Sneaker

Sneaker (pronounced snee-ker)

(1) A high or low shoe, notionally intended to be worn when playing sport or other recreational activities, usually with a rubber or synthetic sole and uppers of canvas, leather or a synthetic material (sold as “a pair of sneakers”).

(2) One who sneaks; a “sneak”.

(3) A vessel of drink (a now archaic UK dialect form).

(4) A large cup (or small basin) with a saucer and cover (Indian English, now largely archaic).

(5) In biology, as “sneaker male”, a male animal which pretends to be a female to get close to a female, thereby increasing their chance of mating.

(6) In marine hydrology, disproportionately large coastal waves which can without warning appear in a wave train.

1550s: The construct was sneak + -er.  The origin of sneak is uncertain.  It may be from the thirteenth century Middle English sniken (to creep, to crawl), from the Old English snīcan (to creep, to crawl), from the Proto-West Germanic snīkan, from the Proto-Germanic sneikanan or snīkaną (“to creep, to crawl”) which is related to the root of both snail & snake.  Similar forms include the Danish snige (to sneak), the Swedish snika (to sneak, hanker after) and the Icelandic sníkja (to sneak, hanker after).   Alternatively, there may be a link with snitch, also of uncertain origin.  Snitch may be an alteration of the Middle English snacche (a trap, snare) or snacchen (to seize (prey)), the source of the modern English snatch.  A parallel evolution in Middle English was snik & snak (a sudden blow, snap).

The alternative etymology is as a dialectal variant of sneak.  The noun emerged in the 1590s as a development of the verb (as implied in “sneakish” in the sense of “creep or steal about privately; move or go in a stealthy, slinking way” and most etymologists have concluded it was probably a dialectal survivor from the Middle English sniken from the Old English snican, from the Proto-Germanic sneikanan.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  Sneaker is a noun; the noun plural is sneakers.

Reader's Digest published a number of maps illustrating regional variations in the way things are described in the US.  While they didn't seem to indicate there was a costal v flyover linguistic divide, the Mason-Dixon line did seem to have some influence and there was something of an east-west divide.  One outlier however was "sneakers" which was found predominately to be prevalent only around the north & south Atlantic coasts, the rest of the country preferring "tennis shoes" while there were pockets in the Mid-West where "gym shoes" had traction.  The publication noted their map represented only the dominant form and that all forms (and other) could be found throughout the land.

According to Google Trends, in on-line shopping, while the numbers bounce around, they do so within a range and "sneakers" remains statistically dominant.

The noun sense of sneak as “a sneaking person; person of selfish and cowardly temper and conduct” dates from the 1640s a development from the verb; by 1700 it was used to describe “the act or practice of sneaking”.  The transitive sense of “stealthily to insert” was known by the mid-seventeenth century while that of “partake of or get surreptitiously” dates from 1883.  The phrase “to sneak up (on someone or something)” was in use by 1869.  As an adjective (in reference to feelings, suspicions etc) it was used in the sense of “not openly vowed, undemonstrative” from 1748 while the “sneak-thief” (one who enters through unsecured doors and windows to steal) was first so describe in 1859.  “Sneak previews” were originals viewings of movies held before their public release for friendly critics and others likely to provide helpful publicity, the phrase first used in 1938.

Nike Dunk SB Low Freddy Kruger (US$30,000), a tribute to the villain (or hero; opinions differ) in the Nightmare on Elm Street films, the Nike swoosh a nice allusion to the blades in the famous gloves.

The noun use of sneaker to describe certain rubber-soled shoes was in use by at least 1895 and thus (even if tangentially) linked to the use in the 1590s sense of “a sneak; one who sneaks around”).  The use for shoes was of course based on rubber-soled shoes being essentially noiseless in contrast to those which leather soles which were usually fitted with protective metal heel & toe plates to reduce wear.  A slang term for any soft-soled (usually rubber) shoe was “brothel creeper”, based on the idea that men who frequented such places preferred to do so silently so as not to be conspicuous.  The original term was actually “sneak”, first documented in accounts of prison life in 1862 as prisoners’ slang for both the wardens who at night wore “India-rubber shoes” and the shoes themselves.  The same issue was noted by the Nazi war criminals held in Spandau Prison between 1947-1987.  The prisoners had complained the heavy boots worn by the guards disturbed them but when the authorities issued rubber-soled footwear they found it harder to undertake un-noticed their many surreptitious activities.

There are a number of alternative names for the shoes.  Some are obvious such as “basketball shoes” or “tennis shoes” and “sports shoe” is a classic generic but plimsole has also endured in some places.  That was based on the “Plimlsoll Line” (originally Plimsoll’s Mark) which was a line painted on the hull of British ships to mark the point the waterline was allowed to reach before the vessel was declared overloaded.  It was named after English Liberal MP Samuel Plimsoll (1824-1898), a strident advocate of shipping reforms (many of which were codified in the Merchant Shipping Act (1876) including the “Plimsoll mark”).  Plimsoll came into use in 1907 to refer to rubber-soled, canvas shoe because the band around the shoes holding together the two parts evoked an image of the line on ships.  The spelling quickly shifted to “plimsole” because of the sound association between “soll” and “sole”.  An earlier form was “tacky” (also as “tackie”) which was probably of Dutch or Afrikaans origin, or else from tacky (slightly sticky), a quality associated with rubber, especially before the introduction of vulcanization.  In South Africa, tacky is used not only of rubber-soled shoes but also of car type and often other things made from rubber.

