Cup (pronounced kuhp)
(1) A small, open container now manufactured usually
using ceramics, plastic, glass or metal, typically with a single handle and
used as a receptacle from which to drink fluids (tea, coffee, soup etc) and
often categorized by design according to their nominal use (tea cup, coffee cup
etc); many cups are supplied in sets with a saucer on which the cup sits
protecting surfaces from spillage and offer a place on which a stirring spoon
may sit. A cup can be made from glass
but may not be a “glass” while a glass made from glass may also have a handle
while mugs are essentially cups but called something else.
(2) The bow-like part of a goblet or the like.
(3) A cup with its contents (“a cup of tea” et al).
(4) The quantity contained in a cup (which can be a
general reference to any cup or a precisely defined measure).
(5) As a customary unit of measure, a defined unit of
capacity frequently used in cooking, the quantum of which varies between (and
sometimes within) markets but historically based on a half pint (now usually
expressed as 220-250 ml or 14-20 tablespoons).
Measuring cups are available with graduations.
(6) An ornamental bowl, vase, etc especially of precious
metal, offered as a prize for a contest (the use of “cup” often persisting even
when trophies have been re-designed in a different form); a sporting contest in
which a cup (or some other trophy) is awarded to the winner (collective known
as the “cup competitions”).
(7) Any of various mixed beverages with one ingredient as
a base and historically served from a bowl (claret cup burgundy cup, gin cup,
cider cup etc).
(8) In Christianity, the chalice used in the Eucharist
(used also of the consecrated wine of the Eucharist).
(9) Something to be partaken of or endured; one's
portion, as of joy or suffering.
(10) In many fields, any cup-like utensil, organ, part,
cavity etc; anything resembling a cup in shape or function.
(11) In botany, parts such as the flower base of some
plants.
(12) In women’s underwear, the two forms containing the breasts
in a bra or other garment in which an apparatus with a similar function is
integrated (camisoles, bathing suits etc).
(13) In certain sports, a concave protective covering for
the male genitalia, reinforced with usually with rigid plastic or metal (in
some markets called a “box”, “cup” the common form in North America).
(14) In golf-course construction, the metal receptacle
within the hole or the hole itself.
(15) In astronomy, a constellation or a crater.
(16) In pre-modern medicine, as “cupping glass”, a glass
vessel from which air can be removed by suction or heat to create a partial
vacuum, formerly used in drawing blood to the surface of the skin for slow
blood-letting (also called the “artificial leech”). The concept (cupping) remains in use (though
without the blood-letting) in certain beauty treatments popular in East-Asia.
(17) In metalworking, a cylindrical shell closed at one
end, especially one produced in the first stages of a deep-drawing operation; to
form (tubing, containers etc) by punching hot strip or sheet metal and drawing
it through a die.
(18) In mathematics, the cup-like symbol ∪, used to indicate the union
of two sets.
(19) As CUP, the international standard (ISO 4217)
currency code for the Cuban peso.
(20) In tarot card reading, a suit of the minor arcana or
one of the cards from the suit.
(21) In ultimate frisbee competition, a defensive style
characterized by a three player near defense cupping the thrower (or those
three players).
(22) A flexible concave membrane used temporarily to attach
a handle or hook to a flat surface by means of suction (the “suction cup”, the
origins of which were in biomimicry (octopodes et al)).
(23) To take or place in, or as in, a cup.
(24) To form into a cuplike shape.
Pre-1000: From the Middle English cuppe & coppe, created
by a blending of the Old English cuppe
(cup) and the & Old Northumbrian copp
(cup, vessel), from the Late Latin cuppa
which etymologists list as being of uncertain origin but thought probably a variant
of the earlier cūpa (tub, cask, tun,
barrel) which may have been cognate with the Sanskrit kupah (hollow, pit, cave), the Greek kype (gap, hole; a kind of ship), the Old Church Slavonic kupu, the Lithuanian kaupas, the Old Norse hufr (ship's hull) and the Old English hyf (beehive). Etymologists are divided on whether the
source of the original Latin was the primitive Indo-European kewp- (a hollow) or the non
Indo-European loanword kup- which was
borrowed by and from many languages. The
Old English copp was from the Proto-West
Germanic kopp (round object, bowl,
vessel, knoll, summit, crown of the head), from the Proto-Germanic kuppaz, from the primitive Indo-European
gew- (to bend, curve, arch), the
source also of the obsolete English cop (top, summit, crown of the head) and
the German Kopf (top, head). The Middle English word evolved also under
the influence of the Anglo-Norman cupe &
the Old French cope & coupe.
