Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.  The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.

Alexithymia

Alexithymia (pronounced ey-lek-suh-thahy-mee-uh)

In psychiatry, a range of behaviors associated with certain conditions which manifests as a difficulty in experiencing, processing, expressing and describing emotional responses.

1973: The construct was the Ancient Greek a- (not) + λέξις (léxis) (speaking) + θυμός (thumós) (heart (in the sense of “soul”)) which deconstructs as a- +‎ lexi +‎ -thymia (in a medical context a suffix meaning “one’s state of mind”), alexithymia thus understood as “without words for emotions”.  Alexithymia is a noun and alexithymic & alexithymiac are nouns & adjectives; the noun plural of alexithymia is also alexithymia but alexithymics, the plural of alexithymic is the more common form.

The word alexithymia was in 1973 coined by US based psychiatrists John Nemiah (1918–2009) and Peter Sifneos (1920-2008) to describe a psychological state as well known to the general population as the profession, the former preferring terms “emotionless”, “taciturn”, “feelingless” or “impassive” although alexithymia has meanings which are more specific.  Translated literally as “no words for emotions”, in practice it’s a spectrum condition which references individual degrees of difficulty in recognizing, processing or expressing emotional states or experiences.  Although it appears in both the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD), neither class it as either a diagnosable mental disorder or a symptom.  Instead, it should be regarded as a dimensional construct and one distributed normally in the general population.  In other words it’s a personality trait and like all spectrum conditions, it varies in frequency and intensity between individuals.

Alexithymia was first described as a psychological construct characterized by difficulties in identifying, describing, and interpreting one's emotions but it was soon realized individuals less able to recognize and express their own feelings would often have a diminished ability to understand the emotional experiences of others.  Clinically, alexithymia is classified in two sub-groups: (1) Primary (or Trait) Alexithymia is considered more stable and enduring and the evidence suggests there is often a genetic or developmental basis, those with primary alexithymia displaying indications from an early age.  (2) Secondary (or State) Alexithymia is something usually temporary and often associated with specific psychological or medical conditions, noted especially in patients suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive illnesses.

Available for both Android and iOS, there are Alexithymia apps and it's possible there are those who wish to increase the extent of at least some aspects of the condition in their own lives, the apps presumably a helpful tool in monitoring progress in either direction.  There must be emos who would like to be more alexithymic. 

The characteristics common to alexithymia include (1) a limited imaginative capacity and “fantasy life”, (2) a difficulty in identifying and describing emotions, (3) thought processes which focus predominately on external events rather than internal emotional experience, (3) a difficulty in distinguishing between emotions and bodily sensations and (4) challenges in understanding (or even recognizing) the emotions of others.  As a spectrum condition, alexithymia greatly can vary in severity, and not all with alexithymia will experience the same symptoms with there being a high instance reported among patients with psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders.  Additionally, it does seem a common feature of neurological disease with most evidence available for patients with traumatic brain injury, stroke, and epilepsy although the numbers may be slanted because of the greater volume of study of those affected and it remains unclear how independent it is from affective disorders such as depression and anxiety, both common in neurological conditions.

A sample from the validation study of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) (in the Croatian population).

Clinicians have available a number of questionnaires which can be use to assess a patient’s state of alexithymia and these can do more than provide a metric; the limitation of drawing a conclusion from observation alone is that with such an approach it can genuinely be impossible to distinguish between the truly alexithymic and those who have no difficulties in experiencing, processing, expressing and describing emotional responses but for some reason choose not to.  Such behavior can of course induce problems in inter-personal relationships but it’s something distinct from alexithymia and importantly too, it is clinically distinct from psychiatric personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder.  However, as a structural view of the DSM over the seventy-odd years would indicate, within psychiatry, mission creep has been a growing phenomenon and the definitional nets tend to be cast wide and wider and it’s not impossible that alexithymia may in some future edition be re-classified as a diagnostic criterion or at least recognized formally as a symptom.  It has for some time been acknowledged the DSM has over those decades documented the reassessment of some aspects of the human condition as mental disorders but what is less discussed is the relationship between cause and effect and there will be examples of both: it would be interesting to try to work out if there’s a pattern in the nature of (1) the changes the DSM has driven compare with (2) those which retrospectively have been codified.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011,

