Gay

Gay (pronounced gey)

(1) Of a happy and sunny disposition (now rare except for historic references although "gay" is sometimes used in this sense when some mischievous ambiguity is sought); festive, bright or colourful.

(2) Given to or abounding in social or other pleasures; sexually promiscuous (of any gender although also often linked with prostitution (probably obsolete except for historic references).

(3) Of relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex (homosexual); technically gender and sex-neutral but use tends now to be restricted to males.

(4) Of, indicating or supporting same-sex interests or issues.

(5) Slang term among certain classes of youth for something thought bad or lame; use now frowned upon in polite society.

(6) Quick, fast (obsolete).

(7) Of a dog's tail, upright or curved over the back.

(8) Considerable, great, large in number, size or degree (in dialects in Scotland and northern England and probably obsolete, some etymologists noting that the further north it was use, the more common spelling appears to have been "gey").

1275-1325: From the Middle English gay, from the Old French gai (joyful, laughing, merry), usually thought to be a borrowing of Old Occitan gai (impetuous, lively), from the Gothic gaheis (impetuous), merging with earlier Old French jai (merry) and Frankish gāhi, both from the Proto-Germanic ganhuz and ganhwaz (sudden).  Origin was the primitive geng or ǵhengnh (to stride, step”), from ǵēy or ghey (to go), cognate.  Word was cognate with Dutch gauw (fast, quickly) and the Westphalian Low German gau and gai (fast, quick) which became the German jäh (abrupt, sudden), familiar in the Old High German gāhi.  There is alternative view, promoted by Anatoly Liberman, that the Old French gai was actually a native development from the Latin vagus (wandering, inconstant, flighty) as in French gaine (sheath).  The meaning "full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree" existed from the beginning but "wanton, lewd, lascivious (though without any suggestion of homosexuality) had emerged at least by 1630 and some claim it can be traced back to the work of English poet Geoffrey Chaucer (circa 1344-1400).  The word gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the seventeenth century. Then, a gay woman was a prostitute, a gay house a brothel and, a gay man was a womanizer.

Irregular forms like gaydar or gaynessness are coined as required but in many cases, use of some outside the gay (or in certain cases the the broader LGBTQQIAAOP community) is socially proscribed.  There are at least dozens (and likely hundreds) of derived words and terms in which “gay” (in the sense of sexual orientation) appears, some positive, some neutral and some negative.  Use is highly nuanced and, as an example, if used of joyfulness, the comparative “gayer” & superlative “gayest” conveys the expected effect but if in the context of gay people, the meaning range can be wider and even within the gay community there's the notion of “excessively gay” which refers to affected behavior or exaggerated mannerisms.  Humorous constructions like “gaynessness” are often non-standard and should be used with caution.  Gay is a noun, verb, adjective and adverb, gayness, gayification & gaiety are nouns, gayify is a verb, gayer & gayest are adjectives and gayly is an adverb ; the noun plural is gays.

A few landmarks in the history of gay

Rootes Corporation (UK) advertisement for the Hillman Minx, 1955.  "Go gay" was an advertising slogan and not an editorial imperative; at this time, reflecting the early practice of newspapers, advertising was carried on the covers of magazines.  It was not until the 1960s the relationship between cover photography and the news-stand sales of magazines became better understood.

There’s a widespread perception that gay shifted meaning from describing happy folk or events to a chauvinistic assertion of group identity as an overtly political act dating from the late 1960s.  The specific use actually dates from the 1920s, the years immediately after the First World War when first it appeared as an adjective.  It was used thus by Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) in Miss Furr & Miss Skeene (1922), becoming widespread in certain circles in US cities by the late 1930s.  Academic literature picked this up and reports of gay as slang began to be cited in psychological journals in the late 1940s.  Later, archivists found the term gay cat existed as early as 1893 among itinerants in north-east American cities and the use clearly persisted, attested to in Erskine's 1933 dictionary of Underworld & Prison Slang.  Nothing is known about the author of this work and the name N. Erskine may be a pseudonym, one assumption being he had served time in prison.  However, not for decades would, in most of the English-speaking word, shift in predominant meaning from "happy; joyful".

Ford (UK) advertisement for the Cortina (1962-1982), 1963.

The letters on the license plate (HRT) attracted some wry comment when this image began circulating on the web but HRT (Hormone replacement therapy) refers to a class or regimes administered to women to treat the symptoms of menopause; the companion treatments in matters associated with gender being MHT (Masculinizing hormone therapy) and FHT (Feminizing hormone therapy).  As this example indicates, in 1963 the word “gay” was, in general use, still most used as a synonym of “happy; joyful”.  Nor would “HRT” have bothered the advertising agency because although as early as the late nineteenth century, research was being undertaken into using ovarian extracts to treat menopausal symptoms and the term “Hormone replacement therapy: had appeared in the medical literature in 1945, it wasn’t until the late 1960s the initializm began with any frequency to appear in such publications and not for two decades did it come into common academic use.  By the 1970s, manufacturers had of course ceased suggesting their cars were associated with gayness and because late in the century “HRT” had entered general use, a license plate including “HRT” probably also would have been avoided.

Lesbians (some in sensible shoes, some not) in Le Monocle nightclub, Paris, 1932, one of a series of “authorized” images taken by Brassaï (professional name of Hungarian–French photographer & writer Gyula Halász, 1899–1984).

An institution created as a dedicated space for lesbians, Le Monocle opened in 1926 and operated continuously until the occupation of France in 1940.  As might be imagined, the Nazis did not tolerate such places and among their first acts upon taking power in Germany in 1933 had been a swift crackdown on Berlin's thriving club scene for homosexual men, a milieu described vividly in the writings of Christopher Isherwood (1904–1986). 