Lindsay Logan, nueva embajadora de Allbirds (the new Allbirds ambassador), possibly on a Wednesday.

In 2022, Allbirds appointed Lindsay Lohan as an ambassador for its "Unexpected Athlete" campaign, focusing on her for the new limited edition of its most successful sneakers (they seem to prefer "running shoe") to date, the Tree Flyer.  The promotional video issued for the announcement was nicely scripted, beginning with Ms Lohan’s perhaps superfluous admission that as an ambassador for running “I am a little unexpected" before working in a few references to her career in film (showing again a rare sense of comedic timing), fondness for peanut butter cookies and the odd social media faux-pas, many of which she's over the years embraced.  The feature shoe is the "Lux Pink" which includes no plastics.  As a well-known car driver and frequent flyer who has for years lived in an air-conditioned cocoon in Dubai, it’s not clear how far up the chart of conspicuous consumption Ms Lohan has stamped her environmental footprint but US-based footwear and apparel company Allbirds claims its design, production & distribution processes are designed to make its products as eco-friendly as possible.  It is a certified “B Corporation”, a system of private certification of for-profit companies of their "social and environmental performance" conferred by B Lab, a non-profit organization which aims to provide consumers with a reliable way to distinguish the genuinely environmentally active from those which cynically “greenwash”.

Lindsay Lohan, Allbirds “Unexpected Athlete Ambassador”.

They’re known also as “gym shoes”, “leisure shoes”, “sandshoes”, “kicks”, “trainers”, “training shoes” and running shoes and in Australia, until the 1990s, one big-selling (and still manufactured) model (the Dunlop Volley) almost universally known as “the Dunlop” and shoe shops do document the difference between “basketball shoes” and “basketball boots”, the latter with an upper built higher to afford greater protection for the ankles.  Interestingly, sneakers (however described) have become something of a cult and many expensive variations are available although analysts see to believe much of the price-tag is can be attributed to profit rather than development or production costs and, like the luxury handbag market, there are claims of “limited availability” and “restricted customer list” but most conclude that usually the only “limit” is demand although some genuine short production runs have been verified, usually for promotional purposes.  They’ve become also an item frequently stolen and among certain demographics, being assaulted so one’s sneakers can be stolen is a not uncommon experience.  Somewhat related to that cultural phenomenon has been the emergence of an after-market for “collectable” or “vintage” sneakers never to be worn and preferably still in their original packaging.  The record price paid at auction is apparently US$2.2 million but some new sneakers associated with celebrities list at as much as US$25,000, intended presumably endlessly to be traded as collectables rather than worn, much in the manner of some of the rarest exotic cars which even the manufacturers admit are produced for just that market.

Ayatollah

Ayatollah (pronounced ah-yuh-toh-luh)

In Shiʿite Islam, a high title in the religious hierarchy achieved by scholars who have demonstrated advanced knowledge of Islamic law and religion.

1300s: A Persian word from the Arabic āyat (sign, testimony, miracle, verses of the Qurʿān) and allāh (God).  The Arabic ayatu-llah is literally "miraculous sign of God", the word Ayatollah (āyatullāh) best translated as “sign of God” although there are variations.  Word originates from passage 51:20–21 in the Qurʿān which the Shi'a, unlike the Sunni, interpret to mean human beings can be regarded as “signs” or “evidence” of God.  It’s most familiar now from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Persian آیت‌الل romanized as āyatollāh where it’s an honorific title for high-ranking Twelver Shia clergy in Iran (and now also Iraq) that came into widespread use in the mid-late twentieth century.  There are variants: āyatallāh fī al-anām (آية الله في الأنعام), literally “Sign of God among mankind”, āyatallāh fī al-ʿālamayn (آية الله في العالمَین‎), literally “Sign of God in the two worlds”, fī al-ʿālamīn (في العالمین‎), literally “in the worlds” and āyatallāh fī al-warā (آية الل في الوراء), literally “Sign of God among mortals”.

Ayatollah (āyatullāh) is an honorific title in the clerical hierarchy in Twelver Imamite Shiism, bestowed by popular usage on those who have demonstrated outstanding scholarship both in Islamic jurisprudence and the holy Qur’ān.  Although the title had existed since medieval times, until well into the twentieth century, use was restricted to senior clerics (mujtahids) of Persian origin.  An imitation of the title ẓill Allāh (shadow of God) was traditionally applied to Persian Islamic rulers, which was confirmed by the use of āyat Allāh zādah (son of ayatollah), a counterpart of shāh zādah (son of the shah).  The first reputed bearer, Ibn al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī (d 1374), was styled Ayatollah in the twelfth century but it remained rare and didn’t come into general use until the late Qājār period (1796-1925) when, in 1922, Abd al-Karīm Ḥāʿirī-Yazdī founded the new theological centre of Qom.

