Gif

Gif (originally GIF) (pronounced gif or jif)

(1) A set of standards and file format for storage of digital color images and short animations; technically, a bitmap image format for pictures with support for animations and up to 256 distinct colors per frame, including fully transparent color.

(2) A file or image stored in this format.

(3) To create a static or animated GIF from (an image or set of images) (the verb forms (used with object) being giffed, or giffing (sometimes, usually in a technical context, written as GIFFed of GIFFing).

1987: Originally an acronym (Graphic Interchange Format), a bitmap image specification created by CompuServe to provide a format for image files which easily could be transferred between devices using different hardware and operating systems.  GIFs can be animated and use a lossless data compression technique to reduce the file size without degrading the visual quality.  Being a TLA (three letter acronym), the GIF didn't suffer the truncation of the True Image File Format which which became known as the TIF because the MS & PC-DOS operating systems used an 8.3 file naming system and TIFFs were thus named filename.tif.  Being uncontested and homophonic, TIFF and TIF happily co-existed and under operating systems not constrained by the 8.3 file system, they were often named filename.tiff.  Many GIFs are loops but some are constructed.

A Lindsay Lohan GIF.

This is an example of a GIF which looks like a loop but is constructed with closely connected images all from within a brief period of time and techs call these cinemagraphic (the name a deliberate point of differentiation from cinematographic) GIFs, a still shot-animation hybrid.   The viewer's experience is not one event in a loop but one event progressing continuously through time, the effect achieved by a focus on just the elements in motion while the rest remain static.  

The first dispute involving the gif was over the licensing of the LZW compression technique used.  Patented in 1985, the controversy lasted until 2004 when the final patent expired.  What endured was the debate over how to pronounce Gif; it’s either gif with a hard-G (of gift, got, and gate) or jif with the soft-G (of gin, gym, or gem).  The head of the CompuServe development team which invented the GIF has always insisted it should be jif but English evolves through use and those who see the word without knowledge of the programmer’s edict tend to use the hard-G because they wouldn’t pronounce “graphics” as jraphics.  Even the Obama White House intervened, indicating a preference for the hard-G and seems it's mostly only hard-core nerds, anxious to display reverence for the author, who adhere to the soft-G.

A Lindsay Lohan GIF.

This construct is built with a technique known as as Technical GIF, used typically to animate static content, such as PowerPoint slideshows, to render a moving image.  Unlike the visually similar morphing technique in which images merge to transform into something static, the technical GIF is a series of related images with sufficient similarity in aspect and size to create a animation with the visual integrity for the viewer to grasp the implication.

One could derive a “rule” (or at least a guide) from previous use which would be something like {G before the letters E, I or Y is realized as soft-G and elsewhere is hard-G}.  That supports the author’s dictate of jif but many exceptions exist, especially foreign borrowings like the Japanese geisha or the French margarine.  The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was non-committal, noting both pronunciations and an uneasy state of peaceful co-existence has since prevailed.

Oligarch

Oligarch (pronounced ol-i-gahrk)

(1) In political science, one of the rulers in an oligarchy (a system of government characterized by the institutional or constructive rule of a few and the literal or effective exclusion of the many); a member of an oligarchy.

(2) A very rich person involved in business in a manner which interacts intimately with the organs of government, the nature of the relationship varying between systems but usually with the implication of mutually beneficial corrupt or improper (if sometimes technically lawful) conduct.

(3) In cosmogony, a proto-planet formed during oligarchic accretion.

1600-1610: From the French oligarque & olygarche, from the Late Latin oligarcha, from the Ancient Greek ὀλιγάρχης (oligárkhēs) and related to oligarkhia (government by the few), the construct being olig- (few) (from stem of oligos (few, small, little) (a word of uncertain origin)) +‎ -arch (ruler, leader) (from arkhein (to rule)).  The noun plural was oligarchs.  In English, an earlier form of oligarchy was the circa 1500 oligracie, a borrowing from the Old French.  Oligarch & oligarchy are nouns, oligarchal, oligarchical & oligarchic are adjectives, and oligarchically is an adverb; the noun plural is oligarchs.  The playful minigarch (the offspring of an oligarch) and oligarchette (a female oligarch or an aspiring oligarch not yet rich enough to be so described are both non-standard while oligarchie & oligarchisch are sometimes used to convey a deliberate sense of the foreign.  Oligarch is now almost never used in its classical sense to refer to rulers of a political entity but instead to describe the small numbers of those who have become exceedingly rich, usually in some improper (even if technically lawful) way with the corrupt and surreptitious cooperation of those in government, the implication being they too have benefited.  Words like plutocrat, potentate and tycoonocrat are sometimes used as synonyms but don’t covey the sense of gains improperly and corruptly achieved.

