Baffle

Baffle (pronounced baf-uhl)

(1) To confuse, bewilder or perplex.

(2) To frustrate or confound; to thwart (a now archaic and probably obsolete seventeenth century use which didn’t of necessity involve the creation of confusion or bewilderment).

(3) To check or deflect the movement of (sound, light, fluids, etc.).

(4) To equip with a baffle or baffles.

(5) To cheat or trick; to hoodwink or deceive someone (used between the sixteenth & eighteenth centuries and now obsolete).

(6) To struggle ineffectually, as a ship in a gale (a nineteenth form rare except in Admiralty use).

(7) Publicly to disgrace, especially of a recreant knight (used between the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries and now obsolete).

(8) Something that balks, checks, or deflects (also called a baffle-board); an artificial obstruction for checking or deflecting the flow of gases (as in a boiler), sounds (as in the loudspeaker system of a radio or hi-fi set), light (as in a darkroom) or fluids (as in a tank).

(9) In audio engineering, any boxlike enclosure or flat panel for mounting a loudspeaker.

(10) In military camouflage, an architectural feature designed to confuse enemies or make them vulnerable.

(11) In coal mining, a lever for operating the throttle valve of a winding engine (US dialectal use).

1540-1550: Of uncertain origin but may have entered English from the Scots dialectal bauchle (to disgrace, treat with contempt, especially a perjured knight), from bauch or bachlen (publicly to condemn) and probably related to the early-modern French bafouer (to disgrace, to scorn, abuse or hoodwink) or the obsolete French befer (to mock) which was definitely picked up from the Scots bauchle.  The most likely root is the German natural sound of disgust, like bah which appears in the language as baff machen (to flabbergast) and the familiar modern meaning “to bewilder or confuse” is from 1640s while that of “to defeat someone's efforts” is from 1670s.  The use meaning “shielding device” dates from 1881 and “artificial obstruction” is from 1910.  The alternative spellings bafful & baffol are both obsolete.  Baffle is a noun & verb, bafflement & baffler are nouns and baffled & baffling are verbs & adjectives; the noun plural is baffles (or the rare bafflers).

As a noun, baffle emerged in the early 1880s, initially used mostly of the shielding device attached to stoves and ovens where it was short for “baffle-plate”, derived from the noun.  The earlier noun (from circa 1860) in the same sense was baffler, a word which can still be used to describe (1) something that causes one to be baffled, particularly a difficult puzzle or riddle & (1) in gaming, one of the projections inside a dice tower that serve to deflect the die unpredictably.  The noun bafflement (state of being baffled) dates from 1841 while the adjective baffling (bewildering, confusing, perplexing) was from 1733; it was the present-participle adjective from the verb baffle but also emerged in Admiralty slang (soon picked up in the merchant service) in the eighteenth century as a sailor's adjective for winds that blow variously and make headway difficult; although now rare, it survived into the age of steam.  The noun and verb bafflegab was first noted in 1952 and describes pretentious, incomprehensible, or overly technical language, especially legal or bureaucratic jargon; a synonym of gobbledygook (but not “hocus-pocus” or “mumbo-jumbo” which reference something nonsensical although use of those two is now probably proscribe because of their origin when speaking dismissively of the speech of African “witch doctors”.  The companion word is baffound (to perplex, bewilder by the use of bafflegab).

Although it had probably before been on the tips of not a few tongues, the words “baffle”, “baffling” & “baffled” in connection with Lindsay Lohan really spiked in 2016 when footage circulated of her speaking in distinctively different accent which used a conventional US English vocabulary but was delivered, with an occasionally halting delivery, the accent vaguely Russian or eastern European.  She later clarified thing by saying it was “…a mixture of most of the languages I can understand or am trying to learn”, adding that she’d been “…learning different languages since I was a child.  I'm fluent in English and French can understand Russian and am learning Turkish, Italian and Arabic”.  Taking advantage of the interest, she named the latest addition to the planet’s linguistic diversity “LiLohan” and a limited edition LiLohan clothing line was quickly made available as a philanthropic endeavour, part of the proceeds from each item sold going to Caudwell Children and the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey (AFAD).  Turkey is now properly called Türkiye Cumhuriyeti (Republic of Türkiye); the accepted short form Türkiye.

Baffled sump (left) and fuel tank (right).In cars, baffles are used in sumps and fuel tanks to prevent fluids sloshing around when subjected to the high lateral forces encountered in high-speed cornering.  With fuel tanks this ensures weight transfers are minimized while the purpose in a sump is to (1) avoid the oil surge or starvation which can happen if movement means the oil becomes removed from the oil-pump’s pickup & (2) assist in reducing the oil’s tendency to foam.  In Australia Ford included a baffled sump on the Falcon GTHO Phase III (1970-1971) and this was to be carried over to the abortive Phase IV (1972), the novelty with the latter being the race cars gaining tear-drop shaped “ears” welded to each side of the sump, adjacent to the oil pump.  The ears not only increased oil capacity but also, sitting as they did in the air-flow passing under the body, enhanced cooling.

Speak no evil: Alan Tudge.