Besides being a fully qualified mujtahid, the scholarship and theological authority of an aspiring ayatollah must be acknowledged by both his peers and followers.  In the period between the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 and the 1979 Iranian revolution, the title ayatollah became (although rare until the 1940s) clerically more ubiquitous, extended even (against their own traditions) to Sunnī religious dignitaries although, in Iran, the Sunni community does not use the title and it remains rare outside of Iran although in Iraq, is remains available to clerics of Iranian origin.  After the 1979 Iranian revolution, there were significant changes.  The title became more exclusive and a seven tier hierarchy was codified, including the role of nāyib-i imām (lieutenant of the imam), reflecting the assumption of both temporal and spiritual power by Ayatollah Khomeini who anyway removed any suggestion of collective theocratic rule with his adoption of the title imām, something historically unusual in Twelver Shīʿī.  Until then, the concept of niyābat (general vicegerency of the Hidden Imam) was purely theoretical.

Thoughts of Ayatollahs

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).

"The Victorian government must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Victoria. There is no humor in Victoria. There is no fun in Victoria. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Grand Ayatollah Daniel Andrews (b 1972), premier of the Australian state of Victoria since 2014.

The title Grand Ayatollah (Ayatollah al-Uzma) (Great Sign of God) is sometimes misunderstood and in none of the strains of Islam does a defined hierarchical clerical structure exist in the manner of the classical theocratic model employed in the Roman Catholic Church.  Being a Grand Ayatollah is not necessarily an indication of a place of high authority in any administrative structure.  Grand Ayatollah was a (historically rarely granted) honor and one afforded to an Ayatollah whose contribution to learning and knowledge of the holy Koran is such they are considered Marja'-e-Taqlid, (Grand Ayatollah now the usual form).  Although, practices have varied, for the title to be conferred, an Ayatollah would have been expected to have produced a substantial body of Islamic scholarship but analysts have concluded the favored works have tended to be those reflecting Koranic orthodoxy and of practical application rather than abstract explorations of the esoteric.  Again, because it’s not a centralized system, the number of active Grand Ayatollahs in Iran isn’t clear but they’re said to number in the dozens.

As a formal prelude to achieving the status, a treatise (risalah-yi'amaliyyah) (practical law treatise) is usually published, almost always a work which draws on and reinforces earlier traditions rather than anything new or controversial.  In this it’s more like the modern Western PhD dissertation, many of which appear not a genuinely new contribution to much.  The convention however works in conjunction with the political structures of state which in 1979 were absorbed by the revolution.  Upon assuming office as Supreme Leader in 1989, Ali Khamenei (b 1939) was granted the title Ayatollah although there appears to be no great history of Koranic scholarship and certainly not the customary risalah-yi'amaliyyah.  In recent years, there seems also to have been a bit of a nudge by the state-controlled media which sometimes refer to him as Grand Ayatollah or even Imam.  Foreign monitoring agencies however have reported the Iranian people seem unresponsive to the prodding and use of “Imam” seems still a historic reference only to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

There has been a bit clerical inflation since the death of the Imam.  Although there exists in Shia Islam no codified hierarchical structure of ecclesiastical offices, observers have identified shifting conventions which move with the political climate of the day.  Possession of the more exalted titles used to depend on popular assent, granted only to the most prominent religious figures and those who were of necessity a Mujtahid, an important pre-condition being a demonstrable superiority in learning (aʿlamīyat) and authority (riyāsat) the latter definitely demanding popular support.  Not unrelated too, as structuralists like to point out, it helped if one was good at raising religious taxes (Khums).  Plus ça change...

Some presumably un-intended mission-creep resulted from the Imam’s educational reforms intended to secure the primacy to Koranic teaching.  The restructuring of the Shia seminaries created four layers of structured scholarship, those clerics attaining the highest qualification styled as Dars-e-Kharej (beyond the text) and thus assuming the title of Ayatollah.  Being an Islamic state, bureaucratic progression in the state bureaucracy was assisted by the qualification and the numbers graduating increased, the dynamic driven also by (1) a worsening economy which made state-sector employment increasingly attractive and (2) the unlimited ability of the seminaries to offer course to fee-paying students.  By 2017, it was estimated over three thousand clerics in Iran were calling themselves Ayatollah.

To mark “Mean Girls Day” on 3 October 2019, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) took to X (the app then known as Twitter) and trolled Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (1960-2024) and then Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani (1957-2020), photoshopping the trio into a well-known scene from the film, labeling the image “There’s no one meaner than the mean girls of the Middle East” and advising the twitterati: “Don’t sit with them”.  It wasn’t the first time the Jewish state had deployed the movie against the ayatollahs: In 2018, in response to Ayatollah Khamenei calling the Jewish state a “cancerous tumor” which “must be eradicated,” the Israeli embassy in Washington posted a Mean Girls GIF asking “Why are you so obsessed with me?”  On both occasions, the ayatollahs ignored the IDF's provocations.  By late 2024, the IDF high command, pondering the meme, was probably thinking "two out of three ain't bad".