Oligarchs are sometimes described in the press as "colorful characters", something a bit misleading because many seek a low profile, something often advisable in Mr Putin's Russia.  In a movie about oligarchs Netflix presumably would focus on some of the more colorful.

In modern use, an oligarch is one of the select few people who have become very rich by virtue of their close connections to rule or influence leaders in an oligarchy (a government in which power is held by a select few individuals or a small class of powerful people).  Unlike the relationship between “monarch” & “monarchy”, “oligarch” & “oligarchy” are not used in the literature of political science in quite the same way.  A monarch’s relationship to their monarchy is a thing defined by the constitutional system under which they reign and that may be absolute, despotic or theocratic but is inherently directly linked.  However, even in a political system which is blatantly and obviously an oligarchy, the members of the ruling clique are not referred to as oligarchs by virtue of their place in the administration, the more common descriptors being autocrat, despot, fascist, tyrant, dictator, totalitarian, authoritarian, kleptocrat or other terms that to varying degrees hint at unsavoriness.  Instead, the word oligarch has come to be used as a kind of encapsulated critique of corruption and economic distortion and the individual oligarch a personification of that.  The modern oligarch is one who has massively profited, usually by gaining in some corrupt way either the resources which once belonged to the state or trading rights within the state which tend towards monopolistic or oligopolistic arrangements.  Inherent in the critique is the assumption that the corrupt relationship is a symbiotic one between oligarch and those in government, the details of which can vary: oligarchs may be involved in the political process or entirely excluded but a common feature to all such arrangements is that there is a mutual enrichment at the expense of the sate (ie the citizens).  The word oligarch has thus become divorced from oligarchy and attached only to oligopoly.

The word oligopoly dates from 1887, from the Medieval Latin oligopolium, the construct being the Ancient Greek ὀλίγος (olígos) (few) + πωλεῖν (poleîn) (to sell) from the primitive Indo-European root pel (to sell) and describes a market in which an industry is dominated by a small number of large-scale sellers called oligopolists (the adjectival form oligopolistic from a surprisingly recent 1939).  Oligopolies, which inherently reduce competition and impose higher prices on consumers do not of necessity form as a result of improper or corrupt collusion and may be entirely organic, the classic example of which is two competitors in a once broad market becoming increasingly efficient, both achieving such critical mass that others are unable to compete.  At that point, there is often a tendency for the two to collude to divide the market between them, agreeing not to compete in certain fields or geographical regions, effectively creating sectoral or regional monopolies.  If competitors do emerge, the oligopolists have sufficient economic advantage to be able temporarily to reduce their selling prices to below the cost of production & distribution, forcing the completion from the market, after which the profitable price levels are re-imposed.

A classic game theory model of oligopolistic behavior.

Although not thought desirable by economists, they’ve long attracted interest interest because they create interesting market structures, especially when they interact with instruments of government designed to prevent their emergence or at least ameliorate the consequences of their operation.  The most obvious restriction governments attempt to impose is to prevent collusion between oligopolists in an attempt to deny them the opportunity to set prices of particular goods.  Even if successful, this can only ever partially be done because most prices quickly become public knowledge and with so few sellers in a market, most of which tend to operate with similar input, production & distribution costs, each oligopolist can in most cases predict the actions of the others. This has been of interest in game theory because the decisions of one player are not only in reaction to that of the others but also influences their behavior.

Dartz Prombron: The Prombron is now typical of the preferred transport for an oligarch, the traditional limousine not able to be configured to offer the same level of protection against attacks with military-grade weapons.  Prombrons were originally trimmed with leather from the foreskins of whale penises but the feature was dropped after protests from the environmental lobby.