There may be movement because alexithymia has many of the qualities and attributes which appeal to both academia and the pharmaceutical industry.  The orthodoxy is that it occurs in some 10% of the general population but is disproportionately seen in patients suffering certain mental conditions, notably neuro-developmental disorders; the prevalence among those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) estimated at anything up to 90%.  What will probably surprise few is that within any sub-group, it is males who are by far the most represented population and there is even the condition normative male alexithymia (NMA) although that describes the behavior and not the catchment, NMA identified also in females.

Digit

Digit (pronounced dij-it)

(1) In anatomy and zoology, a jointed body part at the end of the limbs of many vertebrates. The limbs of primates end in five digits, while the limbs of horses end in a single digit that terminates in a hoof.  In humans, digit is an alternative name for a finger or toe; dactyl.

(2) In zoology, a similar or similar-looking structures in other animals.

(3) As a historical unit of lineal measure, a unit of length notionally based upon the width of an adult human finger, standardized differently in various places and times (and still used as a measure in certain alcoholic spirits and among those fitting bras who recommend the finger as the gauge of the space between skin & fabric).  The most frequently cited is the English digit of 1/16 of a foot (about 19mm).  Prior to standardization, digit was used as a synonym of inch (the synonyms including “finger”, “fingerbreadth” & “fingersbreadth”).

(4) In modern mathematics, the whole numbers from 0 (zero) to 9 and the Arabic numerals representing them, which are combined to represent base-ten numbers; a position in a sequence of numerals representing a place value in a positional number system (ie any of the symbols of other number systems).

(5) In astronomy, the twelfth part of the sun's or moon's diameter; used often to express the magnitude of an eclipse.

(6) In geometry, a synonym for degree (1/360 of a circle) (obsolete).

(7) An index (obsolete).(7) An index (obsolete).

1350–1400: From the Middle English digit, from the Latin digitus (a fingerbreadth; a number); doublet of digitus.  The Latin from the primitive Indo-European deyǵ- (to show, point out, pronounce solemnly), a variant of the root deyḱ- & deik (to show; pronounce solemnly) from which Latin also gained dīcō (I say, speak talk) & dicere (to say, speak) and English picked up toe.  Fingers were thus “pointers & indicators” and digit gained the meanings related to mathematics and numbers; fingers were used for counting up to ten (and, with recycling beyond).  The finger or toe sense in English is documented from the 1640s but the date of origin is speculative.  Indo-European cognates include the Sanskrit दिशति (diśáti) (to show, point out), the Ancient Greek δείκνυμι (deíknumi) (to show) & δίκη (díkē) (manner, custom), the Old English tǣċan (to show, point out (source of the English teach)) and tācen (the English token).  Digit is a noun & verb, digitize is a verb and digital & digitigrade are nouns & adjectives; the noun plural is digits.

Great moments in digits

The phalanx of the ten digits of two human hands are presumed to have been the integers of the hand-held calculator and in this use it would have predated formal structures of language, the concepts of “one” and “two” the origin of mathematics.  All humans naturally having ten digits, the decimal (Base-10) numeral system emerged (apparently independently) in many ancient cultures although there was some intellectual transfer, the Greeks gaining the system from Egypt although neither the Greeks or Romans exclusively used Base-10, some industry-specific methods of calculation based on the capacity of the containers in traditional use.  In China, there’s evidence of use from the first century BC.  The familiar numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 0) which underpin all mathematics were developed by Arabic and Indian scholars although the elusive “0” wasn’t in widespread use until the ninth century. 