Given the number of times the Australian Liberal Party has in recent years sought to celebrate the virtue of “personality responsibility” the evidence given by Alan Tudge (b 1971) to the royal commission investigating the “robodebt” scheme (a system which sought to “recover” what were alleged to be debts incurred by citizens who had failed to inform the government about their earnings) must to some have seemed baffling; not necessarily surprising, just baffling.  The scheme had been found to be unlawful but Mr Tudge, who served as (Liberal) minister for human services in 2017-2018 and was (under the Westminster system) “responsible” for the administration of “robodebt”, refused during questioning to accept ministerial responsibility for the unlawfulness of the scheme.  Despite being the minister in charge, Mr Tudge said it was not his responsibility check whether or not the robodebt scheme was lawful although he did seem to concede he was responsible for the scheme’s “lawful implementation”, adding that he assumed it was lawful, and had never been shown legal advice regarding its legality.  His position appeared to be based on what sounds a reasonable assumption: that the departmental secretary (the public servant in charge of the department) would not be implementing a program which he or she would know to be unlawful, something he described as “unfathomable”, adding that the scheme had gone through a rigorous cabinet process “which always has a legal overlay”.

Justice Jackson prosecuting, Albert Speer in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946. 

There are many books by academics, historians and former politicians which discuss the doctrine of ministerial responsibility but it's not known if the transcript of 20 June 1946 of the International Military Tribunal (the Nuremberg Trial) was in Mr Tudge's mind: Mr Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) cross-examining Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945):

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your statement some time ago that you had a certain responsibility as a Minister of the Government.  I should like to have you explain what responsibility you referred to when you say you assume a responsibility as a member of the Government; your common responsibility, what do you mean by your common responsibility along with others?

DEFENDANT SPEER: In my opinion, a state functionary has two types of responsibility.  One is the responsibility for his own sector and for that, of course, he is fully responsible.  But above that I think that in decisive matters there is, and must be, among the leaders a common responsibility, for who is to bear responsibility for developments, if not the close associates of the head of State?

This common responsibility, however, can only be applied to fundamental matters, it cannot be applied to details connected with other ministries or other responsible departments, for otherwise the entire discipline in the life of the state would be quite confused, and no one would ever know who is individually responsible in a particular sphere. This individual responsibility in one's own sphere must, at all events, be kept clear and distinct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, your point is, I take it, that you as a member of the Government and a leader in this period of time acknowledge a responsibility for its large policies, but not for all the details that occurred in their execution. Is that a fair statement of your position?

DEFENDANT SPEER: Yes, indeed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that concludes the cross-examination.

Alan Tudge at the 2017 Midwinter Ball with Liberal staffer Rachelle Miller.

Ms Millar also provided some interesting evidence to the “robodebt” royal commission and (pursuant to an unrelated matter) received from the Commonwealth a taxpayer-funded Aus$650,000 settlement for damages while working in two ministerial offices.  Ms Millar had accused Mr Tudge of being physically abusive towards her while in a consensual relationship and part of the settlement related to these matters, including compensation for loss of earning, hurt, distress, humiliation & medical and legal costs.  The Commonwealth did not admit liability but in paying Aus$650,000 seems to have assumed responsibility.  In a Clintonesque touch, Mr Tudge admitted he was at times sexually intimate with Ms Miller but insists he did not have “sexual intercourse” with that woman.

Mean

Mean (pronounced meen)

(1) To have or convey a particular idea; connote, denote, import, intend, signify.

(2) To have in mind as a goal or purpose; aim, contemplate, design, intend, plan, project, propose, purpose, target.

(3) Characterized by intense ill will or spite; black, despiteful, evil, hateful, malevolent, malicious, malign, malignant, nasty, poisonous, spiteful, venomous, vicious, wicked, bitchy.

(4) Having or proceeding from low moral standards; base, ignoble, low, low-down, sordid, squalid, vile.

(5) Ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money; cheap, close, close-fisted, costive, hard-fisted, miserly, niggard, niggardly, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, petty, pinching, stingy, tight, tight-fisted.

(6) Of low or lower quality; common, inferior, low-grade, low-quality, mediocre, second-class, second-rate, shabby, substandard.

(7) Of little distinction; humble, lowly, simple.

(8) Lacking high station or birth, baseborn, common, declassed, humble, ignoble, lowly, plebeian, unwashed, vulgar; base.

(9) Affected or tending to be affected with minor health problems; ailing indisposed, low, off-color, rocky, sickly; under the weather (now rare).

(10) So objectionable as to deserve condemnation; abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched.

(11) Having or showing a bad temper, cantankerous, crabbed, cranky, cross, disagreeable, fretful, grouchy, grumpy, ill-tempered, irascible, irritable, nasty, peevish, petulant, querulous, snappish, snappy, surly, testy, ugly, waspish.

(12) In mathematics, something, as a type, number, quantity, or degree that represents a midpoint between extremes on a scale of valuation; average, median, medium, norm, par.

(13) In the plural (as means), that by which something is accomplished or some end achieved.

(14) In the plural (as means) all things, such as money, property or goods having economic value.

(15) In statistics, the expected value (the mathematical expectation).

(16) In music, the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument); now only of historic or academic interest.

