Longevity

Longevity (pronounced lon-jev-i-tee)

(1) A long individual life; great duration of individual life.

(2) The length or duration of life.

(3) Length of service, tenure etc; seniority.

(4) Duration of an individual life beyond the norm for the species.

1605-1615: From the Late Latin longaevitatem (nominative longaevitās), from longaevus (ancient, aged; long-lived (the feminine was longaeva and the neuter longaevum)), the construct being longus (long) + aevum (age) (from PIE primitive Indo-European root aiw- (vital force, life; long life, eternity); longevous was the adjective.  The construct of longaevitās was longaevus + -itās (the suffix from the Proto-Italic -itāts & -otāts (-tās added to i-stems or o-stems, later used freely) and ultimately from the primitive Indo-European -tehats.  The adjectival form, the Latin longevous (also as longevously) is now rare in English but still correct (the comparative more longevous, the superlative most longevous).  The less common antonym is shortgevity and the plural longevities; there’s not an exact synonym, the closest being probably durability, endurance & lastingness.

In political terms, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Vladimirovich the patronymic, Putin the family name, b 1952) has displayed an extraordinary longevity.  While it's true some of his Tsarist and Soviet predecessors ruled for longer, they were operating under systems, though sometimes violently dangerous, which made the maintenance and retention of power in many ways a different sort of task.  Since 1999 he has served either as prime-minister or president of Russia, at one point swapping between the offices to circumvent a tiresome constitutional clause which placed limitations on consecutive presidential terms.  In 2021, after a well-done referendum, constitutional amendments were effected which will permit Mr Putin to seek election twice more which, providing the elections are well-run, means he could retain the presidency until 2036.  Should he defy the odds which tend to increase against any politician as the years roll by and still be in rude good health as 2036 looms, there is the suggestion he might be unwilling to relinquish office; there may be a need for more constitutional reform.

With Queen Elizabeth II; (b 1926; Queen of the UK since 1952).

With Muammar Gaddafi (circa 1942–2011; leader of Libya 1969-2011)

With Yasser Arafat (1929–2004; leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) 1969-2004).

With Pope John Paul II (1920-2005; pope 1978-2013).

With Jiang Zemin (b 1926; paramount leader of China 1989-2003).

With Boris Yeltsin (1931–2007; President of Russia 1991-1999).

With Bill Clinton (b 1946; President of US 1993-2001).

With Rudy Giuliani (b 1944; Mayor of New York City 1994-2001).

With Silvio Berlusconi (b 1936; four times prime-minister of Italy between 1994 & 2011).

With Kim Jong-il (b 1941; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011).

With Jacques Chirac (1932–2019; President of France 1995-2007) & Gerhard Schröder (b 1944; Chancellor of Germany 1998-2005).

With John Howard (b 1939; Prime-Minister of Australian 1996-2007).

With Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Prime Minister of Israel 1996-1999 & 2009-2021).

With Tony Blair (b 1953; Prime-Minister of UK 1997-2007.

With Yoshirō Mori (b 1937; Prime-Minister of Japan 2000-2001).

With Bashar al-Assad (b 1965; President of Syria since 2000).

With Junichiro Koizumi (b 1942; Prime-Minister of Japan 2001-2006).

With Ariel Sharon (1928–2014) Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006).

With George W Bush (b 1946; President of US 2001-2009).

With Hu Jintao (b 1942; paramount leader of China 2004-2012).

With Pope Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013 & pope emeritus since).

With Angela Merkel (b 1954; Chancellor of Germany 2005-2021).

With Nicolas Sarközy (b 1955, President of France 2007-2012).

With Barack Obama (b 1961; President of US 2009-2017).

With crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).

With Kim Jong-un (b 1983; Supreme  Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).

With Xi Jinping (b 1953; paramount leader of China since 2012).

With Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013).

With Tony Abbott (b 1957; Prime-minister of Australia 2013-2015).

With Narendra Modi (b 1950; Prime-Minister of Indian since 2014).

With Theresa May (b 1956; Prime Minister of the UK 2016-2019).

With Donald Trump (b 1946; President  of US 2017-2021).

With Emmanuel Macron (b 1977; President of France since 2017).

With Boris Johnson (b 1964; Prime-Minister of UK since 2019).

With Joe Biden (b 1942; President of US since 2021).

Whirlwind

Whirlwind (pronounced wurl-wind)

(1) Any of several relatively small masses of air rotating rapidly around a more or less vertical axis and advancing simultaneously over land or sea, as a dust devil, tornado, or waterspout.