Puffery

Puffery (pronounced puhf-uh-ree)

(1) Undue or exaggerated praise; inflated laudation; publicity, claims in advertising, acclaim etc, that are exaggerated (also known as the “puff piece”).

(2) In common law jurisdictions (often as “mere puffery), certain claims or assertions made which, even if literally untrue or misleading, are not actionable.

(3) An act of puffing (rare except in humor).

1730–1735: The construct was puff (in the sense of “to praise with exaggeration”) + -ery.  The noun puff was from the early thirteenth century Middle English puf, puffe, puff & puf, from the Old English pyf (a short, quick blast of wind, act of puffing) which was imitative and cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  It was derived from the verb which was from the Middle English puffen, from the Old English pyffan & puffian (to breathe out, blow with the mouth) and similar forms in other European languages included the Dutch puffen, the German Low German puffen, the German puffen, the Danish puffe and the Swedish puffa.  The sense of “to blow with quick, intermittent blasts” was common by the mid-fourteenth century while the meaning “pant, breathe hard and fast” emerged some decades later.  It was used of the “fluffy light pastry" from the late fourteenth century while the “small pad of a downy or flossy texture for applying powder to skin or hair” was first so described in the 1650s.

The meaning “to fill, inflate, or expand with breath or air” dates from the 1530s while the intransitive sense (in reference to small swellings & round protuberances) was noted by 1725.  The transitive figurative sense of “exalt” was known by the 1530s which shifted somewhat by the early eighteenth century into the meaning “praise with self-interest, give undue or servile praise to”, the idea by mid century focused on the figurative sense of “empty or vain boast”, this sense soon extended to mean “flattery & inflated praise”.  The derogatory use of poof for “an effeminate man; a male homosexual” was noted from the 1850s and is presumably from puff (possibly in the sense of “powder puff”, an allusion to the stereotype of their “excessive concern with maintaining a delicate appearance”)) and the extended form “poofter” was early twentieth century Australian slang, an unusual linguistic departure for a dialect which tended either to clip or add a trailing “e”, “y” or “o” sound to words.  The correct spelling for the furniture piece (A low cushioned seat with no back; a padded foot-stool) was pouf, from the French pouf & pouff (again of imitative origin) but, presumably because of confusion caused by the pronunciation, the spellings puff & poof sometimes are used.  The suffix -ery was from the Middle English -erie, from the Anglo-Norman and Old French -erie, a suffix forming abstract nouns.  The suffix first occurs in loan words from the Old French into the Middle English, but became productive in English by the sixteenth century, sometimes as a proper combination of -er with “y” (as in bakery or brewery) but also as a single suffix (such as slavery or machinery).  Puffery is a noun; the noun plural is pufferies.

Mere puffery

The origin of “puffery” in the publishing industry is thought to be the character of Mr Puff, the verbose and bogus critic in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1751-1816) The Critic (1779).  Puffery was the class of “criticism” used as a tool by literary cliques (comprising groups of authors who praised each other’s works) and this excessive lauding was referred to also as a “blow up” (ie the notion of puffing into a balloon, inflating something which although becoming bigger, remains essentially “empty’).  In the jargon of publishing, a puff (or puff piece) is the equivalent of a “blurb”.

In law, the concept of “mere puffery” was created to provide a buffer between the “meaningless” sales pitch and the deceptive or misleading claims which amount to a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be actionable; “mere puffery” is not.  Puffery is used to describe a claim that (1) a “reasonable person” would not take seriously or (2) is so vague or subjective that it can be neither proved nor disproved.  Those two definitions operate in conjunction because even if an assertion can be disproved, if it would be absurd for the “reasonable person” to claim they believed it, it will be held to be “mere puffery”.

Doubling down: Disappointed at losing the case based on their £100 offer, to restore public confidence, they offered £200. 

In contract law, the term “puffery” comes from one of the most celebrated cases in English jurisprudence: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal.  During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £14,000 in 2023) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after catching influenza.

So, Mrs Carlill, having used the smoke ball three times a day for almost two months before she developed influenza sued for breach of contract and the court held the offer made in the advertisement was not “mere puff” but constituted a valid offer of contract; the Smoke Ball Company’s offer was thus a misrepresentation because, in the particular circumstances detailed, a “reasonable person” would be likely to believe that they would receive £100 and thus, relying on the claim, be persuaded to purchase the product.  However, all the circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis and an individual’s simple reliance on a claim they sincerely believe to be true is not sufficient to for something to be held a misrepresentation.

In the famous Red Bull lawsuit in 2013, the court noted the company’s advertising slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” was “mere puffery” in that no reasonable person would believe ingesting even many cans of the stuff would mean they would “grow wings and fly” but the lawsuit claimed that implicit in the slogan was the allegedly deceptive and fraudulent suggestion that the drink was a “superior source of energy”, something not backed up by scientific evidence.   Heard in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class action was lodged by someone who had been drinking Red Bull for a decade-odd.  His claim was not that he expected feathers to sprout but that idea drinking Red Bull would increase performance and concentration (as advertised on the company's television, on-line and marketing campaigns) was “deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable”.  The scientific basis for the action was research which found energy drinks gained their “boost” through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient, adding although there was no academic support for the claim Red Bull provides “any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of ‘energy’ worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.”  Red Bull, while denying any wrongdoing or liability and maintaining its “marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate”, the company settled the lawsuit “to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.  As part of the settlement, anyone resident of the US who claimed to have purchased a can of Red Bull at some time after 1 January 2002 was eligible to receive either a $US10 reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $US15, a webpage created to enable those affected to lodge their claim.  To avoid any similar claims, the company “voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling".