As a verb:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēnen (to intend; remember; lament; comfort), from the Old English mǣnan (to mean, signify; lament; intend to do something) from the Proto-West Germanic menjojanan & mainijan, from the Proto-Germanic mainijaną (to mean, think; lament), from the primitive Indo-European meyn- (to think), or alternatively perhaps from the primitive Indo-European meino- (opinion, intent) & meyno-, an extended form of the primitive Indo-European mey- (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti (to think, have an opinion), the Old Irish mian (wish, desire) & the Welsh mwyn (enjoyment)).  It was related to the Old Saxon mēnian (to intend) and cognate with the West Frisian miene (to deem, think) the Old Frisian mēna (to signify), the Dutch menen (to believe, think, mean), the Middle Dutch menen (to think, intend), the German meinen (to think, mean, believe) and the Old Saxon mēnian.  The Indo-European cognates included the Old Irish mían (wish, desire) and the Polish mienić (to signify, believe).  It was related to the modern moan.  The present participle was meaning and the simple past and past participle was meant although the now obsolete meaned was once a standard spelling.

The transitive (to convey (a given sense); to signify, or indicate (an object or idea) or, of a word, symbol etc (to have reference to, to signify), was documented as early as the eighth century.  The transitive, usually in passive (to intend (something) for a given purpose or fate; to predestine was from the sixteenth century. The transitive (to have conviction in (something said or expressed) or to be sincere in (what one says) is from the eighteenth century.  The transitive (to cause or produce (a given result) or to bring about (a given result) is from the nineteenth century.  The synonyms included convey, signify & indicate.  The annoying (and frequently redundant) conversational question “You know what I mean?” is not recent, attested since 1834.

As an adjective:

Pre 900: From the Middle English mēne (shared by all, common, general), a variant of imene & imeane (held or shared in common), from the Old English mǣne & gemǣne (common, public, general, universal, mutual), from the Proto-West Germanic gamainī, from the Proto-Germanic gamainiz (common; possessed jointly) and related to the Proto-West Germanic & the Old High German gimeini (common, mean, nasty) and the Latin commūnis (common (originally with no pejorative sense (as in shared, general))) from the Old Latin comoinem and cognate with the Danish gemen, the West Frisian mien (general, universal), the Gothic gamains, (common, unclean), the Dutch gemeen (common, mean), the German gemein (common), the Gothic gamains (in common) and the primitive Indo-European mey- (to change, exchange, share).  The comparative was meaner and the superlative, meanest

The sense of “common or general” is long obsolete.  What endured was “common or low origin, grade, or quality; low in quality or degree; inferior; poor; shabby; without dignity of mind; destitute of honor; low-minded; spiritless; base; of little value or worth; worthy of little or no regard; contemptible; despicable.  The sense of parsimonious, ungenerous or stingy is known throughout the English-speaking world but tends to be less prevalent in the US because of the dominance of the other meaning.  The meaning “cruel or malicious has survived but is now less common.  The colloquial form meaning “accomplished with great skill; deft; well-executed is used also in the negative with the same effect: (1) She rolls a mean joint and (2) she’s no mean roller of a joint.  However, to say (3) she’s mean with the weed in her joints has the opposite meaning so in that context anyway, the meaning of mean needs carefully to be deconstructed.  This inverted sense of mean as "remarkably good" appears not to have existed prior to circa 1900.  The derived forms from the adjectival sense include (and some are less common than others) bemean, meandom, meanie, meanness, mean streak & meany.

The pejorative sense of "without dignity of mind, destitute of honor, low-minded" dates from the 1660s; the specific sense of "stingy, niggardly" noted since 1755 whereas the weaker sense of "disobliging, pettily offensive" didn’t emerge until 1839, originally as American English slang.  This evolution in meaning was influenced by the coincidence in form with mean in the sense of "middle, middling," which also was used in disparaging senses.

As a noun:

1300–1350: From the Middle English meene, mene & meine, from the Middle French meen & mean, a variant of meien, from the Old French moien & meien (from which French gained moyen), from the Latin mediānus (middle, in the middle; median (in context)) from the Latin medius (middle).It was cognate with mid, and in the musical sense, the cognate was the Italian mezzano.  A doublet of median and mizzen.

A specific meaning of mean (in the sense of middle) was “middling; intermediate; moderately good, tolerable” which is long obsolete.  The sense of “a method or course of action used to achieve some result”, now used almost exclusively in the plural, is from the fourteenth century.  The sense of something which is intermediate or in the middle; an intermediate value or range of values (a medium) is from the fourteenth century although the use of mean (in the singular) meaning “an intermediate step or intermediate steps” is obsolete.  Originally from the fifteenth century, the use in music is now of historical or academic interest.  It referred to the middle part of three-part polyphonic music; now specifically, the alto part in polyphonic music (or an alto instrument).  In statistics, since the fifteenth century, mean is simply understood as the average of a set of values, calculated by summing them together and dividing by the number of terms (the arithmetic mean).  In mathematics a mean can be (1) any function of multiple variables that satisfies certain properties and yields a number representative of its arguments, (2) the number so yielded (a measure of central tendency) or (3) either of the two numbers in the middle of a conventionally presented proportion.