The Late Latin cuppa begat
many words meaning “cup” including the Old French coupe, the Saterland Frisian & West Frisian kop, the Old Frisian kopp, the Italian coppa, the Middle Dutch coppe,
the Dutch kop & kopje, the Middle Low German kopp, the German Low German Koppke & Köppke, the Danish kop,
the Spanish copa and the Swedish kopp.
It was a doublet of coupe, hive and keeve. The German cognate Kopf now means exclusively “head”.
The first cups doubtlessly were formed by a “cupping” of the hands in
order to drink and that action would have been pre-human and an important
evolutionary step in the development of the brain. Later, whatever fell conveniently to hand
(sea-shells, the shells of nuts etc) would have been used before drinking
vessels came to be fashioned from clay, wood or other materials. Cup is a noun & verb, cupped &
cupping are verbs; the noun plural is cups.
Art Deco and the coffee cup.
By the late fourteenth century, “cup” had come to be used
of just about in the shape of what is now understood as a cup, the sense of “quantity
contained in a cup” emerging about the same time. The sense of a “cup-shaped metal vessel
offered as a prize in sport or games” dates from the 1640s, the origin thought
to be the traditional ceremonial ritual of celebrating victory by drinking wine
or some other alcoholic brew and while it’s speculative, anthropologists have
suggested there may be some symbolic link with the idea of “drinking the blood of the vanquished”. The idea obviously persists, and among the
more disgusting versions is drinking from a shoe or boot worn by the victor
during the event. That particular form
of podophilic mixology actually has a long history but of late it’s become
something of a fetish on the podiums in motor-sport; the term “shoey” was
coined in the barbarian nation of Australia.
The origin of the use of “one cup in life” is in the Biblical
scripture: And he went a little further,
and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matthew
26:39 (King James Version (KJV, 1611))).
The word cup appears in many scriptural verses which
refer to God's judgment or a time of great suffering, Christ Himself asking James
and John if they could "drink the
cup" (Matthew 20:22) assigned to Him (by which he meant the suffering
that He would soon endure on the cross, experiencing God's judgment for the
sins of humanity. It’s an important
theological point, emphasized (Hebrews 4:15) by Jesus seeming to be overwhelmed
and saddened by the prospect and awfulness of his crucifixion, praying to God
he be spared this fate. Jesus was,
although the son of God, also fully human and few humans wish to suffer
humiliation, torture, and death so his prayer was natural but critically, almost
at once he submits and resolves to obey the will of the Father. Whatever his human anguish at what is to come,
his absolute commitment is to obeying God.
The idea then is that “suffering is
to be endured” was by the fourteenth century expressed in phrases like “the
cup of life” and whatever may be the cup, it is “something to be partaken of” because it is the will of God. In figurative use thus, “one’s cup” is that which
is one’s lot to be endured; that which is allotted to one for good and bad.
To be in one's cups was to be “intoxicated”, a use dating from the 1610s which may have been a direct development from the mid-fourteenth century Middle English cup-shoten (drunk, drunken). One’s “cup of tea” is what interests one and came into use in the 1930s of things or concepts although it’s documented from 1908 applying to persons; tellingly, the use of “not my cup of tea” is more common. The “cup-bearer” was an early fifteenth century job description to describe the “attendant at a feast who conveys wine or other liquor to guests” but a more specialized use was of the court official who carried with him the cups, plates and other utensils to be used by those fearing poisoning (usually royalty or feudal barons). The phrase “storm in a tea cup” refers to a fuss being made over a trivial matter and is in the same vein as “much ado about nothing”, “tempest in a teapot”, “storm in a teapot”, “lightning in a bottle” and “make a mountain out of a molehill”.
The verb use “to cup” was a part of pre-modern medicine by the fourteenth century, describing the use of something cup-like to press against the skin to draw blood closer to the surface prior to “slow blood-letting”. Medical dictionaries note there were two modes of cupping: one in which the part is scarified and some blood taken away to relieve congestion or inflammation of internal parts (“wet cupping”, or simply “cupping”), the other in which there was no scarification no blood was abstracted (“dry cupping”). The concept (as “cupping” and without the bleeding) is still used in certain beauty treatments popular in East-Asia. The cupful (quantity; that a cup holds, contents of a cup) was known in late Old English and persists to this day, the phrase “cup runneth over” is used to refer an over-supply of anything and was from the Hebrew Bible (Psalms:23:5) where the message was “I have more than enough for my needs” and thus a caution against greed, or in the words of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750): Ich habe genug (I have enough) an unfashionable view in a materialist age although one with which Ms Fenice might concur. Modifiers are appended as required, hyphenated and not including the teacup (circa 1700), the egg-cup (used for making the eating of boiled eggs easier (1773)) and the cupcake (1828). Cupcakes were “small cakes intended for one” and were an invention of US English, the name derived either from cup-shaped containers in which they were baked or from the small measures of ingredients used. The slang use to describe an “attractive young woman” was another American innovation from the 1930s.
