Banner

Banner (pronounced ban-er)

(1) The flag of a country, army, troop etc.

(2) An ensign or the like bearing some device, motto, or slogan, as carried in religious processions, political demonstrations etc.

(3) A flag used as the standard of a nation, sovereign, lord, knight, military formation or other institution (and by extension (1) the military unit under such a flag or standard & (2) a military or administrative subdivision).

(4) A sign painted on fabric or some other material and hung over a street, entrance etc.

(5) Anything regarded or displayed as a symbol of principles.

(6) In heraldry, a square flag bearing heraldic devices.

(7) In journalism, a headline extending across the width of a newspaper or web page (in print usually across the top of the front page); also known as banner line, banner headline, screamer or streamer.

(8) As a verb, in journalism, (of a headline), prominently to display (used in other contexts by analogy).

(9) In advertising, an advertisement appearing across the top or bottom or along one side of a newspaper or web page; also known as a banner ad .

(10) An open streamer with lettering, towed behind an airplane in flight, for advertising purposes.

(11) A placard or sign carried in a procession or demonstration.

(12) As an adjective, leading or foremost.

(13) Historically, a type of administrative division in Inner Mongolia and Tuva, made during the Qing dynasty; at that time, Outer Mongolia and part of Xinjiang were also divided into banners.

1200–1220: From the Middle English banere (piece of cloth attached to the upper end of a pole or staff), from the Old French baniere (flag, banner, standard) (from which modern French in the twelfth century gained bannière), from the Late Latin bann & bannum (variants of bandum (standard)), from a Frankish or West Germanic source, from the Proto-Germanic bandwa (identifying sign, banner, standard (and also “military formation under a banner”), source also of the Gothic bandwa (a sign), from suffixed form of the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to shine).

A non-official Royal Standard of Croatia, one of several designs used by those affiliated with the movement seeking to restore the Royal House of Croatia.

A banner was the standard (a type of flag) of a king, lord, or knight, behind which his followers marched to war and to which they rallied in battle.  From the early fourteenth century, there was also the related noun banneret, an order of knighthood, originally in reference to one who could lead his men into battle under his own banner, for centuries a common European practice when armies were organized ad-hoc for invasions and formations were deployed under their banners rather than being mixed.  It later came to mean “one who received rank for valiant deeds done in the king's presence in battle”.  As is still the practice, such honors had grades and there was also the bannerette (a small banner), awarded to those who provided service meritorious rather than valorous.  The reason a banner was attached to a tall pole and carried by “a standard bearer” was that in the swirl of battle, such was the clatter that communication by voice could soon become impossible over even short distances and the only way a commander could effectively re-assemble his troops into formation was to have them return to the banner.  This was the origin of the phrase “rally around the flag”, in the twentieth century re-purposed metaphorically although the figurative sense of "anything displayed as a profession of principles" was used as early as the fourteenth century.  The first use of banner to describe newspaper headlines which in large, bold type stream across the top of the page dates from 1913.  The term “banner blindness” was created in 1998 to describe the tendency of users to ignore banner advertising on websites.  Synonyms (depending on context) can include emblem, headline, bunting, pennant, streamer, advertisement, leading, colors, ensign, heading, pennon, standard, exceptional, foremost, outstanding, banderole, burgee & gonfalon.  Banner is a noun, verb and adjective, bannered is an verb & adjective and bannering is an adjective; the noun plural is banners.

Flag of the Commander of the Croatian Navy.

Technically, the term banner can be used to describe any flag, ensign, pennant or standard although it’s now less used for the more precise terms have come to be well-understood and are thus more popular.  Pennant was from the Middle English penon, penoun & pynoun, from the Old French penon, from the Latin penna (feather).  Although it wasn’t always the case, a pennant is distinguished by its elongated shape which tapers to a point.  It’s now especially associated with naval use, the advantage of the shape being that it tends to remain legible even in conditions where material of square or rectangular shape can become distorted.  Pennants are also used by sports teams and university societies.  In sporting competition, a championship is sometimes referred to as “the pennant” or “the flag” even though such thing are not always awarded as physical trophies.

Flag of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1947–1990) under comrade Marshall Tito.

Ensign was from the Middle English ensigne, from the Old French enseigne, from the Latin īnsignia, the nominative plural of īnsigne.  By convention of use, ensign is now used almost exclusively by the military, especially by naval forces (the use to describe the lowest grade of commissioned officer in the US Navy (equivalent to a sub-lieutenant, and once used also in the infantry (the coronet fulfilling the role in the cavalry) dates from the role evolving from the assigned role of being responsible for the care, raising and lowering of flags and pennants, including the unit’s ensign).  In navies, the principal flag or banner flown by a ship (usually at the stern) to indicate nationality is called the ensign (often modified as red ensign, royal ensign etc).

Lindsay Lohan with ensigns, flags and pennants.