In mathematics and statistics, the mean is what is informally called “the average”, the sum of a set of values divided by the number (count) of those values.  The median is the middle number in a set of values when those values are arranged from smallest to largest, while the mode of a set of values is the most frequently repeated value in the set.

Mean is one of those words which pepper English; one word, one spelling, one pronunciation, yet a dozen or more meanings.  Mean however doesn’t come close to the top ten words in English with the most meanings, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) list is below but the editors caution by the time the next edition of the OED is released in 2037, for some there could be more meanings still; the influencing of computing has apparently already added several dozen to “run”.

Run: 645 definitions

Set: 430 definitions

Go: 368 definitions

Take: 343 definitions

Stand: 334 definitions

Get: 289 definitions

Turn: 288 definitions

Put: 268 definitions

Fall: 264 definitions

Strike: 250 definitions

Kimberley Kitching (1970–2022) was an Australian Labor Party (ALP) Senator for Victoria (2016-2022) who died from a heart attack in March 2022 at the age of 52.  Her death gained instant attention because in the days prior, two prominent sportsmen had also suffered heart attacks at the same age (one of them fatal) and there was the inevitable speculation about the possible involvement of the mysterious long-COVID or vaccinations.  No connection with either has yet been established.  One connection quickly made was with a triumvirate of female politicians, the ALP’s senate leadership group who were quickly dubbed “the mean girls”, a reference to 2004 Lindsay Lohan movie in which the eponymous girls were the “plastics” three self-obsessed school students whose lives were consumed by material superficialities and plotting & scheming against others.

The mean girls (2022), left to right: Penny Wong (b 1968; cabinet minister in the Rudd / Gillard /Rudd governments 2007-2013, senator for South Australia since 2002), Katy Gallagher (b 1970; chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 2011-2014, senator for the ACT 2015-2018 & since 2019) & Kristina Keneally (b 1968; premier of New South Wales 2009-2011, senator for New South Wales since February 2018).

The mean girls (2004), left to right: Karen Smith (Amanda Seyfried (b 1985)), Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978) & Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)).

Allegations the mean girls had bullied the late senator emerged just hours after her death and on social media there was little reluctance to link the events.  In a carefully-worded statement, Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong responded to what they described as “hurtful statements” denying they had bullied Senator Kitching and that other assertions were “similarly inaccurate” although they did concede “robust contests and interactions” were frequent in politics.  Senator Wong did admit to having made one unfortunate comment to Senator Kitching two years earlier and that, after it came to public attention, she had apologized.  Her office later expanded on this, issuing a statement saying “Senator Wong understood that apology was accepted.  The comments that have been reported do not reflect Senator Wong's views, as those who know her would understand, and she deeply regrets pain these reports have caused.”

In the thoughtful eulogy delivered at her funeral, Senator Kitching’s husband, Andrew Landeryou (b 1969; colorful ALP identity), referred on several occasions to the “unpleasantness” she had faced in the Senate, praising the moral courage his wife had displayed during her six years in the senate and her genuinely substantive contribution to public life, contrasting her with the “useful idiots, obedient nudniks and bland time-servers” so often seen sitting for decades on parliamentary benches.  “The simple truth of it is that Kimberley’s political and moral judgment was vastly superior to the small number who opposed her internally” he said, adding that “… of course, there’s a lot I could say about the unpleasantness of a cantankerous cabal - not all of them in parliament - that was aimed at Kimba, and the intensity of it did baffle and hurt her.”  Perhaps generously, he added he “…did not blame any one person or any one meeting for her death”, thought to be a reference to a recent meeting of the ALP’s Right faction at which her pre-selection for an electable Senate spot at the next election was reportedly threatened. 

Senators Gallagher, Keneally & Wong all attended the funeral as did the leader of the ALP and opposition leader Anthony Albanese (b 1963; leader of the opposition since 2019 and variously a minister or deputy prime-minister in the Rudd / Gillard / Rudd governments 2007-2013).  Mr Albanese rejected calls for an inquiry into claims of bullying, saying he had received “no complaints at any time” from Senator Kitching regarding bullies within the party and sought to shut down any further questions on the matter, saying they were disrespectful to Senator Kitching.  In saying that he certainly caught the spirit of the moment, none of the mainstream media making anything but the most oblique of references to the late senator’s colorful and sometimes controversial history as an ALP factional player and trade union operative but quite how long lasts the convention of not speaking ill of the dead will soon be revealed.

Mr Albanese wanting to kill the story is understandable and if he’s sure he has plausible deniability of prior knowledge it’s a reasonable tactic but it’s at least possible the best thing to do might have been to admit (1) all political parties have factions, (2) inter-faction bullying is the way business is done, (3) intra-faction bullying is endemic, (4) women and men are both victims and perpetrators but women tend to suffer more, (5) ‘twas ever thus and (6) it shall forever be thus.

Mr Albanese had used the “I know nothing” defense before and that too attracted a popular-culture comparison.  In 2013, ALP politician Craig Thomson (b 1964; former trade union official, member of parliament for the division of Dobell (NSW) 2007-2013, for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) until 2012, as an independent thereafter) was facing accusations of fraud, committed while a trade union official including the use of a union-issued credit card to pay for the services of prostitutes.  His legal problems have since worsened including further charges of fraud and domestic violence.