(2) Anything resembling a whirlwind, as in violent action or destructive force; an impetuously active person

(3) Any rush or violent onward course.

(4) As “like a whirlwind” as in speed or force; to move or quickly travel.

1300-1350: From the Middle English whirlewind & whirlewynde, the construct being whirl +‎ wind.  Source was probably the Old Norse hvirfilvindr which was cognate with the German wirbelwind.  From the Old Norse came the Icelandic hvirfilvindur, the Norwegian Nynorsk kvervelvind, the Norwegian Bokmål virvelvind & the Norwegian Nynorsk virvelvind.  Whirly-wind was (probably now extinct) nineteenth century Australian slang for a whirlwind, cyclone, tornado or dust devil and was from the Yindjibarndi wili wili (and it may have existed also in other First Nations languages in north-west Australia).  Whirlwind is a noun& adjective and whirlwindy & whirleindish are adjectives; the noun plural is whirlwinds.

Whirl was from the Middle English whirlen, contracted from the earlier whervelen, possibly from the Old English hweorflian, a frequentative form of the Old English hweorfan (to turn), from the Proto-Germanic hwerbaną (turn) or possibly the Old Norse hvirfla (to go round, spin).  It was cognate with the Dutch wervelen (to whirl, to swirl), the German wirbeln (to whirl, to swirl), the Danish hvirvle (to whirl), the Swedish virvla (the older spelling of which was hvirfla) and the Albanian vorbull (a whirl).  It’s related to the modern whirr and wharve.  Wind was from the Middle English wynd & wind, from the Old English wind (wind), from the Proto-Germanic windaz, from the primitive Indo-European hwéhn̥tos (wind), from the earlier hwéhn̥ts (wind), derived from the present participle of hweh (to blow). It was cognate with the Dutch wind, the German Wind, the West Frisian wyn, the Norwegian and Swedish vind, the Icelandic vindur, the Latin ventus, the Welsh gwynt, the Sanskrit वात (vā́ta), the Russian ве́тер (véter) and, more speculatively, the Albanian bundë (strong damp wind).  It’s related to the modern vent.

The phrase, "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind", comes from the Old Testament (Hosea 8:7).  It means that for all of us, one’s choices and decisions have consequences; one’s actions will one day return to haunt one.  Cynics tend to phrase it as: “For everything you do there’s a price to be paid”.  It’s sometimes confused with the Epistle to the Galatians (6:7) in the New Testament: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”.  Whirlwind is thus popular in figurative use and in saying she had a "whirlwind of garbage around" herself, Lindsay Lohan conveyed the image of a life made difficult by a swirling vortex of undesirable baggage.  In noting her problems were of her own creation she added she was "my own worst enemy" but, at the time, that may have been unfair to Paris Hilton.    

RAF Westland Whirlwind (1939-1943).

A fine, if complex, airframe and a design ahead of its time, the Whirlwind never achieved its potential because of problems, essentially those of the doomed engine around which it was designed.  It was the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) first single-seat, twin-engined fighter, a layout explored by many air forces as a means of fielding a machine with sufficient range, armament and speed to counter the new generation of twin-engined bombers which, by the mid-1930s had proved able to out-pace most fighters then in service.  The prototype flew first in 1938 and had seemed promising, with many innovative features anticipating later designs, the radiators housed in the leading edges of the slim wings and the pilot’s afforded outstanding visibility by virtue of a large, clear bubble canopy.  Intended as a long-range escort fighter, the Whirlwind's firepower was impressive, boasting four 20mm cannons clustered in the nose which made it at the time the most potent fighter in the world.  Test pilots reported excellent handling characteristics, the only deficiencies noted as a lack of power and a very high landing speed which limited the number of airfields from which it could operate.

The Whirlwind was designed to use two Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines, a development of the well-regarded Kestrel but the manufacturer, absorbed with the refinement and production of the much more promising Merlin, was unable to devote sufficient resources and development of the Peregrine first stagnated and then ceased, the demand for the Merlins (used by the strategically vital Spitfire & Hurricane) so great that all of Rolls-Royce's productive capacity had to be dedicated to their supply.  As a result, there existed sufficient engines to build only 112 Whirlwinds which equipped two squadrons where they saw limited service between 1940-1943, mostly in a ground-attack role after being converted to (Mark 1A specification) fighter-bombers.  They were used in an escort role on a low-level raid to Cologne in August 1941 but the unsuitability of the then available bombers to undertake daytime operations was exposed when the attacking force lost almost a quarter of their aircraft, an unsustainable rate of loss.  Not suitable as a night-escort and hampered by the underpowered Peregrines which meant they couldn’t be deployed against single-engined fighters in a defensive role, the Whirlwinds were instead allocated to low-level sorties across the Channel, opportunistically attacking shipping, trains and physical infrastructure.