Zero though had a long history and texts from circa 300 BC detailing Babylonian mathematics display a placeholder symbol for zero in their positional numeral system (without which the representation of big numbers would practically have been impossible) although there is no evidence of the concept of zero existing as a stand-alone number.  Around the fifth century AD, Indian mathematicians documented why zero was so essential although it was a big country and there was no standardization in the symbolic representation of the value; the math however remains recognizably identical as one would expect.  Whether through the exchange of texts or (as many suspect is more likely) through the trade routes, the zero travelled east to the Islamic world where both Persian and Arabic mathematician published works explaining the implications of the still novel digit.  In the Medieval West, translations of the texts appeared but zero’s path to acceptance in Europe was slow and resisted, both by merchants and the Church, institutions with their own system, mastery of which was in the hands of an educated few.  However, so compelling were the advantages offered by adoption that by the thirteenth century, it was clear zero was here to stay.

Ten digit human hands might have been (more or less) universal but historically, Base-10 was not.  The Maya civilization used a vigesimal system (Base-20) and vigesimal components were in the counting systems of the Aztecs and some African cultures, the latter presumably an independent development.  The assumption of anthropologists is the Base-20 is a “fingers & toes” system and it does seem to be something restricted to warm climates where the removal of footwear doesn’t risk frostbite.  Nor were the hands always dealt with in multiples of five, the Yuki language of what is modern California uses Octal (Base-8) which counted the spaces between the fingers rather than the digits.  The ancient Mesopotamians (most famously the Babylonians & Sumerians) had a Sexagesimal (Base-60) system and that endures to this day in the measurement of time (60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour) although there was an attempt to change that during the French Revolution (1789), the new republic introducing decimal time in 1793, seen as an act of democratic modernization which would include a programme to decimalize all units of measurement; the day became 10 hours long, an hour was 100 minutes and a minute 100 seconds.  However, the experiment did not prove a success, the critical mass of the old ways too embedded in the culture and the idea was abandoned in 1795 although the metric system did debut in 1799 and thrived, eventually world-wide (except in the US and a couple of quixotic hold-outs).  The Duodecimal (Base-12) system was used by the Mayans and in ancient Egypt and it too persists in commerce in the measures like dozen (12) and gross (12 dozen (144).  Binary (Base-2) of course runs the modern world because that is how (non-quantum) computers work, “0” & “1” being “on” & “off” respectively, most of what a computer does able ultimately to be reduced to a rapid succession of on/off transactions.  Nerds like Hexadecimal (Base-16) which uses the digits 0-9 and the letters A-F, representing values from 0 to 15.  Not the most unambiguous system, developers use hexadecimal numbers because in certain circumstances they make available an easier way to represent binary-coded values.

During an Aegean cruise in October 2016, Lindsay Lohan suffered a finger injury.  In this dreadful nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy although there was speculation that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty jargon, misunderstood the instruction.

Detached chunk of the ring-finger's distal digit was salvaged from the deck and expertly re-attached by a micro-surgeon ashore, digit and the rest of the patient said to have both made full recoveries.  Despite the injury to the ring-finger, Ms Lohan still managed to find a husband so all's well that ends well.

Nuncio

Nuncio (pronounced nuhn-shee-oh, nuhn-see-oh or noo-see-oh)

(1) In the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastic title of a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a foreign court, capital or international organization, ranking above an internuncio and accorded a rank equivalent to an accredited ambassador.

(2) By extension, one who bears a message; a messenger.

(3) Any member of any Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Galicia (of the Austrian Partition), Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland, or Grand Duchy of Posen (historic reference only).

1520–1530: From the older Italian nuncio (now nunzio) from the Classical Latin nūncius & nūntius (messenger) of uncertain origin.  It may be from the primitive Indo-European root neu- (to shout) or new (to nod), same source as the Latin nuō, the Ancient Greek νεύω (neúō) (to beckon, nod) and the Old Irish noid (make known).  The alternative view is it was contracted from noventius, from an obsolete noveō, from novus.  Nuncio, nunciature & nuncioship are nouns and nunciotist is an adjective; the noun plural is nuncios but according to the text trawlers, the more frequently used plural is nunciature ((1)the status or rank of a nuncio, (2) the building & staff of a nuncio and (3) the term of service of a nuncio) which seems strange and may reflect the selection of documents scanned. Nunciatory & nunciate are unrelated (directly) and are form of the Latin Latin nuncius & nuntius (messenger, message).

