee makers & instant hot water dispensers were historically more common, as was the use of tea bags rather than loose-leaves to make tea.  Those Americans who have a kettle actually usually call it a “kettle” although (and there seems to be little specific regionalism associated with this) it may also be called a “hot pot”, “tea kettle” or “water boiler”.

In idiomatic use, the phrase “a watched kettle never boils” has the same meaning as when used with “watched pot” and is a commentary on (1) one’s time management and (2) one’s perception of time under certain circumstances.  The phrase “pot calling the kettle black” is understood only if it’s realized both receptacles used to be heated over open flames and their metal thus became discolored and ultimately blackened by the soot & smoke.  It’s used to convey an accusation of hypocrisy, implying that an accuser is of the same behavior or trait they are criticizing in others.  The now common sense of “a different kettle of fish” is that of something different that to which it erroneously being compared but the original “kettle of fish” dated from circa 1715 and referred to “a complicated and bungled affair” and etymologists note it’s not actually based on fish being cooked in a kettle (although there was a culinary implement called a “fish kettle” for exactly that purpose but there’s no evidence it was used prior to 1790) but is thought to refer to “kettle” as a variant of kittle & kiddle (weir or fence with nets set in rivers or along seacoasts for catching fish), a use dating from the late twelfth century (it appears in the Magna Charta (1215) as the Anglo-Latin kidellus), from the Old French quidel, probably from the Breton kidel (a net at the mouth of a stream).

1974 Suzuki GT750 “Kettle”.  The front twin disc setup was added in 1973 and was one of the first of its kind.

The Suzuki GT750 was produced between 1971-1977 and was an interesting example of the breed of large-capacity two-stroke motorcycles which provided much excitement and not a few fatalities but which fell victim to increasingly stringent emissions standards and the remarkable improvement in the performance, reliability and refinement of the multi-cylinder four-stroke machines.  Something of a novelty was the GT750 was water-cooled, at the time rarely seen although that meant it missed out on one of Suzuki’s many imaginative acronyms: the RAC (ram air cooling) used on the smaller capacity models.  RAC was a simple aluminum scoop which sat atop the cylinder head and was designed to optimize air-flow.  It was the water-cooling of the GT750 which attracted nicknames but, a generation before the internet, the English language tended still to evolve with regional variations so in England it was “the Kettle”, in Australia “the Water Bottle” and in North America “the Water Buffalo”.  Foreign markets also went their own way, the French favoring “la bouillotte” (the hot water bottle) and the West Germans “Wasserbüffel” (water buffalo).  Suzuki called those sold in North America the "Le Mans" while RoW (rest of the world) models were simply the "GT750".

Detail of the unusual 4-3 system: The early version with the ECTS (left), the bifurcation apparatus for the central cylinder's header (centre) and the later version (1974-1977) without the ECTS (right).  Motorcyclists have long had a fascination with exhaust systems. 

The GT750 shared with the other three-cylinder Suzukis (GT380 & GT550) the novelty of an unusual 4-into-3 exhaust system (the centre exhaust header was bifurcated), the early versions of which featured the additional complexity of what the factory called the Exhaust Coupler Tube System (ECTS; a connecting pipe joining the left & right-side headers) which was designed to improve low-speed torque.  The 4-into-3 apparently existed for no reason other than to match the four-pipe appearance on the four stroke, four cylinder Hondas and Kawasakis, an emulation of the asymmetric ducting used on Kawasaki's dangerously charismatic two-strokes presumably dismissed as "to derivative".

Kettling is now familiar as a method of large-scale crowd control in which the authorities assemble large cordons of police officers which move to contain protesters within a small, contained space, one often chosen because it makes use of the natural or built environment.  Once contained, demonstrators can selectively be detained, released or arrested.  It’s effective but has been controversial because innocent bystanders can be caught in its net and there have been injuries and even deaths.  Despite that, although courts have in some jurisdictions imposed some restrictions on the practice, as a general principle it remains lawful to use in the West.  The idea is essentially the same as the military concept of “pocketing”, the object of which was, rather than to engage the enemy, instead to confine them to a define area in which the only route of escape was under the control of the opposing force.  The Imperial Russian Army actually called this the котёл (kotyol or kotyel) which translated as cauldron or kettle, the idea being that (like a kettle), it was “hot” space with only a narrow aperture (like a spout) through which the pressure could be relieved.