RAF de Havilland Hornet, 1946.

Interestingly, the fine high-altitude characteristics reported by the test pilots when flying the prototypes didn't translate to the production versions but in 1940, such was the urgency of the military situation the Whirlwinds were pressed into service without any attempt at rectification.  Blamed at the time either on the engines or the wing design, it was only years later that private research revealed it was a change in propeller specification which affected the performance, the prototype using Rotol units while the production aircraft were fitted with de Havilland propellers designed for a different aircraft, such mixing and matching far from unusual in wartime conditions.  The replacement propellers were thicker, the issue being that a rotating propeller blade pushes air aside and the thicker a blade, the more air needs to be moved and, all else being equal, that means that the air has to move faster and at a certain point, the air has to move faster than the speed of sound.  At that point (the sound barrier), shock waves are created which induces massive drag.  Propellers are designed to compensate for this effect but on the de Havilland units, the constant speed mechanism would react to the slowdown in airspeed caused by drag by altering the pitch of the blade which would create a feedback loop in the Peregrine, inducing erratic performance and the higher the altitude, the lower the speed of sound, thus the more unsatisfactory the performance of the Whirlwind at altitude.  On the engine for which they were designed, the de Havilland propellers worked well but the Peregrine had different characteristics.

Gloster Meteor (1944-1984).

The end of Peregrine production meant the Whirlwind was a cul-de-sac, the design of the airframe so tied to the characteristics of the engine that thoughts entertained in 1941 of a re-design with Merlin engines were abandoned as the extent of the engineering required became quickly apparent.  It would have been a time-consuming and labor-intensive task and, recovering from the losses incurred in the Battle of Britain, every Merlin-engined Whirlwind would have meant two fewer Spitfires or three fewer Hurricanes.  Westland pursued the idea, later producing a few dozen Welkins which performed well but by then the allies were well-supplied with long-range, high-speed interceptors.  However, the basic concept had proved impressive and the potential was realized in the later de Havilland Hornet (1946), the lineage visible too in the Gloster Meteor, the UK’s first Jet fighter which, having learned lessons from the Whirlwind, used a very different wing shape to lower the landing speed without compromising other aspects of performance.  Although popular with pilots, the Whirlwinds were retired from active service in 1943 before being declared obsolete and scrapped the following year.

Yugoslav Air Force Westland Whirlwind, 1959.

Between 1953-1966 Westland revived the Whirlwind name for a version of the Sikorsky S-55/H-19 Chickasaw, built under license from the US company.  Over four-hundred were produced and they were used by military and civilian operators in a dozen countries.  Although the early versions were underpowered, a switch to turbine engines transformed the Whirlwind and robust, easy to maintain and reliable, it enjoyed a long service with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm as both a carrier-based anti-submarine platform during the High Cold War and latterly in air-sea rescue, the ability to transport six fully-configured stretchers unique in the UK's military inventory.  In Royal Air Force (RAF) service, the last Whirlwinds weren't retired until 1982.

Détente & Entente

Détente (pronounced dey-tahnt or dey-tahnt (French))

(1) A period of lessening tension between two national powers, or a policy, usually by means of negotiation or agreement, designed to lessen that tension.  A détente is not the resolution of disagreement between the powers but a device to reduce the tensions these disagreements induce.

(2) A term used by historians to describe US foreign policy between the first Nixon administration (1969) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979).  Détente’s companion word in Russian was разрядка (razryadka) (reduction of tension) 

1912: From the French détente (literally “a loosening or relaxation”), from the Old French destente, a derivative of destendre (to relax; to release), the construct being des- (from the Middle French, from the Old French des-, from the Latin dis-, from the Proto-Italic dwis-, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis), the prefix used variously to convey (1) asunder, apart, in two, part, separate, (2) reversal, removal or (3) utterly, exceedingly.) + tendre (to stretch). A doublet of intent.

