Conjunction

Conjunction (pronounced kuhn-juhngk-shuhn)

(1) In grammar, any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.

(2) Any other word or expression of similar function, as in any case.

(3) The act of conjoining; combination.

(4) The state of being conjoined; union; association.

(5) A combination of events or circumstances.

(6) In formal logic, a compound proposition that is true if and only if all of its component propositions are true.

(7) In formal logic, the relation among the components of such a proposition, usually expressed by the ∧ (∧) operator.

(8) Sexual intercourse (obsolete except for historic or poetic use).

(8) In astronomy, the coincidence of two or more heavenly bodies at the same celestial longitude; also called solar conjunction (the position of a planet or the moon when it is in line with the sun as seen from the earth. The inner planets are in inferior conjunction when the planet is between the earth and the sun and in superior conjunction when the sun lies between the earth and the planet).

(9) The state of two or more such coinciding heavenly bodies.

(10) In astrology, the coincidence of two or more heavenly bodies at the same celestial longitude, characterized by a unification of the planetary energies; an astrological aspect (an exact aspect of 0° between two planets, etc, an orb of 8° being allowed).

1350–1400: From the Middle English conjunccio(u)n, a borrowing from the Anglo-French and Old French conjonction, from the Latin conjunctiōn- (stem of conjunctiō (joining) from coniungere (to join), the second-person singular future passive indicative of coniungō.  Conjunction is a noun, conjunctive is a noun & adjective and conjugate is a noun, verb & adjective; the noun plural is conjunctions.

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction

Unlike French, which has the Académie Française, English has no central authority; assessments of correctness can be made by anyone, judgments of whom others can make of what they will; it's something like the concept of the fatwa in Islam and from this linguistic free-for-all emerged the “rule” a sentence shouldn’t begin with a conjunction.  In English, there’s actually no rule against a sentence beginning with a coordinating conjunction like and, but or yet but the mistaken belief in some sort of prohibition is widespread.  In the literature, thoughts on the origin of this are all conjecture but the theme of most suggestions is the practice is somehow inelegant (although harsher critics describe it as lazy and sloppy) and with a little effort, a more complex and pleasing construction might emerge.  That said, the prohibition has no historical or grammatical foundation and examples exist in the Magna Carta (1215), the United States Constitution (1787), judgments from the US Supreme Court (since at least 1803) and Abraham Lincoln's (1809–1865; US president 1861-1865) Gettysburg Address (1863) and Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage traced instances of use even in Old English.  That one is allowed to do something doesn’t mean one should do something and even then, it can be done too often.  A work like however doesn’t have the same feel as but; it’s in a higher register so the choice of which to use to start a sentence may be dictated by style as much as meaning.  So while beginning a sentence with and is permissible English, if overused it makes for dull and repetitive text.

The Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, 21 December 2021.

In an alignment dubbed the “Christmas Star”, Jupiter and Saturn, the solar system’s two largest planets, appeared on 21 December 2021 to be closer together than they have in nearly 400 years.  From the earth, the giant planets appeared a tenth of a degree apart although they are hundreds of millions of miles apart.  Also, as NASA confirmed, it’s been some 800 years since the planets aligned at night, timing that gave almost everyone on planet Earth the chance to observe the astronomical event known as a “Great Conjunction”, a similar alignment not due until 2080, with the next close conjunction following 337 years later, in 2417.  The event was unusual also because it fell on the winter solstice, the longest night of the year, a “rare coincidence,” NASA advised because “the date of the conjunction is determined by the positions of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth in their paths around the Sun, while the date of the solstice is determined by the tilt of Earth’s axis.”

Lindsay Lohan (2011).

Screened in conjunction with the 54^th international exhibition of the Venice Biennale (June 2011), Lindsay Lohan was a short film the director said represented a “new kind of portraiture.”  Filmed in Malibu, California, the piece was included in the Commercial Break series, presented by Venice’s Garage Center for Contemporary Culture and although the promotional notes indicated it would include footage of the ankle monitor she helped make famous, the device doesn't appear in the final cut.

Directed by: Richard Phillips & Taylor Steele
Director of Photography: Todd Heater
Costume Designer: Ellen Mirojnick
Creative Director: Dominic Sidhu
Art Director: Kyra Griffin
Editor: Haines Hall
Color mastering: Pascal Dangin for Boxmotion
Music: Tamaryn & Rex John Shelverton

Only

Only (pronounced ohn-lee)

Adverb

(1) Without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively.

(2) No more than; merely; just.

(3) As recently as.

(4) In the final outcome or decision.