In diplomatic service

An apostolic nuncio (also known as a papal nuncio or nuncio) is an ecclesiastical diplomat, serving as envoy or permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state or international organization and is head of the Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy or high-commission.  The Holy See is legally distinct from the Vatican City, an important theological distinction for the Vatican although one without practical significance for the states to which they’re accredited.  Most nuncios have been bishops or Archbishops and, by convention, in historically Catholic countries, the nuncio usually enjoys seniority in precedence, appointed ex officio as dean of the diplomatic corps.  Between 1965 and 1991, the term pro-nuncio was applied to a representative of full ambassadorial rank accredited to a country that did not accord precedence and de jure deanship of the diplomatic corps and in countries with which Holy See does not have diplomatic ties, an apostolic delegate may be sent to act as liaison with the local church.  Apostolic delegates have the same ecclesiastical rank as nuncios, but no diplomatic status except those which the country may choose to extend.

Der Apostolische Nuntius (Apostolic Nuncios) to Germany leaving the presidential palace  of Generalfeldmarshall Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the Weimar Republic 1918-1933): Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958, later Pope Pius XII 1939-1958), October 1927 (left) and Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo (1873–1946), May 1930 (right).

The above photograph of Archbishop Pacelli was central to what proved a fleeting literary scandal.  In 1999, journalist John Cornwell (b 1940) published Hitler's Pope, a study of the actions of Pacelli from the decades before the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 until the end of the Third Reich in 1945.  As a coda, the final years of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) were also examined.  Cornwell’s thesis was that in his pursuit of establishing a centralized power structure with which the rule of the Holy See could be enforced over the entire church around the world, Pacelli so enfeebled the Roman Catholic Church in Germany that the last significant opposition to absolute Nazi rule was destroyed, leaving Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) able to pursue his goals which include military conquest and ultimately, what proved to be the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe.  For a historian that would be an indictment damning enough but Cornwell went further, citing documentary sources which he claimed established Pacelli’s anti-Semitism.  More controversially still, the author was critical of Pius' conduct during the war, arguing that he did little to protect the Jews and did not even loudly protest against the Holocaust.  

Critical response to Hitler’s Pope was, as one might imagine, varied and understandably did focus on the most incendiary of the claims: the lifetime of anti-Semitism and the almost lineal path the book tracked from Pacelli’s diplomacy (which few deny did smooth Hitler’s path to power) to Auschwitz.  The consensus of professional historians was that case really wasn’t made and by 1933 Pacelli’s view of Hitler as (1) a staunch anti-communist and (2) likely to provide German with the sort of rule Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) had delivered in Italy, then the only model of a fascist regime and one with which the Holy See had successfully negotiated a concordat (a convention or treaty) which resolved issues which between the papacy and the Italian state had festered since 1870.  Pacelli was hardly the only notable figure to misjudge Hitler and few in 1933 anticipated anything like the events which would unfold in Europe over the next dozen years.  The critics however were legion and in the years after publication Cornwell did concede that in the particular circumstances of wartime Italy the “scope” for a pope to act was limited and he needed carefully to consider what might be the repercussions for others were his words to be careless; he was at the time playing for high stakes.  Cornwell though did not retreat from his criticism of the pope’s post-war reticence to discuss the era and appeared still to regard the documents he’d quoted and the events he described as evidence of anti-Semitism.

An example of how the book enraged Pius XII’s Praetorian Guard was the brief controversy about the cover, the allegation being there had been a “constructive manipulation” of the image used on the hardback copies of the US edition, the argument being the juxtaposition of the title “Hitler’s Pope” with the photograph of him leaving the presidential palace in Berlin implied the image dated from March 1939, the month Pacelli was elected Pope.  To add to the deception, it was noted the photograph (actually from 1927) had been cropped to remove (1) one soldier of the guard obviously not in a Nazi-era uniform and (2) the details identifying an automobile as obviously from the 1920s.  Whether any reader deduced from the cropped image that the pope and Führer (the two never met) had just been scheming and plotting together isn’t known but the correct details of the photograph were printed on back flap of the jacket, as in common in publishing.