David Low’s (1891-1963) cartoon (Daily Express, 31 July 1936) commenting on one of the many uncertain aspects of British foreign policy in the 1930s; Left to right: Thomas Inskip (1876–1947), John Simon (1873–1954), Philip Cunliffe-Lister (1884–1972), Duff Cooper (1890–1954), Samuel Hoare (1880–1959), Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940; UK prime-minister 1937-1940), Stanley Baldwin (1867–1947; UK prime-minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929 & 1935-1937) & Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957).

Low attached “trademarks” to some of those he drew.  Baldwin was often depicted with a sticking plaster over his lips, an allusion to one of his more infamous statements to the House of Commons in which he said “…my lips are sealed”.  Sir John Simon on this occasion had a kettle boiling on his head, a fair indication of his state of mind at the time.

About to explode: Low’s techniques have on occasion been borrowed and some cartoonist might one day be tempted to put a boiling kettle on the often hot-looking head of Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022).  Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954; prime-minister of Australia 2015-2018), a student of etymology, was as fond as those at The Sun of alliteration and when writing his memoir (A Bigger Picture (2020)) he included a short chapter entitled "Barnaby and the bonk ban".  As well as the events which lent the text it's title, the chapter was memorable for his inclusion of perhaps the most vivid thumbnail sketch of Barnaby Joyce yet penned:

"Barnaby is a complex, intense, furious personality.  Red-faced, in full flight he gives the impression he's about to explode.  He's highly intelligent, often good-humoured but also has a dark and almost menacing side - not unlike Abbott (Tony Abbott (b 1957; prime-minister of Australia 2013-2015)) - that seems to indicate he wrestles with inner troubles and torments."

Kettle logic

The term “Kettle logic” (originally in the French: la logique du chaudron) was coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), one of the major figures in the history of post-modernist thought, remembered especially for his work on deconstructionism.  Kettle logic is category of rhetoric in which multiple arguments are deployed to defend a point, all with some element of internal inconsistency, some actually contradictory.  Derrida drew the title from the “kettle-story” which appeared in two works by the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) & Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905).  In his analysis of “Irma's dream”, Freud recounted the three arguments offered by the man who returned in damaged condition a kettle he’d borrowed.

(1) That the kettle had been returned undamaged.

(2) That the kettle was already damaged when borrowed.

(3) That the kettle had never been borrowed.

The three arguments are inconsistent or contradictory but only one need be found true for the man not to be guilty of causing the damage.  Kettle logic was used by Freud to illustrate the way it’s not unusual for contradictory opposites simultaneously to appear in dreams and be experienced as “natural” in a way would obviously wouldn’t happen in a conscious state.  The idea is also analogous with the “alternative plea” strategy used in legal proceedings.

In US law, “alternative pleading” is the legal strategy in which multiple claims or defenses (that may be mutually exclusive, inconsistent or contradictory) may be filed.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at the point of filing the rule is absolute and untested; a party may thus file a claim or defense which defies the laws of physics or is in some other way technically impossible.  The four key aspects of alternative pleading are:

(1) Cover All Bases: Whatever possible basis might be available in a statement of claim or defence should be invoked to ensure that if a reliance on one legal precept or theory fails, others remain available.  Just because a particular claim or defense has been filed, there is no obligation on counsel to pursue each.

(2) Multiple Legal Fields: A party can plead different areas of law are at play, even if they would be contradictory if considered together.  A plaintiff might allege a defendant is liable under both breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment if no contract is found afoot.