Adjective

(5) Being the single one or the relatively few of the kind.

(6) Having no sibling or (less common) no sibling of the same sex (also a noun in this context).

(7) Mere (obsolete).

(8) Single in superiority or distinction; unique; the best.

Conjunction

(9) But (introducing a single restriction, restraining circumstance, or the like).

(10) Except (frowned upon by some).

Pre 900: From the Middle English oonly, onli, onlych, onelich & anely, from the Old English ānlich, ānlīc & ǣnlich (like; similar; equal; unique, solitary, literally "one-like”), from the Proto-Germanic ainalīkaz (one + -ly).  It was cognate with the Old Frisian einlik, the obsolete Dutch eenlijk, the German ähnlich (similar), the Old Norse álíkr, the Old High German einlih, the Danish einlig and the Swedish enlig (unified).  Synonyms include solitary & lone in one context and peerless & exclusive in the other.  Only is a noun, adjective, adverb & conjunction, onliness, onlyer & onlier are nouns and onliest & onlest are adjectives ; the noun plural is either onlys or onlies (both rarely used).

Only’s use as an adverb (alone, no other or others than; in but one manner; for but one purpose) and a conjunction (but, except) developed in Middle English.  In English, the familiar distinction of only and alone (now usually in reference to emotional states) is unusual; in many languages the same word serves for both although Modern German has the distinction in allein/einzig.  The mid fifteenth century phrase "only-begotten" is biblical, translating Latin unigenitus and Greek monogenes; the Old English word was ancenned. The term "only child" has been in use since at least the early eighteenth century.  The derived forms were once in more frequent use than now.  Someone who only adheres to the particular thing mentioned, excluding any alternatives. Onlyism (definitely non-standard) used to be quite a thing in Christianity in matters where there were different versions of documents and among Church of England congregations (often in the same parish) some were once adamant that only a certain edition of the Book of Common Prayer was acceptable and the others represented revisionism, heresy or, worse of all, smelled of popery.  Thus there were 1549-onlyiers, 1559-onlyiers, 1562-onlyiers etc.  The same factionalism of course continues to exist in many religions (and in secular movements and institutions too) but onlier has faded from use.  The adjectives onliest & onlest (a superlative form of only used almost exclusively in the US) are now rare and onlest is used mostly in African American Vernacular English (AAVE).  

The construct of the Old English ānlīc being ān (one) + -līc (-ly), only is thus understood in Modern English as on(e) + -ly.  One was from the Middle English oon, on, oan & an, from the Old English ān (one), from the Proto-West Germanic ain, from the Proto-Germanic ainaz (one), from the primitive Indo-European óynos (single, one).  It was cognate with the Scots ae, ane, wan & yin (one); the North Frisian ån (one), the Saterland Frisian aan (one), the West Frisian ien (one), the Dutch een & één (one), the German Low German een; the German ein & eins (one), the Swedish en (one), the Norwegian Nynorsk ein (one), the Icelandic einn (one), the Latin ūnus (one) & Old Latin oinos and the Russian оди́н (odín); doublet of Uno.

The –ly prefix was from the Middle English -ly, -li, -lik & -lich, from the Old English -līċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -līk, from the Proto-Germanic -līkaz (having the body or form of), from līką (body) (from whence Modern German gained lich); in form, it was probably influenced by the Old Norse -ligr (-ly) and was cognate with the Dutch -lijk, the German -lich and the Swedish -lig.  It was used (1) to form adjectives from nouns, the adjectives having the sense of "behaving like, having a likeness or having a nature typical of what is denoted by the noun" and (2) to form adjectives from nouns specifying time intervals, the adjectives having the sense of "occurring at such intervals".

The different phonological development of only and one was part of the evolution of English.  One was originally pronounced in the way which endures in only, atone and alone, a use which to this day persists in various dialectal forms (good 'un, young 'un, big 'un et al), the long standard pronunciation "wun" emerging around the fourteenth century in southwest and west England.  William Tyndale (circa 1494–1536), who grew up in Gloucester, used the spelling “won” in his translations of the Bible which were first published between 1525-1526 and the form slowly spread until it was more or less universal by the mid-eighteenth century.  The later use as indefinite pronoun was influenced by the unrelated French on and Latin homo.

Tyndale, before being strangled and burned at the stake in Vilvoorde (Filford near Brussels).  Woodcut from The Book of Martyrs (1563) by John Foxe (circa 1516-1587).