Within the community, those “in the linguistic know” certainly made use of “gay” in the modern sense well before the 1960s.  The troubled English mathematician Dr Alan Turing (1912–1954) spent time in the US (taking his PhD at Princeton University (1936-1938)) and it may have been there he, by some path, became acquainted with the re-purposing.  Whether it was part of his general speech (at least is some circles) isn’t recorded but in 1951 he wrote a “short story” (three pages of which still exist) in which appeared: “Now that his paper was finished he might justifiably consider that he had earned another gay man, and he knew where he might find one who might be suitable.”  There is though little to suggest that in the early post-war years “gay” in that sense was widely used outside the US with “homosexual” still the prevalent term although it seems between gay man, it wasn’t uncommon for them to reclaim “queer”, then otherwise a gay slur.

Admiring glance: Lindsay Lohan (right) during her "L" phase with former special friend Samantha Ronson (left). 

It wasn’t gay’s first fluidity in meaning; for centuries it’d been used in reference to various flavors of sexual conduct, ranging from female prostitutes to womanizing(!) men, all while the traditional use continued in parallel.  The most recent shift, essentially an appropriation for political purposes, ended the duality and has become so entrenched this may be final.  This final shift began in the late 1960s and quickly won the linguistic battle, use of gay in the new sense being common, though not universal, throughout the English-speaking world within a decade.  Other things changed too, some quickly, some not.  When in 1974 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued the seventh printing of second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II (1968)), they (sort of) de-listed homosexuality as a mental disorder although it wasn't wholly removed the publication of until the DSM-III in 1980; legislative changes unfolded over many decades.  One practical effect of removing homosexuality from the DSM's list of mental disorders was that overnight, millions instantly were "cured", a achievement which usually would gain someone the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Flying the rainbow flag: Members of Gay Men Fighting AIDS with their pink SPG, London for Pride Parade, 24 June 1995.

In service with both the British and Indian armies variously between 1965-2016, Vickers built 234 of the FV433 "Abbot" 105 mm Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) Field Artillery vehicles, using the existing FV430 platform with the addition of a fully-rotating turret.  The factory project code (and informal military designation) was “Abbot”, in the World War II (1939-1945) British tradition of using ecclesiastical titles for self-propelled artillery (following the Bishop, Deacon & Sexton).  The official model name was “L109” but to avoid confusion with the US-built 155 mm “M109” howitzer, 144 of which also entered British Army service in 1965, this rarely was used.  While the sight of a cluster of gay men atop a pink SPG might have frightened a few, the thought of one in the hands of a pack of lesbians truly is terrifying.    

LGBTQQIAAOP: The Glossary: The generally accepted oral shorthand used to be “LGBT” but any truncation can suggest issues around the politics of hierarchy and exclusion.  The modern practice seems to be to use variations of “LGBTQI plus” (often written as LGBTQI+).

L: Lesbian: Women attracted only to women.

G: Gay: Men attracted only to men (historically gay can used to describe homosexual men and women but modern convention is still to use lesbian for women although many lesbians self-describe as gay).

B: Bisexual: A person attracted to both sexes.

T:Transgendered: A person who has or is transitioning to the opposite sex, as they were born as the wrong sex, in the wrong body.  The most obvious category to illustrate sex and gender are not synonymous.

Q: Queer: A non-heterosexual person who prefers to call themselves queer.  Often used by those in the queer art movement, especially by those who maintain there is a distinct queer aesthetic.  Queer used to be a term of disparagement directed at certain non-heterosexuals but (like slut in another context), became a word claimed and re-purposed.

Q: Questioning: Someone questioning their sexual orientation, either unsure of which gender to which they’re attracted or not yet ready to commit.

I: Intersex: Anyone anywhere on the spectrum which used to be defined by the term hermaphrodite.  Intersex is now the accepted term and hermaphrodite should be used only where necessary in the technical language of medicine.

A: Asexual: A person not sexually attracted to anyone or anything (sometimes styled as aromantic).

A: Allies: A straight person who accepts and supports those anywhere in the LGBTQQIAAOP range(s).

O: Objectum: A person attracted to an inanimate object.  Curiously, despite being the only category which, by definition, can't harm another, objectum is now the most controversial entry on the spectrum.

P: Pansexual: A person attracted to a person because of their personality; sex and gender are both irrelevant.

Crown Prince Wilhelm (1882-1951) of the German Empire (the so-called “Second Reich”, 1871-1918), on the Western Front, inspecting troops, circa 1915.

In popular culture, there definitely exists a number of tropes and clichés which are use as signifiers of “gayness” including “gay poses”.  A “pose” is a static thing but if a image in snapped while and individual is moving, what’s captured can look like the stereotypical stance of someone gay.  As far as is known, Crown Prince Wilhelm definitely was not gay.

One amusing footnote in the history of matters LGBTQQIAAOP is the persistent urban myth Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901) prevailed on the government not to include women under the provisions of “Gross Indecency contrary to Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885” because she didn’t believe there was anyone lesbionic in the world (or at least the British world).  Unfortunately, the tale almost certainly is apocryphal and no evidence has ever emerged suggesting the government even contemplated including lesbians in the legislation.  Anyway, Victoria clearly had no illusions men were capable of such things and without objection granted royal ascent to an act with the new phrase “Gross Indecency” (which covered the whole vista of “unnatural caresses”) and it was under this law the the Irish writer Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) was tried and convicted, receiving a sentence of two years.

Lord Alfred "Bosie" Douglas (1870–1945, left) and Oscar Wilde (1854–1900, right) in sepia, London, 1893.