(3) Flexibility: Alternative pleading interacts with the “discovery process” (ie going through each other’s filing cabinets and digital storage) in that it makes maximum flexibility in litigation, parties able to take advantage of previously unknown information.  Thus, pleadings should be structured not only on the basis of “known knowns” but also “unknown unknowns”, “known unknowns” and even the mysterious “unknown knowns”.  He may have been evil but for some things, we should be grateful to Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US defense secretary 1975-1977 & 2001-2006).

(4) No Admission of Facts: By pleading in the alternative, a party does not admit that any of the factual allegations are true but are, in effect, asserting if one set of facts is found to be true, then one legal theory applies while if another set is found to be true, another applies.  This is another aspect of flexibility which permits counsel fully to present a case without, at the initial stages of litigation, being forced to commit to a single version of the facts or a single legal theory.

In the US, alternative pleading (typically wordy (there was a time when in some places lawyers charged “per word” in documents), lawyers prefer “pleading in the alternative”) generally is permitted in criminal cases, it can manifest as a defendant simultaneously claiming (1) they did not commit alleged act, (2) at the time the committed the act they were afflicted by insanity they are, as a matter of law, not criminally responsible, (3) that at the time they committed the act they were intoxicated and thus the extent of their guilt is diminished or (4) the act committed way justified by some reason such as provocation or self defense.  Lawyers however are careful in the way the tactic is used because judges and juries can be suspicious of defendants claiming the benefits of both an alibi and self defense.

Fascinator

Fascinator (pronounced fas-uh-ney-ter)

(1) A person or thing that fascinates.

(2) A scarf of crochet work, lace, or the like, narrowing toward the ends, worn as a head covering by women.

(3) A lightweight, decorative head covering worn by women on formal occasions

1740-1750: The construct is fascinate (from the Late Latin fascinātus, perfect passive participle of fascinō (enchant, bewitch, fascinate), from fascinum (a phallus-shaped amulet worn around the neck used in Ancient Rome; witchcraft)) + -or (the Latin suffix which creates an agent noun, indicating a person who does something).  While the rule is not absolute, English generally appends the –or suffix where Latin would do it: to the root of a Latin-type perfect passive participle.  For other words, English tends more to use the suffix –er although there are words which have evolved to use both (protester & protestor).  In other cases, conventions have emerged such resistor which is the correct name for the use in electrical science whereas resister may elsewhere be used.  Fascinator is a noun.

The hat

Clipart file of Lindsay Lohan in fascinator.

Students of millinery seem inclined to trace the origins of the modern fascinator to the 1770s when, apparently on a whim, Marie Antoinette arranged clusters of ostrich and peacock feathers into her pomaded hair although images from antiquity suggest women have been using similar embellishments for millennia.  The name was first adopted in the 1960s, a borrowing from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when a fascinator was an oblong head covering of silk, lace, or net or, in its more functional forms, of knitted or crocheted fine yarn; essentially a scarf.  Taxonomically, milliners place modern fascinators under the genus of hats but definitely as a sub-set.  Milliner Philip Treacy (b 1967) who has made a great many defines them as “…a small adornment for the head, attached to a comb, wire, or clip that perches on the head with no brim or crown."  The term today seems to refer to anything attached to a clip, a headband, or a comb but which stops short of being a hat.  One failed marketing ploy was the hatinator, a word invented in 2012 and said to be a cross between hat and fascinator, a hatinator being defined as something fastened on the head with a band (like a fascinator), but with the appearance of a hat.  A clumsy attempt to create a market segment which already existed, women weren’t fooled.

Princess Beatrice of York (b 1998) in the Philip Treacy fascinator worn at the 2011 wedding of Prince William (b 1982) and Catherine Middleton (b 1982).  When first it was seen it attracted some derision as a "ridiculous wedding hat" which seems unfair because it was a clever design which played upon the motif of the head upon which it sat and it was the only memorable headgear seen on the day.  It was later sold at auction for US$131,560, said to be a record for such creations so there was that.

Consortium

Consortium (pronounced or kuhn-sawr-tee-uhm or kuhn-sawr-shee-uhm)

(1) A combination of financial institutions etc, for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital.

(2) Any association, partnership, or union.