The French use was influenced by the Vulgar Latin detendita, the feminine past participle of detendere (loosen, release) and as a political term in the sense of "an easing of hostility or tensions between countries", it became more popular in diplomatic discourse after Russia joined the Anglo-French entente cordiale.  In French, the word dates from the 1680s; the earlier detent was a mechanism that temporarily keeps one part in a certain position relative to that of another, which can be released by applying force to one of the parts.  It was used most in engineering to describe a locking mechanism, often spring-loaded to check the movement of a wheel in one direction, the most obvious example of which is a pulley.  In English it was treated as a French word until it was used to describe a theme in US foreign policy 1969-1979.  In English, the spelling detente is often used; the noun plural is détentes.

Entente (pronounced ahn-tahnt or ahn-tahnt (French))

(1) An arrangement or understanding between two or more nations agreeing to pursue shared interests with regard to affairs of international concern but without concluding a formal binding alliance.

(2) The parties to an entente cordiale collectively.

1844: From the French entente (understanding) from the Old French verb entente (intention) a noun use of the feminine of entent, past participle of entendre (to intend).  Although not all agree, there may have been some influence from the Latin intenta, perhaps perhaps through the substantivized Vulgar Latin past participle intendita, as a variant of intenta.  In English, “the entente” has long been used as verbal shorthand for the Anglo-French entente cordiale (1904), the best known of the many ententes, the first apparently document in 1844.  The noun plural is ententes.

Détente

Until the late 1960s, the word détente was rare except in diplomatic circles or the work of historians.  In the language of diplomacy, it came into use around 1912 when there were (obviously not successful) attempts by Germany and France to reduce tensions which may have given it a bad name although it appears often in the archival records of the League of Nations (1920-1946), something which may further have added tarnish.  The revival came when Dr Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) was appointed national security advisor by Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), bringing with him a long study of diplomacy and a feeling for the desirability of a “balance of power” between the USSR and US, under which a stable “peaceful co-existence” could be maintained.  The core element of détente was arms-limitation, Kissinger’s idea being there was no surer path to a reduction in tensions than reducing the possibility of conflict escalating to nuclear confrontation.

Détente: Henry Kissinger & Dolly Parton, 1985.

There were regular summit meetings too and even Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 worked as a part of détente with the USSR but détente did not fundamentally change the postwar American strategy of containment.  Instead it was a mechanism of pursuing containment in a less confrontational method, offering inducements such as technology transfers or trade agreements in exchange for Soviet restraint in promoting revolutionary movements.  It was never envisaged as a means by which the USSR might be destroyed and Kissinger assumed the Soviet state would endure indefinitely in a stable bi-polar system where each side maintained its own spheres of influence and tended not to trespass too far into the other’s space.  The lure of détente faded after Nixon’s resignation and was definitely over after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 but Ronald Reagan (1912-2004; US president 1981-1989), even before assuming office, had made clear he regarded détente as defeatist, thinking the very existence of the Soviet system a problem to be solved, not merely managed.  Reagan’s approach was radical; he was the Leon Trotsky (1879–1940; Ukrainian-Russian Marxist revolutionary & theorist murdered by comrade Stalin) of the West, as opposed to détente as the Russian had been to the essentially similar doctrines of “peaceful co-existence” & “socialism in one state”.

Entente

The 1904 Anglo-French entente cordiale is well-remembered as a set of landmark agreements which resolved a number of long-standing territorial, economic, and strategic points of contention between Britain and France, London and Paris both motivated by their concerns of an increasingly assertive Germany.  From the entente of 1904, lay the winding path to 1914 and all that would follow but the first entente cordiale was concluded in 1844 in the wake of Queen Victoria’s (1819–1901; Queen of the United Kingdom 1837-1901) visit to King Louis-Philippe (1773–1850; King of the French 1830-1848) the year before.

The first British monarch to set foot in France since Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547), the gesture was quite remarkable given that only three years earlier, the two countries had been on the brink of war.  Things had changed, with the removal of the long-serving foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1784–1865; UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1830-1865), relations rapidly improved, assisted by the warm friendship between the two sovereigns and it was Palmerston’s replacement, Lord Aberdeen (1784–1860;UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1828-1855) who conjured-up the phrase “a cordial good understanding” to which the King of France responded with “une sincère amitié” and a spirit of “cordiale entente”, the latter catching on both sides of the channel.