Art Deco and the tea cup: 1934 "Tango" trio by Royal Doulton in bone china, the cup with the classic pointed handle.
The use of “cup” in recipes is probably one of the less
helpful uses of the word and for those not familiar with the conventions, they
were probably baffled and wondering which of the various sized cups they had
should be used. The origin of “cup” as a
measure lies in the old English unit which was ½ an imperial pint and thus (10 imperial ounces (284 ml),
often later rounded to 300 ml.
Elsewhere, countries did their own thing: In Australia & New Zealand
it was set at 250 ml after the conversion to metric measurements in 1973; In
the US it was a liquid measure equal to 8 fluid ounces (237 ml which was
usually rounded to 240); In Canada it was set at 8 imperial ounces (227 ml and
rounded to 250). The “metric cup” is now
a universal 250 ml and for recipes this appears to be the preferred use even in
North America.
Bra cups
If in cooking "cup" has been (just about) standardized around the world, the bra cup, that other use of cup as an expression of volume is bafflingly diverse, anomalies appearing even within a manufacturer's catalogue. The use of cup in the bra business seems to have begun in the 1930s although among historians of the bra (a surprisingly well populated niche in the discipline of the history of fashion) many differ in detail; the vague consensus seems to be the term was first used in this context in the early 1930s, was wide-spread by 1940 and almost universal by the early 1950s. The principle of the cup size was compelling simple in that there were two variables (1) the torso and (2) the breasts. The measurement of the torso was expressed by the bra band size (measured under the bust) in inches (or its metric equivalent) such as 30”, 32”, 34” etc, the graduations between the numbers handled by the fastening mechanism (usually a hook & eye arrangement) allowing a “tight” or “loose” fit so a 32” band could be worn by someone with a torso measurement in a 31-33 inch range. The cup size range corresponded with the volume of the breast and (in ascending order) these were expressed in letters: A, B, C, D etc so when combined, the products were called 32B, 34C etc. In theory, the two values worked progressively (up & down: alphabetically & numerically) so the cup size of a 32C was the same as a 30D and a 34B; in the industry, the concept is called "sister sizes", each cup the same dimensions but mounted on a different sized structure (defined by the back-band) and labelled accordingly. That's the theory and within a manufacturer's single range it may often be true but there is no recognized definition for cup sizes so not only are any two 32Cs from different manufacturers likely to be a slightly different size, nor can it be expected the dimensions of the cup of any 30D will align exactly with that of any other 34B. It may but it can't be predicted and the expectation should be it will likely "tend towards".
English borrowed the word brassiere from the French brassière, from the Old French braciere (which was originally a lining fitted inside armor which protected the arm, only later becoming a garment), from the Old French brace (arm) although by then it described a chemise (a kind of undershirt) but in the US, brassiere was used from 1893 when the first bras were advertised and from there, use spread. The three syllables were just too much to survive the onslaught of modernity and the truncated “bra” soon prevailed, being the standard form throughout the English-speaking world by the early 1930s. Curiously, in French, a bra is a soutien-gorge which translates literally and rather un-romantically as "throat-supporter" although "chest uplifter" is a better translation. The etymological origin of the modern "bra" lying in a single garment is the reason one buys "a bra" in the same department store from which one might purchase "a pair" of sunglasses or shoes.
Bra size multi-national conversion chart by Fredericks of Hollywood. It seems an industry crying out for an ISO.
Unfortunately the manufacturers complicated things in a number of ways. Given the A,B,C,D ascending sequence, it would have been reasonable to assume E,F,G & H would follow and in some cases they did but not all, some adopting a double letter convention yielding DD, EE etc but these did not represent fractional sizing-steps between single letters; what was to some manufacturers a DD was an E to others and some were so taken with the idea they added triple lettered sizes so a 32DDD was nominally the equivalent of a 32F from another house. Some quirks were understandable such as the one which explains the rarity of the I cup, the explanation being the character might be confused with a numeric "1" which, given the syntax of the system, seems improbable but one can see their point.
