Denunciate & Denounce

Denunciate (pronounced dih-nuhn-see-yet or dih-nuhn-shee-yet)

To denounce; openly to condemn.

1585-1590: From the Latin dēnuntiātus (announced), past participle of denuntio (I declare) & dēnunciāre (to declare) and, in English, the same word as denounce except directly from Latin.  It’s a strange word in that as a verb it’s rare to the point of obscurity yet is common as the noun denunciation.  Denunciate is a verb (used with or without object), denunciated & denunciating are verbs, denunciable is an adjective, denunciator & denunciator are nouns and denunciatory is an adjective.

Denounce (pronounce dih-nouns)

(1) To condemn or censure openly or publicly; to deplore, vehemently or openly to condemn.

(2) To make a formal accusation against an individual or institution, usually to the authorities.

(3) In law and international relations, to give formal notice of the termination or denial of a treaty, pact, agreement etc (rare except in technical use).

(4) To announce or proclaim, especially as something evil or calamitous (archaic in a secular context, still used in religious circles).

(5) To portend (obsolete).

1250–1300: From the Middle English denouncen, from the Old French denoncier (to speak out; to proclaim), from the Latin dēnuntiāre (make an official proclamation, to threaten), the construct being dē- (from) + nuntiāre (to announce), from nuntius (messenger).  Denounce (used with object), denounced & denouncing are verbs, denouncement & denouncer, noun and denounced is an adjective.

Denunciate & Denounce

Technically, the difference between the two is that denounce is a synonym of denunciate and denunciate is a related term of denounce.  As verbs, the historic difference was that denunciate meant “openly to condemn” while denounce meant “to make known in a formal manner; to proclaim; to announce; to declare”, a use long obsolete.  By inclination a reductionist and polished by the party pros in the practice of delivering easy-to-understand slogans and messages using simple words, repetitively recited, Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022) wasn't noted for linguistic flourishes but, late in November 2021, chose to say he was “…denunciating any violence…”.  The context was an earlier public protest against certain COVID-19 measures and what he said was a clarification his of earlier remarks which some had claimed were in the spirit of Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2017-2021)  “…good people on both sides” comment when discussing a protest in the US at which a fatality occurred.  That hadn’t gone down all that well and Mr Morrison probably wanted to avoid the accusation of being "neutral in the battle between the fire and the fire brigade", Winston Churchill's (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) vivid evocation of what he thought the BBC's nihilistic attitude to things he though bad.

While the noun denunciation is in common use, the verb denunciating is so rare there were some who mistakenly assumed he’s conflated denouncing with enunciating, either misunfortunistically (in the George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) way) or, as one tweet more ominously observed: “You don’t need Freud to understand the mixed message.”  Whatever might be the take on the politics, grammatically, the prime-minister was correct but the use was so unusual that one might wonder if it was tossed in as a linguistic distraction.  Mr Morrison was often denouncing things, individuals and ideas he found abhorrent, whether it be anti-corruption bodies which look a little too closely as how politicians operate or the CEOs of public corporations being a bit generous with bonuses not served in the politicians' troughs.  If again he needs to seek inspiration, he may turn to the Bible, both the King James Version (KJV; 1611) and New International Version (NIV; 1978-2011 and said to be most popular with Pentecostal preachers) often using the word and, if ever things seem a bit obscure, there’s always Leviticus and Ezekiel, both offering plenty about what demands some denunciating.

Balaam proclaimed his poem:Balak brought me from Aram;the king of Moab, from the eastern mountains:“Come, put a curse on Jacob for me;come, denounce Israel!”  (Numbers 23:7)

How can I curse someone God has not cursed?How can I denounce someone the Lord has not denounced?  (Numbers 23:8)

I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 30:18)

Hannah prayed, "My heart rejoices in the Lord; my horn is exalted high because of the Lord. I loudly denounce my enemies, for I am happy that you delivered me. (1 Samuel 2:1)

Who would denounce his behavior to his face?Who would repay him for what he has done? (Job 21:31)

Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent”—people will curse him, and tribes will denounce him; (Proverbs 24:24)

I will denounce your righteousness and your works, for your collections of idols will not benefit you. (Isaiah 57:12)

Then certain ones said, “Come, let’s make plans against Jeremiah, for instruction will never be lost from the priest, or counsel from the wise, or an oracle from the prophet. Come, let’s denounce him and pay no attention to all his words.” (Jeremiah 18:18)