The cardinals and bishops in England probably neither much noticed nor cared about Tyndale’s phonological choice but they certainly objected to his choice of words in translation (church became “congregation” and priest became “elder”) which appeared to threaten both the institution of the Church and the centrality to Christianity of the clerical hierarchy.  Tried for heresy in 1536, he was pronounced guilty and condemned to be burned at the stake although, for reasons not documented, he was, after a ceremonial defrocking, strangled until dead while tied to the stake, his corpse then burned.

Activist herbivore Tash Peterson (b circa 1995, centre) at a vegan protest, Perth, Australia.

Although a thing which pedants enjoy correcting, the placement of “only” as a modifier matters only if putting it one place or the other would hinder clarity; there’s never been an absolute grammatical rule and, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s probably better to adopt whatever is the usual conversational style.  Strictly speaking, although “We only fuck vegans” means an assertion of a life consisting of nothing else, most would understand it as a statement of one who is prepared to contemplate intimacy only with vegans.  The best compromise to adopt is probably that recommended for handling the split infinitive: Use the more exact “We fuck only vegans” in formal use such as in writing and the more natural, conversational “We only fuck vegans” otherwise.  Note that a sign held aloft at a protest, although obviously something “in writing” is not an example of formal use; it’s just part of the conversation.

No ambiguity: Lindsay Lohan in sweatshirt from the I Only Speak LiLohan range.

Care must be taken to avoid ambiguity, especially in writing because the intonations of speech and other visual clues are not there to assist in the conveying of meaning.  Were one to say “She only fucks vegans after midnight”, quite what is meant isn’t clear and the sentence is better rendered either as “she fucks only vegans after midnight" (ie carnivores need not apply) or “she fucks vegans only after midnight” (ie vegans must wait till the midnight hour).  In informal English, only is a common sentence connector but again, this should be avoided in formal writing where “only” should be placed directly before the word or words that it modifies.

Syzygy

Syzygy (pronounced siz-i-jee)

(1) In astronomy (actually borrowed from astrology!), the descriptor for either of the two positions (conjunction or opposition) of a celestial body when sun, earth, and the body lie in a straight line (since applied to the "straight-line configuration" of firstly three and later any number of celestial bodies in a gravitational system.

(2) Any two related things, either alike or opposite (obsolete except for historic references).

(3) In classical prosody, a group or combination of two feet, sometimes restricted to a combination of two feet of different kinds.

(4) In biology (especially zoology), the aggregation in a mass of certain protozoans, especially when occurring before sexual reproduction but can be used also when describing the asexual exchange of genetic material.

(5) In psychology, an archetypal pairing of contra-sexual opposites, symbolizing the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds.

(6) In mathematics, a relation between generators of a module.

(7) In medical pathology, a fusing of some or all of the organs.

(8) In genetics, the pairing of chromosomes in meiosis

1650-1660:  From the Late Latin sȳzygia (conjunction), from the Ancient Greek συζυγία (suzugía) (yoke of animals, pair, union of two, conjunction), from syzygein (to yoke together), the construct being an assimilated form of syn- (together) + zygon (yoke), from the primitive Indo-European root yeug- (to join).  In the Greek, the word produced also zeugnýnai (to yoke together), sometimes simplified in English transcription as synzugon.  In English, syzygy was adopted by astronomy in 1847.  In science there are a number of terms of classification based on syzygy, the most attractive of which is probably Syzygium samarangense (a taxonomic species within the family Myrtaceae (wax apple or Javan rose apple).  

In progress.

Syzygy was one of those words from the once respectable field of astrology later adopted by a number of scientific disciplines (astronomy, genetics, psychiatry, mathematics, zoology) and retained, even after astrology became widely regarded as disreputable.  In mathematics and the physical sciences, it was a handy descriptor of things which became paired or, however briefly, were in alignment although historically the emphasis was on "pair", a syzygy as able to be applied to an identical pair as two diametric opposites.  That permissiveness is now listed by most dictionaries as obsolete but is something to be noted when reading historic texts.

The origin of the application of the word in disciplines like psychiatry and psychology (noted more by its appearance in literary works than professional or academic papers) is thought by some to have been triggered by Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyova (1853–1900) who used syzygy to denote “close union” and applied the concept in a variety of ways which influenced Russian writers not only in the nineteenth century but also those of the symbolist and neo-idealist movements of the later Soviet era and some critics agree Solovyov was at least one of the sources for Fyodor Dostoevsky's (1821–1881) characters Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov (1880).  Very much in the tradition of   More controversial is the idea his book, The Meaning of Love (1892) (in which syzygy was introduced) is one of the philosophical sources of Leo Tolstoy's (1828-1910) much discussed The Kreutzer Sonata (1889); critics remain divided and opinions are argued with vigour although unusually united was the critical industry built around Carl Jung (1875–1961) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) (particularly the former's theories of the collective unconscious and the balancing of conscious and unconscious elements within an individual's psyche, although this was metaphorical and abstract compared to the use in astronomy and other sciences) which found strands of syzygy in the many themes of the self which so permeates their work.  Given the overarching concepts of (1) the individuation process and (2) the unions of individuals, especially of male and female tending to a totality, even a unity, it’s a word with some appeal to those who seem to value having something with such a range of adaptable meanings to use in works of speculative vagueness.