Standard was from the Middle English standard, from the Old French estandart (gathering place, battle flag), from the Frankish standahard (literally “stand firm, stand hard”), the construct being stand +‎ -ard.  There is an alternative etymology which suggest the second element was from the Frankish oʀd (point, spot, place (and linked with the Old French ordé (pointed), the Old English ord (point, source, vanguard), the German Standort (location, place, site, position, base, literally “standing-point”))).  The notion is this merged with the Middle English standar, stander or standere (flag, banner (literally “stander)).  Standard is now the usual form when describing symbol of an individual, family, clan or military formation when presented in the shape used by national flags.

1957 Standard Ensign.  It typified the dreary products offered by much of the British industry in the post-war years.  The flag is the Red Ensign (Red Duster in nautical slang), the civil ensign of the UK, flown by British merchant or passenger craft since 1707.

The Standard Motor Company operated in the UK between 1903-1970 although in 1963 it ceased to use the Standard name on products sold in most markets, switching them to Triumph which would be used until 1984, the company having been integrated into the doomed British Leyland (BL) conglomerate in 1968.  In India, where the operations had become independent of BL, the Standard name lingered until 1988.  In 1957, Standard, having obtained from the Royal Navy the right to use the name Vanguard (the name of many ships and submarines including the last dreadnought (big battleship) ever launched) for their family car (the Standard Vanguard, 1948-1963), decided to continue the nautical theme by naming their new model the Ensign (1957-1963).  In the manner of the Citroën ID (1957-1969) and Mercedes-Benz 219 (W105, 1956-1959), the Ensign offered a large-bodied vehicle at a lower price, achieved by fitting a less powerful engine and substantially reduced equipment levels.  Until 1962 the Ensign was available only with a 1670 cm³ (102 cubic inch) for-cylinder engine which even in the pre-motorway era was thought marginal in a relative heavy car but, although slow, it offered a lot of metal for the money and sold well to fleets and the government, the military especially fond of them.  If the 1.6 litre gas (petrol) version was slow, also available was a version with a 1622 cm³ (99 cubic inch) Perkins P4C diesel engine, the low survival rate of which is sometimes attributed to so many being sold to the Coal Board or Wales and, having descended into Welsh valleys, they lacked to power to climb out.  The last of the Ensigns (1962-1963) were fitted with a 2163 cm³ (132 cubic inch) four-cylinder gas engine which proved more satisfactory but by then the Vanguard-Ensign line was outdated and the names were retired when the replacement range was marketed under the Triumph rather than the Standard marque.

Once the "Standard of the World": 1938 Cadillac Series 90 V16 Convertible Coupé (left), 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham (centre) & 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille convertible.

Elsewhere in the automotive world “standard” was used in different ways.  Cadillac long used the slogan “The Standard of the World” and that was certainly true in the 1930s when the Cadillac V16s were at least the equal in engineering and craftsmanship to anything made in Europe an even in the late 1960s, although the “hand-made” years were over, the company still offered the finest engine-transmission combinations in the world and managed to master sub-systems like air-conditioning in a way it took the Europeans a few decades to match.  After about 1970, it was usually downhill for the old “standard of the world” although there have been some hopeful signs in the twenty-first century.  General Motors’ now defunct southern outpost, Holden, in first two decades (1948-1966), used standard to mean “basic”, the better-equipped versions being the “Business” and the “Special”.  In England, Jaguar’s pre-war use of SS as a brand (1934) was apparently derived from the company’s origin as the Swallow Sidecar Company (1922, so use predated the Mercedes-Bens SS (1928)) but after the association with the Standard Motor Company as an engine supplier, the factory began to prefer Standard Swallow, the cars sold under the badge Jaguar SS.  After the war, the SS label was dropped, the association with the Nazi Party’s SS (Schutzstaffel (security section or squad)) too unsavory in those times although the moment would soon pass, Jaguar in 1957 reviving the name for the XKSS, the road-going version of the Le Mans winning D-Type race car.  Chevrolet for years used the "SS" designation as did Holden and Nissan (sometimes as "Datsun") even had "SSS" models.  Such was the appeal of the 1957 Jaguar XKSS (they now trade in excess of US$10 million) that in 2016 the factory announced a run of nine "continuation" XKSS cars to complete the originally scheduled batch of 25, aborted by a fire after 16 had been made.  Hand-made and barely distinguishable from the originals, at US$1.4 million the continuation XKSS wasn't cheap except if compared to a 1957 model.     

Pennant of the commander of a flotilla of naval vessels in the Croatian Navy.

Flag is from the Middle English flag & flagge (flag), of uncertain origin.  It may have been related to the early Middle English flage (name for a baby's garment) and the Old English flagg & flacg (cataplasm, poultice, plaster) or could have been merely imitative or otherwise drawn from the Proto-Germanic flaką (something flat), from the primitive Indo-European pleh- (flat, broad, plain), referencing the shape.  The modern flag is a piece of cloth, decorated with a combination of colors, shapes or emblems which can be used as a visual signal or symbol.  In Admiralty use, a “flag” can refer to (1) a specific flag flown by a ship to show the presence on board of the admiral; the admiral himself, or their flagship or (2) a signal flag or the act of signaling with a flag.  The now familiar use as national symbol is surprisingly modern.  Although flags and standards were of course common even before the current conception of the nation-state coalesced, it wasn’t until the eighteen century that the association of a flag with a country became close to universal.  One interesting quirk of national flags is that since Libya’s was redesigned, the flag of Jamaica is the only one on Earth not to include either red, white or blue.