Indeed, I hear many people whispering, "Terror on every side. Denounce him, let's denounce him!" All my close friends watch my steps and say, "Perhaps he will be deceived, and we can prevail against him and take vengeance on him." (Jeremiah 20:10)

Just then, certain influential Chaldeans took this opportunity to come forward and denounce the Jews. (Daniel 3:8)

Then He proceeded to denounce the towns where most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent: (Matthew 11:20)

Blessed [morally courageous and spiritually alive with life-joy in God’s goodness] are you when people hate you, and exclude you [from their fellowship], and insult you, and scorn your name as evil because of [your association with] the Son of Man. (Luke 6:22)

The world cannot hate you [since you are part of it], but it does hate Me because I denounce it and testify that its deeds are evil. (John 7:7)

Therefore you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who [hypocritically] judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, because you who judge [from a position of arrogance or self-righteousness] are habitually practicing the very same things [which you denounce]. (Romans 2:1)

This testimony is true. Therefore sternly denounce them, that they may be robust in their faith (Titus 1:13)

However, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are accused, those who denounce your Christian life will be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:16)

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 schoolgirls.  A tale of chicanery & low skullduggery, once deconstructed, Mean Girls can be understood as a series of denunciations which act as the pivot points, both within and between scenes.

Carpet

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Acrimony

Acrimony (pronounced ak-ruh-moh-nee)

Sharpness, harshness, or bitterness of nature, speech, disposition, animosity, spitefulness or asperity; a state of or expression of enmity, hatred or loathing.

1535-1540: From the Middle French acrimonie (quality of being sharp or pungent in taste) or directly from the Latin acrimonia (sharpness, pungency of taste), figuratively "acrimony, severity, energy" an abstract noun, from acer (feminine. acris) (sharp), from the primitive Indo-European root ak- (be sharp, rise (out) to a point, pierce) + -monia or –mony (the suffix of action, state, condition).  Figurative extension to personal sharpness, bitterness and hatred was well established by 1610 and has long been the dominant meaning, the application to describe even a dislike of someone “irritating in manner” was noted from 1775.  The adjectival form acrimonious dates from circa 1610 from the French acrimonieux, from the Medieval Latin acrimoniosus and, again, is now usually figurative of dispositions, the use referencing taste or spell now entirely obsolete.

In the West, democratic politics, sometime in the nineteenth century had, evolved into the form today familiar: a contest between parties or aggregations sometimes described otherwise but which behave like parties. There’s much variation, there are systems which usually have two-parties and some which tend towards more and there are those with electoral mechanisms which cause distortions compared with the results the parties actually achieve but the general model is that of a contest between parties.  What that generates can be fun to watch but what’s more amusing is the contest within parties in which there’s more fear, hatred, loathing and acrimony than anything transacted between one party and another.  Sometimes these hatreds arise out of some ideological difference and sometimes it’s just a visceral personal hatred between people who detest each other.

Paris Hilton (left) and Lindsay Lohan (right), September 2004.

In December 2021, Paris Hilton revealed she and Lindsay Lohan had ended their acrimony of a decade-odd, because they’re “not in high school” and the renewal of the entente cordiale seems to have been initiated the previous month when Ms Lohan announced her engagement.  In her podcast This Is Paris, Ms Hilton observed “I know we’ve had our differences in the past, but I just wanted to say congratulations to her and that I am genuinely very happy for her”, reflecting on the changes in their lives and that of Britney Spears, the three who had been dubbed “The Holy Trinity” after Rupert Murdoch’s (b 1931) New York Post in 2006 published the infamous “Bimbo Summit” front page with the three seated in Ms Hilton’s Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren (C199; 2003-2010).  Perhaps feeling nostalgic, she added “It just makes me so happy to see, you know, 15 years later, and just so much has happened in the past two weeks… I got married, Britney got her freedom back and engaged, and then Lindsay just got engaged. So I love just seeing how different our lives are now and just how much we’ve all grown up and just having love in our lives.”  She concluded with: “And I think that love is the most important thing in life, it’s something that really just changes you and makes you grow, and when you find that special person that is your other half and is your best friend and you can trust…that’s just an amazing feeling.”  Both recently became mothers and exchanged best wishes.