It seems only to have been in the late 1960s the “Queen Victoria didn’t believe lesbians existed” story appeared in print when it was reported as “campus student lore” and it first attracted wide publicity when, during a lesbian rights demonstration in Wellington, New Zealand in 1977, protestors draped a statue of Victoria with a banner reading: “Lesbians Are Everywhere”.  No evidence (parliamentary records, government papers, royal correspondence etc) has ever emerged to suggest she was ever consulted about the matter or attempted to “warn, counsel or advise” and that’s in accordance with British constitutional law in which the monarch possesses no “line-item power of veto”; no king or queen had since the early eighteenth century withheld royal assent to a act.  While it was true Victoria did on occasion try to influence things (by threatening to abdicate), her interest was piqued by great matters of state or foreign affairs, not the details of criminal law, especially if something she’d likely have thought distasteful.  Historians have concluded lesbians were not included in the 1885 act because male politicians and churchmen (1) believed women were unlikely to engage in such acts and (2) if they did it didn’t really matter because it was just something women did.  Victorian legislators were more anxious about the threat of male homosexuality to patriarchal structures, military, and public schools.  However, as the diaries of many middle and upper-class chaps in twentieth century Britain attest, “unnatural caresses” between men remained far from uncommon.   

The Illustrated Police News reports the final Wilde trial, 4 May 1895.

There were though many judges and politicians who, drawing on classical literature and other sources, were aware of the long history of female same-sex activity but it does seem to have been thought an “upper class” thing of the drawing room set and thus less of a concern to the law, the argument being criminalising lesbianism would risk drawing attention to it and encouraging it among those “not of the better classes”.  However, in 1921 the House of Commons did vote to add women to the act because of the moral panic around the so-called “Black Book”, compiled during World War I (1914-1918) by the German espionage service which listed the names of thousands of “sexual perverts” (men and women).  Fearing the subjects may be subject to blackmail and thus a threat to national security the government decided to discourage such acts but the House of Lords rejected the bill, deciding that to acknowledge sapphism in statute was at some level to legitimize it in cultural discourse; their lordships thought it might give women ideas, never something of which men much approve.

The wheel: Tread-wheel and oakum-shed, City Prison, Holloway.

The “Gross Indecency” provision was called the Labouchère Amendment because it was introduced (apparently as an afterthought) by Liberal Party MP Henry Labouchère (1831–1912) during the late stages of debate on the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.  As originally envisaged, the act primarily was concerned with raising the age of consent (from 13 to 16) and tackling child prostitution with Mr Labouchère adding his clause as a proposed amendment during the second reading (the substantive debate) after agreement mostly had been reached.  The wording of Labouchère’s amendment was clever in that it was an early example of “fuzzy law”, a vague, catch-all provision which, by not descending to specifics allowed to state to prosecute any conduct between men much beyond a handshake; to the many moralists in the state, it was delightfully vague with the additional attraction of not demanding as much evidence to secure a conviction.  What Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013) might have liked to describe as “terminological exactitude” had, by the mid-nineteenth century, become an impediment to successful prosecutions because even though the wording in the statute of 1553 (dating from the reign Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) had in 1861 been updated from “the detestable and abominable vice of buggery” to “the abominable crime of buggery”, the operative word remained “buggery” and thus a high standard was imposed on the evidential onus of proof (the responsibility of the prosecution which needed, beyond reasonable doubt, to prove the act (anal penetration) had occurred, when, where and between the two male persons alleged).  As late as 1861, a conviction could attract the death penalty and this had come to be regarded as too onerous a punishment for what was often a consensual act so, with little prospect of success, prosecutions had become rare.  By comparison, judges and juries could more easily be persuaded a “gross indecency” had been committed and, with capital punishment no longer available, juries in particular were more amenable.  

Truth, 10 February, 1937.

Henry Labouchère was described as “a paradoxical Victorian figure: a radical in some respects, yet profoundly reactionary in others, a defender of democracy and free speech yet the man who authored the repressive law used to persecute Oscar Wilde.”  That is however a modern view and on matters of personal sexual morality, the “small l liberals” of the nineteenth century probably tended to be as conservative as many of the era.  Also, there’s nothing novel about individuals holding apparently disparate views, Arthur Calwell (1896-1973; Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader of the opposition 1960-1967) in his memoir (Be Just and Fear Not (1972)) writing of one colleague: “…he was left-wing on some issues and right-wing on others, just as many men are.”  It's doubtful old Arthur Calwell ever thought to discuss politics with a woman but his point was well-made and Labouchère was in this vein, backing causes such as republicanism, extending the franchise, Irish Home Rule, opposition to the monarchy’s lavish spending, and anti-imperialism while being deeply prejudiced in other fields: he was anti-Semitic, homophobic and a puritanical moralist who helped entrench one of the harshest anti-homosexual laws in modern Europe.  He may also have had a financial interest, being the founder and editor of the popular weekly newspaper Truth, which specialised in muckraking exposés of corruption, quackery and hypocrisy.  The Truth often featured articles concerned with sexual “immorality” and giving the police scope to “scoop up” men performing “gross indecencies” upon each other would have provided much juicy content.

Materiel

Materiel (pronounced muh-teer-ee-el)

(1) In military use, arms, ammunition, and military equipment in general.

(2) The aggregate of things used or needed in any business, undertaking, or operation as distinguished from personnel (rare).

1814: A borrowing from the French matériel (equipment; hardware), from the Old French, from the Late Latin māteriālis (material, made of matter), from the Classical Latin māteria (wood, material, substance) from māter (mother).  Ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European méhtēr (mother).  Technically, materiel refers to supplies, equipment, and weapons in military supply chain management, and typically supplies and equipment only in a commercial context but it tends most to be used to describe military hardware and then to items specific to military use (ie not the office supplies etc used by armed forces personnel).  Materiel is a noun; the noun plural is materiels.

Illustrating military materiel.

Lindsay Lohan does Top Gun by BlueWolfRanger95 on Deviant Art.  An aircraft is materiel as is a pilot's flight kit.  Just about every piece of equipment in this photo would be classed as materiel except perhaps the aviator sunglasses (may be a gray area).  Even non-combat, formal attire like dress shirts and ties are regarded by most military supply systems as materiel so materiel can be made from material.