A banner used in Croatia between 925-1102 (left), the current Croatian flag adopted after independence in 1990 (centre) and the Croatian naval ensign (1990).

One of the most ancient symbols to endure in modern nation flags is the red & white checkered pattern used to this day on the flag of Croatia.  The oldest known example dates from 925 and the pattern was used (with the odd interruption) for centuries, even when the country was a non-sovereign component of supranational states such as the Habsburg Empire.  A red star was used instead when Croatia was a part of comrade Marshall Tito’s (1892-1980) Jugoslavija (Yugoslavia) between 1945-1990 but the red & white checks were restored when independence was regained in 1990.

Ivana Knoll at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.

Noted Instagram influencer Ivana Knoll (b 1992) was a finalist in the Miss Croatia beauty contest in 2016 and for her appearances at the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, chose a number of outfits using the national symbol of the red and white checkerboard, matching the home strip worn by the team.  By the standards of Instragram, the design of the hoodie she donned for Croatia's game against Morocco at the Al-Bayat stadium wasn't particularly revealing but it certainly caught the eye.  As if Gianni Infantino (b 1970; president of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (International Federation of Association Football) since 2016) doesn't have enough to ponder, the former Miss Croatia finalist tagged FIFA in her posts, fearing perhaps the president may not be among her 600,000 Instagram followers and her strategy seems to have had the desired effect although whether the design which, does cover her hair, shoulders and legs, will prove sufficiently demur to satisfy the local rules, isn't clear.   The guidance provided by FIFA indicated non-Qatari women don’t need to wear the abaya (the long, black robe), tops must cover their midriff and shoulders, and skirts, dresses or trousers must cover the knees and clothing should not be tight or reveal any cleavage.  In accordance with the rules or not, Ms Knoll proved a popular accessory for Qatari men seeking selfies.

Croatian FIFA World Cup 2022 strips, home (left) & away (right). 

On the basis of her Instagram posts, the German-born beauty wouldn't seem to be in compliance with the rules but thus far there's been no report of reaction from the authorities but if she has any problems, Sepp Blatter's (b 1936; FIFA president 1998-2015) lawyers may be available.  They seem pretty good.  Paradoxically, although the impressively pneumatic Ms Knoll generated much interest in her hoodie, had she worn an all-enveloping burka in the red & white checkerboard, it might have gained even more clicks.

Vexillology

Vexillology (pronounced vek-suh-lol-uh-jee)

The study of and the collection of information about flags.

1957 (and in print since 1959): The construct was vexill(um) + -ology.  Vexillum (the plural vexilla) was from the Latin vēxillum (flag, banner), from the Proto-Italic wekslolom (and synchronically a diminutive form of vēlum), from the Proto-Italic wekslom, from the primitive Indo-European wegslom, from weg- (to weave, bind) and cognate with the English wick.  The Latin vexillum translated literally as “flag; banner” but in English was used to mean (1) a flag, banner, or standard, (2) in military use a formation company of troops serving under one standard, (3) the sign of the cross, (4) in botany, the upper petal of a papilionaceous flower and (5) in ornithology, the rhachis and web of a feather taken together.  The suffix -ology was formed from -o- (as an interconsonantal vowel) +‎ -logy.  The origin in English of the -logy suffix lies with loanwords from the Ancient Greek, usually via Latin and French, where the suffix (-λογία) is an integral part of the word loaned (eg astrology from astrologia) since the sixteenth century.  French picked up -logie from the Latin -logia, from the Ancient Greek -λογία (-logía).  Within Greek, the suffix is an -ία (-ía) abstract from λόγος (lógos) (account, explanation, narrative), and that a verbal noun from λέγω (légō) (I say, speak, converse, tell a story).  In English the suffix became extraordinarily productive, used notably to form names of sciences or disciplines of study, analogous to the names traditionally borrowed from the Latin (eg astrology from astrologia; geology from geologia) and by the late eighteenth century, the practice (despite the disapproval of the pedants) extended to terms with no connection to Greek or Latin such as those building on French or German bases (eg insectology (1766) after the French insectologie; terminology (1801) after the German Terminologie).  Within a few decades of the intrusion of modern languages, combinations emerged using English terms (eg undergroundology (1820); hatology (1837)).  In this evolution, the development may be though similar to the latter-day proliferation of “-isms” (fascism; feminism etc).  Vexillology, vexillologist vexillographer, vexillophilia, vexillophile & vexillolatry are nouns, vexillological & vexillologic are adjectives; the most common noun plural is vexillologists.