Pius XII giving a blessing, the Vatican, 1952.  The outstretched arms became his signature gesture after his visit to South America in 1934.  Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939), even them grooming his successor, appointed him papal legate to the International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires and his itinerary included Rio de Janeiro where he saw the Redēmptōre statue (Christ the Redeemer) which had been dedicated three years earlier.    

That storm in a tea cup quickly subsided and people were left to draw their own conclusions on substantive matters but it was unfortunate the sensational stuff drew attention from was a genuinely interesting aspect explored in the book: Pacelli’s critical role in the (re-)creation of the papacy and the Roman Curia as a centralized institution with absolute authority over the whole Church.  This was something which had been evolving since Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) convened the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) and under subsequent pontificates the process had continued but it was the publication of Pacelli’s codification of canon law in 1917 which made this administratively (and legally) possible.  Of course, any pope could at any time have ordered a codification but it was only in the late nineteenth century that modern communications made it possible for instructions issued from the Vatican to arrive within days, hours or even minutes, just about anywhere on the planet.  Previously, when a letter could take months to be delivered, a central authority simply would not function effectively.  It was the 1917 codification of canon law which realised the implications of the hierarchical theocracy which the Roman church had often appeared to be but never quite was because until the twentieth century such things were not possible and (as amended), it remains the document to which the curia cling in their battles.  Although, conscious of the mystique of their two-thousand year history, the Holy See likes people to imagine things about which they care have been unchanged for centuries, it has for example been only sine the codification that the appointment of bishops is vested exclusively in the pope, that battle with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still in an uneasy state of truce.

Propeller

Propeller (pronounced pruh-pel-er)

(1) A person or thing that propels.

(2) A device with a hub to which are attached evenly spaced & shaped radiating blades, rotating on a shaft to pitch against air or water to propel an aircraft, ship etc.

(3) A wind-driven (usually three-bladed) device that provides mechanical energy, as for driving an electric alternator in wind plants (not a universal use).

(4) A steamboat thus propelled; a screw steamer (now rare).

(5) In fishing, a spinnerbait.

1780: The construct was propel + -er and the original sense was “one who or that which that propels”, an agent noun from the verb propel.  The verb propel was a mid-fifteenth century form from the Middle English propellen (to drive away, expel), from the Latin propellere (push forward, drive forward, drive forth; move, impel), the construct being pro- (the prefix here use in the sense of “forward direction, forward movement”) + pellere (to push, drive), from the primitive Indo-European root pel- (to thrust, strike, drive).  The meaning “to drive onward, cause to move forward” emerged in the 1650s.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  The alternative spelling propellor dates from the early days of aviation in the first years of the twentieth century and is now extinct.  The standard abbreviation is “prop”, the use noted from military aviation since 1914.  Propeller is a noun; the noun plural is propellers.

Although the concept was used in antiquity and inventors and others (most famously Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519))  had for centuries experimented, the use of the word in mechanical engineering dates from 1809 and was from nautical design describing the application of a “device for moving vessels on or under the water”.  In aircraft design the theory of the use of “propeller” appears in papers and drawings in the 1840s (in what were then described as “flying machines”) and models were built which demonstrated a “proof of concept” although it would be decades before lightweight engines of sufficient power existed to allow experiments in aerodynamics and construction to be powered.  The first known rendering of an aircraft propeller in a recognizably modern form dates from 1853.  The modern propeller uses two or (usually) more twisted, airfoil-shaped blades mounted around a shaft which are spun to provide propulsion of a vehicle through water or air, or to cause fluid flow, as in a pump.  The lift generated by the spinning blades provides the force that propels the vehicle or the fluid although this lift does not of necessity have to induce an actual upward force; its direction is simply parallel to the rotating shaft.

Lindsay Lohan getting off the propeller driven (technically a turbo-prop) NAPA Shuttle, The Parent Trap (1998).