Materiel is sometime notoriously, scandalously and even fraudulently expensive, tales of the Pentagon's purchase of US$1000 screwdrivers, toilet seats and such legion.  Of late though, there have been some well-publicized economies, the US Navy's latest Virgina-class submarine using an Xbox controller for the operation of its periscope rather than the traditional photonic mast system and imaging control panel.  The cost saving is approximately US$38,000 and there's the advantages (1) replacements are available over-the-counter at video game stores world-wide, (2) the young sailors operating the controller are almost all familiar with its feel and behavior and (3) the users report its much better to use than the heavy, clunky and less responsive standard device.  In the military context, materiel refers either to the specific needs (excluding manpower) of a force to complete a specific mission, or the general sense of the needs (excluding personnel) of a functioning force.  Materiel management is an all-encompassing term covering planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and evaluating the application of resources to ensure the effective and economical support of military forces. It includes provisioning, storing, requirements determination, acquisition, distribution, maintenance, and disposal.  In the military, the terms "materiel management", "materiel control", "inventory control", "inventory management", and "supply management" are synonymous.

DPRK personnel: DPRK female soldiers stepping out, seventieth anniversary military parade, Pyongyang, September 2018.  Note the sensible shoes, an indication of the Supreme Leader’s thoughtfulness.

The French origins of materiel and personnel are usefully illustrative.  The French matériel (the totality of things used in the carrying out of any complex art or technique (as distinguished from the people involved in the process(es))) is a noun use of the adjectival matériel and a later borrowing of the same word that became the more familiar noun material. By 1819, the specific sense of "articles, supplies, machinery etc. used in the military" had become established.  The 1837 personnel (body of persons engaged in any service) is from the French personnel and was originally specific to the military, a contrastive term to materiel and a noun use of the adjectival personnel (personal), from the Old French personel.

DPRK materiel: Mock ups of the Pukguksong-5 SLBM displayed at military parade Thursday to mark the conclusion of the North Korea’s Workers’ Party congress (the first since 2016), Pyongyang, January 2021.

In January 2021, the DPRK (North Korea) included in a military parade, what appeared to be mock-ups of what’s described as the Supreme Leader’s latest submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the supposedly new Pukguksong-5.  Apparently, and predictably, an evolution of the Pukguksong-4 paraded a few months earlier, although retaining a similar 6 foot (1.8m) diameter, the payload shroud appeared about 28 inches (700mm) longer, suggesting the new SLBM’s estimated length is circa 35 feet (10.6m).  Given the constraints of submarine launch systems, the dimensions are broadly in line with expectations but do hint the DPRK has yet to finalise a design for its next-generation SLBM.  Nor have there been recent reports of the regime testing any big solid-rocket motors, this thought to confirm the views of Western analysts that development is in the early stages.

Pukguksong-4, October 2020.

As a brute force device, with performance measured merely by explosive force, based on the dimensions, it’s possible the DPRK could match similarly sized Western SLBMs.  However, the US Navy’s Poseidon multiple-warhead SLBM, which uses two solid-fuel stages and has a range of over 2800 miles (4800 km), uses very high-energy propellants and a light-weight structure, directed by sophisticated navigation, guidance and control systems.  It features also some very expensive engineering tricks such as rocket exhaust nozzles submerged within the rocket stages, reducing the length, thereby allowing it to be deployed in the confined launch tube.  Lacking the US’s technological and industrial capacity, the Pukguksong-5 is expected to be more rudimentary in design, construction, and propellant technology, range therefore likely not to exceed 1900 miles (3000 km) and almost certainly it won’t be capable of achieving the same precision in accuracy.

Caduceus

Caduceus (pronounced kuh-doo-see-uhs, kuh-doo-syoos, kuh-doo-shuhs or kuh-dyoo-shus)

(1) In Classical Mythology, the staff entwined with two serpents and bearing a pair of wings at the top, carried by Hermes (Mercury) as messenger of the gods.

(2) The official wand carried by a herald in ancient Greece and Rome.

(3) A symbol (☤) representing a staff with two snakes wrapped around it, used to indicate merchants and messengers.  It is often substituted for the staff of Asclepius as a symbol of medicine and the medical profession, the basis for this apparently the adoption of the caduceus by the US Army Medical Corps (USAMC).

1585–1595: From the Latin, a variant of cādūceus & cādūceum, from the Doric Ancient Greek καρύκειον (kārȳ́keion) (herald's wand or staff), this and the Attic Greek κηρύκειον (kērúkeion) derived from κῆρυξ (kêrux) (herald, public messenger), the construct being kārȳk- (stem of kârȳx) (herald) + -eion, neuter of -eios (the adjectival suffix).  The word was related to κηρύσσω (kērússō) (I announce).  Caduceus is a noun and caducean is an adjective; the noun plural is caducei.

Staff of Caduceus.

A long tradition of use seems to have created the impression the caduceus is the true symbol of medicine rather than the classically correct staff of Asclepius.  Winged with two serpents coiling around it, it represented Hermes (and the Roman Mercury), the messenger of the gods, guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars, and thieves.  By extension, the caduceus became also a recognized symbol of commerce and negotiation, two realms in which balanced exchange and reciprocity are recognized as ideals (if not always common practice).  However, nothing in the Classical tradition associated the caduceus with medicine or physicians.

Staff of Asclepius.

The true symbol of matters medical was the Staff of Asclepius.  In Greek mythology, Asclepius, the son of Apollo the physician, was the deity associated with healing and medicinal arts.  Such was his skill he surpassed his reputation of his father and was believed to be able to evade death and to bring others back to life from the brink of death and beyond.  There has long been debate about the significance of the serpents and although in Greek mythology snakes were considered sacred, there have been many theories offered to account for the association with healing.  One idea was the snake may symbolize rejuvenation (on the basis of the way in which the reptiles shed their skin) while an alternative explanation was it represented the healing of snakebites. 

Asclepiusian: Lindsay Lohan as a compelling (if unconvincing) nurse, Maroon 5 Halloween Bash, October 2011.