A vexillographer is one who designs flags, standards & banners, a vexillophile is (1) someone who collects and displays flags and (2) one who studies flags, their history and meaning.  Although there are vexillophiles, there is in medicine no recognized condition known as vexillophilia (which would be a paraphilia describing the sexualized objectification of flags (ie flag) although following the convention established in recent revisions to the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (DSM-5 (2013) & DSM-5-TR (2022)), the correct clinical description would now be "flag partialism"; vexillophiles anyway prefer to describe themselves as "flag nerds".  Nor is there any record of there being instances of vexillophobia (a morbid fear of flags); there are those opposed to what flags represent  but that's not the same as being a vexillophobe which would be something specific about this type of bunting in general.  In political science, there is the word flagophobe (also as flagphobe), a derogatory term used usually by those on the right (and other nationalists) as a slur suggesting a want of patriotism in an opponent they’ve usually already labelled as “liberal”.  It's based on a metaphorical connection between a national flag and pride in one's country and is thus not a reference to a fear of flags in general.  To vexillize (or vexillate) can mean (1) to gather or to lead an army under a flag, (2) to organize or to lead people under a common cause or goal, (3) to make a flag (sewing, printing, digitally distributing etc), (4) to design a flag or (5) to introduce a specific depiction on a flag.

Wrapped: Vexillologist Lindsay Lohan and the stars & stripes.  The phrase “wrapping themselves self in the flag” is used of politicians who attempt to disguise their self-serving motives by presenting something as being in the national interest or being done for patriotic reasons.  The companion term is “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”, a observation made in 1775 by Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) of the hypocrisy of William Pitt (1708-1778 (Pitt the Elder); First Earl of Chatham & UK prime-minister 1766-1768).

Quite when the first flag was flown is not known but so simple is the concept and so minimal the technology required for fabrication that as forms of identification or communication they may have been among the earliest examples of symbolic representation.  Although the nation-state as its now understood is a relatively new creation (barely a thousand years old), prior to that there had for millennia been organized settlements with distinct identities and there is evidence from surviving works of art and drawings that something like a flag existed in the Mediterranean region as long ago as the fourth century BC and it’s possible such things were in use in China even earlier.  The familiar concept of the national flag evolved as the modern nation state emerged in Europe in the late Middle Ages and early modern period and traditionally, Denmark's Dannebrog is cited as the oldest national flag extant, having being in continuous use (though not always as the symbol of state) since the thirteenth century.

An array of Denmark's Dannebrog (usually translated as "the cloth of the Danes") on flagpoles.

The legend is that during a battle on 15 June 1219 in what is modern-day Estonia, the Danish army was on the defensive and defeat seemed imminent when suddenly, a red banner with a white cross fell from the sky.  As a result, the fortunes of war shifted, the Danish army won the battle and Denmark gained a flag.  The implication was of course the symbol was a "sign from God" and countless armies have rallied from difficult positions if soldiers can be persuaded victory can be won "with God on our side". 

Inherently, a small piece of colored glass three metres in the air can have no effect on a passing car yet the use of red, amber & green traffic lights is what makes modern road systems function as efficiently as they do.  They work because people (usually) respond as they should through the lens of semiotics, the signifier being the color of the light, the signified the instructions conveyed (green=”go”; amber=”prepare to stop or proceed with caution” & red=”stop”) and the referent the physical need to go, proceed only with caution or stop.  The power of the glass lies wholly in its symbolism and the implied consequences of ignoring its message.  Flags, mere pieces of fabric, have no inherent political or military force yet have for millennia been among the most valued and contested of symbols; men have died defending pieces of bunting which could have been replaced with a tick of a supply sergeant’s pen, simply because of the symbolism.  Because so much of the structure was fake, symbolism was integral to the appeal of Nazism (and fascism in general) and by the early summer of 1942, on a map, the military position of Nazi Germany looked impressive, its forces still maintaining a presence in North Africa, control extending to the Arctic Circle, most of Western Europe occupied from Norway to the south of France and the territorial gains from Operation Barbarossa (1941) reaching well into the Soviet Union.  However, the map substantially reflected the gains which had been made in 1941 and by mid-1942 it was clear to the German military they had under-estimated the ability of the Soviet armies to absorb losses and recover.  It was clear Germany no longer had the strength successfully to advance along the massive front created by Barbarossa and even Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) realized that, at least temporarily, more modest strategic aims would have to be pursued.

What Hitler set in train was a multi-pronged operation which would have been strategically sound had (1) the resources been available to sustain it and (2) there had not been such a gross under-estimation of the available Soviet military capacity.  Originally, the plan had been to advance on the Caucasus after the encirclement and destruction of the defending forces in the Stalingrad region and the occupation of the city itself.  This was changed, splitting the attacking force to allow the city and the Caucasus simultaneously to be conquered and the area envisaged was vast, including the eastern coast of the Black Sea, the forbidding Caucasian mountain passes and the oil fields of Grozny & Baku, far to the south.  The German generals didn’t need much more than the back of an envelope to work out it simply couldn’t be done and that rather than undertaking sound planning based on reliable intelligence, the Führer was indulging in little more than wishing & guessing.  “Wishing & guessing” was General George Marshall’s (1880–1959; US Army chief of staff 1939-1945) critique of Winston Churchill’s (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) dabblings in military matters and the comment wasn’t unjustified but the difference was that while the Allied high command was able to restrain (and if need be, veto) the prime-minister’s romantic (essentially Napoleonic) adventurism, the Wehrmacht’s generals and admirals had by 1942 long been dominated by Hitler.  The German army was however generally the most effective ground force of the war and remarkably, achieved some early tactical gains but such were the distances involved and the disparity of forces available that the offensive was not only doomed but culminated in the loss of some 230,000 troops at Stalingrad, a calamity from which the army never quite recovered and among the German people damaged the prestige of the regime to an extent no previous setback had done.

