Chicane

Chicane (pronounced shi-keyn or chi-keyn)

(1) In bridge, a hand without trumps.

(2) In motor sport, one bend or a short section of sharp bends formed either by the design of the track or by barriers placed on the circuit.

(3) To quibble over; cavil at (now rare, probably extinct).

(4) A less common word for chicanery (deception; trickery); to use chicanery, tricks or subterfuge (rare).

1665-1675: A borrowing from the French chicane, from chicaner (to quibble (of obscure origin)), from the Middle French chicaner, from the Middle Low German schicken & schikken (to arrange), ultimately from the Proto-Germanic skikkijaną, origin of modern French chic.  The word has been used in English in various senses, including as an "act of chicanery” (the art of gaining advantage by using evasions or cheating tricks) from the 1670s.  The now most familiar sense, "obstacles on a roadway" didn’t emerge until 1955 (quickly spreading to motor-racing circuits) although it had been a technical term in bridge design since the 1880s.  All the English forms are from the archaic verb chicane (to trick), first noted in the 1660s, from the sixteenth century French chicane (trickery) from chicaner (to pettifog, to quibble).  Chicane, chicanery & chicaner are nouns, chicanerous is an adjective and chicaned & chicaning are verbs; the noun plural is chicanes.

Chicanery & low skullduggery: The film Mean Girls (2004) was based on Rosalind Wiseman's (b 1969) book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence (2002) which explored the interaction of the shifting social cliques formed by school girls.

Of the chicanery of the FIA

The FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (International Automobile Federation)) has since 1904 been involved in the organisation and regulation of motor-racing.  The FIA used to be mostly harmless but in recent decades has degenerated into about the most dopey regulatory body in sport, making the men of World Rugby’s (the old International Rugby Board (IRB)) standing Laws Committee look like chaps of rare skill and talent.  For a long time the FIA have approved not at all of any interesting form of motor-racing, their response always to make things slower and more processional, a curious approach in a sport about speed.  Although most obsessed with publishing volumes of complex regulations which require the employment of FIA officials to administer, the FIA also has an almost fetishistic relationship with chicanes.  A chicane is essentially an obstruction which requires a racing car to slow to negotiate.  While curves, climbs and corners have always been part of just about any form of motor-racing, the FIA seems never convinced there are enough.  It’s suspected if the FIA had their way, there would be no straights on motor-racing circuits, just corners.

Le Mans, before and after.

Mulsanne Straight (Ligne Droite des Hunaudières in French) at Circuit de la Sarthe where the annual Twenty-Four Hours of Le Mans (24 Heures du Mans) is run was once 3.7 miles (6 km) in length.  It was one of the sport’s great institutions, the speeds attained a benchmark of progress in engineering and aerodynamics.

Year	Car	Config	CI	CM3	MPH	KM/H
1961	Maserati Tipo 63	V12	183	3.0	173.6	279.4
1962	Ferrari 330 TRI/LM	V12	244	4.0	182.9	294.3
1963	Ferrari 330 TRI/LM	V12	244	4.0	187.2	301.3
1964	Ferrari 330 P	V12	244	4.0	192.2	309.3
1965	Ford GT40 Mk1	V8	289	4.7	192.2	309.3
1966	Ford GT40 MkII	V8	427	7.0	201.5	324.3
1967	Ford GT40 MkIV	V8	427	7.0	212.6	342.1
1968	Porsche 908	F8	244	3.0	191.0	307.4
1969	Porsche 917 LH	F12	275	4.5	197.8	318.3
1970	Porsche 917 L	F12	275	4.5	205.2	330.2
1971	Porsche 917 K	F12	298	4.9	224.4	361.1
1972	Matra-Simca MS670	V12	183	3.0	205.8	331.2
1973	Ferrari 312 PB-73	F12	183	3.0	210.8	339.2
1974	Matra-Simca MS670C	F12	183	3.0	207.1	333.3
1975	Gulf-Mirage GR8	V8	183	3.0	193.4	311.2
1976	Renault-Alpine A442	V6	122	2.0	208.9	336.2
1977	Renault-Alpine A442	V6	122	2.0	218.2	351.2
1978	Renault-Alpine A442B	V6	122	2.0	227.5	366.1
1979	Porsche 936	F6	131	2.1	218.8	352.1
1980	WM P79	V6	165	2.7	217.6	350.2
1981	Porsche 936	F6	159	2.6	220.7	355.2
1982	Porsche 956	F6	159	2.6	220.1	354.2
1983	Porsche 956	F6	159	2.6	230.0	370.1
1984	WM P83B	V6	165	2.7	225.1	362.3
1985	Porsche 956B	F6	159	2.6	230.6	371.1
1986	Porsche 962C	F6	159	2.6	231.9	373.2
1987	WM P87	V6	165	2.7	236.2	380.1
1988	WM P88	V6	165	2.7	251.1	404.1
1989	Sauber Mercedes C9	V8	303	5.0	248.0	399.1
1990	Nissan R90CP	V8	214	3.5	226.9	365.2