The significance of the staff was even more practical and may have been an allusion to the traditional treatment of a parasitic nematode called Dracunculus medinensis (Guinea worm) in which, doctors would cut a slit in the skin right in its path and, when it poked its head from the wound, take a small stick and slowly wrap the worm around it until it was fully removed. The infection is relatively rare today, but the same method of extraction is still used.  The erroneous use of the caduceus as the symbol of medicine appears dates from its adoption in 1902 as the insignia of the US Army Medical Corps (USAMC), many commercial, academic and governmental institutions following the military’s lead.  The choice in 1902 however was no mistake and the caduceus was the deliberate choice of Brigadier General George Miller Sternberg (1838-1915; US Army Surgeon General 1893-1902) who was attracted to the idea of it as a symbol of neutrality and non-aggression, as it was also used as a flag of truce and safe passage (a token of a peaceful embassy, it was originally an olive branch).  A bacteriologist dedicated to the scientific method, he believed that the caduceus would be a more fitting symbol for the medical corps than the Rod of Asclepius, which he felt was too closely associated with mythology and religion.

Official portrait of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (b 1947; governor of Massachusetts 2003-2007, junior US senator (R-Utah) since 2019) unveiled in a ceremony on the Grand Staircase at the Statehouse, Boston, July 2009.

Governor Romney’s official gubernatorial portrait was notable for the inclusion of a nested image of his wife (Ann, b 1949, the one with the “two Cadillacs”), something not included in the paintings of his 69 predecessors in the governor’s mansion.  That would have made the 52 x 37” (1320 x 920 mm) painting interesting enough for amateur psychiatrists but it included also a leather-bound folder carefully placed on the desk and embossed with a gold-colored caduceus.  This the governor wanted as a representation of the Massachusetts health-care bill he signed into law in 2006.

The artist, Richard Whitney (b 1949), was interviewed and revealed working the symbol into the work presented a greater challenge to the painting’s composition than the inclusion of Mrs Romney.  He sketched concepts with the symbol in a frame on the desk and another with it mounted on the wall but neither proved satisfactory and it was only a chance viewing of the leather folder used to hold legislation awaiting the governor’s signature which provided the inspiration.  That proved artistically uncontroversial, unlike the nested image of Mrs Romney, the state art committee which oversees official portraits objecting on the basis it had never been done before.  This was however the United States and in the spirit of the Medici, Governor Romney reminded the committee members he was paying for the portrait and he could have on it whatever he wanted.  His wishes prevailed but the artist did insist only one of them could be smiling; both would have been too much.

Ambiguous

Ambiguous (pronounced am-big-yoo-uhs)

(1) Open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal.

(2) In linguistics, of an expression exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions.

(3) Of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify.

1528: From the late Middle English ambiguous (of doubtful or uncertain nature, open to various interpretations) Latin ambiguus (moving from side to side, of doubtful or uncertain nature, open to various interpretations), from ambigere (to dispute about (figuratively "to hesitate, waver; be in doubt" and literally “to wander; go about; go around”) the present active infinitive of ambigō from ambi (around) +‎ agō or agere (I drive, move).  The first known citation in English is in the writings of Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) in 1528 but most scholars maintain the noun ambiguity had been in use since circa 1400 in the sense of "uncertainty, doubt, indecision, hesitation", from the Old French ambiguite and directly from Latin ambiguitatem (nominative ambiguitas) (double meaning, equivocalness, double sense), the noun of state from ambiguus (having double meaning, doubtful),  The meaning "obscurity in description" emerged in the early fifteenth century.  The adjective unambiguous dated from the 1630s while the noun disambiguation (removal of ambiguity) is documented since 1827.  Ambiguous is an adjective, ambiguate is a verb and ambiguity, ambiguation & ambiguousness are nouns; the most common noun plural is ambiguities. 

Structural ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity & lexical ambiguity

Lindsay Lohan in pink orchid veavage swimsuit next to potted pink orchid, Phuket, Thailand, December, 2017.  It was during this holiday the wire services reported “Lindsay Lohan bitten by snake on holiday in Thailand”; almost instantly, the grammar Nazis tweeted on X (then known as Twitter) demanding proof the snake really was on holiday; standards had fallen since sub-editors went extinct.  Ms Lohan made a full-recovery; there was no word on the fate of the (presumably not venomous) serpent.

One of the core concepts in structural linguistics is that the meaning of many combination or words (ie a compound, sentence or phrase) is derived not merely from the meanings of the individual words but also from the way in which they’re combined.  It’s a simple idea which academics have managed to make sound complex, calling the process “compositionality” (that meaning is a construct of word meanings plus morphosyntactic structures).  So, because a structure can contribute to meaning, it follows that changing the order of the words can lead to a different meaning even if the same words are used.  When a word, phrase, or sentence has more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and “ambiguous” has a specific meaning in structural linguistics because it doesn’t mean simply that a meaning is vague or unclear: It means two or more distinct meanings are available and this is called structural ambiguity or syntactic ambiguity (as distinct from when a word has more than one distinct meaning which is known as lexical ambiguity.  Sometimes, the intended meaning can be unclear but often context can be used to assist the deconstruction and although technically ambiguous, most readers probably understood what happened in the "Lindsay Lohan snake incident".

China, the renegade province of Taiwan and strategic ambiguity

Taiwan (aka Formosa) is an island off the coast of China which separated, politically, from the mainland in 1949.  The Chinese government regards Taiwan as “a renegade province”; the island’s administration maintains a position of structural autonomy without actually declaring independence.  Since 1950, the US has maintained a security guarantee for the de facto independence of Taiwan which has been sometimes explicit, sometimes vague, the latter paradigm known as a policy of strategic ambiguity.

The origins of the guarantee lie in the Korean War.  In 1950, Dean Acheson (1893–1971; US secretary of state 1949-1953) delineated the US security perimeter in Asia and included neither Taiwan nor South Korea.  Chinese leader Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong 1893–1976; chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 1949-1976) and Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994), in an interpretation endorsed by their senior partner, Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953), concluded Washington would not defend either country.  The DPRK acted first, invading South Korea in June 1950 which shocked the US into assembling a military response under the flag of the UN and, fearing further Communist incursions in Asia, sent the Seventh Fleet to deter any attempt by Peking to invade Taiwan.