(3) In law, the legal right of partners in a marriage to companionship and conjugal intercourse with each other.

(4) In biology, two or more microbial groups living symbiotically; they can be endosymbiotic or ectosymbiotic.

1820–1830: From the Classical Latin consortium (partnership; association; society), derived from consortis & consors (partner), the construct being con- + -sors- + -ium.  Con is from the preposition cum (with; together) +‎ sors (lot; fate) from the Proto-Italic sortis, from Proto-Indo-European ser- (to bind) + -ium, the neuter singular morphological suffix from the Latin –um, based on Latin terms for metals such as ferrum (iron).  It was cognate with serō, seriēs and sermō.  Words (often imprecisely) used as synonyms include conference, group, society, club, company, union, organization, merger, wedding, patent, trust, cartel, holding, ownership, body, league, federation, business, institute & corporation.  Consortium is a noun and consortial an adjective; the noun-plural is either consortia or consortiums (the latter more common in English-speaking countries).  

Although it has technical meanings in law and science, in general use consortium has evolved to apply particularly to aggregations of corporations or individuals for purposes of some commerce.  It can however be used as a generic to apply to any partnership or union although such use has become increasingly rare as the mercantile association tends to dominate.  Other descriptors of aggregations are nuanced (such as federation vis-à-vis confederation) but consortium is an absolute; at law either it is or is not although from the outside, it can be hard to tell.

Consortia or consortiums?

In English there are neither rules nor even established conventions which decide whether original Latin plurals or manufactured English inventions are preferred but popular use has produced several practices.  Firstly there are words where either may be used but, because the classical forms are now rare, they should probably be avoided unless there’s some compelling case for their adoption (such as historical, technical or legal writing) but, whichever is chosen, that style should consistently be applied.  Then there are words which really demand the Latin plural be properly used because (1) it’s not possible to invent a pleasing Modern English form and (2) the originals tend to be better known so incorrect use can make for a jarring read.  Those often used interchangeably as both singular and plural include criteria and phenomena, the singular forms being criterion and phenomenon.  

Finally (3), there are words which have been not merely assimilated, but been wholly absorbed to become English.  Data is now an English word which is both singular and plural for all except for pedants and a handful of nerds for whom the distinction between data (plural) and datum (singular) is important.  Agenda, which once was plural, is now so established as a singular that the classical agendum is, if not extinct, is certainly archaic and perhaps obsolete; agendas is the accepted plural.  One great advantage of preferring English plural formations is that the rules are simple.  Classical Latin has a complex system of endings in which there are five categories or declensions of nouns, adjectives, and pronouns (some with sub-categories).  The earlier Ancient Greek had a simpler system, but one still more complicated than that of English.

When describing business structures, the terms consortium & conglomerate are often used interchangeably although technically they’re quite different.  The confusion arises because to the casual observer (certainly the customer and probably not a few shareholders), they can from the outside look the same and some regulatory systems are so opaque it can take an expert to wade through a labyrinth of trusts and registrations to work out just how some of the more elaborate structures should be described.  Famously, the South Korean 재벌(chaebols (literally “financial cartel” or “rich family” or “financial clique”)), although usually regarded as conglomerates appear in at least part of their operations to function sometimes as a consortium (or even a number of parallel consortiums) but whether such arrangements are ad hoc or a permanent convenience can be difficult to determine.  With the chaebols, it’s no easy task to determine where one state ends and another begins.

A consortium is a group of independent organizations or individuals which join forces to collaborate on a specific project or objective (which can be a one-off, a time-limited agreement or permanent). In a consortium, each member retains their independence and autonomy, but all work together towards common goals.  Typically consortiums involve technology (such as the LIM (Lotus-Intel-Microsoft) which was formed to develop specifications for EMS (Expanded Memory Specification) & XMS (Extended Memory Specification) computer RAM (random access memory)), manufacturing (such as PRV (Peugeot-Renault-Volvo) which collaborated on a V6 engine few admired)) & education (such as the G8, the eight “old” Australian universities (sort of the equivalent of the US Ivy League) which formed an ongoing alliance to try to maximize their share of the nation’s research funding).  Consortium arrangements can be formal or informal and most exist to permit projects of common interest to be completed more quickly and avoid duplications of effort.