The term “to disembark” was borrowed from nautical use and of late "to deplane" has entered English which seems unnecessary but the companion “to disemplane” seems more absurd still; real people continue to “get on” and “get off” aircraft.

The terms “impeller” & “propeller” both describe devices which use various implantations of the “rotating blade(s) design and are used in mechanical systems to take advantage of the properties of fluid dynamics to harness specific energy for some purpose.  A propeller is a type of rotating device with blades designed to propel or move a fluid (typically a gas or a liquid) by generating thrust; they are most associated with marine vessels, aircraft and some industrial applications.  In aircraft, propellers can be attached to wing-mounted engines or mounted just about anywhere on a fuselage although historically a location at the front has been most common.  In marine applications, propellers have on specialized vessels been located to the sides of the hull but they almost always emerge at or close to the stern.  An impeller is a rotating component with blades or vanes (almost always enclosed in a housing), typically used for fluid or air distribution, such as a pump or a compressor, the primary purpose being to increase flow or pressure.  The classic impellers those in centrifugal pumps where they spin, creating a flow of fluid (liquid or air) by imparting centrifugal force to the substance; in practice, impellers such accelerate liquids are more common.

So an impeller & propeller do much the same thing, using blades to propel some form of fluid.  The use of different terms is helpful because in practice they are very different devices and the distinction that one is external and the other located within a housing is handy and the origin of that seems to lie in the construct of impeller which came first, dating from circa 1680 (as an agent noun from the verb impel) in the sense of “someone or something which impels”.  What the design of an impeller does is use the energy from the rotation to increase the flow or pressure of the fluid and it that it’s the reverse of a turbine, the rotation of which extracts energy from, and reduces the pressure of the flow.  Engineers also have a number of highly technical rules about what is and is not defined as an impeller base on the whether the entry and exit of the fluids occur axially or radially but it seemed impossible to construct such definitions as absolutes so for most the simpler distinctions are more helpful.  In engineering, impellers have been recorded as a machine or component name since 1836.

News Corp website 22 January 2024.  To refer to a jet engine’s nacelle as a propeller could (almost) be defended on the basis it’s the jet engine which “propels” the aircraft but this is more likely an example of (1) the decline in the quality of journalists and (2) what happens when there are no sub-editors to correct the mistakes.  In time, artificial intelligence (AI) should improve things.    

The verb impel dates from the early fifteenth century and was from the Middle English impellen, from the Latin impellere (to push, strike against; set in motion, drive forward, urge on), the construct an assimilated form of in- (into, in, on, upon), from the primitive Indo-European root en- (in) + pellere (to push, drive), from the primitive Indo-European root pel- (to thrust, strike, drive).  The construct of the Latin impellō was in- +‎ pellō (push, drive), from the Proto-Italic pelnō or pelnaō, a nasal-infix present derived from the primitive Indo-European pelh- (to drive, strike, thrust).  The Latin prefix –in could be appended to create a negative (un-, non-, not etc) but here was used as an intensifier, another possible meaning (in, within, inside) coincidental to the mechanical devices being usually mounted within housings.

Propellers and impellers both use blades (although those of the latter are often in the form of a single piece wither cast, molded, or (occasionally) forged.  Turbines also use blade-like parts but these are called vanes and an industry which seems unable to decide on terminology is the burgeoning business of wind-power; the huge rotating assemblies on wind turbines are referred to variously as vanes, blades or rotors.  Rotor blades are familiar for the use in helicopters which is essentially an airframe where a large-scale propeller sits atop the structure, pointing upwards and rather than “propeller blades”, the accepted term is “rotor blades”, the design of which permits both lift and directional thrust although some exotic multi-engined machines have rotors in housings which, to maximize performance, can themselves be rotated to operate as conventional propellers.

Supermarine Seafang (1946) with contra-rotating propellers.  The Seafang was powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon and was the final evolution of the Spitfire-derived Seafire and Spiteful, the trio all designed for use on Royal Navy aircraft carriers, the series enjoying success despite the basic design being hampered by the narrow undercarriage which made landings a challenge (something corrected on the Spiteful & Seafang).  Series production of the Seafang was contemplated but eventually only 18 were built because the jet-powered de Havilland Sea Vampire proved capable of carrier operations, surprising some at the Admiralty who doubted the jets could operate from anywhere but land.