Oligarchs in the modern sense operate differently and the Russian model under Mr Putin has become the exemplar although some on a smaller scale (notably Lebanon since 1990) are probably even more extreme.  The Russian oligarchs emerged in the 1990s in the chaos which prevailed after the dissolution of the old Soviet Union.  They were men, sometime outside government but often apparatchiks within, well-skilled in the corruption and the operations of the black market which constituted an increasingly large chunk of the economy in the last decade of the USSR and these skills they parlayed into their suddenly capitalistic world.  Capitalism however depends on there being private property and because the USSR was constructed on the basis of Marxist theory which demanded it was the state which owned and controlled the means of production and distribution, there was little of that.  So there was privatization, some of it officially and much of it anything but, the classic examples being a back-channel deal between the oligarch and someone in government purporting to be vested with the authority to sell the assets of the state.  Few in government did this without a cut (often under the guise of a equity mechanism called “loans for shares”) and indeed, some apparatchiks sold the assets to themselves and those assets could be nice little earners like oil & gas concessions or producers, electricity generators, transport networks or financial institutions.  One of the reasons the assets were able to be sold at unbelievably bargain prices was a product of Soviet accounting: because the book value of assets had so little meaning in communist accounting, in many cases recorded asset values hadn’t be updated in decades and were in any case sometimes only nominal.  There were therefore sales which, prima facie, might have appeared to verge on the legitimate.

2021 Aurus Senat, now the official presidential car of the Russian state.

Few were and in any event, even if the aspiring oligarch didn’t have the cash, somewhere in government there would be found an official able to arrange the state to loan the necessary fund from the resources of the state, if need be creating (effectively printing) the money.  From that point, newly acquitted assets could be leveraged, sold to foreign investors at huge profit or even operated in the novelty of the free market, an attractive proposition for many given the asset obtained from the state might be a natural monopoly, competition therefore of no immediate concern.  Thus was modern Russian capitalism born of what were economic crimes on a scale unimaginable to the legions condemned to death or years in the Gulag under comrade Stalin.  Even before becoming prime-minister in 1999, Mr Putin was well aware of what had happened, being acquainted with some of the players in the process but shortly after assuming office, he had small a team of lawyers, accountants and economists undertake a forensic analysis to try more accurately to quantify who did what and who got how much.  Although the paperwork his investigative project produced has never been made public, it was reputed to have been reduced to a modestly-sized file but the contents were dynamic and put to good use.

In either 2003 or 2004, Mr Putin, assisted by officers of the FSB (successor to the alphabet-soup of similar agencies (Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKGB, NKVD, SMERSH, MGB & (most famously) KGB)) experts in such things, “arranged” a series of interviews with the oligarchs whose conduct in the privatizations of 1990s had been most impressive (or egregious depending on one’s view).  Well aware of the relationship between wealth and political influence, Mr Putin’s explained that the oligarchs had to decide whether they wished to be involved in business or politics; they couldn’t do both.  Mr Putin then explained the extent of their theft from the state, how much was involved, who else facilitated and profited from the transactions and what would be the consequences for all concerned were the matters to come to trial.  Then to sweeten the deal, Mr Putin pointed out that although the oligarchs had stolen their wealth on the grandest scale, “they had stolen it fair and square” and could keep it if they agreed to refrain from involvement in politics.  The Russian oligarchy understood his language, the lucidity of his explanation perhaps enhanced by oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky (b 1963; then listed as the richest man in Russia and in the top-twenty worldwide) being arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion, shortly before the meetings were convened (he was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to nine years in prison and while serving his sentence was charged with and found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering.  Mr Putin later pardoned Khodorkovsky and he was released to self-imposed exile in late 2013).  Few failed to note the significance of Mr Khodorkovsky having been "meddling in politics". 

Mr Putin being taken for a drive by George W Bush (b 1946; George XLIII, US president 2001-2009) in the Russian president's GAZ M21 Volga and admiring his 2009 Lada Niva.

In a sign the oligarchs were wise to comply, it was estimated by Bill Browder (b 1964; CEO and co-founder of the once Moscow-linked Hermitage Capital Management) during his testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 that the biggest single increase in Mr Putin’s personal wealth happened immediately after Mr Khodorkovsky was jailed.  Given the history, Mr Browder is perhaps not an entirely impartial viewer but the pact between the autocrat and the oligarchy has been well-understood for years but what has always attracted speculation is the possibility that attached to it was a secret protocol whereby Mr Putin received transactional fees, imposing essentially a license to operate in Russia, alleged by some to be a cut of as much as 50%, based apparently on assessed profits rather than turnover.  Even if a half-share is too high and his cut is a more traditional 10%, the amount payable over the years would have been a very big number so there’s been much speculation about Mr Putin’s money, some estimates suggesting he may have a net wealth in the US$ billions.  That would seem truly impressive, given the Kremlin each year publishes a disclosure of their head of state’s income and assets and the last return disclosed Mr Putin enjoys an annual salary of US$140,000 and owns an 800-square-foot (74 m²) apartment, his other notable assets being three cars: a 1960 (first series) GAZ M21 Volga, a 1965 (second series) GAZ M21P Volga and a 2009 Lada Niva 4x4.  Keen on the outdoors, he also owns a camping trailer.