It was however tentative, the entente cordiale was not an alliance confirmed by a treaty, but a concept, a state of mind which the French foreign minister François Guizot (1787–1874; French foreign minister or prime-minister variously 1840-1848) explained by saying “On certain questions, the two countries have understood that they can agree and act together, without a formal undertaking and without renouncing any aspect of their freedom.”  It was in its early days also administered in a very different way, not between ambassadors or bureaucrats but a kind of informal (an actually quite affectionate) back-channel of private correspondence, unknown to other ministers or monarchs, between the French and British foreign ministers.  It was a successful approach and enabled the resolution of difficulties which might otherwise have become crises, including the right of search on their respective ships to prevent slave trading; protectorates in the Pacific, French intervention in Morocco and many squabbles between ambassadors.  It smoothed out much but wasn’t always popular with others in both countries, most of whom brought up in the more gut-wrenching and combative traditions of preceding centuries.

Portrait of Queen Isabel II and her sister the infanta Luisa Fernanda (circa 1843) by Antonio.

One sensitive question was the famous affair of the Spanish marriages, those of the young Spanish Queen Isabella II (1830-1904) and her sister (Luisa Fernanda 1832–1897), something on which the Paris & London had very different views and a satisfactory compromise seemed at hand when, in 1846, the British government fell and old Lord Palmerston returned, bent on confrontation with Paris.  Guizot loathed Palmerston and with brutal rapidity concluded the Iberian marriages to the advantage of France (both marriages proved miserable but among European royalty happy unions were anyway vanishingly elusive) and with that, the entente cordiale was over.  However, although the warmth of the relationship since has fluxuated, the Royal Navy even sinking some of the French fleet in 1940 to prevent ships falling into German hands, France and Britain have not again been at war.

Mankadding

Mankading (pronounced man-kad-ing)

In cricket, the action of the bowler, during his delivery, effecting a run-out of the non-striking batsman.

1947: Named after Indian all-rounder Mulvantrai Himmatlal Mankad (1917-1978 and usually styled Vinoo Mankad) who ran out Australian batsman Bill Brown (1912-2008) on 13 December 1947 in the second test (Australia v India, Sydney).

Vinoo Mankad, Lords, 1952

The mechanics of a Mankad is that as a bowler enters his delivery stride, the non-striking batsman usually leaves the crease and moves towards the other end of the wicket meaning it will take him less time to reach the other end if he and his batting partner choose to attempt a run.  If the non-striking batsman leaves the crease before the bowler has actually delivered the ball, the bowler may, rather than bowling the ball to the batsman on strike, use the ball to dislodge the bails at the non-striker’s end, thereby running-out the non-striker (said to be "out of his ground").  A long-standing convention is that, on the first instance of the bowler noticing it, he should warn the batsman to return behind the crease.  This has always been understood as a convention; nowhere is it mentioned either in the ICC’s (the International Cricket Council (the old Imperial Cricket Conference)) the Laws of the Game nor the MCC’s (Marylebone Cricket Club) guidance notes on the spirit of cricket.

Mankad’s example of this method of dismissal became so famous as to become eponymous.  During the second Australia v India test at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG), on 13 December 1947, Mankad ran out Bill Brown, the second time the bowler had dismissed the batsman in this fashion on their tour, having done it in an earlier match against an Australian XI and on that occasion he had first warned Brown.  There was, at the time, some unfavorable comment in the press suggesting bad sportsmanship but most, including the Australian Captain, Sir Donald Bradman (1908-2001), defended Mankad and there seems to be a consensus that, given the history and having been warned, Brown was a bit of dill for trying it on again; even Brown agreed.  Since this incident, a batsman dismissed in this fashion is said to have been "Mankaded".

It’s since been a troublesome thing although the ICC has made attempts to clarify things, essentially by defining when the bowler may Mankad.  By 2011 rule 42.11 read:  The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon as possible."  Mysteriously to some, but very much in the tradition of cricket, under the ICC's rules, at this time, the Mankad remained defined both as "lawful" and "unfair" which of course favored the bowler and in 2014, the World Cricket Council, an independent consultative body of former international captains and umpires, commenting on the issue, unanimously expressed a lack of sympathy with batsman.  The Laws of Cricket were reissued in October 2017 with the relevant clause renumbered 41.16, permitting Mankading up to "…the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball".