In 2013, in the midst of the scandal, Mr Albanese, then deputy prime-minister, and Mr Thomson were photographed having a couple of beers at Sydney’s Bavarian Bier Café.  It attracted some attention, even from within the party, one ALP luminary thinking it strange an ALP deputy prime minister should meet for a drink with someone accused of fraud and who the party had expelled from membership, labeling the meeting as “completely indefensible."  It was of interest too to the Liberal Party opposition which floated the idea that what was discussed over a few beers was a deal in case the ALP needed Mr Thomson's vote in another hung parliament, one spokesman framing things as "Fake Kevin Rudd (Kevin Rudd. b 1957; prime minister of Australia 2007-2010 & 2013) says, on the one hand, we're cleaning things up and, on the other hand, he is doing secret deals to try and run a minority government now and into the future."

Like Mr Albanese, Mr Rudd claimed to know nothing about his deputy’s meeting with Mr Thomson or its purpose.  Asked to comment, Mr Rudd said it was not his business who his deputy decided to drink with, saying he did “many things in life but supervising the drinking activities of my ministerial colleagues is not one of them."  "And who they choose to sit down with" he added.  Later, detailed questions were sent to Mr Rudd’s office which declined to comment about whether Mr Rudd knew beforehand of the meeting or if he had asked what had been discussed.  A spokesman said Mr Rudd had “nothing further to add.”  Mr Thomson insisted it was an innocent drink after the two former party colleagues ran into each other and there was no discussion of any political deals or of Mr Thomson returning to the ALP. "I'm not wooable" Mr Thomson was quoted as saying adding, “It was a completely innocent beer.  There is no conspiracy theory here.”

Mr Albanese said Mr Thomson was not a close friend of his but added that he often ran into colleagues at bars and that it was just “…a personal chat, that's all. No big deal."  That didn’t impress the Liberal Party’s then leader in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz (b 1958; senator for Tasmania since 1994, minister in various Coalition governments 2001-2015) who questioned how the pair could drink together given Mr Thomson's legal team was suing the LP, claiming the NSW ALP state secretary Sam Dastyari (b 1983; senator for NSW 2013-2018 before resigning in the midst of a Chinese-related donations scandal) had pledged to pay his legal costs.  "What is the deputy prime minister doing consorting in a Sydney bar with disgraced MP Craig Thomson at the Mr Thomson's lawyer is suing the NSW ALP?” Senator Abetz asked, presumably rhetorically.

Sydney Daily Telegraph, front page, Thursday 8 August 2013.

The Sydney tabloid The Daily Telegraph took the “I know nothing” excuses of Albanese and Rudd to their front page, the trope being the Hogan’s Heroes TV show produced by US network CBS between 1965-1971, one of the signature lines from which was “I know nothing” by Kommandant Colonel Clink’s slow-witted but affable Sergeant of the Guard, Hans Schultz.  Technically it worked but tropes and memes do rely on the material used registering in the public consciousness and that can be difficult when using a forty year old TV show no longer in widespread syndication.  For the Telegraph’s readers, mostly of an older demographic, it probably did register but some research might have been necessary for younger people, many of whom receive news only through social media feeds. 

For the same reason Donald Trump was disappointed his jibe about Pete Buttigieg (b 1982; contender for Democratic Party nomination for 2020 US presidential election, US secretary of transportation since 2021) and the absurdity of imagining Americans would vote for “Alfred E Neuman”, didn’t resonate.  It was just too long ago and too few knew about Mad magazine.  While there was quite a resemblance, and decades before it would have been a good line, in 2020 Buttigieg could dismiss it a “...must be a generational thing”.  By contrast, the mean girls line worked as well as it did because the film it references is both much more recent and, having hardly dated, retains an ongoing appeal.

Vis-a-vis

Vis-a-vis (pronounced vee-zuh-vee or vee-za-vee (French))

(1) A French phrase, literally, “face to face” constructed with the prepositional use of the adjective.

(2) In numismatics (of a coin) having two portraits facing each other.

(3) As a preposition (some pedants disapprove of some of the extensions of meaning), in relation to; compared with; as opposed to.

(4) A type of horse-drawn carriage commonly made by Amish coachbuilders, mostly in the mid-western US; also produced for the tourist trade in various places.  In the horse-drawn era, vis-à-vis carriages were usually described as barouches, berlines or landaus depending on their configuration.

(5) A sofa in the shape of the letter “S” with seats for two, so arranged that the occupants can be face to face while sitting on opposite sides; sometimes called the tête-à-tête (literally head to head).

(6) One’s date or escort at a social event (obsolete).

(7) In limousines, a coach-builder’s term for a rear compartment configured with two rows of seats, facing each other.