In business, a conglomerate is a corporation composed of multiple diverse and often unrelated businesses operating in various sectors.  The typical structure is to have a holding company which holds a controlling interest in several subsidiary companies, each of which operates with at least some degree of independence and such is the nature of international tax law that each may be registered in a place different from where their commercial activities are physically transacted.  Conglomerates may be planned or can grow organically through M&A (mergers and acquisitions) or from splitting up existing structures, either for some commercial or tax advantage or if ordered by regulators.  There can be real advantages in the conglomerate model because diversification can mean the structure can withstand downturns in one sector of the economy because of participation where demand remains strong.  Classic conglomerates include General Electric (GE) with fingers in pies like energy, aviation & healthcare and Berkshire Hathaway, which controls a portfolio in industries as diverse as insurance, finance, retail & manufacturing.

Lindsay Lohan, JFK Airport, New York, December 2011.

French-based LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy) is a conglomerate formed in 1987 through the merger of Louis Vuitton & Moët Hennessy and as well as the eponymous names their portfolio now includes over seventy “luxury” brands including Dior, Fendi, Givenchy, and Bulgari.  LVMH technically is thus a holding company but does from time to time enter into consortium arrangements to collaborate on projects (which in some cases have become acquisitions and therefore part of the conglomerate).

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (pronounce to-koh-cue-e)

(1) In philosophy, an appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion.

(2) In international law, a justification of action based on an assertion that the act with which the accused is charged was also committed by the accusing parties.

From the Latin Tū quoque (translated literally as "thou also" and latterly as "you also"; the translation in the vernacular is something like "you did it too", thus the legal slang "youtooism" & "whataboutism". 

An example of the tu quoque fallacy in philosophy

In formal logic, tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back on the accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy.  It happens when for example when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid the substantive matter.

Mother: You should stop smoking; it's bad for your health.

Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking at fourteen.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

The daughter's tu quoque fallacy lies in dismissing or avoiding the argument because she believes her mother is being hypocritical or at least inconsistent.  While both may be true, that has nothing to do with and does not invalidate her argument.  In 2012 Lindsay Lohan tweeted a hint she had some sympathy with the tu quoque defence gambit: "Why did I get put in jail and a nickelodeon star has had NO punishment(s) so far?". 

International Military Tribunal Trial  (IMT) Trial #1, Nuremberg, 1945-1946

At law, the classic tu quoque defense is an attempt by an accused to deny the legitimacy of a charge by alleging those mounting the prosecution committed exactly the same offence and thus stand equally guilty.  An interesting variation was raised by German Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891-1980), appointed head of state in Hitler's will but on trial for his role as head of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy) between 1943-1945.  Dönitz argued he should be acquitted because the navies of other (victorious) nations had conducted their operations using exactly the same tactics with which he was charged as war crimes but what was novel was the argument that the conduct in dispute (essentially, unrestricted submarine warfare) was, as practiced by both sides, entirely lawful and within the rules of war at sea.  A great many British & US sea captains and admirals agreed (“admirals are a trade union” Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) would later remark in another context), some of whom provided affidavits for the defense in which they provided the details of they way they had their submarine forces conduct exactly the same operations which were the basis of the charges against Dönitz.

Defendants in the dock. IMT Trial #1, Nuremberg, 1945-1946.  All were guilty of something but three were acquitted by the IMT and later tried by German courts.  Dönitz (wearing dark glasses) is sitting in the back row (far left of the photograph). 