The latest (an presumably the last) attempt came as part of a new set of laws announced by the MCC in March 2022, to take effect in October.  Probably reflecting the reality imposed by 20/20 cricket in which margins tend to be tight and risky runs accepted as an essential part of the game, Mankad dismissals will no longer be considered unfair play.  In the 20/20 game, Mankading has been far from the rare thing it remains in the longer forms; in that fast and furious world, a concept like "unfair" must seem something from a vanished world.  This the ICC seems to accept, explaining the rule revision by saying the Mankad "...is a legitimate way to dismiss someone and it is the non-striker who is stealing the ground. It is legitimate, it is a run-out and therefore it should live in the run-out section of the laws."

That should be the end of what has for decades been controversial: something within the rules but thought not in the spirit of the game.  That's always been explained by "unfairness" in this context being something subjective, the argument being that if a non-striker was out of his ground by an inch or two, then to Mankad him was unfair whereas if he's blatantly cheating by being several feet down the pitch, then (especially if he's already been warned), the Mankad is fair enough.  One can see the charm of that approach but the inherent problem always was where to draw the line and the ICC has finally removed all doubt: while the ball is in play, if the bails are dislodged by the ball and the batsman is not behind his crease, he will be given out.  The Mankad is now just another run-out.

The four instances of Mankading in test cricket

Bill Brown by Vinoo Mankad, Australia v India, Sydney, 1947–1948

Ian Redpath by Charlie Griffith, Australia v West Indies, Adelaide, 1968–1969

Derek Randall by Ewen Chatfield, England v New Zealand, Christchurch, 1977–1978

Sikander Bakht by Alan Hurst, Pakistan v Australia, Perth, 1978–1979

Epitaph

Epitaph (pronounced ep-i-taf or ep-i-tahf)

(1) A commemorative inscription on a tomb or mortuary monument about the person buried at that site.

(2) A brief poem or written passage composed in commemoration of a dead person.

(3) A final judgment on a person or thing.

(4) To commemorate in or with an epitaph.

(5) To write or speak after the manner of an epitaph. 

1350–1400: From the Middle English epitaphe (inscription on a tomb or monument), from the Old French epitafe, from the twelfth century Old French epitaphe, from the Latin epitaphium (funeral oration, eulogy), from the Ancient Greek epitáphion (over or at a tomb; a funeral oration), (noun use of neuter of ἐπιτάφιος (epitáphios) ((words) spoken on the occasion of a funeral), the construct being epi- (From the Ancient Greek ἐπί (epí) (at, over; on top of; in addition to (in a special use in chemistry, it denotes an epimeric form))) + τάφος (táph(os)) (tomb) + -ion (the noun-adjectival suffix).  Táphos (tomb, burial, funeral) was related to taphē (interment) & thaptō (to bury) of uncertain origin.  It has long been thought derived (like the Armenian damban (tomb)) from the primitive Indo-European root dhembh- (to dig, bury) but recent scholarship has cast doubts and some etymologists suggest both the Armenian and Greek could be borrowings.  There were equivalent words in the Old English and regional variations were many; the one which survived longest was byrgelsleoð.

The companion words, which differ not only in nuance but in convention of use, include eulogy (an oration about the dead, delivered usually at a funeral or memorial service), obituary (something in written form published soon after death which provides a potted biography and epigraph (a quote engraved on a tombstone, variously plaintive, humorous or barbed).  Not quite the same but very to the point is the Latin hic jacet (literally “here lies”).  Epitaph is a noun or verb (used with object), epitaphic, epitaphial, epitaphed & epitaphless are adjectives, epitaphically is an adverb and epitaphist is a noun.  The noun plural is epitaphs.

,

Jonathan Swift's marble memorial, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin.

One of the most celebrated epitaphs in English was saeva indignatio (literally “savage indignation”) which appeared on the tomb of the delightfully wicked Anglo-Irish satirist & poet Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), expressing a resigned contempt at human folly.  Swift is probably best remembered for Gulliver's Travels (1726) but it was A Modest Proposal (1729) which defined the genre of satire and work in this vein is often still labeled "Swiftian".  Swift started his political life as a Whig but ended it a Tory, becoming an Anglican cleric who was appointed Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin.

Swift not only wrote his own epitaph but left instructions also for the stonemason and the authorities of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, the memorial to be rendered in black marble, mounted seven feet from the ground, the large letters to be deeply cut and strongly gilded.  His specifications were followed but the stridency of Swift's Latin displeased a few who, finding it harsh or inelegant, didn't always reproduce it with complete fidelity.  The translation into modern English is Here is laid the body of Jonathan Swift.....where savage indignation can no longer tear his heart. Depart, wayfarer, and imitate if you can a man who to his utmost strenuously championed liberty.  Fellow Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865–1939) rendered it as the punchier Swift has sailed into his rest; savage indignation there cannot lacerate his breast.  Imitate him if you dare, world-besotted traveller; he served human liberty.