Synod

Synod (pronounced sin-uhd)

(1) An assembly of ecclesiastics or other church delegates (particularly of a diocese), convoked pursuant to the law of the church, for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical affairs (in various denominations such gatherings sometimes described as ecclesiastical councils or).

(2) An assembly or council having civil authority; a legislative body and used (sometimes loosely) of any council of any institution (in this context also used disparagingly of secular institutions thought becoming too rigid in thought or process.

(3) An (often geographical) administrative division or district in the structures of some churches, either the entire denomination or a mid-level division such as a “middle judicatory” or “district”); use of the word “synod” differs between and sometimes within denominations.

(4) In astronomy, a conjunction of two or more of the heavenly bodies.

1350–1400: From the Middle English synod (ecclesiastical council), from the Late Latin synodus, From the Ancient Greek σύνοδος (súnodos or sýnodos) (assembly, meeting; a coming together, a conjunction of planets), the construct being the English syn-(from the Ancient Greek σύν (sún) (with, in company with, together with) + ὁδός ((h)odós) (traveling, journeying; a manner or system (of doing, speaking, etc.); a way, road, path (the word of uncertain origin).  The term סַנְהֶדְרִין‎ (sunédrion) exists in the Hebrew Talmudic literature and was used in a similar way and the early twelfth century Middle English form was sinoth.  Synod was used in the Presbyterian Church between 1953-1922 in the traditional sense of “an assembly of ministers and other elders” when the term was changed to “General Council”, an act of modernization apparently provoked by the word “synod” beings so associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.  In the schismatic world of the Medieval Church, just as there were from time to time, “antipopes” (from the Medieval Latin antipāpa), there were also antisynods, convened as meetings of his supporters.  Synod and synodicon are nouns, synodic is an adjective, synodal is a noun & adjective, the noun plural is synods.

The adjective synodal (of or relating to a synod) was a mid-fifteenth century creation from the Late Latin synodalis.  As a noun, a synodal was (1) a constitution made in a provincial or diocesan synod which was subject to review by a central body or (2) a tribute in money formerly paid to the bishop or archdeacon (at the time of his Easter visitation), by every parish priest (now made to the ecclesiastical commissioners and in later versions of canon law referred to as a "procuration").  The adjective synodic dates from the 1630s and was from the Latin synodicus, from the Ancient Greek συνοδικός (sunodikós) (of or related to an assembly or meeting); the form used in the late sixteenth century was synodical.  When used of the conjunction of two or more of the heavenly bodies (the moon and the planets) described by the astronomers of Antiquity, the phenomenon may be called a “synodical revolution” and the time in which it occurs a “synodical month”. Despite sounding suspiciously modern, a synodicon is not associated with on-line video gaming.  The noun synodicon was from the Latin, from the Ancient Greek συνοδικόν (sunodikón) and was a substantivisation of συνοδικός (sunodikós) (synodical).  Institutionalized in modern Italianate Ecclesiastical Latin, it describes a document from a church synod or synods, especially the official records of proceedings.  A subsynod (sometimes as sub-synod) is either (1) an assembly of officials which meets prior to a synod proper to make administrative arrangements, formalize an agenda etc or (2) a kind of sub-committee of a synod which is created for some purpose such as allowing a technical matter to be discussed by experts before being referred to the full assembly of the synod for deliberation.

The noun synodality (the plural synodalities) is used in Christianity to refer (sometimes perhaps optimistically) to the “quality or style of a synod; the fraternal collaboration and discernment as typified in a synod”.  The origin of the word synod (the Ancient Greek συν (together) + ὁδός (journey) hints at the hopefully fraternal collaboration and discernment that such gatherings of ecclesiastical worthies are intended to be, the expression of this the essence of synodality.  The notion of synodality is a part of the mystique of the Roman Catholic Church because it’s said to denote the essence of the church’s mission, something explained by the Holy See's International Theological Commission (ITC) which states that synodality encapsulates “the specific modus vivendi et operandi (way of living & method of operation) of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing mission”.