1755: From the French prepositional use of the adjective vis-à-vis (face to face) from the Old French vis (face).  Vis is from the Old French viz, from the Latin vītis (vine) from the primitive Indo-European wéhitis (that which twines or bends, branch, switch), from wehiy- (to turn, wind, bend) which influenced also the Latin vieō and the English withe.  The à is from the Old French a, from the Latin ad, from the primitive Indo-European ád (near; at).  The French vis was an obsolete word for “face”, replaced in contemporary French by visage.  The literal meaning has long run in parallel with the modern meanings (“in comparison with; in relation to; as opposed to” although pedants disapprove because of the imprecision).  In French, the original sense is preserved also as real estate jargon meaning the windows of one house are within sighting distance of those of the neighboring house (literally that the occupants can see into each-other’s homes).  In English, the un-accented spelling vis-a-vis is now more common. 

Prostoria Vis-a-vis Sofa Segment.

The companion term tête-à-tête (from the French and literally “head-to-head”) means “a private conversation between two people, usually in an intimate setting”) and thus, strictly speaking, refers to a process rather than a seating arrangement and, since advances in communication technology, one can have a tête-à-tête over a phone call whereas to be vis-a-vis with them, physical closeness is demanded.  However, the two terms are often used interchangeably and the use of vis-a-vis is also sometimes the victim of linguistic promiscuity, suggesting sometimes just about any juxtaposition.  Furniture makers also variously describe the “S” shaped sofas using either term.  Occasionally, those who use vis-a-vis in its classic sense will baffle others as Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970) managed while being cross-examined during his trial before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (1945-1946):

Prosecutor: The position you took, as I understand it, was that the Wehrmacht was important not so much as an aggressive weapon against strong countries, Austria & Czechoslovakia, as against, or vis-a-vis, if you will, the larger powers, the concert of nations in Europe… in other words, the army stood there… as a weapon… vis-a-vis the Austrians.

Schacht: Not vis-à-vis the Austrians but vis-a-vis the Allies.

Prosecutor: I am a little naïve about these things, I must say.  You say… not vis-a-vis Austria but against the powers?

Schacht: Not against the powers but vis-a-vis the powers.

The rarely convivial Hjalmar Schacht, with the Führer.

Although that exchange was not critical in Schacht securing one of the three acquittals the bench delivered, the judges doubtlessly enjoyed it more than the prosecution.  At various times during the Third Reich, Schacht had served as Minister of Economics, Plenipotentiary General for War Economy and President of the Reichsbank (the German central bank) and he’d been indicted on counts one (conspiracy to commit crimes against peace) & two (crimes against peace).  His acquittal on both disappointed many but there were many technical difficulties in the case and the prosecution frankly lacked the expertise in matters of public finance and international banking needed to understand the details, let alone pursue them to the standard needed to convince the judges (except for the Russians who were convinced before the hearings began) to convict.  To be fair, the matters were complex and the financial wizardry with which Schacht concocted the money to allow the Nazi’s rearmament programme to be paid for was hardly orthodox monetary policy.  In particular his invention of the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (thankfully abbreviated to Mefo) which essentially meant the Reichsbank loaned money to the government (which under any other circumstances would have been unlawful) without raising loans or increasing the money supply seemed mysterious to the lawyers.  It was quite a trick and indicative of the intricacies which littered the case.

The ex-comrade Marshal Tito 1968 Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (six-door, long-roof) with jump seats. 

The optional vis-a-vis seating configuration in the rear compartment of the Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100;1963-1981) Pullman was something of a novelty, the competitor limousines from the UK or US built usually with an opulent rear bench for two or three with a pair of utilitarian fold-away (jump or occasional) seats for staff or other temporary occupants (even the infamous X-100, the Lincoln Continental in which John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) was assassinated used jump seats).  There had been the odd exception.  While the limousines or horse-drawn carriages of kings and emperors had side-by-side seats for two to accommodate a consort, the Roman Catholic popes were granted a single, raised, throne-like chair for, unlike less spiritual heads of state, the bachelor Bishop of Rome never (officially) had a consort to accommodate (there were a few concubines but (as far as is known) they predated the automobile.

1957 Imperial Limousine by Ghia (left), 1964 Crown Imperial Limousine by Ghia (centre) and 1967 Imperial Limousine by Theodorou with the unusual folding vis-a-vis seats (right).  

The 600’s much-admired vis-a-vis option arrangement did seem to affect the US coachbuilders, the configuration seating seen more frequently in the years that followed its debut.  Prior to that, the elongated editions of Cadillacs, Packards, Lincolns and Imperials usually had rear compartments (often trimmed in leather unlike the cars from the UK which traditionally used leather only in front (for the chauffeur) with “West of England cloth” for the passengers) equipped with jump seats.  Even the Imperial Limousine built for Chrysler with (untypically) exquisite care and precision in Italy by Ghia (1957-1965) used them but when production was outsourced to US operators, coach-builders such as Chicago-based Andrew Theodorou included what they called “conversation seats” which, cleverly, were arranged vis-a-vis but folded in such a way that most of the additional space afforded by the conventional jump seats was retained.  During the stretch limousine era in the US, vis-a-vis seating was often used.

Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (four-door, short-roof) with vis-a-vis seats.  Almost all the 600s delivered to North America, Australia and the UK were trimmed in leather but in Europe and some export markets, mohair wasn't unusual and the factory even made available its famously durable MB-Tex (a high quality vinyl rumored to verge on the indestructible) but none were ever so equipped. 