The tribunal's aversion to a classical tu quoque being even admitted for discussion was not mere legal pedantry.  Hinted at by the prosecution declining to indict the German air force for their wartime conduct, despite pursuing the army, navy, and many other institutions of state, there was no hunger to offer defense counsel the chance to cite, inter alia, the carpet bombing (then often referred to as "area bombing") of Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities (and of course the matter of Tokyo or the later use of A-Bombs).  For the same reason, the Kremlin had no wish to have discussed the secret protocol to the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact which had divided the spoils of Poland between Germany and the USSR although, because it had become known to the defense lawyers (who managed to sneak-in a mention) the curious situation came to prevail that the protocol, while not formerly admitted as a document, could be referred to but not in detail.  So, in the narrow technical sense, whether specific acts were justified in law depended (at least for the purposes of the trial) on whether or not they were part of the indictment, a position described by one twenty-first century author as “…hypocrisy permitted by Realpolitik” since the novel and vital ideas behind the creation of Nuremberg trial would have been jeopardized had the IMT cast doubt on the legitimacy of the victors’ actions, strategic or tactical.  That has been criticized but mostly by legal theorists who state, correctly “…there is no moral or legal basis for immunizing victorious nations from scrutiny… [and]… the laws of war are not a one-way street”.  In the abstract they are of course correct but the circumstances and timing of the Nuremburg trial were, and remain, unique and the matters for judgment so grotesquely horrid that it will always be a special case.

Dönitz’s defense appeared to impress the judges (though obviously not the two Russians who were under instruction from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) to vote to have every defendant hanged).  Although convicted on counts two (crimes against peace) and three (war crimes), he received only a ten-year sentence, the shortest term of the seven imposed on those not hanged or acquitted.  Perhaps tellingly, one has to read the summary of the verdicts to work out against which of the indictment's four counts he had been convicted; it really isn't possible to work it out from the judgment and it wasn't until later it emerged it had been written by one of the judges who had voted for his acquittal.

Phreak

Phreak (pronounced freek)

(1) Illicitly to tamper with or connect to various systems using telephones (in the sense of phone phreaking.

(2) To act as a phone phreak.

1972: An altered spelling of freak, applied by and to the phone phreaks, constructed by blending the ph of phone with freak.  Phone is from the Ancient Greek φωνή (phōnḗ) (sound).  Freak was first used circa 1560 in the sense of a "sudden change of mind or something done on a whim" and is of uncertain origin but thought probably from a dialectal word related to the Middle English frekynge (capricious behaviour; whims) and friken & frikien (briskly or nimbly to move) from the Old English frician (to leap, dance) or Middle English frek (insolent, daring) from the Old English frec (desirous, greedy, eager, bold, daring).  The ultimate root may be the Proto-Germanic frekaz & frakaz (hard, efficient, greedy, bold, audacious) in which case, it would be related to the phreak as a noun.  Related were the Old High German freh (eager) and the Old English frēcne (dangerous, daring, courageous, bold).  In linguistics, words like phreak are known as a sensational spelling and the trend continued in the post-web world from the 1990s onwards with creations such as phat and phishing.  Phreak is a noun & verb, phreaker is a noun and phreaked & phreaking are verbs; the noun plural is phreaks.

The phone phreakers

Digilog Systems Telecomputer II (315), circa 1976, a briefcase-housed acoustic coupler.

Phone phreaking was a term coined to describe the activities of the sub-culture of people who explored and exploited public telephone networks.  The term first referred to groups which, since the late 1950s, had reverse engineered the analogue system of audio tones used to route long-distance calls.  By re-creating these tones, phreaks could switch calls from the handset, allowing free calls to be made around the world; this at a time when even local calls could cost money and long distance or international calls could cost hundreds of dollars per hour.  Electronic tone generators known as blue boxes soon became available, making phreaking possible even for those without much technical knowledge.  This early aspect of phreaking effectively ended by the 1980s as most phone networks switched from acoustic tones to digital computer systems.  The phone phreaks are best remembered for their early hacks into the big mainframes of operations like NASA, the Pentagon and the CIA.  The phreaks were pleased to find a military mainframe might be in a secure facility with industrial strength air-conditioning and power supply systems with armed guards on the doors yet be connected directly to the public telephone network.

The idea of phone phreaking has survived phonetically as the phone freak-out; there are are public freak-outs and private freak-outs.