Advertising is often a mix of puffery and specific claims which can be actionable, depending on the circumstances, either in damages or restitution.

So every case is decided on its merits.  A case before the Federal Court in Australia in 2017 held that a false assertion an app had “the most property listings in Sydney” was a misrepresentation because uncontested evidence proved otherwise although the court note were the app to claim it was “the best” app of its kind that would be mere puffery because, in that context, the phrase “the best” means nothing in particular because it’s not something which can be reduced to a metric or precisely defined.  More intriguing for those who like to speculate when grey turns black or white was the Pepsi Points Case which was in many ways similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  PepsiCo’s advertising included a point system which customers could use to redeem prizes and one campaign had offered a military jet fighter (then invoiced by the manufacturers at US$23 million odd) in exchange for 7 million "Pepsi Points" (then worth US$700,000).  Mailing a $700,000 cheque to PepsiCo, a customer asked to collect his jet.  The court held the offer was “mere puffery” on the basis of (1) aspects of the campaign which clearing indicated “its jocular nature”, (2) that no reasonable person would believe a US$23 million jet could be obtained by exchanging US$700,000 and it was (3) anyway impossible for the company to deliver a military fighter jet in operable condition to a civilian customer.  It was an interesting case because it might have been decided differently if the object had been closer in value to the points mentioned and been something there was no legal impediment to supplying (such as a US$1 million car).  Were it a US$143 million car (there is one), the promotion would presumably still be judged puffery but at some point, it must be that the relative values would be close enough to for the “reasonable person” test to apply.  That however is something impossible to reduce to an equation and each case will be decided on its merits.  Just to be sure, PepsiCo bumped up by several orders of magnitude the points required to start one’s own air force up and added some text to make it clear the whole thing was just a joke.

In the matter of Tyrrell’s Crinkly Crisps.  Often packaging & advertising will contain a number of claims, some of which will be mere puffery (even if it’s easy to prove blatantly they’re untrue) while others need to be verifiable:

2 Pack: Not puffery; every pack must contain two packets.  There have been instances when customers have complained they’ve received more than was advertised and paid for but it’s rare.  Usually, such things are treated as “windfalls”.

Vegan: Not puffery; the contents must be vegan (as defined in the regulation of whatever jurisdiction in which they’re sold).

Triple Cooked: Probably puffery because it’s doubtful the term has any legal definition although were it possible to prove the production process is essentially the same as for any other crisp (chip), it might be actionable.  Because “triple” does have a defined value, were it proved the goods were cooked only twice as long as the practice of other manufacturers, that would presumably compel a change of text to “Double Cooked”.

More Crunch: Probably puffery because the measure of such things is so subjective and there is a point at which to increase crunchiness becomes self-defeating because other desired qualities will be lost.

Crinkly Crisps: Not puffery; the crisps must to some extent be crinkly although it might be fun to have a judge explore the margins and tell us how slight a corrugation can be while still being called “crinkly”.

No Artificial Nasties: Not puffery; these packets probably contain artificial ingredients because they’re almost impossible to avoid in the industrial production of food.  What constitutes a “nasty” is however a thing of quantity as well as quality; something millions every day harmlessly (even beneficially) can be a toxic “nasty” in large quantities so what’s included in the packet will be safe as supplied.  If potential “nasties” are found to exist in a quantity above a certain point, it’s actionable.

Gluten Free: Not puffery; unless there is an allowable quantity (ie trace amounts) permitted by regulation, there must be no gluten.

Sea Salt & Vinegar: Not puffery; sea salt is a particular type of salt so it must be used and there must be evidence of the use of vinegar.

165 g Net: Not puffery; each pack must contain 165 g of edible content +/- the small % of production line variation a court would deem acceptable.

Content guide (fat, energy et al): Not puffery; again, what’s claimed must be a reliable indication of the products within whatever small variation is acceptable.

Photograph with giant crisp: Puffery and an example of how the “reasonable person” test works in conjunction with an objective test of truth.  The packs do not contain crisps as large as is represented in the image (indeed, such would be too big even toi fit in the pack) and no reasonable person would believe this is what they’re buying.

Coupe

Coupe (pronounced koop or koo-pey (the latter used even if spelled without the “é”)).

(1) A closed, two-door car, sometimes on a shorter wheelbase than the four-door version on which they’re based.

(2) A four-door car with a lower or more elongated, sloping roofline than the model on which it’s based.

(3) An ice cream or sherbet mixed or topped with fruit, liqueur, whipped cream etc.

(4) A glass container for serving such a dessert, usually having a stem and a wide, deep bowl (similar in shape but usually larger than a champagne coupe).