Acrimony in action

At prayer together: Former Australian prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Parliament House, Canberra ACT, Australia.

More than one political leader has observed the secret to a successful relationship between a leader and deputy was to make sure neither wanted the other’s job and the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013) should have listened, not a quality for which he was noted.  Winning a convincing victory and supported by a groundswell of goodwill not seen in a generation, in December 2007 he became Prime Minister of Australia with Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013) as deputy.  Things went well for a while, then they went bad and Gillard staged a coup.  After the hatchet men had counted the numbers, late one mid-winter night in June 2010, the deed was done and with Rudd politically defenestrated, Gillard was installed as Australia’s first female prime minister.

Beyond the beltway, the coup wasn’t well received, the voters appearing to take the view that while Rudd might have turned out to be a dud, it was their right to plunge the electoral dagger through the heart, not have the job done by the faceless men stabbing him in the back.  The support which had gained Rudd a healthy majority in 2007 declined and the 2010 election produced the first hung parliament since 1940, Gillard was forced form a minority government which relied on the support of a Green Party MP and three soft-drink salesmen, all with their own price to be paid,  Perhaps surprisingly, the parliament actually ran quite well and was legislatively productive, a thing good or bad depending on one’s view of what was passed but there certainly wasn’t the deadlock some had predicted.

Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

A slender majority of the politicians may have been pleased but the electorate remained unconvinced and however bad Rudd’s standing had been in 2010, by 2013 Gillard’s was worse and, after a splutter or two, in June 2013, the long months of instability came to a head and the hatchet men (this time aligned with Rudd) again assembled to do their dirty day's work.  Rudd took his vengeance, regaining the prime-ministership and Gillard retired from politics though the victory proved pyrrhic, Rudd defeated in the general election three months into his second coming, the spin being his accession to the leadership being what saved his party from what would have been a much worse defeat under Gillard.  Pyrrhic it may have been but he got his revenge so there’ll always be that.

In 2013, Rudd had lost to Tony Abbott (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2013-2015) who gained quite a good swing, picking up a healthy majority which conventional political wisdom suggested should have guaranteed the Liberal-National coalition at least two terms in office.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t until two years into his term that some in the Liberal Party worked out there’d been a filing error and Mr Abbott thought he’d joined the Democratic Labor Party (the DLP, Catholic Church’s political wing in Australia) and genuinely believed he was leading a DLP government.  Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954; Australian prime-minister 2015-2018), who in 2009 had been usurped as opposition leader by Mr Abbott’s hatchet men, sniffed blood and assembled his henchmen, handing out the axes for what proved to be one of the longer slow-motion coups.  It culminated in a party-room vote in September 2015 when Mr Turnbull took his revenge, assuming the party leadership and becoming prime-minister.

This time, things went really well, Turnbull’s victory greeted with genuine optimism which exceeded that even which had swept Rudd to power in 2007 but it didn’t last and Turnbull missed his historic moment to go to the polls.  Like Sir John Gorton (1911-2002; Australian prime-minister 1968-1971) in 1968 and Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) in 2007, he didn’t seize the moment and do what Anthony Eden (1897-1977; UK prime-minister 1955-1957) did in 1955, realise this is a good as it's going to get and to delay will only make things worse.  Things got worse and after the 2016 election, although the government was returned, Turnbull's majority was greatly reduced.  To some extent, the electoral reversal could be accounted for by Turnbull using the campaign slogan "Continuity with Change", ridiculed almost immediately because it turned out to have been used in a US television comedy as an example of the sort of cynical, meaningless slogans around which election campaigns are now built.  The 3WS (three word slogan) is actually a good idea in the social medial age but whereas Mr Abbott was a master at using them in the propaganda technique perfected by the Nazis (simple messages endlessly repeated) and made "Stop the Boats", "Big Fat Tax" et al potent electoral weapons, Mr Turnbull proved not so adept.  His successors wouldn't make the same mistake of over-estimating the voters' hunger for intelligent discussion. 

God expresses his disapproval: Lightning strike in Wentworth on day of Wentworth by-election, 20 October 2018.