Third Reich War Flag, Mount Elbrus, August 1942.

Hitler, at least in 1942, wasn’t delusional and understood he was running a risk but his gambler’s instincts had for twenty years served him well and he still clung to the belief a strength of will could overcome many disadvantages, even on the battlefield.  Early in the war, that had worked when he was facing divided, unimaginative or weak opponents but those days were over and he was well-aware (regardless of what he told the generals) he was playing for high stakes from with a bad hand.  That he was under great pressure and wracked by uncertainty (whatever might have been his outward displays of confidence) was probably the cause of a celebrated over-reaction to what was one of the war’s more trivial incidents: the planting of the Nazi war flag on the peak of Mount Elbrus, at 5,642 m (18,510 feet) the highest point in Europe.  Hitler thought pursuits like mountain climbing and skiing absurd but, like any practical politician, he liked a good photo-opportunity and had in peacetime been pleased to be photographed with those who had raised the swastika on some mountain or other (something which dedicated Nazis had been doing since the 1920s, long before the party in 1933 plotted and swindled their way into office).  On 21 August 1942, the Third’s Reich’s war flag, along with the divisional flags of the 1st and 4th Divisions fluttered in the wind on the roof of Europe and news of the triumph was transmitted to FHQ (Führer Headquarters).

In the throes of the offensive driving towards Stalingrad and the Caucases, the alpine troops who climbed the peak to plant the flag doubtless though they were “working towards the Führer” and providing him a priceless propaganda piece.  They probably expected medals or at least thanks but Hitler was focused on his military objectives and knew he needed every available man to be devoted to his job and upon hearing two-dozen soldiers had decided to ignore their orders and instead climb a hill of no strategic value, just to climb down again, his reaction was visceral, recalled in his memoirs by Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945), then at FHQ:

“I often saw Hitler furious but seldom did his anger erupt from him as it did when this report came in. For hours he raged as if his entire plan of the campaign had been ruined by this bit of sport. Days later he went on railing to all and sundry about “those crazy mountain climbers” who “belong before a court-martial.” They were pursuing their idiotic hobbies in the midst of a war, he exclaimed indignantly, occupying an idiotic peak even though he had commanded that all efforts must be concentrated upon Sukhumi.”

The famous (and subtlety edited) photograph of the Soviet flag being raised over the Reichstag on 30 April 1945 during the Battle of Berlin (actually a staged-shot  taken on 2 May).

The Germans never made it to Sukhumi and the high-altitude sideshow by a handful of troops of course in no way affected the campaign but the reaction at FHQ was an indication of the pressure felt by Hitler.  The planting of a symbolic flag was also though symptomatic of the arrogance which had permeated the German military under the Nazis and it anyway proved a pyrrhic act of conquest, the standard torn down and replaced by the Soviet flag within six months; that the Russian army took the trouble to do that amid the clatter of war illustrates potency of national flags as propaganda devices.  One of the most famous photographs of the conflict was that of the Soviet flag in May 1945 being placed over the Reichstag in Berlin, a symbol of defeat of Nazism.  Interestingly, so important to the Kremlin was the image that the act was actually re-staged the next day, this time with a photographer in place to shoot a roll of film so the perfect shot could be selected and the Russians are not the only ones to have re-staged famous flag raisings.

A banner used in Croatia between 925-1102 (left), the current Croatian flag adopted after independence in 1990 (centre) and the Croatian naval ensign (1990).

One of the most ancient symbols to endure in modern nation flags is the red & white checkered pattern used to this day on the flag of Croatia.  The oldest known example dates from 925 and the pattern was used (with the odd interruption) for centuries, even when the country was a non-sovereign component of supranational states such as the Habsburg Empire.  A red star was used instead when Croatia was a part of comrade Marshall Tito’s (1892-1980) Jugoslavija (Yugoslavia) between 1945-1990 but the red & white checks were restored when independence was regained in 1990.

Applied vexillologist Ivana Knoll at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.