1962 Chrysler 300H (left) and 1963 Chrysler 300J (right).
Chrysler in the US was in 1963 guided by the same rationale when for the first time since 1956 a letter was skipped in the designation of the 300 “letter series” cars; there’s nothing to suggest the corporation ever pondered a “300HH”.
The BUFF: The new version of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (replacing the B-52-H) will be the B-52J, not B-52I or B-52HH.
The US Air Force also opted to skip “I” when allocating a designation for the updated version of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (1952-1962 and still in service). Between the first test flight of the B-52A in 1954 and the B-52H entering service in 1962, the designations B-52B, B-52C, B-52D, B-52E, B-52F & B-52G sequentially had been used but after flirting with whether to use B52J as an interim designation (reflecting the installation of enhanced electronic warfare systems) before finalizing the series as the B-52K after new engines were fitted, in 2024 the USAF announced the new line would be the B-52J and only a temporary internal code would distinguish those not yet re-powered. Again, the “I” was not used so nobody would think there was a B-521. Although the avionics, digital displays and ability to carry Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM, a scramjet-powered weapon capable exceeding Mach 5) are the most significant changes for the B-52J, visually, it will be the replacement of the old Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines with new Rolls-Royce F130 units which will be most obvious, the F130 promising improvements in fuel efficiency of some 30% as well as reduction in noise and exhaust emissions. Already in service for 70 years, apparently no retirement date for the B-52 has yet been pencilled-in. In USAF (US Air Force) slang, the B-52 is the BUFF (the acronym for big ugly fat fellow or big ugly fat fucker depending on who is asking). From BUFF was derived the companion acronym for the LTV A-7 Corsair II (1965-1984, the last in active service retired in 2014) which was SLUFF (Short Little Ugly Fat Fellow or Short Little Ugly Fat Fucker).
Under the A-B-C-D etc cup-sizing system, a given designation varies in dimensions (and thus volumetric capacity) according to the band size, the cup of a 28A smaller than that of a 32A (which should share size and shape with that used on a 30B).
The theory: Individual results may vary.
Then there was the band size. Most countries of course use the metric system so dimensions had to be converted but the convention for those advertised in inches was to use increments of 2 (28, 30, 32 etc) while for metric users it was in jumps of 5 cm (70, 75, 80 etc) which is close but not quite the same (28” = 71.12 cm; 30” = 76.2 cm; 32 = 82.28 cm). More of a problem was that for the system to work, some math was required because the number from the under-bust measurement didn’t directly translate to the advertised bra size: What the buyer had to do was take the number and add 5 inches (12.7 cm) so if one’s under-bust measurement was 29” (73.7 cm), one (at least in theory) needed something with a 34” band (86.4 cm, the closest in the metric countries being the 85 cm range). However, if the number was over 33” (83.8 cm), then one added only 3” (7.6 cm). At that point, one needed to determine the appropriate cup. This required a further measurement, one taken which represented the bust at its fullest projection, the somewhat misleadingly named “over-bust” number which was actually taken following the nipple line. Many recommended taking it while wearing a bra but if that was a poor fit, that would hardly be helpful and the ideal method turned out to be (and usually this was necessary only if the volume was above a certain point) holding the breasts in place at the desired location while another did the measuring. An ideal project then in which to involve one’s boyfriend or girlfriend, the only instructions needed being (1) the tape should rest lightly on the skin and (2) it should straight across the back, parallel to the floor. The relationship between the over-bust measurement and the band size indicated the needed cup size: if the difference is 1” (2.54 cm) then it dictates an A cup; 2” (5.08 cm) and it’s a B cup and so on. In many cases the simple under/over equation will work but not in all and some authorities have added additional measurements to be taken while in different positions, the 6 listed including lying flat on one's back and leaning forward so the breasts are perpendicular to the ground. Definitely, the more dimensions which are taken, the more this seems a job for two.
The math of cup sizes.