In 1954, China probed US policy by shelling some Taiwanese islands in what came to be known as the First Taiwan Strait Crisis; the US responded by entering into defense treaties with both Taiwan and South Korea.  The probing continued, notably with the second crisis in 1958 and in the 1960 presidential campaign, both candidates, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963), pledged to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression.  During the 1960s, in a kind of military choreography, US-China standoffs continued.  By 1972, things had changed.  The US sought China’s assistance, both to extricate themselves from the quagmire of the Vietnam War and to become something of a strategic partner against the USSR, Peking having long split from Moscow.  In a communique issued from Shanghai, Washington affirmed Peking’s “one China” principle that Taiwan is part of China saying it was a matter for China and Taiwan to work out the relationship peacefully. 

The nine dash line.

Despite that, the US-Taiwan Treaty remained but it needed now to be viewed in the context of Richard Nixon's Guam Doctrine, issued in 1969, in which the president noted "…the US would assist in the defense… of allies and friends" but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world."  For Taiwan, and presumably everyone else, strategic ambiguity thus began.  Seven years after the Shanghai statement, later, the Carter administration recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC, the old Red China), severed formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan and terminated the treaty.  Strategic ambiguity has shrouded Washington’s position on Taiwan ever since.  US presidents have on occasion suggested both something more robust and something less so it appears to remain the position that the US might defend Taiwan were China to invade but it might not.  It would depend on the circumstances.  For seventy-odd years, the US position has been enough to deter China from exercising the military option to restore the renegade province to the motherland but a multi-dimensional chess game will play-out over the next decade in the South China Sea.

Concatenate

Concatenate (pronounced kon-kat-on-ate)

(1) In biology, joined together, as if in a chain.

(2) In general use, to link things together; unite in a series or chain.

(3) In computing, the joining together of two or more objects stored in different places; most familiar as the spreadsheet command(s) invoked to join cells.

(4) In formal language, as string concatenation, the operation of joining character strings end-to-end.

1425-1475: From the late Middle English (as a past participle) from the Late Latin concatēnātus, from the perfect passive participle stem of concatēnāre (to link together), the construct being con- (com-) (with, together) + catenare, from catēnō (chain, bind) or catēna (chain) + -ātus (from the Proto-Italic -ātos, from the primitive Indo-European –ehztos and was the suffix used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality).  Related forms include concatenator & concatenation (nouns), concatenated & concatenating (verbs & adjectives) and concatenative (adjective).  Those who use the undo function on their spreadsheet after concatenating are using the verb deconcatenate and the adjective unconcatenating.  Concatenate the adjective has a longer history than the verb. The adjective first appeared in English in the fifteenth century, the not until the seventeenth.  Catenate, a verb in its own right meaning "to link in a series" also has origins in the 1800s.  Concatenate is a verb & adjective, concatenated, concatenating are verbs and concatenation is a noun; the noun plural is concatenations.

Lotus 1-2-3/G running under OS/2 1.2, 1989.

Concatenate is the favorite big word of most accountants, the others preferring avoidance.  For most people not engaged in certain specialised fields, it’s only when using a spreadsheet that the chance exists to use the word concatenate although it’s now often optional, Microsoft in Excel 2016 having added the CONCAT function which does all that CONCATENATE ever did.  The old command remains as a courtesy to those (1) who think the old ways are best or (2) have a stash of macros and add-ins laden with the text but there’s no guarantee both will continue to co-exist in future versions.  Both IBM and Microsoft have often had short and long versions of commands in software.  From the earliest versions of PC-DOS and MS-DOS, there were pairs like copy/cpy and delete/del which behaved identically.

The spreadsheet is regarded as the original “killer app”; the software which suddenly made rational the purchase of a computer for those not before seduced or at least convinced.  The first spreadsheet which really was a viable piece of horizontal-market shrink-wrap was Visicalc which, like the hardware on which it ran now seems limited but, unlike the operating system on which it ran, is conceptually identical and visually, vaguely similar to the latest releases.  Visicalc, launched in 1979 on the Apple II, two years before the IBM PC went on sale, came first but it was the more ambitious Lotus 1-2-3 which gained critical mass, assuming almost from its 1983 debut a market dominance which would last more than a decade.  By 1989, the standard office environment for those running PCs was overwhelmingly the Lotus 1-2-3 2.x / WordPerfect 5.x combination, the nerdiest operations perhaps adding the dreaded dBASE III Plus.

Microsoft Windows 3.0, 1990.

In what was one of the early disruptions in the business, things quickly changed.  In 1990, Microsoft Windows 3.0 was introduced, an unstable operating environment bolted on to DOS and soon famous for its UAEs (Unrecoverable Applications Errors), the BSODs (blue screen of death) of the era.  Fragile it may have been but it made the PC usable for real people in a way a command-line based user interface like DOS never did and by the time Windows 3.1 arrived in 1992, the move was on.  Microsoft were ready and Windows 3.1, combined with the updated Excel and Word for Windows sounded the death knell for Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect, both of which were murdered, dBASE more of a suicide as any user of dBASE IV will attest.  The old programs would struggle on, under new ownership, for years, Lotus 1-2-3 lasting until the twenty-first century and a much diminished WordPerfect to this day though neither would ever regain their place in the commercial mainstream.

A concatenation of images of variations in Lindsay Lohan's hair color.