Noted Instagram influencer Ivana Knoll (b 1992) was a finalist in the Miss Croatia beauty contest in 2016 and for her appearances at the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, chose a number of outfits using the national symbol of the red and white checkerboard (matching the home strip worn by the team), taken from the Croatian national flag.  By the standards of Instagram, the design of the hoodie she donned for Croatia's game against Morocco at the Al-Bayat stadium wasn't particularly revealing but it certainly caught the eye.  As if Gianni Infantino (b 1970; president of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (International Federation of Association Football) since 2016) doesn't have enough to ponder, the former Miss Croatia finalist tagged FIFA in her posts, fearing perhaps the president may not be among her 600,000 Instagram followers and her strategy seems to have had the desired effect although whether the design which, does cover her hair, shoulders and legs really was sufficiently demur to satisfy the local rules may have been contested by some imams.  The guidance provided by FIFA indicated non-Qatari women don’t need to wear the abaya (the long, black robe), tops must cover their midriff and shoulders, and skirts, dresses or trousers must cover the knees and clothing should not be tight or reveal any cleavage.  In accordance with the rules or not, Ms Knoll proved a popular accessory for Qatari men seeking selfies.

Four Citroën GS “Drapeaux” on the 400 metre athletics track at the Olympic Stadium, Munich, FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany) 1949-1990) for the 1971 “The Car Without Borders” press event.

National flags sometimes appear on cars and while that’s done usually with badges, the bunting represented either in the singular (including the Triumph TR6 (1968-1976)) or in multiples for that “international flavour” (such as Cutlass Ciera emblem used by Oldsmobile between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s), in 1971 Citroën used the whole car as a harlequinesque canvas.  Based on mechanically standard GS hatchback and station wagon (Break) models, the flags which adorned the bodywork were those of the twelve nations which participated in voting for the 1971 (ECotY) European Car of the Year, won by the GS.  As well as the four created for the event in Munich, a number of replica GS Drapeaux were built (it’s not clear how many but it may have been as many as 24) for a continent-wide promotional tour, co-ordinated with Citroën dealers.  The voting for the 1971 ECotY was undertaken by a jury of 44 journalists and while not exactly a kind of “automotive Eurovision”, when the numbers were tallied the GS had received a majority in Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the FRG, the Netherlands and the UK, enough to take the title.  The French drapeaux was the plural of drapeau (flag), from the Old French drapel.  In the French dialectical form spoken in Louisiana, a drapeau was a diaper (nappy).

1971 Citroën GS 1220 Club Break in “Drapeaux” trim.

That the ECotY’s jury is made up of specialist automotive journalists has always tended to slant things towards the technically interesting which accounts for winners or place-getters including the NSU Ro80 (1967-1977 and the Wankel-engined winner in 1968 which effectively bankrupted its maker), the Jensen FF (1966-1974 and the first production road car with ABS & AWD (all-wheel-drive and then still called 4WD (four-wheel-drive)) and third in 1967) and the Oldsmobile Toronado (1965-1978 in its original configuration and third in (1966 despite using a 425 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8 with FWD! (front-wheel-drive) and being as unsuited to the European market as just about anything ever made)).  The ECotY award winners haven’t always been a success in the market but did reflect the sort of machines which appealed to the particular profile of automotive journalists, a breed quite different from those who actually buy new cars.  Nor were the winners necessarily the “best” (admittedly a difficult quality to define), illustrated by the 1990 award when the outstanding Mercedes-Benz R129 (1988-2001) was runner up to the dreary Citroën XM (1989-2000).  By historic standards the GS (1970-1986) was a pretty good choice because not was it only an inspired design but also one which proved a success over a long period, unlike the runner up Volkswagen K70 (1970-1974) and third-placed Citroën SM (1970-1975).  The K70 had actually been inherited by VW when the moribund NSU was absorbed but the many troubles of the SM contributed to Citroën’s bankruptcy though probably not to the same extent as the GS Birotor (1973-1975 and known also as the CX) which used a Wankel engine. 

Flag of Mozambique (left) and flag of the Hezbollah (right).

The flag of the Hezbollah (right), the public display of which is banned in some jurisdictions where both the organization's political & military wings are listed as "terrorist organizations" includes a depiction of  Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle but that of Mozambique (left) is the only national flag to feature the famous weapon and the Africans fixed a bayonet to the barrel which was a nice touch.  Mozambique gained independence from Portugal in 1975 although the flag wasn’t officially adopted until 1983 as a modified version of what was essentially the battle flag of the Frente de Libertação de Moçambique (FRELIMO, the Mozambique Liberation Front, the Marxist (later styled “democratic socialist”) resistance movement which fought a war of liberation (1964-1974) against the Portuguese colonial forces).  Artistically, just as Marxism (notably often in Stalinist form) had been politically influential in post-colonial Africa, the hammer & sickle exerted an artistic appeal.  The flag of Mozambique has an AK-47 crossed by a hoe sitting atop an open book and is the only national flag upon which appears a modern firearm, the handful of others with guns all using historic relics like muskets or muzzle-loaded cannons.  The Angolan flag has a machete crossing a half gear wheel and both these African examples follow the symbolic model of the hammer and sickle, representing variously the armed struggle against repression, the industrial workers and the peasantry.

Knownothingism

Knownothingism (pronounced noh-nuhth-ing-is-uhm)

A humorous coining to describe the American Party (1855 on) based on a stock reply the members were instructed to use if asked probing questions.