The evolution of aircraft influenced propellers.  Once they had been fashioned from wood before the need for faster, more efficient shapes dictated the use of aluminium or other light metals.  By the time the first modern monoplane fighters appeared in the mid 1930s propellers were still two-bladed but as power increased over the years (something which accelerated during World War II (1939-1945)), three, four and five-bladed solutions were engineered.  The rising output however, although it permitted higher performance, created challenges for engineers, notably the “torque effect” which meant a tendency to cause the aircraft to roll in the direction of the propeller’s spin, a problem especially serious during take-offs.  In twin-engined aircraft the solution was to have the propellers rotate in opposite directions but in airframes with a single power-plant, sometimes used were contra-rotating propellers which, although introducing additional complexity and demanding additional maintenance, did offer advantages including: (1) harnessing more of an engine’s power, (2) increased thrust efficiency by a reduction in energy losses, (3) counteracting the torque effect, (4) improved low-speed manoeuvrability and ground-handling and (5) improved acceleration and climbing performance.

A flight of Republic P-47D Thunderbolts with under-wing drop-tanks.

The propeller also influenced other aspects of the aircraft.  When the prototype Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (1941-1945) first took to the air, it was the largest, heaviest single-seat piston-engined fighter ever produced (a distinction it still enjoys today).  Even the early versions used an engine rated at 2000 horsepower (later this would rise to 2800) and to harness this output demanded a large propeller.  The 12 foot (3.7 m) diameter of this four-bladed monster meant the landing-gear had to be extraordinarily long and the only way it could be accommodated was to have them retract inward, otherwise the heavy wing armament (8 x .50 inch (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (425 rounds per gun)) wouldn’t have fitted.

Chrysler XI-2220 V16.  The splined shaft is where the propeller attaches.

With things like the Thunderbolt, the Hawker Tempest and the later Supermarine Spitfires (and its derivatives), the piston-engined fighter achieved its final evolutionary form, the jet engine offering a path to performance unattainable while the physics of propellers imposed limits.  However, had the use of the A-Bombs not ended the war in 1945, development of the propeller aircraft would have continued because the early jets lacked thrust and reliability as well as suffering a rate of fuel consumption which rendered them unsuitable for long-distance operations.  With the war against Japan envisaged as lasting well into 1946, development of faster, more powerful piston engines continued although, given the parlous state of the Japanese military, it’s dubious at least there was much of a rationale for this but the military industrial complex is a creature of inertia and Chrysler’s research had perfected a new aero-engine for the Thunderbolt.  The XI-2220 was a 2,220 cubic inch (36.4 litre) V16 which was rated at a basic 2450 horsepower with some 4000 hp available when tuned for wartime use but with the end of the conflict, all such developments were cancelled and attention switched to the brave new world of jets and swept wings.  Thus ended the era of the big propeller-driven fighters, the V16 stillborn, as was the other extraordinary aero-engine on the drawing board: Britain's 32-cylinder Napier-Sabre H-32 which was a scaled-up version of their H24.

Meek

Meek (pronounced meek)

(1) Humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.

(2) Overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.

(3) Gentle; kind (obsolete).

(4) As meeked, to take a stallion from a state of wild rebellion and make it completely loyal to, and dependent upon, his master (obsolete).