Both failed adequately to react to Windows 3.0, WordPerfect pursuing an evolutionary development of their text-based platform while Lotus followed what turned out to be the right technology but the wrong company.  Almost from the start, Lotus had been besieged by user requests for a way to allow spreadsheets to be bigger and that needed a way for the program to access more memory.  Because of (1) the way DOS was written and (2) the memory address limitations of the early (80x86 & 80x88) hardware, not even all of the 1 MB nominally available could be used and it took not long for spreadsheet users to exhaust what was.  New hardware (80286 & 80386) made more memory available but DOS, really a brutish file-loader, couldn’t see it and the costs of re-equipping with more capable hardware and software combinations were, in the 1980s, high.  There were quick and dirty fixes.  One was a cooperative venture between Lotus, Intel & Microsoft which published an expanded memory specification (LIM EMS), a clever trick allowing access to 4 MB of memory but which brought problems of its own.  Most users continued to create multiple sheets, linking them in a variety of ways, a complexity which was often error prone and, as things grew, increasingly difficult to debug.  It wasn’t just megalomaniacs who longed for everything in one big sheet.

IBM OS/2 2.1, 1993.

Windows 3.0 may not have impressed Lotus but OS/2, Microsoft’s slated long-term replacement for both DOS and Windows certainly did.  Available already with 16 MB of memory, later versions of OS/2 promised 4 GB, a big number then and enough even in 2021 for what most people do with spreadsheets, most of the time.  Lotus nailed 1-2-3’s colors to the OS/2 mast, the first version for the new platform, 123/G (for graphical), released in 1989 and running only on OS/2, did what it claimed and users were soon delighted by the sight (if not the speed) of the spread of their giant sheets.  Unfortunately, users were few because buyers of OS/2 were scarce, their reluctance not helped by Microsoft’s sudden change of operating system direction.  As surprised as everybody else at the massive success of Windows 3.0 and 3.1, Microsoft announced that instead of continuing their co-development of OS/2 with IBM, they were proceeding with Windows as a stand-alone product; existing versions of OS/2 on sale and under development (versions 1 & 2) would be handed back to IBM to pursue while Microsoft would work on their next release which was to have been called OS/2 3.0.  This was the product which would in 1993 be released as Windows NT 3.1. 

It was a high-risk strategy.  In the early 1990s, IBM was years away from its near-death experiences and was the industry behemoth; having them as a partner was not without difficulties but to make an enemy of them was riskier still.  The potential reward however was compelling.  The revenue stream from Windows would flow wholly to Microsoft and, more conspiratorially, having exclusive control of the operating system and its secrets meant the possibility to tweak its own software offerings so they would run better than the competition.  There is of course no suggestion Microsoft ever did that.  All depended on (1) Windows continuing its sales success and (2) the newer versions maintaining the cost/performance advantage over OS/2 which would prevent IBM’s product gaining critical mass.  That is exactly what happened.

Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, 1997.

While OS/2 technically was good and the compatibility issues feared by many never existed to the extent claimed, it simply didn’t offer enough of an advantage over Windows 3.x to justify what would for many be a significant cost in hardware, software and training.  Nor, as the track record with thing like the PCjr demonstrated, were IBM very good at selling stuff unless it was in lots of thousands to big corporations.  Microsoft offered things users were actually interested in, like free fonts whereas IBM fiddled around with exotica like installable file systems (IFS), a concept remote from the lives of most.  Compared with the actually clunky looking Windows 3.x, OS/2 with its IFS, pre-emptive multi-tasking and object-oriented user interface looked like the future of computing and so it was but Windows NT (ex OS/2 3.0) turned out to be a better path.  By the time Windows 95 was released in 1995, Microsoft had won the consumer war and within two years, Windows NT had laid the foundation not only to dominate the desktop in the twenty-first century but to displace Novell and others in the lucrative server market which underpinned the rapidly growing parts of the market, networks (WANs and LANs) and the internet.  In this clash of titans, WordPerfect, dBASE and Lotus were collateral damage.

Xenodochial

Xenodochial (pronounced zen-oh-dok-e-al)

Of or about being friendly to strangers.

From the Ancient ξενοδοχή (xenodokhḗ) (strangers' banquet), derived from ξένος (xénos), (guest, stranger, foreigner).  The –al suffix is from the Middle English -al, from the Latin -ālis, or the French, Middle French and Old French –el & -al.  The Latin is though formed from the Etruscan genitive suffix -l (as in the Etruscan ati (mother) & atial (mother's)) + the adjectival suffix -is (as in fortis, dēbilis etc).  The suffix was appended to many words, often nouns to create the sense “of or pertaining to”, thereby creating the adjectival form.  It was most commonly added to words of Latin origin and used also to form nouns, especially of verbal action.  The adjectival form xenodochial is the most frequently used form, often in the abstract sense of describing a functionally effective structure or a pleasingly ergonomic design.  In general though, all forms allude to being hospitable to strangers which is perhaps why the antonym xenophobic (unfriendly to strangers) seems more widely used.  As xenodocheionology, it’s the study of the lore and history of hotels and hospitality.  The noun xenodochium (the plural forms xenodochia or xenodochiums) was used to describe a room (or separate structure; a guesthouse) in a monastery for the temporary accommodation of guests or pilgrims and was from the Ancient Greek ξενοδοχεῖον (xenodokheîon), (place for strangers, inn) from ξένος (xénos), (guest, stranger, foreigner) + δέχομαι (dékhomai) (receive, accept).  Xenodochial is an adjective, xenodochy is a noun and the related xenophilia is the antonym of xenophobia.

On being turned away from the inn

Neither the year nor the day on which Jesus Christ was born is known, Western Christianity celebrating it on 25 December and the Orthodox on 6 or 7 January.  It made administrative sense to slot the celebration into the existing feast calendar, but the date wasn't universally (more or less) standardized until the sixth century although the historic record can be confusing because of changes to the medieval cadendar.

Bethlehem Inn , circa 24 December, 3 BC.  A member of one of the earliest chapters of the Secret Society of the Les Clef d’Or refuses to let Joseph and Mary check-in because they have no booking confirmation number.  In the Bible, Luke (2:4–7) records this lack of the xenodochial.