1855: A compound word, know + nothing+ -ism.  Know is from the Middle English knowen, from the Old English cnāwan (to know, perceive, recognise), from the Proto-Germanic knēaną (to know), from the primitive Indo-European ǵneh- (to know).  Nothing is from the Middle English noon thing, non thing, na þing, nan thing & nan þing, from the Old English nāþing & nān þing (nothing (literally “not any thing”)) and was equivalent to no +‎ thing (and can be compared with the Old English nāwiht (nothing (literally “no thing”)) and the Swedish ingenting (nothing (literally “not any thing”, “no thing”)).  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).

Knowing nothing

A nineteenth century US political phenomenon, the Know Nothing Party was originally a secret society known as the Order of the Star Spangled Banner (OSSB) which, like organisations such as the Freemasons or the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or, featured rites of initiation, passwords, hand signs and demanded of its members a solemn pledge never to betray the order.  One practical measure was an instruction to members, if asked probing questions about the society, to answer only “I know nothing.”  The phrase was widely reported and members of the OSSB, despite many name-changes, were always known as “the know nothings”.  As a tactic in politics, there is much to commend it, as easy as it is for one to talk one’s way into trouble, it’s easier still to avoid it by saying nothing.

The roots of the party lay in New York City politics, emerging in 1843 as the American Republican Party, spawning a number of forks in different states which in 1853 merged, becoming the OSSB.  In this form, seeking national influence, it was re-branded, firstly in 1854 as the Native American Party and a year later, the American Party.  Sounding surprisingly modern, Trumpesque even, (as opposed to emulating Crooked Hillary Clinton which would be described as "knoweverythingism") the platform supported deportation of foreign beggars and criminals, a twenty-one year naturalization period for immigrants and mandatory Bible reading in schools.  Their stated aim was to restore their vision of what America should look like: a society underpinned by temperance, Protestantism and self-reliance with the American nationality and work ethic enshrined as the nation's highest values; a kind of Make America Great Again vibe.  Their especial concern was the infiltration of Roman Catholics and the influence of the Pope and they advocated the dismissal of all Catholics from public office.  In this vein, their catchy campaign slogan was “Rum, Romanism and Ruin”.

The Know Nothings in Louisiana (2018) by By Marius M. Carriere Jr, University Press of Mississippi, 230pp.

The Know Nothings were the American political system’s first major third party. In the early nineteenth century, the two parties leftover from the revolution were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.  Later would come the National Republicans, the Whigs, the Democrats and the Republicans but it was the Know Nothings which filled the political vacuum even as the Whigs were disintegrating.  They were the first party to leverage economic concerns over immigration as a major part of their platform and though short-lived, the values and positions of the Know Nothings ultimately contributed to the two-party system which has characterised US politics since the 1860s.

Blazon

Blazon (pronounced bley-zuhn)

(1) In heraldry, an escutcheon or coat of arms or a banner depicting a coat of arms.

(2) In heraldry, a description (verbal or written or in an image) of a coat of arms.

(3) In heraldry, a formalized language for describing a coat of arms (the heraldic description of armorial bearings).

(4) An ostentatious display, verbal or otherwise.

(5) A description or recording (especially of the good qualities of a person or thing).

(6) In literature, verses which dwelt upon and described various parts of a woman's body (usually in admiration). 

(7) Conspicuously or publicly to set forth; display; proclaim.

(8) To adorn or embellish, especially brilliantly or showily.

(9) To depict (heraldic arms or the like) in proper form and color.

(10) To describe a coat of arms.

1275-1300: From the late thirteenth century Middle English blazon (armorial bearings, coat of arms), from the twelfth century Old French blason (shield, blazon (also “collar bone”).  Of the words in the Romance languages (the Spanish blason, Italian blasone, Portuguese brasao & Provençal blezo, the first two are said to be French loan-words and the origins of all remain uncertain.  According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the suggestion by nineteenth century French etymologists of connections with Germanic words related to English blaze is dubious because of the sense disparities.  The verb blazon (to depict or paint (armorial bearings) dates from the mid sixteenth century and was either (or both) from the noun or the French blasonner (from the French noun).  In English, it had earlier in the 1500s been used to mean “descriptively to set forth; descriptively” especially (by at least the 1530s) specifically “to vaunt or boast” and in that sense it was probably at least influenced by the English blaze.  Blazon & blazoning are nouns & verbs, blazoner, blazonry & blazonment are nouns and blazoned & blazonable are adjectives; the noun plural is blazons.

A coat of arms, possibly of dubious provenance. 

The now more familiar verb emblazon (inscribe conspicuously) seems first to have been used around the 1590s in the sense of “extol” and the still common related forms (emblazoning; emblazoned) emerged almost simultaneously.  The construct of emblazon was en- +‎ blazon (from the Old French blason (in its primary sense of “shield”).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials “b” & “p”.

Google ngram: It shouldn’t be surprising there seems to have been a decline in the use of “blazon” while “emblazoned” has by comparison, in recent decades, flourished.  That would reflect matters of heraldry declining in significance, their appearance in printed materials correspondingly reduced in volume.  However, because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

Self referential emblazoning: Lindsay Lohan's selfie of her modeling a sweater by Ashish, her visage emblazoned in sequins, London, November 2014.