1150-1200: From the Middle English meek, meke & meoc, a borrowing from the Old Norse mjūkr (soft; mild; meek; amenable), from the Proto-Germanic meukaz & mūkaz (soft; supple), from the primitive Indo-European mewg- & mewk- (slick; slippery; to slip).  It was cognate with the Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk mjuk (soft), the Norwegian Bokmål (myk) (soft), the Danish myg (supple), the Dutch muik (soft, overripe) and the dialectal German mauch (dry and decayed; rotten).  It can be compared with the Old English smūgan (to slide, slip), the Welsh mwyth (soft, weak), the Latin ēmungō (to blow one's nose), the Tocharian A muk- (to let go, give up), the Lithuanian mùkti (to slip away from), the Old Church Slavonic мъчати (mŭčati) (to chase), the Ancient Greek μύσσομαι (mússomai) (to blow the nose) and the Sanskrit मुञ्चति (muñcati) (to release, let loose).  Meek is a verb & adjective, meeker, meeking, meeked & meeken are verbs, meekish & meekest are adjectives, meekly is an adverb and meekness is a noun; the noun plural is meeknesses.  Despite the occasional appearance, meaknessness remains a non-standard noun.  

Blessed are the meek

The positive sense of meek implies someone is able to remain calm and subdued even when being provoked. Its negative use is more common and describes someone too passive; the sense of “gentle and kind” is long obsolete.  The word meek is often associated with Christian virtue because it became famous due to its use (Matthew 5:5) in the Biblical Beatitudes (the construct being the Latin beatus (very simple, happy) + the Latin abstract noun suffix to produce beatitudo; the beatitudes thus literally “the happiness”), a collection of practical ethical statements to help one live a happy life.  Matthew 5:5 is the third verse of the Sermon on the Mount (and the third of the Beatitudes).  In the King James Version (KJV, 1611) of the Bible, the text reads “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” whereas newer translations tend to prefer “Blessed are the gentle for they shall inherit the earth”, an example of the way translators need to update texts to ensure meaning is maintained, their techniques cognizant of sense-shifts in words. 

The translator’s choice of “meek” in the KJV has been the cause of angst for centuries, especially among those who favour a more muscular Christianity.  Swiss Biblical scholar Eduard Schweizer (1913–2006) held that rather than meaning ”humble or modest”, "meek" should be understood to mean “powerless” and there were antecedents to that view. Theologian James Strong (1822–1894) argued the Greek word praus (πραεῖς) means "mild or gentle" but this does not imply weakness, instead referencing the way in which power is handled; it is "strength under control", the demonstration of power without undue harshness.  The English language has no one word or even convenient phrase conveying both gentleness and power together, a point noted by many scholars to explain the frequency with which "mercy" and "merciful" appear in scripture.

Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430).

In the Greek literature of the period, “meek” most often meant gentle or soft but historians and etymologists of the age tend to agree the most accurate interpretation for this verse is “powerless”.  The modern debate long ago assumed a political flavour; Gandhi liked it, seemingly unconcerned whether translated as “meek” or “powerless” but Friedrich Nietzsche was sternly critical, both words to him encapsulating what he damned as the "slave morality" of Christ.  The angst seems however to be a modern thing.  The great theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo thought the beatitudes a self-portrait of Christ, the Gospels from beginning to end a demonstration of the meekness of Christ in its dual aspect of humility and patience, Jesus himself the model of meekness.  As in life so it had to be in death.  On the cross, St Augustine noted, the true victory does not consist in making victims of others but in making oneself a victim: Victor quia victim (victor becomes victim).  In the modern era, victimhood can for many reasons be a thing though the sense Augustine meant now has little appeal.  

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900).

Theologically though, St Augustine must be right because, for Christianity to avoid internal contradiction there can be no other view.  That was never likely to appeal to Nietzsche who argued that in preaching humility and meekness, turning the other cheek, Christianity introduced a stultifying poison into humanity which destroyed its élan and mortified life.  After Auschwitz, something of an industry has existed to absolve Nietzsche from every accusation, many essentially suggesting he was not against Christ, only against Christians but some remained unconvinced.  French anthropological philosopher René Girard (1923–2015) still thought Nietzsche offered only the two absolute alternatives: paganism or Christianity, the former exalting the sacrifice of the weak for the benefit of the strong and the advancement of life, the latter the sacrifice of the strong for the benefit of the weak.

Augustine and Nietzsche may both have been wrong; it seems it is the geeks who have inherited the Earth.  Mark Zuckerberg (b 1984, left), Bill Gates (b 1955, centre) and Elon Musk (b 1971, right).