In practice it transpired the human body wasn’t so accommodating of production line rationalization but the system worked well enough for it to have endured for decades although only a percentage of women find an ideal fit without the help of an in-store fitter. Quite what that number is depends on who is asked but it’s clear it’s a long way short of 100%. The outcome for bra wearers wasn’t helped by the lack of standardization in either the labeling or the technical specification of the cup size. The inches vs centimetres thing was manageable but even in some countries which had long switched to the metric system, bras sizes were often expressed in inches (a similar aberration to the (almost) universal use of inches for certain products including the wheels used on cars and computer monitors) and because of the internationalized nature of the market with so much imported product, in many countries, both sizing regimes simultaneously were on sale, often in the same shop. Helpfully, many displayed wall charts with conversion tables. For some reason, in Australia and New Zealand, the decision was taken to use the dress sizing standard used in the antipodes (8 = 30”, 10 = 32” etc), thus bra sizes like 8C, 10D etc which local users presumably adapted to but it seems a needless complication. Additionally, regardless of what country one was in, there was no guarantee a given size from one manufacturer would exactly align with that from another and in England, a comparison by a consumer organization revealed band and cup size differences existed in stated sizes even between various styles produced by the same manufacturer; not all 32Ds were created equal. Given that, it seems obvious it’s best to seek the assistance of a fitter but in the internet age, customers found capitalism offered a handy on-line, home delivered alternative, the trick being to order half a dozen bras of slightly different declared sizes (eg 32C, 30D, 32E etc), the ones not quite right being able to returned for credit at no cost, the site paying all the P&H (postage & handling). That approach has attracted much criticism because of the environmental impact and it’s a significant cost to the distributor and some have now moved to restrict the practice.
Nursing bras use specialized cups: Lindsay Lohan inspects the apparatus in Labor Pains (2009).
The most obvious specialized cup is that used with nursing bras which feature an arrangement whereby most of the cup’s fabric can be semi-separated from the superstructure, enabling breast-feeding without the need to remove the whole garment. Among bra manufacturers, there are different implementations by which the functionality of a nursing bra's apparatus is achieved and presumably chest-feeders (the preferred term among the woke to describe those who used to be called “breast-feeding women”) choose whichever best suits them; it may simply be that for manufacturers the production-line rationalization achieved by being able to adapt the specialized cups to the structures used for conventional bras is compelling, dictating the designs. Which chest-feeders choose is of some significance given how often heard is the complaint the process is “tiring”. To those who will never be chest-feeders it sounds more a pleasant and diverting relaxation rather than anything tiring but they all say it so it must be true.
The "push-up" bra lives up to its name by using strategically placed padding which has the effect of "pushing up" the breast tissue (it has nowhere else to go), creating the visual effect of something bigger and higher. Most padding is purely functional but there are also novelty items such as the one above which is variant of the "hand bra", also a thing.
Other variations include the demi-cup (also called the half-cup ("semi-cup" not a recognized term)), the bullet cup, the adhesive cup (an enlarged & shaped adaptation of the so-called "tit-tape" technology), the padded cup and the seemingly paradoxical cupless (or open-cup), the last a niche market. Those wanting to have "their cake and eat it too" who like to go braless while enjoying the benefit of some support can buy clothes with a "built-in bra" or a "shelf-bra" although the law of physics continue to operate and beyond a certain size (and more to the point: weight), these things simply: "don't work". The cups of a "push-up bra" (the Wonderbra the best known of the breed) include thick padding towards the bottom of the structure, this having the effect of "pushing up" the breast tissue, lending things a higher, fuller look. There are degrees to which this can be implemented: the more the padding, the greater the effect.
A mastectomy bra with prostheses (left) and with the prostheses inserted in the cups' pockets (centre & right).
There are also bras for those who have lost a breast, the cups of which are “double-skinned” in that they feature internal “pockets” into which a prosthetic breast form (a prosthesis) can be inserted. Those who have had a unilateral (or single) mastectomy (the surgical amputation of one breast) can choose a cup size to match the remaining while those who have lost both (a bilateral or double mastectomy) can adopt whatever size they prefer. There are now even single cup bras for those who have lost one breast but opt not to use a prosthetic, an approach which reflects both an aesthetic choice and a reaction against what is described in the US as the “medical-industrial complex”, the point being that women who have undergone a mastectomy should not be subject to pressure either to use a prosthetic or agree to surgical reconstruction (a lucrative procedure for the industry). This has now emerged as a form of advocacy called the “going flat” movement which has a focus not only on available fashions but also the need for a protocol under which, if women request an AFC (aesthetic flat closure, a surgical closure (sewing up) in which the “surplus” skin often preserved to accommodate a future reconstructive procedure is removed and the chest rendered essentially “flat” ), that is what must be provided. The medical industry has argued the AFC can preclude a satisfactory cosmetic outcome in reconstruction if a woman “changes her mind” but the movement insists it's an example of how the “informed consent” of women is not being respected. Essentially, what the movement seems to be arguing is the request for an AFC should be understood as an example of the legal principle of VAR (voluntary assumption of risk). The attitude of surgeons who decline to perform an AFC is described by the movement as the “flat refusal”.