These achievements impressed most but not the FIA which, for reasons of their own, decided to sabotage things, initially by reducing the maximum engine capacity in the premier class, firstly from seven litres to five and later to three.  When this didn’t prove sufficient to nobble the engineers, they insisted two chicanes be added to Mulsanne Straight.  They were installed in 1990 and proved effective, no car since has, in the race, come within 20 mph (32 km/h) of the marks set in the late 1980s and speeds in excess of 200 mph (320 km/h) are now rare.  The FIA has emasculated other circuits too; in 1987 a chicane was added to Conrod Straight at Mount Panorama, Bathurst in Australia.  Quite why the FIA remains involved in motor-racing isn’t clear when it’s apparent they'd be better suited to the administration of something like competitive basket-weaving.

IIII

IIII (pronounced fawr (U) or fohr (non-U))

A translingual form, an alternative form of IV: the Roman numeral representing four (4), the other known forms being iv, iiii & iiij

Circa 500 BC: The Roman numeral system spread as Roman conquest expanded and remained widely used in Europe until from circs 1300 it was replaced (for most purposes) with the more adaptable Hindu-Arabic system (including the revolutionary zero (0) which remains in use to this day.

IIII as a representation where the value four is involved has long been restricted to the value 4.  To avoid numbers becoming too cumbersome, the Roman system always used subtraction when a smaller numeral precedes a larger numeral so the number 14 would be represented as XIV instead of XIIII.  The convention which emerged was that a numeral can precede only another numeral which is less than or equal to ten times the value of the smaller so I can precede only (and thus be subtracted from) V (five) & X (ten).  However, these “rules” didn’t exist during Antiquity and weren’t (more or less) standardized until well into the medieval period; it’s thus not unusual to find old documents where 9 is represented as VIIII instead of IX.  The practical Romans, unlike the Greeks for whom abstraction was a calling, were little concerned with the concepts of pure mathematics, such as number theory or geometric proofs, and other abstract ideas, devoted instead to utilitarian purposes such as financial accounting, keeping military records and building things.

The numeral system had to be manageable to make simple calculations like addition and subtraction so it was attractive to make the text strings conveniently short: 44 as XLIV obvious preferable to XXXXIIII.  Although its limitations seem obvious to modern eyes, given the demands of the times, the system worked remarkably well for almost two millennia despite the largest numeral being M (1000).  It was silly to contemplate writing a string of 1000 M’s to indicate a million (presumably not a value then often used) so the Romans concocted a bar (the vinculum) which, when it appeared above a numeral, denoted a multiplier of 1000: MMMM (6000) could thus appear as V̄Ī and a million as M̄.  Compared with the Hindu-Arabic system, it was a fudged but one which for centuries proved serviceable.

Where Roman numbers are occasionally still used (book prefaces & introductions, some aeroplanes & automobiles and charmingly, some software), the number four is almost always represented by IV rather than IIII.  One exception to this however is watch & clock faces where the use of IIII outnumbers IV, regardless of the cost of the device.  Watchmakers have provided may explanations for the historical origin of this practice, the most popular of which dates from Antiquity: Because “I” stood for the “J” and “V” for the “U”, IV would be read as JU and thus Jupiter, an especially venerated Roman god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus being the king of all gods, chief of the pantheon and protector of ancient Rome.  The suggestion is that invoking the name of Jupiter for such a banal purpose would be thought offensive if not actually blasphemous.  Thus IIII it became.

Lindsay Lohan wearing 19mm (¾ inch) Cartier Tank Americaine in 18 karat white gold with a quartz movement and a silver guilloche dial with Roman numerals including the traditional IIII.  The Cartier part-number is B7018L1.

There’s the notion to that the convention arose just because of one of those haphazard moments in time by which history sometimes is made.  The appearance of IIII was said to be the personal preference of Louis XIV (1638–1715; le Roi Soleil (the Sun King), King of France 1643-1715), the Sun King apparently issuing an instruction (though there’s no evidence it was ever a formal decree) that IIII was the only appropriate way to write the number four, watchmakers ever since still tending to comply.  Whether Louis XIV wished to retain some exclusivity in the IV which was part of “his” XIV isn’t known and it may be he simply preferred the look of IIII.  Despite the belief of some, it’s anyway wrong to suggest IIII is wrong and IV right.  The design of the IIII was based upon four outstretched fingers which surely had for millennia been the manner in which the value of 4 was conveyed in conversation and V denoted 5 in tribute to the shape the hand formed when the thumb was added.  The IV notation came later and because it better conformed with the conventions used for writing bigger numbers, came in medieval times to be thought correct; it was thus adopted by the Church, becoming the “educated” form and that was that.