Mercedes-Benz offered the vis-a-vis configuration, in a choice of leather or mohair, in both the 600 Pullman’s closed form and the rare landaulets with their fold-back roof.  The landaulets however were often parade vehicles, used to percolate along crowd-lined boulevards with a prince, president, pope or potentate standing and waving and for this purpose, the vis-a-vis seats intruded too much and the fold-away jump seats, which afforded more standing room, were preferred.  That’s why illustrious 600 Landaulet owners such as comrade Marshall Tito, North Korea’s Great Leader, Dear Leader & Supreme Leader, the Shah of Iran, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceaușescu, P W Botha and a dozen-odd others of varying degrees of virtue, all eschewed the vis-a-vis arrangement because it made it too hard to stand and wave.  Only ever produced in small numbers (although such was the factory’s misplaced optimism they hoped they might make a thousand a year) the 600 was introduced at the Internationale Automobil-Ausstellung (IAA, the  Frankfurt Motor Show, September 1963) and in a run of eighteen-odd years (1964-1981), only 2,677 were made, 2,190 of the standard-length sedan (referred to often as the short-wheelbase (SWB), a relative term given it was over eighteen feet (5.5 m) long), 487 of the twenty and a half foot long Pullmans of which 59 were landaulets.  Of the rare landaulets, most had a convertible top which exposed only rear-most of the back seats, twelve being built with a longer fabric roof which rendered open the entire rear compartment, this dozen often called the “presidential landaulets” although this was never an official name.  Although the specification sometimes varied, the Pullmans with the jump-seats usually were configured with six doors while the vis-a-vis models used four.

Seated vis-a-vis, Lindsay Lohan and her sister Aliana, enjoying a tête-à-tête, La Conversation bakery & café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Refute

Refute (pronounced ri-fyoot)

(1) To prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.

(2) To prove (a person) to be in error.

(3) To deny the truth or correctness of something (non-standard).

1505–1515: From the Middle English verb refute (in the sense of the now obsolete “refuse or reject someone or something”), from the sixteenth century Middle French réfuter, from the Old French refuite, from refuir (to flee), from the Latin refūtāre (to check, suppress, rebut, disprove; to repress, repel, resist, oppose), the construct being re- (back) + -fūtāre (to beat; drive back; rebut, disprove; repress, repel, resist, oppose), from the primitive Indo-European bhau- (to strike).  Refutable is an adjective, refuter & refutability are nouns, refutably is an adverb and the verbs (used with object) are refuted & refuting.

The meaning "prove someone wrong, prove someone to be in error, disprove and overthrow by argument or countervailing proof" dated from the 1540s, the use extended to disproving abstractions, statements, opinions etc late in the sixteenth century.  The adjective irrefutable (incapable of being disproved) emerged in the 1610s, from the Late Latin irrefutabilis (irrefutable), the construct being in- (not, opposite of) + refutabilis (refutable), from refūtāre, the derived forms in English including irrefutably & irrefutability  The noun refutation dates from the 1540s and was from the French refutacion (act of disproving; the overthrowing of an argument by countervailing argument or proof”), from the sixteenth century réfutation and directly from the Latin refutationem (nominative refutatio) (disproof of a claim or argument), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of refūtāre.  According to recent text searches of the documents digitized in recent years, the most frequently used form in Latin was refūtō (oppose, resist, rebut).

The re- prefix is from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

The correct meaning of refute is “proving something to be incorrect” and using the word to mean “denying something is correct” is wrong.  Meanings do shift in English and alternatives can replace or run in parallel with the original and while this can sometimes baffle or annoy even native speakers, it’s just part of the way the language works, the battles waged by persistent pedants usually Sisyphean (nobody for example now uses decimate as would a Roman centurion).  However, there are cases where an insistence the original meaning be maintained (or at least understood) is helpful and refute is a good example because when used wrongly (to mean “deny”), it can lead some to conclude something as actually been proved incorrect, rather than just asserted as such.

Refute is also sometimes confused with rebut.  Rebuttal is a term from the rules of formal debate which refers to a reply although, like refutation, the word has taken on the informal and disputed meaning of denial.  In law, rebuttal also has a technical meaning in court procedure in nations with common law systems.  The rebuttal is evidence or arguments introduced to counter, disprove, or contradict the opposing party's evidence or argument, either at trial or in a reply brief and specific rules apply:  Rebuttal evidence may address only those matters raised in evidence rebutted and new subjects may not be canvassed although the rules do (almost uniquely) permit new witnesses to be called and new evidence to be produced, provided they serve to rebut the prior evidence.  In courts, rules are strictly enforced but politics and public discourse generally, what’s described as a rebuttal can be something quite discursive and follow a direction guided not at all by relevance.

news.com.au 2020: There was a time when Rupert Murdoch would have been on the phone to the editor, telling him to correct an erroneous use of "refute".