That couldn’t last either and it didn’t.  He had problems during his premiership, some of his own making but most not and in August 2018, the hatchet men of the other faction staged one of the more interesting coups and certainly one of the more convoluted, the challenger, whatever his original intention might have been, acting as a stalking horse, unsuccessful in his challenge but trigging a demand for a second vote which Turnbull, reading the tea leaves, declined to contest.  Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022), a perhaps even too convincing a Vicar of Bray, then won the leadership against two opponents from the right and left and both improbable as prime minister in their own ways.  Turnbull resigned from Parliament, triggering a most unwelcome by-election in which the Liberal Party lost the seat of Wentworth to an independent, thereby losing its absolute majority on the floor of the house.  The dish of vengeance had been served hot and eaten cold.

Morrison went on to secure an unexpected victory in the 2019 election.  There’s been a bit of commentary about that surprise result but, given the circumstances, it can’t be denied it was a personal triumph and for the first time in almost a decade, the country had a prime minister who could govern with the knowledge none of his colleagues were (obviously) plotting against him.  His term has, like all administrations had its ups and downs but unlike many, ultimately he didn't gain a benefit from the COVID-19 pandemic and was defeated in the 2022 election.  Because the acrimonies between some of the leading figures in the new ALP government were well-known, political junkies were looking forward to a new round of back-stabbing and shark-feeding but thus far, the tensions have remained (mostly) well-hidden from public view.

Director

Director (pronounced dih-rek-ter or dahy-rek-ter)

(1) A person or thing that directs others or other things (Director of Engineering, Director of Sales et al).

(2) In corporate law, one of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of a company or corporation, usually as a member of a board of directors and sometimes also including executive functions.

(3) The person responsible for the interpretive aspects of a stage, film, or television production; the person who supervises the integration of all the elements, as acting, staging, lighting etc.

(4) In musical or other artistic productions (stage, art galleries, opera etc) one in charge of all artistic (and sometimes administrative) matters (in larger operations the roles sometimes specialized: sound director, script director etc).

(5) The manager or chief executive of certain schools, institutes, government bureaux etc.

(6) In military use, a mechanical or electronic device which continuously calculates firing data for use against an airplane or other moving target, configured usually to display graphical information about in real time the targets of a weapons system.

(7) In chemistry, the common axis of symmetry of the molecules of a liquid crystal.

(8) In music, a synonym for conductor (US use, now less common).

(9) A counsellor, confessor, or spiritual guide (now less common).

1470-1480: The construct was direct(us) + -or.  A borrowing in the sense of “a guide” from the Anglo French directour & the French directeur the agent noun from the Latin dirigere (set straight, arrange; give a particular direction to) and its source, the Late Latin directorem, from the Latin dīrectus, the perfect passive participle of dīrigō (straighten, direct), the construct being dis- (asunder, in pieces, apart, in two) + regō (to direct, to guide, keep straight; make straight; rule), from the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line).  The -or suffix was from the Middle English -our, from the Old French -eor, from the Latin -ātor and reinforced by the Old French -or and its source, the Latin -tor & -tōrem.  It was used to create an agent noun, often from a verb, indicating a person or object (often machines or parts of them) that do the verb or part of speech with which they are formed.  In electrical engineering it has the specific use of being appended to the names of members of classes of components, especially those that have an extensive property name of the same root suffixed with -ance (eg to convey the sense that resistors possess resistance and inductors possess inductance).  The alternative spelling directour became rare in the late eighteenth century and is long obsolete.  Director, directorate & directorship are nouns, directing is a verb, directed is a verb & adjective, directorial is an adjective and directorially is an adverb; the noun plural is directors.  The feminine forms of the noun (directress & directrix) were always rare and are now thought extinct (and certainly proscribed).

Lindsay Lohan with Spanish fashion designer Estrella Arch (b 1974), on the catwalk at the conclusion of Emanuel Ungaro's Spring-Summer show in Paris, October 2009.  Ms Lohan was employed as a creative director at the House of Emanuel Ungaro, founded in 1965 by French fashion designer Emanuel Ungaro (1933–2019)

The noun director (corporate sense of “one of a number of persons having authority to manage the affairs of a company” was known as early as the 1630s; the theatrical sense of “the leader of a company of performers” dates from 1911 and if was from here the use was picked up by those in charge of the artistic or technical aspects of movie-making.  The noun directorship (condition or office of a director) has been in use since the 1720s, the adjective directorial (that directs) known since 1770.  The noun directorate was used first in 1834 of “a body of directors” and may immediately have be used individually of the “office of a director” but this was certainly first documented in 1837.  Director is a word defined both by its history of use (film director, director of football etc) and law (company director) so although titles like supervisor, head, manager, leader, administrator, chief, boss etc certainly implies “one who directs”, they’re traditionally not used as direct synonyms because “director” is a “loaded word”.  It’s also modified as needed (art director, managing director, sub-director et al).