A country cottage on the Black Sea coast alleged to be owned by Mr Putin.  The large grounds surrounding the cottage are an indication why Mr Putin needs his 2009 Lada 4x4 & camping trailer.

On the basis of that, income and net wealth seem not at all out of alignment but intriguingly, he’s been photographed with some high-end watches on his wrist, including an A. Lange & Söhne 1815 Tourbograph which sells for around US$500,000.  He is rumored to be the owner of a 190,000 square-foot (17,650 m²) mansion which sits atop a cliff overlooking the Black Sea (reputedly Russia’s largest private residence and known, in a nod to the understated manner of the rich, as “Putin’s country cottage”) which has an ice hockey rink, a casino, a nightclub with stripper poles, an extravagantly stocked wine cellar and the finest furniture in Louis XIV style, the toilet-roll holders apparently at US$1,250 apiece (although, given the scale of the place, he may have received a bulk-purchase discount).  It demands a full-time staff of forty to maintain the estate, the annual running costs estimated at US$2-3 million.  Designed by Italian architect Lanfranco Cirillo (b 1959), and officially owned (though alleged to be held under a secret trust of which Mr Putin is the sole beneficiary) by oligarch Alexander Ponomarenko (b 1964), the construction cost was estimated to be somewhere around a US$ billion which seems expensive but a yacht currently moored in Italy and alleged also to belong to Mr Putin is said to have cost not much less to launch so either or both may actually represent good value and to assure privacy, the Russian military enforces a no-fly zone around the property.  Like many well-connected chaps around the world, a few of Mr Putin’s billions figured in the release of the Panama Papers in 2016.

1962 GAZ-M21 (rebuilt to KGB (V8) specifications).

Apart from the Black Sea palace, there are unverified reports Mr Putin is the owner of 19 other houses, 58 aircraft & helicopters and 700 cars (although it’s not clear if that number includes his two Volgas and the Lada).  No verified breakdown of the 700 cars has ever been published but given Mr Putin’s apparent fondness for Volgas, it may be his collection includes the special-variant of the GAZ-M21 Volga, 603 (as the GAZ-M23) of which were produced between 1962-1970 for the exclusive use of the KGB and other Soviet “special services”.  Equipped with the 5.53 litre (337 cubic inch) V8 engine from the big GAZ-13 Chaika (Gull) (1959-1981 and in the Soviet hierarchy, second only to the even bigger ZIL limousines (1936-2012)), the car was said to be a not entirely successful piece of engineering but it was certainly faster than the four-cylinder model on which it was based.  It’s never been clear just what was the top speed because the speedometer was calibrated only to 180 km/h (112 mph) but one intrepid KGB apparatchik claimed to have achieved that and reported the Volga was “still accelerating”.  Known to be nostalgic for the old ways of the KGB, it’s hoped Mr Putin has preserved at least one.

Mr Putin agitprop.

Mr Putin has admitted: "I am the wealthiest man, not just in Europe but in the whole world: I collect emotions. I am wealthy in that the people of Russia have twice entrusted me with the leadership of a great nation such as Russia. I believe that is my greatest wealth."  Quite how rich Mr Putin might be is such a swirl of estimates, rumors, supposition and doubtlessly invention (lies) that it's unlikely anyone except those disinclined to discuss the matter really know and after all, if he's rich as his detractors claim, he probably isn't exactly sure himself.  Given that, his statement seemed intended to clear up any misunderstandings.

Fumblerule

Fumblerule (pronounced fumm-bull-roule)

A rule of language or linguistic style, written in a way that violates the rule; technically a form of self-reference which relies on the inherent contradiction for the humor.