Impressionistically though this assumption is, few would doubt “blazon” is now rare while “emblazoned” is far from uncommon.  While “emblazon” began with the meaning “that which the emblazoner does” (ie (1) to adorn with prominent, (2) to inscribe upon and (3) to draw a coat of arms) it evolved by the mid-nineteenth century with the familiar modern sense of “having left in the mind a vivid impression” (often in the form “emblazoned on one’s memory”).  In English, there’s nothing unusual in a derived or modified form of a word becoming common than its original root, even to the point the where the original is rendered rare, unfamiliar or even obsolete, a phenomenon due to changes in usage patterns, altered conventions in pronunciation or shifts in meaning that make the derived form more practical or culturally resonant.  That’s just how English evolves.

Other examples include (1) ruthless vs. ruth (ruth (pity; compassion) was once a common noun in Middle English but has long been extinct while ruthless, there being many who demand the description, remains popular), (2) unkempt vs kempt (kempt (neatly kept) would have been listed as extinct were it not for it finding a niche as a literary and poetic form and has also been used humorously or ironically), (3) disheveled vs sheveled (sheveled was from the Old French chevelé (having hair) and was part of mainstream vocabulary as late as the eighteenth century but, except in jocular use, is effectively non-existent in modern English) and (4) redolent vs dolent (redolent (evocative of; fragrant) was from dolent (sorrowful), from the Latin dolere (to feel pain)); redolent both outlived and enjoyed a meaning-shift from its root.

Etymologists think of these as part of the linguistic fossil record, noting there’s no single reason for the phenomenon beyond what survives being better adapted to cultural or conversational needs.  In that, these examples differ from the playful fork of back-formation which has produced (1) combobulate (a back-formation from discombobulate (to confuse or disconcert; to throw into a state of confusion) which was a humorous mock-Latin creation in mid-nineteenth century US English) (2) couth (a nineteenth century back-formation from uncouth and used as a humorous form meaning “refined”), (3) gruntled (a twentieth century back-formation meaning “happy or contented; satisfied”, the source being disgruntled (unhappy; malcontented) and most sources indicate it first appeared in print in 1926 but the most celebrated example comes from PG Wodehouse (1881–1975) who in The Code of the Woosters (1938) penned: “He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.”  Long a linguistic joke, some now take gruntled seriously but for the OED remains thus far unmoved and (4) ept (a back-formation from inept (not proficient; incompetent or not competent (there is a functional difference between those two)) which was from the Middle French inepte, from the Latin ineptus).

Literary use

In literary use, “blazon” was a technical term used by the Petrarchists (devotes of Francis Petrarch (1304-1374), a scholar & poet of the early Italian Renaissance renowned for his love poems & sonnets and regarded also as one of the earliest humanists).  Blazon in this context (a subset of what literary theorists call “catalogue verse”) was adopted because, like the structured and defined elements of heraldic symbolism, Petrarch’s poems contained what might be thought an “inventory” of verses which dwelt upon and detailed the various parts of a woman's body; a sort of catalogue of her physical attributes.  Petrarch’s approach wasn’t new because as a convention in lyric poetry it was well-known by the mid thirteenth century, most critics crediting the tradition to the writings of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, a figure about whom little is although it’s believed he was born in Normandy.  In England the Elizabethan sonneteers honed the technique as a devotional device, often, in imaginative ways, describing the bits of their mistresses they found most pleasing, a classic example a fragment from Amoretti and Epithalamion (1595), a wedding day ode by the English poet Edmund Spenser (circa 1552-1599) to his bride (Elizabeth Boyle) in 1594:

Her goodly eyes like sapphires shining bright.
Her forehead ivory white,
Her cheeks like apples which the sun hath rudded,
Her lips like cherries charming men to bite,
Her breast like to a bowl of cream uncrudded,
Her paps like lilies budded,
Her snowy neck like to a marble tower,
And all her body like a palace fair.

Two bowls of cream uncrudded.

So objectification of the female form is nothing new and the poets saw little wrong with plagiarism, most of the imagery summoned salvaged from the works of Antiquity by elegiac Roman and Alexandrian Greek poets.  Most relied for their effect on brevity, almost always a single, punchy line and none seem ever to attempt the scale of the “epic simile”.  As can be imagined, the novelty of the revival didn’t last and the lines soon were treated by readers (some of whom were fellow poets) as clichés to be parodied (a class which came to be called “contrablazon”), the London-based courtier Sir Philip Sidney (1554–1586) borrowing from the Italian poet Francesco Berni (1497–1535) the trick of using terms in the style of Petrarch but “mixing them up”, thus creating an early form of body dysmorphia: Mopsa's forehead being “jacinth-like”, cheeks of “opal”, twinkling eyes “bedeckt with pearl” and lips of “sapphire blue”.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) however saw other possibilities in the blazon and in Sonnet 130 (1609) turned the idea on its head, listing the imperfections in her body parts and characteristics yet concluding, despite all that, he anyway adored her like no other (here rendered in a more accessible English):

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
   As any she belied with false compare.