Epitaph (1990) by Charles Mingus (CBS–466631 2).

Charles Mingus (1922–1979) was an American double bassist, pianist, composer and bandleader and one of the seminal figures in jazz.  Although lauded for the way his bands would interpolate passages of collective improvisation into performance pieces, he was influential also in his structured compositions, some of which were, by the standards of the genre, unusually long.  None however matched his Epitaph, comprising over four-thousand measures (a grouping of beats, which indicates the meter of a particular piece of music) and demanding more than two hours to perform, ranking with epic-length pieces such as Wynton Marsalis’s (b 1961) Blood On The Fields (1997) and Carla Bley’s (b 1936) Escalator Over The Hill (1968-1971); only Wadada Leo Smith’s (b 1941) sprawling Ten Freedom Summers (2012), unfolding over five hours, runs longer.

It’s not clear how long Mingus worked on Epitaph and its gestation may have absorbed as long as Ten Freedom Summers (thirty-four years in the making) because fragments of Epitaph were performed as early as 1962 although whether it was then envisaged as what it became is unknown.  It was only after his death, while Mingus’s work was being catalogued, that the whole of Epitaph was assembled and the score compiled.  This enabled the piece to be performed in 1989 by a thirty-piece orchestra, conducted by Gunther Schuller (1925-2015) and produced by Mingus's widow, Sue Graham Mingus (b circa 1933).  It has since had a number of performances, several in 2007, and the complete score has been published.

Lindsay Lohan reading the epitaphs, graveyard scene in I know who killed me (2007).

Epitaph, full of melodies, is rewarding and not entirely unfamiliar because Mingus over the years included several snatches in live recordings and concerts preformed with smaller bands, playfully sampling the music of a few others in sections although that’s not typical of Epitaph, a work all have noted for its originality.  A two-hour suite for thirty-one musicians is not necessarily unwieldy but Epitaph is complicated and really demands a band both familiar with each-other and well-rehearsed.  It’s not the sort of piece suited to an ensemble, however virtuosic, assembled for a one-off performance and the definitive performance which one day will be released will likely have been carefully edited and polished from any number of studio sessions.  Technically, it’s challenging for a conductor, there are shifts between melodic strains which sometimes are sudden and sometimes overlap, parts apparently unresolved skid to a stop, tempos pick-up at various paces and there’s an underlying cross-talking between extreme-register instruments; doubtlessly it's no less difficult for the musicians, two pianists, two bassists, a drummer and two percussionists needing peacefully to co-exist although, this is Mingus and that means creative tension is lives between the notes.  Even once détente was established however, there's still the piece itself to conquer, not all of it in the familiar language of jazz for there are vertiginous jumps in register, fast phrases slurring effortlessly to the languid and the jar sometimes of the polytonality of which American composers of the twentieth century were so fond.  Critics and other aficionados of the art were enchanted but it’s suspected there were those who dipped in and out of their CD and listened just to the bits they liked.

Sequela

Sequela (pronounced si-kwel-uh or si-kwee-luh)

(1) Any abnormal bodily condition or disease related to or arising from a pre-existing disease

(2) Any complication of a disease (technically wrong but widely used).

(3) In general, non-medical usage, the terms sequela and sequelae mean consequence and consequences (rare except in academic writing).

1793: From the Latin sequēla (that which follows, consequence) from sequi (present active infinitive of sequor) (to follow); the plural is sequelae and the original use was in pathology.  From the same root, Middle English gained sequence, a borrowing from the French sequence (a sequence of cards, answering verses).  In Latin the related forms were sequentia (a following) and sequens (following); in English, the most common relation is sequel.

Strangely, in oral use, regardless of the details being described, sequela is used usually in the plural.  A sequela is a pathological condition caused by some previous disease, injury, therapy, or other trauma and, typically but not exclusively, is a chronic condition caused by an earlier and more acute condition.  It is different from, but is a consequence of, the first condition.  In medicine, to be defined as a sequela (rather than what is called “late effect”), the onset of the second condition must happen within a relatively (varies with the nature of the first) short time; an interval of decades would see the second dubbed a “late effect”.  Some conditions may be diagnosed retrospectively from their sequelae; an example is pleurisy and the range of symptoms now collectively referred to in medical slang as “Long COVID” is more correctly described as the “Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC)”.  As nouns, the difference between sequela and complication is that sequela is a condition which is caused by an earlier disease or problem.  A complication is something going wrong; an unfavorable result of a disease, health condition, or treatment.