1979: A portmanteau word, the construct being fumble + rule.  In the context of fumblerule, “fumble” is used in the sense of “a blunder; awkwardly to seek”.  The mid-fifteenth century fumble (the obsolete English famble & fimble had much the same meaning) was from the Late Middle English, possibly from either the Low German fommeln or the Dutch fommelen, the alternative etymology being a Scandinavian or North Germanic source and there’s likely some relationship with the Old Norse fálma (to fumble, grope), the Swedish fumla, the Danish fumle and the German fummeln.  The history is certainly murky and the ultimate source could even be onomatopoeia (imitative of sounds associated with someone fumbling (bumble or stumble) or from the primitive Indo-European pal- (to shake, swing) from which Classical Latin gained palpo (I pat, touch softly) or (entirely speculatively) the Proto-West Germanic fōlijan (to feel).  The intransitive sense "do or seek awkwardly" was from the 1530s and the noun dates from the 1640s.

In the context of fumblerule, “rule” is used in the sense of “a regulation, law or guideline”.  The noun in the sense of “measure; measurement” dates from circa 1175, the verb first noted circa 1200 from the Middle English riwlen, reulen & rewellen from the Old French riuler, rieuler & ruler from the Late Latin rēgulāre (derivative of rēgula).  The sense of "principle or maxim governing conduct, formula to which conduct must be conformed" is from the Old French riule & the Norman reule (rule, custom, (religious) order) which, in Modern French, has been partially re-Latinized as règle.  The meaning "regulation governing play of a game” is from 1690s. The notion of a rule of law (supremacy of impartial and well-defined laws to any individual's power), as a phrase, emerged surprisingly recently, dating only from 1883.  The sense "to control, guide, direct" came from the Old French riuler (impose rule) from the Latin regulare (to control by rule, direct) from the Latin regula (rule, straight piece of wood) from the primitive Indo-European root reg- (move in a straight line) with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule."  The legal sense "establish by decision" is recorded from the early fifteenth century.

Fumblerule was coined by right-wing US commentator Bill Safire (1929-2009) in a November 1979 edition of his column On Language in the New York Times.  Safire extended this in the later book Fumblerules: A Lighthearted Guide to Grammar and Good Usage (1990) (ISBN 0-440-21010-0), which, in 2005, was re-printed as How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar.  Physicist George L Trigg (1925-2014) also published a list of these rules.

Bill Safire (right) on Air Force Two with Spiro Agnew, November 1972 (US presidential election campaign).

Safire was also a White House speech writer for Richard Nixon (1913–1994; US president 1969-1974 & Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; US vice president 1969-1973).  Impressionistically, it would seem right-wingers tend to outnumber the left in the authorship of texts lamenting the decline in standards of English writing and it is one of the theatres of the culture wars.  In English, although there are the plenty of pedants and not a few of the infamous grammar Nazis still obsessing over stuff like a split infinitive, it’s not the sort of language which needs pointless “rules” to be enforced, many of which were never rules in the first place.  English spelling and grammar evolves usually according to a practical imperative: the transmission of meaning in an economical, precise and elegant way.  Criticism from the (notional) left is more political than linguistic: their objections to “correct” English is essentially that it’s just another way of maintaining white privilege and that all dialects within English are of equal cultural value and none should be regarded as “incorrect” or spoken by the “uneducated”.

Some of Bill Safire’s fumblerules

Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read.

Don't use no double negatives.

Use the semicolon properly, always use it where it is appropriate; and never where it isn't.

Reserve the apostrophe for it's proper use and omit it when its not needed.

Do not put statements in the negative form.

Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

No sentence fragments.

Remember to never split an infinitive.

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Avoid commas, that are not necessary.

If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.

A writer must not shift your point of view.

Eschew dialect, irregardless.

And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

Don't overuse exclamation marks!!!

Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.

Writers should always hyphenate between syllables and avoid un-necessary hyph-ens.

Write all adverbial forms correct.

Don't use contractions in formal writing.

Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

It is incumbent on us to avoid archaisms.

If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

Steer clear of incorrect forms of verbs that have snuck in the language.

Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixed metaphors.

Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.

Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.

Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.

Don't string too many prepositional phrases together unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.

Always pick on the correct idiom.

"Avoid overuse of 'quotation "marks."'"

The adverb always follows the verb.

Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.

Microaggression

Microaggression (pronounced mahy-kroh-uh-gresh-uhn)

(1) A casual comment or action directed at a marginalized, minority or other non-dominant group that (often) unintentionally but unconsciously reinforces a stereotype and can be construed as offensive.