(5) As champagne coupe, a shallow, broad-bowled saucer shaped stemmed glass also often used for cocktails because of their greater stability than many a cocktail glasses.

(6) A short, four-wheeled, horse-drawn, closed carriage, usually with a single seat for two passengers and an outside seat for the driver.

(7) The end compartment in a European diligence or railroad car with seats on one side only.

(8) In commercial logging, an area of a forest or plantation where harvesting of wood is planned or has taken place.

(9) In military use, as coupe gorge (a borrowing from French (literally “cut-throat”), any position affording such advantage to an attacking formation that the troops occupying it must either surrender or be “cut to pieces”.

(10) In various sports, a cup awarded as a prize.

(11) A hairstyle (always pronounced coop) which typically features shorter sides and back with longer hair on top.

1825–1835: From the French coupé (low, short, four-wheeled, close carriage without the front seat, carrying two inside, with an outside seat for the driver (also “front compartment of a stage coach”)), a shortened form of carrosse coupé (a cut-off or shortened version of the Berlin (from Berliner) coach, modified to remove the back seat), the past participle of couper (to cut off; to cut in half), the verbal derivative of coup (blow; stroke); a doublet of cup, hive and keeve, thus the link with goblets, cups & glasses.  It was first applied to two-door automobiles with enclosed coachwork by 1897 while the Coupe de ville (or Coup de ville) dates from 1931, describing originally a car with an open driver's position and an enclosed passenger compartment.

The earlier senses (wicker basket, tub, cask) date from 1375–1425, from the Middle English, from the Anglo-French coupe & cope, from the Old French coupe, from the Medieval Latin cōpa (cask), from the Latin cūpa (cask, tub, barrel), the ultimate source of the modern “cup” (both drink vessels and bras).  The Middle English cǒupe was from the Old Saxon kûpa & côpa, from the Old High German chôfa & chuofa, again from the from the Medieval Latin cōpa from the Latin cūpa.  It described variously a large wicker basket; a dosser, a pannier; a basket, pen or enclosure for birds (a coop); a cart or sled equipped with a wicker basket for carrying manure etc; a barrel or cask for holding liquids.  The obvious descendent is the modern coop (chickens etc).  Coupe is a noun; the noun plural is coupes.

Marie Antoinette and the unrelated champagne coupe.

The “coupe” hair-style (always pronounced coop) is one which typically features shorter sides and back with longer hair on top, the modern interpretations making a distinct contrast between the shorter and longer sections, the aim being the creation of sharp lines or acute angles.  The longer hair atop can be styled in various ways (slicked back, textured, or even the messy look of a JBF.  Historically, the coupe hairstyle was associated with men's cuts but of late it’s become popular with women, attracted by the versatility, low maintenance and the adaptability to suit different face shapes, hair types and variegated coloring.  Because outside the profession, there’s no obvious link between “coupe” and hair-styles, the term “undercut” is often used instead.  Unfortunately, despite the often-repeated story, there seems little to support the claim the wide-mouthed, shallow-bowled champagne coupe was modelled on one of Marie Antoinette's (1755–1793; Queen Consort of France 1774-1792) breasts.

Harold Wilson (1916–1995; UK prime minister 1964-1970 & 1974-1976) outside 10 Downing Street with his official car, a Rover 3.5 saloon.

In automobiles, by the 1960s, the English-speaking world had (more or less) agreed a coupe was a two door car with a fixed roof and, if based on a sedan, in some way (a shorter wheelbase or a rakish roof-line) designed put a premium on style over utility.  There were hold-outs among a few UK manufacturers who insisted there were fixed head coupes (FHC) and drop head coupes (DHC), the latter described by most others as convertibles or cabriolets but mostly the term had come to be well-understood.  It was thus a surprise when Rover in 1962 displayed a “four-door coupe”, essentially their 3 Litre sedan with a lower roof-line and a few “sporty” touches such as a tachometer and a full set of gauges.  Powered by a 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) straight-six, it had been available as a four-door sedan since 1958 and had found a niche in that part of the upper middle-class market which valued smoothness and respectability over the speed and flashiness offered by the rakish Jaguars but, heavy and under-powered by comparison, even its admirers remarked on the lethargy of the thing while noting it was fast enough to over-tax the four-wheel drum brakes.  The engine did however set standards of smoothness which only the Rolls-Royce straight-sixes and the best of the various straight-eights could match but by 1959, both breeds were all but extinct so the Rover, with its by then archaic arrangement using overhead inlet and side-mounted exhaust valves had at least one unmatched virtue to offer.

Rover-BRM Gas-Turbine, Le Mans, 1965.