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with "Mobile Director Package"; note the rearward facing front passenger seat.  

In the years between 1955-1975, Chrysler re-created Imperial as a separate, stand-alone division within the corporation (albeit with some sharing with other divisions of engine-transmission combinations and certain other components), emulating the structure Ford used with Lincoln.  Although the approach, especially during the early years, yielded some success, the separation didn’t survive the troubled decades of the 1970s (by which time the platform and body-shells were shared with the other divisions and much of the earlier distinctiveness had been surrendered); a couple of subsequent, half-heated, revivals proved abortive.  The Imperial in 1967-1968 had actually switched from the separate frame used since 1955 to the unitary construction of the full-sized ranges offered by other divisions but maintained a certain degree of difference by virtue of a unique body, albeit one with slightly reduced dimensions from those of the previous decade.  Although styled with an elegance derived from its simplicity of line, the Imperial continued to not quite match the timeless modernity of the Lincoln or the indefinable but incomparable allure of the Cadillac and although sales did improve in 1967, the volumes were only ever a fraction of its two competitors.  The basic engineering though was sound, the TorqueFlite transmission as responsive and robust as any (although it didn’t quite slur as effortlessly between ratios as the Cadillac’s Turbo-Hydramatic) and the 440 cubic inch (7.2 litre) a notch better, something the others wouldn’t match until 1968.  Significantly, all at the time acknowledged the Imperial was the better road car although, given it operated in a market where quietness and isolation from the environment was afforded more of a premium than handling prowess, any real-world advantage in the target market was probably marginal.

The more stylish if less roadable opposition: 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille (left) & 1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe (right).

In those years however, the Imperial did offer something truly unique.  The “Mobile Director Package” was available exclusively on the Imperial Crown Coupe and reflected (within the limits of what the available technology would then permit) what Chrysler thought a company director would most value in an automobile being used as a kind of “office on the move” and it included: an extendable walnut-topped table which could be unfolded over the rear seats, a gooseneck (Tensor brand) high-intensity lamp which could be plugged into the cigarette lighter on either side of the car (in a sign of the times, Imperials had four cigarette lighters installed) and most intriguingly, the front passenger seat could rotate 180° to permit someone comfortably to use the tables and interact with those in the rear.  All the publicity material associated with the Mobile Director Package did suggest the rearward-facing seat would likely be occupied by a director’s secretary and as one might imagine, the configuration did preclude her (and those depicted were usually women) using a lap & sash seat-belt but she would always have been in arm’s reach of at least one cigarette lighter so there was that.  The package was available only for those two seasons and in its first years cost US$597.40 (some US$5500 adjusted for 2023 values).  The cost of the option was in 1968 reduced to US$317.60 (some US$2800 adjusted for 2023 values) but that did little to stimulate demand, only 81 buyers of Crown Coupes ticking the box so even if the new safety regulations hadn’t outlawed the idea, it’s doubtful the Mobile Director Package would have appeared on the option list in 1969 when the new (and ultimately doomed) “fuselage” Imperials debuted.

Imperial's advertising always emphasised the "business" aspect of the package but the corporation also circulated a photograph of the table supporting a (presumably magnetic) chessboard and another with a bunch of grapes tumbling seductively.  The latter may have been to suggest the utility of the package when stopping for a picnic with one's secretary.  Once advertising agencies got ideas, they were hard to restrain.    

The advertising copy at the time claimed the package was “designed for the busy executive who must continue his work while he travels”, serving also as “an informal conference lounge”.  The Imperial was a big car (although the previous generations were larger still) but “lounge” was a bit of a stretch but “truth in advertising” laws were then not quite as onerous as they would become.  More accurate were the engineering details, the table able to “pivot to any of four different positions, supported by a sturdy chrome-plated pillar and in the forward position, it can convert into a padded armrest between the two front seats while extended, it opens out to twice its original size with a lever on the table swivel support to permit adjustments to the height”.  It was noted “a special tool is used for removing the table and storing it in the trunk” the unstated implication presumably that in deference to the secretary’s finger-nails, that would be a task for one’s chauffeur.  The US$597.40 the option listed at in 1967 needs to be compared with the others available and only the most elaborate of the air condition systems was more expensive.