(2) The act of discriminating against a non-dominant group by means of such comments or actions.

1970: A construct of micro- + aggression coined by Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016), former Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  Micro (small, microscopic; magnifying; one millionth) is a word-forming element from the New Latin micro- (small), from the Ancient Greek μικρός (mikrós) (small).  The origin is disputed between etymologists, the traditional view being it was derived from the primitive Indo-European (s)meyg- & (s)mēyg- (small, thin, delicate) and was cognate with the Old English smicor (beauteous, beautiful, elegant, fair, fine, tasteful), source also of the Modern English smicker and related to the German mickrig.   However, there’s a highly technical discussion within the profession, hinged around the unexplained “k” in the Greek and there’s the suggestion of a pre-Greek origin on the basis of variation between initial /m/ and /sm/, as well as the variant forms μικός (mikós) and μικκός (mikkós).  Aggression, dating from 1605–1615, is from the French aggression, from the Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio (a going to, an attack)), a noun of action from past participle stem of aggredi (to approach; attack) the construct being ad (to) + gradi (past participle gressus (to step)) from gradus (a step).  The Classical Latin aggressiōn (stem of aggressiō), was equivalent to aggress(us) + iōn derived from aggrēdi (to attack).  The psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" had its origin in early psychiatry, first noted in English in 1912 in a translation of Freud.

Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016)

Microaggression is an adaptable and possibly infinitely variable concept which probably most belongs in sociology and is typically defined as any of the small-scale verbal or physical interactions between those of different races, cultures, beliefs, or genders that are presumed to have no malicious intent but which can be interpreted as aggressions.  The criteria can be both objective and subjective and it’s noted compliments or positive comments can be microaggression; the standard psychology texts suggest the behavior manifests in three forms:

Microassault: An explicit racial derogation which can be verbal or nonverbal which can include labelling, avoidant behavior and purposeful discriminatory actions.

Microinsult: Communications that convey rudeness or insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs which may be unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting messages to the recipient of color.

Microinvalidation: Communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.

The concept emerged to address the underlying racism which endured even after overt, deliberate expressions of racism had become socially unacceptable.  It held that microaggressions generally happened below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture and were different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm.  In the abstract, this positions the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological.

Although the word’s origin is in the politics of race and ethnicity, it proved readily adaptable to other areas such as gender, sexual orientation, mental illness, disability and age.  Within the discipline, there’s a (typically) highly technical debate about the nature of microaggression and the intersectionality at the cross-cutting cleavages of non-dominant groups.  As regards the media, the discipline had a well-refined model to describe how microaggressions were either reinforced or encouraged by a news and entertainment media which reflected the hegemony of the dominant culture.  The sudden shock of the emergence of social media has changed that in both diversity of source and content and its substantially unmediated distribution.  To date, much work in exploring this area has been impressionistic and it’s not clear if the analytical metrics, where they exist, are sufficiently robust for theories in this area to be coherent.  In a sense, social media and the development of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) are synergistic.

Monologue & Soliloquy

Monologue (pronounced mon-uh-lawg or mon-uh—log)

(1) A form of dramatic entertainment, comedic solo, or the like by a single speaker, delivered to others.

(2) In casual use, a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, especially one dominating or monopolizing a conversation; a monopolizing utterance.

Circa 1550: From the French monologue (on the model of dialogue), from the Ancient Greek, via the Byzantine Greek μονόλογος (monólogos) (speaking alone or to oneself), the construct being monos (single, alone), from the primitive Indo-European root men- (small, isolated) + logos (speech, word), from legein (to speak), from the primitive Indo-European root leg- (to collect, gather), with derivatives meaning "to speak” (as in “to pick out words”).  The travelogue (originally a talk on travel), dates from 1903, the construct a hybrid of travel + logue (abstracted from monologue) and coined by US traveler, photographer and filmmaker Burton Holmes (1870-1958), who essentially invented the multi-media documentary lecture in its modern understanding. Monologue, monologist & monology are nouns, monologuer & monologize are verbs, monologic & monological are adjectives and monologically is an adverb.  There was once as debate about whether the noun monologician existed and it seems now not, monologist used on the rare occasions such a form is needed.  The noun plural is monologues, the present participle monologuing and the simple past and past participle monologued.  The alternative spelling is monolog.