Not all agree with those romantic tales however, the German Watch Museum noting that in scholarly, ecclesiastical and daily use, IIII was widely used for a millennia, well into the nineteenth century, while the more efficient “IV” didn’t appear with any great frequency until circa 1500.  The museum argues that the watch and clock-makers concerns may have been readability and aesthetics rather than any devotion to historic practice, IIII having display advantages in an outward-facing arrangement relative to the centre of the dial (ie partially upside down, such as on wall, tower or cuckoo clocks), any confusion between IV (4) & VI (6) eliminated.  Also, a watch, while a functional timepiece, is also decorative and even a piece of jewellery so aesthetics matter, the use of III rendering the dial symmetrically balanced because 14 individual characters exist on each side of the dial and the IIII counterbalances the opposite VIII in the manner IX squares off against III.  So there’s no right or wrong about IIII & IV but there are reasons for the apparent anomaly of the more elegant IV appearing rarely on the dials of luxury watches.

Recursive

Recursive (pronounced ri-kur-siv)

(1) Pertaining to or using a rule or procedure that can be applied repeatedly; periodically recurring.

(2) Drawing upon itself, referring back.

(3) In mathematics, of an expression, each term of which is determined by applying a formula to preceding terms

(4) In computing, of a program or function that calls itself (often in the form of an endlessly repeating script).

(5) In computing theory, of a function which can be computed by a theoretical model of a computer, in a finite amount of time.

(6) In computing, a set whose characteristic function is recursive.

(7) In linguistics (as recursive acronym), an acronym in which the first letter of the first word represented by the acronym is the acronym itself.

1790: From the stem of Latin recursus, perfect passive participle of recurrō (I run or hasten back; I return, revert, recur), the construct being recurs(ion) + -ive.  The –ive suffix is from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus; the related forms are the adverb recursively and the noun recursiveness.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif et al) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  The use in mathematics dates from 1934.  Recursive is an adjective inflected form of recursion which is a noun.  Recursive is an adjective, recursivity & recursiveness are nouns and recursively is an adverb; the noun plural is recursivities.  

The recursive acronym

Although recursive acronyms had existed before, appearing in fiction as early as 1968, the term first gained wider attention when discussed in US physicist’s Douglas Hofstadter's (b 1945) 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.  Recursive acronyms typically form backwardly: either an existing ordinary acronym is given a new explanation or, a name is turned into an acronym by giving the letters an explanation of what they stand for, in each case with the first letter standing recursively for the whole acronym.

Not an easy book for those without a helpful background, even the title of Gödel, Escher, Bach is at first glance misleading because it’s not a look at the relationships between art, music and mathematics but instead an exploration of the abstract structures which exist within each.  These Hofstadter called “strange loops”, the logician Kurt Friedrich Gödel (1906–1978) having demonstrated their existence in any mathematical system of sufficient complexity.

Relativity, lithograph (1953) by MC Escher (1898–1972).

Hofstadter pursued these structural imperatives in music and art, suggesting it’s strange loops which creates consciousness, the connections and chemicals in the human brain creating the fundamental base of the framework on which are hung ideas, feelings, hopes and desires, all of which manifest further up the framework.  Consciousness became possible (and there are those who suggested inevitable) because the hierarchy clinging to the framework can twist back on itself: higher and lower levels influencing and interacting so the lower which once must have entirely determined the upper is also changed, ideas and feelings having an actual physical impact, this tangling of hierarchies being our sense of self.

Others, tentatively had posed similar questions.  Eugene Charniak’s (b 1946) strangely neglected PhD thesis (MIT, 1974) at least hinted it might be fruitful to explore the relationship of knowledge and inference to natural language understanding and Gödel, Escher, Bach is a playful, clever, if sometimes obviously contrived way to offer one explanation of how cognition emerges from a mechanistic structure which is reflected in work that cognition can allow to be created.  As a technical point, remarkably for a piece so dependent on the nuances and interplay of language, Gödel, Escher, Bach has been translated.

Many recursive acronyms come from the field of computing; it’s nerd humor.

TLA: Three Letter Acronym

AROS: AROS Research Operating System

BAMF: BAMF Application Matching Framework

BIRD: BIRD Internet Routing Daemon

GNU: GNU's Not Unix

KGS: KGS Go Server

LAME: LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder

MINT: MINT Is Not TRAC

MiNT: MiNT is Not TOS (which later became MiNT is Now TOS)

TIARA: TIARA is a recursive acronym

UIRA: UIRA Isn't a Recursive Acronym

WINE: WINE Is Not an Emulator (was originally Windows Emulator)

XINU: Xinu Is Not Unix

XNA: XNA's Not Acronymed

XNU: X is Not Unix