Etymologists note the argument there is some historic justification for use of refute in both ways because no distinction existed in the original Latin refūtō (oppose, resist, rebut) and Romans and others did use the word in both senses.  However, at the time of its sixteen century origins in English, refute meant “proving something to be incorrect” and nothing else.  Indeed, as early as the 1610s, the adjective irrefutable (incapable of being disproved), was in circulation (as were the related forms irrefutably & irrefutability), the point being it’s possible for things not to be able to be proved wrong but it’s impossible for them to be denied, however implausible may be the denial.  Documented instances of the erroneous use of refute appear to have been rare until recent years and there have been suggestions this is indicative of a decline in the literacy of journalists but it’s far from certain the standards of such folk were ever consistently high and it’s at least as likely the increasing misuse is a consequence of the extinction of the sub-editor (a species of linguistically competent text-checkers), journalists’ raw drafts now appearing substantially un-edited in print and on-line.  Those seeking an alternative to deny should instead use repudiate which means “to reject or refuse to acknowledge”, but without the implication of justification.

Deny, deny, deny

Mr Barilaro preparing pasta sheets.

For students of politics as theatre, John Barilaro (b 1971; member of the New South Wales (NSW, Australia) Legislative Assembly (Monaro) 2011-2021; cabinet minister 2014-2021 and Leader of the National Party (ex-Country Party) and thus deputy premier of NSW 2016-2021) has proved the gift who keeps giving.  Once famous only for his home-made lasagna (about which nobody has ever said a bad word), of late Mr Barilaro seems constantly to have been in the spotlight.  Some of the interest has been in his participation in internecine spats between the Nationals and their Liberal Party coalition partners but more dramatic was the use of a special squad of the NSW Police Force to conduct a raid on a house in connection with a defamation action Mr Barilaro had begun against the operator of a Youtube channel.  The specialist police squad used was the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU), assembled after the Lindt Café siege (December 2014) in Sydney to investigate intelligence which suggested acts of violence or terrorism were being planned.  Whether the use such a unit in mid-2021 to stage an armed assault on the home of an employee of the channel to secure his arrest attracted some comment.  Resource allocation is of course a matter for the commissioner of police and it must be difficult to assess the competing matters of the hurt feelings of a ruling-party politician against the many women (some of whom are now dead) who, without success, sought the assistance of police to protect them from violent ex-partners.  Ultimately, the defamation matter was settled in a manner (as a former Emperor of Japan might have put it) “…not necessarily to Mr Barilaro’s advantage”.

Mr Barilaro preparing lasagna.

Still, a year later, things seemed to be looking up when Mr Barilaro, having resigned from parliament, had been appointed the state’s trade commissioner for the Americas, a position based in New York City which included a Manhattan apartment, a salary around US$400,000 (reports differ) and an expense account of another US$70,000.  Unfortunately, the good fortune quickly subsided as the circumstances of (1) the establishment of the position, (2) the re-location of the position from the west to the east coast, (3) the treatment of a another person apparently offered the position and (4) the circumstances under which Mr Barilaro was appointed began to be discussed.  Mr Barilaro announced he would, in the circumstances, not be taking up the appointment but, politicians sniffing governmental blood, the upper house of parliament convened an enquiry to attempt to determine the usual things such ad-hoc tribunals seek to find out: (1) Who did what and when and (2) who knew what and when.  By the time Mr Barilaro appeared before the enquiry on 8 August 2022, the growing scandal had already claimed one ministerial scalp although commentators seemed divided over whether Stuart Ayres’ (b 1980; deputy leader of the NSW Liberal Party 2021-2022) resignation should be thought a thing necessitated by his actions or the attempted cover-up.  Given that, just about everyone except those in the NSW government were looking forward to Mr Barilaro’s appearance and, as a set-piece of a politician trying to extricate himself for a sticky situation and reframe the narrative, his three hour performance didn’t disappoint.

Mr Barilaro serving lasagna.

He began by saying he wished he never applied for the job, later adding that he’d endured had been “unbearable… (and) what can only be described as a personal hell" and that while he was of course "disappointed" the process hadn't been "as clean as it should have been", the important point was that he was “the victim of that, not the perpetrator".  His opening remarks actually set the tone nicely, Mr Barilaro denying he sought any "special treatment" and that had he known then what he knows now, he would never have “walked into what was a shitshow”.  He also rejected suggestions he had “fast-tracked” a cabinet submission about the trade commissioner roles so he could apply for one, the submission in question being one which would have made the jobs ministerial appointments rather than positions advertised and filled in the usual manner in accordance with the regulations of the NSW public service.  The submission was proposed and passed in seven working days.  It was then put to him that the change was “fast tracked” because he well knew then-NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian would have to resign because of enquiries by the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) about an unrelated matter.  "I will absolutely refute that disgusting slur and accusation" Mr Barilaro answered, adding “You're making me out to be corrupt”.

Mr Barilaro plating lasagna.

That was of course a denial, the matter of whether allegations of corruption or procedural impropriety have been refuted something which will be decided later and Mr Barilaro should be given credit for the forthright manner of his denials, unlike one of his referees for the job (Arthur Sinodinos, b 1957; Liberal Party functionary and minister variously 2007-2019; Australian ambassador to the US since 2019) whose appearance before the ICAC in 2014 became famous for the frequency with which phrases like “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember” were his only answers to tiresome questions.  Fortunately, the ICAC handed down no adverse findings and his memory recovered sufficiently for him to be appointed ambassador to the US in 2019 so there's that.  Mr Barilaro will again appear before the enquiry on 12 August.