Soliloquy (pronounced suh-lil-uh-kwee)

(1) As a theatrical device, an utterance or discourse by a person who is talking to himself or herself or is disregardful of or oblivious to any others present (often used as a device in drama to disclose a character's innermost thoughts).

(2) The act of talking while or as if alone.

1595–1605: From the Late Latin sōliloquium (a talking to oneself), the construct being sōli- (from sōlus (sole)) + loqu(ī) (to speak) from primitive Indo-European root tolkw- (to speak) + -ium.  English picked up the word from the title of Saint Augustine's (354-430) somewhat unsatisfactory treatise Soliloquiorum libri duo (Two Books of Soliloquies (387-388)), Augustine said to have coined the word, by analogy with the Ancient Greek monologia.  In the technical jargon of musical criticism (used widely in many languages), a soliloquent is a soloists.  In psychiatry, there’s even a distinction between “the internal soliloquy” in which the patient imagines speaking to themselves and the “internal monologue” in which others might in the mind be summoned to listen or respond.  Soliloquy & soliloquist are nouns, soliloquise (also soliloquize) & the most pleasing soliloquiaste are verbs.  The present participle is soliloquying or soliloquing and the simple past and past participle is soliloquied; the noun plural is soliloquies.

In drama, there are three types of soliloquy: (1) the most common form is where the character speaks either to themselves or the universe, essentially thinking out loud (or in the technical language of theatre direction “talking to an empty room”.  As a dramatic device, it’s the expression of the character’s inner thoughts and the structural equivalent of first-person narration in written fiction. (2) Soliloquies are sometimes delivered to some specific but non-human; that might be a skull, a book, an animal or a corpse (the (sort-of) exception to the non-human rule), it being necessary only that what is being addressed cannot hear or respond.  (3) The third type appears to break the rules but theorists insist it remains a soliloquy.  This is the so-called “breaking the fourth wall” (ie the (imaginary) wall between the actor and audience (the other three being the backdrop and the wings)) during which the actor directly will speak to the audience.  If this is just a few words then it’s a stage whisper or an aside but if a long-form speech, then it’s a soliloquy.  Soliloquy is sometimes wrongly used where monologue is meant, even the most famous in English literature ("to be, or not to be") from Shakespeare’s Hamlet is sometimes called a monologue.  In general use, monologue is the more popular word and, of course, except on stage, soliloquies are rarely seen in public.

The Death of Juliet. Oil on canvas, 1793, by Matthew William Peters (circa 1742-1814)

Farewell!--God knows when we shall meet again.

I have a faint cold fear thrills through my veins

That almost freezes up the heat of life:

I'll call them back again to comfort me;--

Nurse!--What should she do here?

My dismal scene I needs must act alone.--

Come, vial.--

What if this mixture do not work at all?

Shall I be married, then, to-morrow morning?--

No, No!--this shall forbid it:--lie thou there.--

What if it be a poison, which the friar

Subtly hath minister'd to have me dead,

Lest in this marriage he should be dishonour'd,

Because he married me before to Romeo?

I fear it is: and yet methinks it should not,

For he hath still been tried a holy man:--

I will not entertain so bad a thought.--

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,

I wake before the time that Romeo

Come to redeem me? there's a fearful point!

Shall I not then be stifled in the vault,

To whose foul mouth no healthsome air breathes in,

And there die strangled ere my Romeo comes?

Or, if I live, is it not very like

The horrible conceit of death and night,

Together with the terror of the place,--

As in a vault, an ancient receptacle,

Where, for this many hundred years, the bones

Of all my buried ancestors are pack'd;

Where bloody Tybalt, yet but green in earth,

Lies festering in his shroud; where, as they say,

At some hours in the night spirits resort;--

Alack, alack, is it not like that I,

So early waking,--what with loathsome smells,

And shrieks like mandrakes torn out of the earth,

That living mortals, hearing them, run mad;--

O, if I wake, shall I not be distraught,

Environed with all these hideous fears?

And madly play with my forefathers' joints?

And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud?

And, in this rage, with some great kinsman's bone,

As with a club, dash out my desperate brains?--

O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost

Seeking out Romeo, that did spit his body

Upon a rapier's point:--stay, Tybalt, stay!--

Romeo, I come! this do I drink to thee.

Romeo and Juliet (1597) Act 4, Scene 3 by William Shakespeare (circa 1564–1616).