Christ was probably born circa 3 BC and being born not in a room in a house but in a stable has become important in Christian symbolism.  The tale though may be muddied.  It’s often recounted how Joseph and Mary, while looking for a place to stay the night, were many times turned away by members of the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or, either because the inn was full or without reason.  In the bible, the versions differ, Matthew not mentioning them being turned away from inns, that part appearing only in Luke.  As told by Matthew, Mary and Joseph actually lived in Bethlehem so the birth was thus at home; it was only after returning from taking refuge in Egypt they decided to move to Nazareth in order to be further from Herod.  Luke (2:4–7) says they lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem for a census, and were there turned away from inns, being forced to stay in a stable and there the birth happened.  It’s suspected by some Luke added the wrinkle to the story to emphasize the lowly birth of Jesus and revisionist theologians have provided alternative facts.  The Reverend Ian Paul, one-time Dean of Studies at St John’s theological college, reviving what's actually an old theory that Jesus wasn't born in a stable and there'd been no search for a room in an inn.  He lets the Les Clefs d'Or off the hook.

Dr Paul bases his position on a mistaken biblical translation of the Greek word kataluma as “inn” which he suggests, in the original texts, was actually used to describe a reception room in a private dwelling, the same term is used to describe the “upper room” where Jesus and his disciples ate the last supper and kataluma appear in that context in Luke 22:11 and Mark 14:14.  An entirely different word, pandocheion, is used to describe an “inn” or any other place where strangers are welcomed as paying customers.  Even were there an inn in Bethlehem, Paul argues, Joseph and Mary would not have sought to check-in.  For Joseph, the only reason to travel to Bethlehem, where his family lived, was because it was census time and the custom at the time was to stay with relatives, not with strangers or at an inn.  Given that, goes the argument, the kataluma where they stayed would not have been an Inn, but a guest room in the house of family members and the house was likely already full with other relatives there for the census.

The architecture of Palestinian does support the idea, most families living in a single-room house, with a lower compartment for animals to be brought in at night, and either a room at the back for visitors, or space on the roof.  The family living area usually would have straw-filled hollows dug in the ground at which the animals would feed.  Jesus thus was born not in a stable fit only for beasts but on the lower floor of a peasant house, shared with animals certainly but this at the time something not unusual.  It’s not a new interpretation, the Spanish philologist Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (1523–1600) having published the same thoughts in 1584.  For his troubles he was dragged before the Inquisition, denounced and reprimanded but not tortured, imprisoned or burned at the stake, the court apparently viewing these things as poor scholarship rather than heresy.

Meet & greet: Lindsay Lohan being xenodochial, opening night of the Lohan Nightclub, Athens, Greece, October 2016.

Dr Paul suggests all this is not of interest only to word-nerds and that there is a theological significance.  It’s not that it diminishes the nature of Christ, quite where the Son of God was born seems a minor point compared with the other aspects of his birth; the important message of Christianity is that he was born of ordinary, humble, parents, it adds nothing to try to present them somehow as outcasts rejected from the comforts of society.  The celebration of the Christmas is not that his earthly life began cast out, but in the midst of his family and the visiting relations, the centre of their attentions.  In recent years, some editors have apparently been convinced, dropping all references to inns and using a translation along the lines of “because there was no guest room available for them.”

Niggardly

Niggardly (pronounced nig-erd-lee)

(1) Reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly; sordidly parsimonious.

(2) Mean or ungenerously small or scanty; grudgingly.

(3) In a stingy, miserly, or tight-fisted manner; penurious, miserly, mean, tight.

1520-1530: The construct was nig(g)ard+ly.  Nigard was from the Middle English nigard & nygard (miser), from nig (niggardly person), perhaps of Scandinavian origin (the forms in the Old Norse were derived from hnǫggr (miserly, stingy)) and it may have beem cognate with niggle (miser).  In German there was Knicker (niggard) & knickerig (niggardly).  The –ly suffix is from the Middle English -ly, -li, -lik & -lich, from the Old English -līċ, from the Proto-Germanic -līkaz (having the body or form of), from līką (body) (from whence lich). In form, it was probably influenced by the Old Norse -ligr (-ly) and was cognate with the Dutch -lijk, the German -lich and the Swedish –lig; doublet of -like.  It was used to form adjectives from nouns, the adjectives having the sense of "behaving like, or having a nature typical of what is denoted by the noun".  Niggardly is an adjective & adverb, niggardliness is a noun and niggard is a noun, adjective & verb; the noun plural is niggards.

The root is very old, the Middle English nyggard (thought derived from Swedish nygg (from old Norse verb nigla (to fuss about small matters)) noted as early as 325-375 and from the Old English hneaw (stingy).  It was rarely used in some biblical translations (2 Corinthians 9:6 & Isaiah 32:6 for example) but does seem to appear less in recent revisions, presumably out of linguistic sensitivity.  Although etymologically, the sixteenth century niggardly is wholly related to the infamous N-word (which emerged only in the eighteenth), there have been a number of incidents in the United States which have caused controversy because of the phonetic similarity to the racial slur.  Because there are a number of useful synonyms, (parsimonious, mean, greedy, penurious, miserly etc), niggardly is probably best avoided.  Even if used correctly, it can cause problems.

Ye (b 1977, the artist formerly known as Kanye West).

So it's not one of those potentially difficult words like "chink" which is so entrenched it can be used as long as the context makes clear (such as "chink in the armor") it's not being used as a racial slur.  Nor does the idea of adopting the N-Word convention (whereby it can in certain circumstances be spelled "niggardly" in written form but orally it might be spoken as "N-wordy") much appeal because it's so much easier (and uncontroversial) just to use an alternative like "parsimonious" or "cheap".  All in all, it's best avoided, like the infamous N-Word as Lindsay Lohan (in town for Paris Fashion Week) found out in 2015 when she used it in an Instagram post after attending a concert by Ye.  She was quoting from the lyrics of one of his songs but that's obviously not an acceptable thing for a white person to do and, in response to criticism, the post was soon edited.  Interestingly, the bar on that might have been raised a bit as the reactions to some of Ye's recent statements indicate.