Although obviously influenced by the then stylish 1955 Chryslers, its conservative lines appealed to a market segment where such a thing was a virtue and reflected Rover’s image although it was a company with a history which included some genuine adventurism, their experimental turbine-engined cars in the early post-war years producing high performance, something made more startling by them being mounted in bodies using the same styling cues as the upright 3 Litre.  The company however discovered that whatever the many advantages, they suffered the same problems that would doom Chrysler’s turbine project, notably their thirst (although turbines do have a wide tolerance of fuel types) and the high costs of manufacturing because of the precision required, something hinted at by the Chrysler’s tachometer reading to 46,000 rpm while the temperature gauge was graduated to 1,700°F (930°C).  While such machinery was manageable on warships or passenger jets, to sell them to general consumers would have been too great a risk for any corporation and neither ever appeared in the showrooms although Chrysler’s research continued until 1979 and Rover co-developed a turbine race car which proved its speed and durability in several outings in the Le Mans 24 hour endurance classic.

Chop top: The Rover 3.5 Coupé (P5B).

For the public however, Rover upgraded the 3 Litre in a way which was less imaginative but highly successful, purchasing from General Motors (GM) the rights to the 3.5 litre (2.15 cubic inch), all-aluminum V8 which Buick, Oldsmobile & Pontiac had all used in their new generation of “compact” cars between 1960-1963.  For a variety of reasons, GM abandoned the project (to their later regret) and Rover embarked on their own development project, modifying the V8 to suit local conditions and the availability of components.  Remarkably, it would remain in production until 2006, used by several manufacturers as well as a legion of private ventures in capacity up to 5.0 litres (305 cubic inch) although megalomaniacs discovered that by using a mix-and-match of off-the-shelf parts, a displacement of 5.2 litres (318 cubic inch) was possible.  Lighter and more powerful than the long-serving straight-six, the V8 transformed the 3 Litre although Rover, with typical English understatement, limited themselves to changing the name to “3.5 Litre”, solving the potential of any confusion when the V8 was offered in the smaller 2000 by calling it the “3500”.

Although the factory never released one, privately some 3.5 Coupés have been converted to two-doors and there are even some cabriolets (ie drop head coupes or convertibles).

Although the new engine couldn’t match the smoothness of the old, the effortless performance it imparted added to the refinement and fortunately, by the time the V8 was installed, disk brakes had been fitted and transformed by the additional power, it became an establishment favorite, used by prime-ministers and Queen Elizabeth II even long after it had been discontinued.  Even by the time the V8 version was released in 1967, it was in many ways a relic but it managed to offer such a combination of virtues that its appeal for years transcended its vintage aspects.  When the last was produced in 1973, that it was outdated and had for some time been obsolescent was denied by few but even many of them would admit it remained a satisfying drive.  One intriguing part of the tale was why, defying the conventions of the time, the low-roof variation of the four-door was called a coupé (and Rover did use the l'accent aigu (the acute accent: “é”) to ensure the “traditional pronunciation” was imposed although the Americans and others sensibly abandoned the practice).  The rakish lines, including more steeply sloped front and rear glass were much admired although the original vision had been more ambitious still, the original intention being a four-door hardtop with no central pillar.  Strangely, although the Americas and Germans managed this satisfactorily, a solution eluded Rover which had to content themselves with a thinner B-pillar.  

One way or another, windows have troubled the English: (1) the “window tax” imposed on houses during the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries a constant irritant to many, (2) the squircle (in algebraic geometry "a closed quartic curve having properties intermediate between those of a square and a circle") windows used in the early de Havilland Comets found to be a contributing factor in the catastrophic structural airframe failures which doomed the thing and the reason why oval windows are used to this day (mathematicians pointing out the Comet’s original apertures were not “quartic” as some claim on the basis of them being “a square with rounded corners”, the nerds noting “quartic” means “an algebraic equation or function of the fourth degree or a curve describing such an equation or function” and (3) even by the mid 1970s, Jaguar couldn’t quite get right the sealing on the frameless windows used on the lovely “two-door” versions (1975-1978)of the Jaguar & Daimler XJ saloons (which the factory insisted were NOT a coupé, presumably to differentiate them from the long-serving (1975-1995) but considerably less lovely XJ-S (later XJS).

Lindsay Lohan with Porsche Panamera 4S four-door coupe (the factory doesn't use the designation but most others seem to), Los Angeles, 2012.

The etymology of coupe is that it comes from couper (to cut off) but the original use in the context of horse-drawn coaches referred to the platform being shortened, not lowered but others have also been inventive, Cadillac for decades offering the Coupe De Ville (they used also Coupe DeVille) and usually it was built on exactly the same platform as the Sedan De Ville.  So Rover probably felt entitled to cut where they preferred; in their case it was the roof and in the early twentieth century, the four-door coupe became a thing, the debut in 2004 of the Mercedes-Benz CLS influencing other including BMW, Porsche, Volkswagen and Audi.  Whether the moment for the style has passed will be indicated by whether the current model, the last of which will be produced in August 2023, will be replaced.

Prepone & Postpone

Postpone (pronounced pohst-pohn or pohs-pohn)

(1) To put off to a later time; to defer.

(2) To place after in order of importance or estimation; to subordinate in a hierarchy (rare, probably obsolete).