The Sequelae of COVID-19

The novel virus SARS-CoV-2 caused the COVIS-19 pandemic.  Around the world, a subset of patients who sustain an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subsequently develop a wide range of persistent symptoms that do not resolve, even over many months; the diagnosis is Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), the verbal shorthand for which is the more digestible Long COVID.  Thus far, all findings about PASC are inconclusive but it appears individual patients may have one or more underlying biological factors driving their symptoms, none of which need be mutually exclusive.  Potential contributors to PASC include injury to one or multiple organs, persistent reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 in certain tissues, the induced re-activation of pathogens such as herpesviruses, SARS-CoV-2 interactions with host microbiome communities, clotting or coagulation issues, dysfunctional brainstem or nerve signaling, ongoing activity of primed immune cells and autoimmunity due to molecular mimicry between pathogen and host proteins.

Logo of the Sequela Foundation.

Different PASC symptoms in different patients does imply different therapeutic approaches will likely be required and the identification of individual human genome variants that may augment environment-driven contributions to PASC will contribute to strengthening the effort.  The individualized treatment of PASC will stimulate what was already a growing interest in personalized predictive & preventative medicine.

Farouche

Farouche (pronounced fa-roosh)

(1) Fierce; wild, unpolished.

(2) Sullenly unsociable or shy.

(3) Socially inept.

1760–1770: From the French farouche, from the Old French farouche, faroche & forasche of uncertain origin but which may be related to the Late Latin forāsticus (from without; belonging outside or out of doors (in the sense of not being sufficiently civilized to be welcomed indoors)), a derivative of the adverb and preposition forās (also forīs) ((to the) outside, abroad; out of doors).

In French, the evolution of meaning was organic and included (1) an animal shy of human contact (apprivoiser une bête farouche (to tame a wild beast)), (2) shy, unsociable, retiring, hesitant (un regard farouche (a shy glance)), (3) a women thought distant or unapproachable (Cette femme est bien farouche (this woman is very unapproachable)), (4) stubborn or intransigent, (5) things savage, dangerous & fierce and (6) those whose support is staunch.  Farouchement (fiercely, strongly, bitterly, doggedly, rabidly) is an adverb and the versatile effaroucher (to scare off an animal; figuratively to frighten or alarm somebody; to shock) is a verb.

Lindsay Lohan looking a tad farouche.

The use in French to refer to animals didn’t carry over to English (the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) actually denying the meaning in English doesn’t exist) except among those who like to throw in the odd foreign phrase.  As in French, farouche is used to describe people either habitually difficult or those having a difficult moment and such is the range of application to the human condition that it should be applied with some care, lest misunderstandings occur.  Although farouche can mean “wild, savage or fierce”, it can also mean “unsocial, socially awkward or reticent” while, at the end of the spectrum it can convey the sense of someone merely shy.  So it’s a wide vista and while the breadth is accommodated by the etymology, the Late Latin forāsticus (outsider; belonging outside the house) used in the sense of those lacking the polite manners to be invited into the house, the nuances of use are important.  In the most general sense, in English, farouche is a word for someone thought to be, where pathologically or by whim, an outsider.  For that reason, farouche in English translations needs to be understood in the tradition of French use.  Victor Hugo (1802–1885) in Les Misérables (1862) has Grantaire say “Je suis farouche” (I am farouche) and that's always been translated in the sense of “I am wild”.  In the same novel Enjolras is referred to as an “Antinuous farouche” (a wild Antinous), an allusion to the alluring Greek youth who was something of a companion to Hadrian (76–138; Roman emperor from 117 to 138).  In English, the use is almost exclusively of sullen or difficult people with no connection to beasts of the wild.

Farouche is most often used as an adjective but can be applied as a noun; the noun plural is farouches.  To soften the harshness of the word, most use touches like “a little farouche”, “a tad farouche”, “a bit on the farouche side” or “one of her farouche moments”.  The noun/adverb combination can be handy; farouches bored at dinner noted often farouchely fiddling with their phones.