Imperial option list, 1967.

The package as it appeared in showrooms was actually modest compared with the “Mobile Executive” car the corporation sent around the show circuit in 1966.  That Imperial had been fitted with a telephone, Dictaphone, writing table, typewriter, television, a fax machine, reading lamp and stereophonic sound system.  The 1966 show car was also Crown Coupe but it was much more ambitious, anticipating advances in mobile communications which would unfold over the next quarter century.  At the time, car phones were available (the first service in the US offered during the late 1940s) although they were expensive and the nature of the bandwidth used and the lack of data compression meant that the range was limited as was the capacity; only several dozen calls able simultaneously to be sustained.  In 1966, there was even the novelty of a Datafax, able to send or receive a US Letter-sized (slightly smaller than A4) page of text in six minutes.  That sounds unimpressive in 2023 (or compared even with the 14.4 kbit/s for Group 3 FaxStream services of the 1990s) but the appropriate comparison is with the contemporary alternatives (driving, walking or using the US Mail) and six minutes would have been a considerable advance.  As it was, the tempting equipment awaited improvements in infrastructure such as the analogue networks of the 1980s and later cellular roll-outs and these technologies contributed to the extent of use which delivered the economies of scale which eventually would make possible smart phones.

The 1966 car which toured the show circuit demonstrated the concept which, in simplified form, would the next year appear on the option list but things like telephones and fax machines anticipated the future by many years (although fax machines in cars (Audi one of a handful to offer them) never became a thing).  The Dictaphone did however make the list as one of Chrysler's regular production options (RPO) in the early 1970s and the take-up rate was surprisingly high although the fad quickly passed, dealers reporting the customers saying they worked well but they "never used them".

Puffer

Puffer (pronounced puhf-er)

(1) A person or thing that puffs.

(2) Any of various fishes of the family Tetraodontidae, noted for the defense mechanism of inflating (puffing up) its body with water or air until it resembles a globe, the spines in the skin becoming erected; several species contain the potent nerve poison tetrodotoxin.  Also called the blowfish or, globefish.

(3) In contract law, the casual term for someone who produces “mere puff” or “mere puffery”, the term for the type of exaggerated commercial claim tolerated by law.

(4) In cellular automaton modelling (a branch of mathematics and computer science), a finite pattern that leaves a trail of debris.

(5) In auctioneering, one employed by the owner or seller of goods sold at auction to bid up the price; a by-bidder (now rare, the term “shill bidders” or “shills” more common).

(6) In marine zoology, the common (or harbour) porpoise.

(6) A kier used in dyeing.

(8) In glassblowing, a soffietta (a usually swan-necked metal tube, attached to a conical nozzle).

(9) Early post-war slang for one who takes drugs by smoking and inhaling.

(10) In mountaineering (and latterly in fashion), an insulated, often highly stylized puffy jacket or coat, stuffed with various forms of insulation.

(11) As Clyde puffer, a type of cargo ship used in the Clyde estuary and off the west coast of Scotland.

(12) In electronics and electrical engineering, a type of circuit breaker.

(13) A manually operated medical device used for delivering medicines into the lungs.

(14) As puffer machine, a security device used to detect explosives and illegal drugs at airports and other sensitive facilities.

(15) In automotive engineering, a slang term for forced induction (supercharger & turbocharger), always less common than puffer.

In 1620–1630: A compound word puff + -er.  Puff is from the Middle English puff & puf from the Old English pyf (a blast of wind, puff).  It was cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  The –er suffix is from the Middle English –er & -ere, from Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought usually to have been borrowed from Latin –ārius and reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (The Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  Added to verbs (typically a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb) and forms an agent noun.  The original form from the 1620s was as an agent noun from the verb puff, the earliest reference to those who puffed on tobacco, soon extended to steamboats and steam engines generally when they appeared.  The sense of "one who praises or extols with exaggerated commendation" is from 1736, which, as “mere puff” or “mere puffery” in 1892 entered the rules of contract law in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, QB 484 (QBD)) as part of the construction limiting the definition of misrepresentation.  The remarkable fish which inflates itself in defense was first noted in 1814, the meanings relating to machinery being adopted as the industrial revolution progressed although the more virile “blower” was always preferred as a reference to supercharging, puffer more appropriate for the hand-held inhalers used by those suffering a variety of respiratory conditions. 