1490–1500: From the Latin postpōnere (to put after, esteem less, neglect, lay aside), the construct being post- (after) + pōnere (to put, to place) and postpōnō (I put after; I postpone), the construct being post (after) + pōnō (I put; I place).  The usual meaning in Latin was the one now rare (to place something lower in importance); the now almost universal sense of an "act of deferring to a future time" is from 1770, the common form since then postpone + -ment.  Earlier, Dr Johnson in 1755 listed postponence.  The -ment suffix was from the Middle English -ment, from the Late Latin -amentum, from -mentum which came via Old French -ment.  It was used to form nouns from verbs, the nouns having the sense of "the action or result of what is denoted by the verb".  The suffix is most often attached to the stem without change, except when the stem ends in -dge, where the -e is sometimes dropped (abridgment, acknowledgment, judgment, lodgment et al), with the forms without -e preferred in American English.  The most widely known example of the spelling variation is probably judgment vs judgement.  Judgement is said to be a "free variation" word where either spelling is considered acceptable as long as use is consistent.  Like enquiry vs inquiry, this can be a handy where a convention of use can be structured to impart great clarity: judgment used when referring to judicial rulings and judgement for all other purposes although the approach is not without disadvantage given one might write of the judgement a judge exercised before delivering their judgment.  To those not aware of the convention, it could look just like a typo.  Postpone (used with object) is a verb; postponed & postponing are verbs, postponed & postponable are adjectives and postponement & postponer are nouns.  Synonyms include adjourn, defer, delay, forestay, hold up, shelve, suspend, put on ice, pigeonhole, prorogue, posticipate, table, carry over, carry forward, cool it, procrastinate, hang fire, hold off, hold over, lay over, put back & put on hold.

Noting the twentieth anniversary of the body-swap comedy Freaky Friday (2003) staring Lindsay Lohan & Jamie-Lee Curtis (b 1958), it was in early 2023 reported a sequel was in the works with work on the screenplay "well-advanced".  Both actors were reportedly expected to reprise their roles but the project has been postponed because of co-ordinated strike action by the actors and screen writers.

Prepone (pronounced pree-pohn)

To reschedule to an earlier day or time.

Pre 1550: From Middle English, the construct being pre- (before) + (post)pone.  A back formation modeled on postpone, it’s now an antonym of the source.  The modern is patterned on the same basis as the circa 1972 prequel (from sequel).  The prefix pre- was from the Middle English pre-, from the Latin prae-, from the preposition prae (before) (prae- & præ- although archaic, still in occasional use for technical or pedantic purposes).  In most cases, it's usually prefixed to words without a hyphen (prefix, predate et al) but a hyphen is used where (1) excluding a hyphen would be likely to lead to a mispronunciation of the word because "pre" appears not to be a complete syllable, (2) (in British English) before the letter e, (3) (often in British English) before other vowels and (4) before a character other than a letter.

Many dictionaries list the origin of prepone as a creation of Indian English in the early 1970s but the first known instance in the sense of “to set before” predates even the Raj, the first known instance from ecclesiastical writing in 1549.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) credits the first use to Puritan clergyman and polemicist Robert Crowley (1517–1588), who in 1549 wrote: “I do prepone and set the Lord alwaye before myne eyes.”  However, it seems to have gone dormant, apparently not seen in print until published in December 1913 by the New York Times (NYT), in a letter to the editor in which a Mr John D Trenor advised he had decided to “…coin the word prepone as a needed rival of that much revered and oft-invoked standby, postpone.”  A useful word certainly but what the Mr Trenor actually had done was take Mr Crowley’s word and vest it with a new meaning: an antonym of postpone.  Prepone, a back-construction from postpone seems a good word to those who value the elegance of sparseness in sentences.  One can prepone something more effortless than can one “move that appointment earlier” or “advance that deadline” or “bring it forward to an earlier date”.  Nor should it suffer from overuse; given we probably are all prone more to procrastinate than persevere, postponements seem likely to remain more prevalent than preponements.

The idea of prepone being an invention of modern Indian English appears based on a spike in use in the early 1970s after what was probably an independent coining of the word rather than a revival of something from the NYT decades before.  Interestingly, there’s a streak of the linguistic puritanical among some English-speaking Indians.  Prepone, a most useful word, has been a part of Indian English for decades but is shunned by many, particularly the more educated and while it appears in the odd newspaper, it’s almost absent from books, teachers often emphasizing its lowly status.  It’s a curious phenomenon.  While native English speakers delight in adopting Indian-inspired contributions to English (bungalow; pyjamas et al), among highly-educated Indian speakers of English, there is a prejudice against local creations, the phrase “as we say in Indian English” often added, sometimes almost in apologia.  It’s certainly not an aversion to the new, Indians as quick as anyone else to pick up “selfie”, “sext” and of course, “avatar” (actually from Hindu mythology).

Prepone: Not all Indians approve.

Informally (but most stridently), India has an English Language "establishment" which speaks English with a clipped precision now rare in the West.  Not a humorous lot, they're dedicated to the task of ensuring Indian English doesn't descend to the debased thing it so often is in less civilized places (the UK, Australia, the US etc) and they publish much material to correct use by errant Indians and admonish the linguistically unhygienic.  It's the empire striking back and prepone is on their (long) list of proscribed barbarisms which is a shame because it's an attractive and useful word and surely Shakespeare would have approved.