Puffer Jackets and beyond

Calf-length puffer coats.

The first down jacket, a lightweight, waterproof and warm coat for use in cold places or at altitude and known originally as an eiderdown coat, appears to be the one designed by Australian chemist George Finch (1888-1970) for the 1922 Everest expedition but a more recognizable ancestor was the Skyliner, created by American Eddie Bauer (1899-1986) in 1936, his inspiration being the experience of nearly losing his life to hypothermia on a mid-winter fishing trip.  Using trapped air warmed by the body as a diver’s wet suit uses water, Bauer’s imperative was warmth and protection, but he created also a visual style, one copied in 1939 by Anglo-American fashion designer, Charles James (1906-1978) for his pneumatic jacket, the Michelin Man-like motif defining the classic puffer look to this day.

Lindsay Lohan in puffer vest with Ugg boots, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2013 (left) and in puffer jacket, New York City, 2018 (right).

It was in the late 1940s it began to enjoy acceptance as a fashion item, marketed as evening wear and it was sold in this niche in a variety of materials until the 1970s when a new generation of synthetic fibres offered designers more possibilities, including the opportunity to create garments with the then novel characteristic of being simultaneously able to be bulky, lightweight yet able to retain sculptured, stylized shapes.  These attributes enabled puffer jackets to be made for the women’s market, some of which used a layering technique to create its effect and these were instantly popular.  Although initially in mostly dark or subdued colors, by the 1980s, vibrant colors had emerged as a trend, especially in Italy and England.  By the twenty-first century, although available across a wide price spectrum, the puffer as a style cut across class barriers although, those selling the more expensive did deploy their usual tricks to offer their buyers class identifiers, some discrete, some not.

The puffer started life as a jacket and it took a long time to grow but by the 2000s, calf-length puffers had appeared as a retail item after attracting comment, not always favorable, on the catwalks.  Although not selling in the volumes of the jackets, the costs of lengthening can’t have been high because ankle and even floor-length puffers followed.  Down there it might have stopped but, in their fall 2018 collection released during Milan Fashion Week, Italian fashion house Moncler, noted for their skiwear, showed puffer evening gowns, the result of a collaborative venture with Valentino’s designers.  Available in designer colors as well as glossy black, the line was offered as a limited-edition which was probably one of the industry’s less necessary announcements given the very nature of the things would tend anyway to limit sales.  The ploy though did seemed to work, even at US$2,700 for the long dress and a bargain US$3,565 for the cocoon-like winter cape, demand was said to exceed supply so, even if not often worn, puffer gowns may be a genuine collector’s item.

A Dalek.

It wasn’t clear what might have been inspiration for the conical lines although the ubiquity of the shape in industrial equipment was noted.  It seemed variously homage to the burka, a sculptural installation of sleeping bags or the stair-challenged Daleks, the evil alien hybrids of the BBC's Dr Who TV series.  It also picked up also existing motifs from fashion design, appearing even as the playful hybrid of the mullet dress and a cloak.

A monolith somewhere may also have been a reference point but the puffer gown was not stylistically monolithic.  Although to describe the collection as mix-n-match might be misleading, as well as designer colors, some of the pieces technically were jackets, there were sleeves, long and short and though most hems went to the floor, the mullet offered variety, especially for those who drawn to color combination.  Most daring, at least in this context, were the sleeveless, some critics suggesting this worked best with gowns cinched at the middle.

By the time of the commercial release early in 2019, solid colors weren’t the only offering, the range reflecting the influence of Ethiopian patterns although, in a nod to the realities of life, only puffer jackets were made available for purchase.  Tantalizingly (or ominously, depending on one’s view), Moncler indicated the work was part of what they called their “genius series”, the brand intending in the future to collaborate with other designers as well as creating a series of Moncler events in different cities, the stated aim to “showcase the artistic genius found in every city”.  The venture was pursued but in subsequent collections, many found the quality of genius perhaps too subtly executed for anyone but fellow designers and magazine editors to applaud.  The shock of the new has become harder to achieve.