The ITC is an organization of the Roman Curia which advises the magisterium of the church, most notably the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF, the old Holy Office which many still refer to by its original name: The Inquisition).  The IDF was a creation of the re-structuring in the wake of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965) and formerly was established in 1969 as a kind of internal think tank which might present a kinder face to the world than the rather austere Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF (as the DDF was then known)).  That was an approach not unknown (for good & bad) in secular politics and while over the years there have been those who claimed the relationship between the ITC and the CDF was the sort of “creative tension” needed to ensure debates over matters of ethics and procedure stayed dynamic, others have seen the tension but little creativity.  For students of structuralism, it’s of interest the prefect of the DDF is ex officio the president of the ITC, an arrangement carried over in June 2022 when Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013), as a part of a range of reforms to the curia, announced the name change from CDF to DDF.

Pope Francis has made synodality (at least his conception of it) as perhaps the core value he intends to be the legacy of his pontificate and the ITC in 2018 published a paper which made explicit Francis was not modest in his ambitions for that legacy, the ITC’s document stating it was “…precisely this path of synodality which God expects of the Church of the third millennium” and stressed synodality “…is an essential dimension of the Church”, in the sense that “what the Lord is asking of us is already in some sense present in the very word 'synod’”.  Although presumably the pope and the ITC were more concerned with theology than etymology, tracing a tread which ran from the gathering of Christ’s disciples to the sessions of Vatican II in the 1960s, word nerds would anyway have enjoyed the thoughts:

In ecclesiastical Greek it expresses how the disciples of Jesus were called together as an assembly and in some cases it is a synonym for the ecclesial community. Saint John Chrysostom, for example, writes that the Church is a “name standing for 'walking together’ (σύνοδος)". He explains that the Church is actually the assembly convoked to give God thanks and glory like a choir, a harmonic reality which holds everything together (σύστημα), since, by their reciprocal and ordered relations, those who compose it converge in αγάπη and όμονοία (common mind).

Since the first centuries, the word “synod” has been applied, with a specific meaning, to the ecclesial assemblies convoked on various levels (diocesan, provincial, regional, patriarchal or universal) to discern, by the light of the Word of God and listening to the Holy Spirit, the doctrinal, liturgical, canonical and pastoral questions that arise as time goes by.

The Greek σύνοδος is translated into Latin as synodus or concilium. Concilium, in its profane use, refers to an assembly convoked by some legitimate authority. Although the roots of “synod” and “council” are different, their meanings converge. In fact, “council” enriches the semantic content of “synod” by its reference to the Hebrew   קָהָל(qahal), the assembly convoked by the Lord, and its translation into Greek as έκκλησία, which, in the New Testament, refers to the eschatological convocation of the People of God in Christ Jesus.

In the Catholic Church the distinction between the use of the words “council” and “synod” is a recent one. In Vatican II they are synonymous, both referring to the council session. A precise distinction was introduced by the Codex Iuris Canonici of the Latin Church (1983), which distinguishes between a particular (plenary or provincial) Council and an ecumenical Council on the one hand, and a Synod of Bishops and a diocesan Synod on the other hand.

5. In the theological, canonical and pastoral literature of recent decades, a neologism has appeared, the noun “synodality”, a correlate of the adjective “synodal”, with both of these deriving from the word “synod”. Thus people speak of synodality as a “constitutive dimension” of the Church or tout court of the “synodal Church”. This linguistic novelty, which needs careful theological clarification, is a sign of something new that has been maturing in the ecclesial consciousness starting from the Magisterium of Vatican II, and from the lived experience of local Churches and the universal Church since the last Council until today.

So for Francis, the word synodality has assumed an importance beyond that with which it has so long been vested in the Catholic Church so the Vatican watchers took note when, under the pope’s imprimatur, it was in October 2021 announced a summit to be conducted over two years was to be known as the Synod on Synodality.  It would have sounded an innocuous thing had it not been for the ITC’s paper three years earlier and it had the inevitable immediate effect among the clergy, the laity and the theologians: sniffing change in the air, some were hopeful and some fearful.  However, the pope, although thought by many a disruptor is also a realist and understands change in his 2000 year old institution will unfold among the generations to come and his immediate ambition seems restricted to tweaking the way the church relates to the rest of the world rather than overturning dogma.  Thus, expectations of welcoming the LGBTQQIAAOP in the church or approving the ordination of women are absurd but there may be changes in the way bishops both interact with their flock and the priests who are closer to that flock.  Just because a change doesn’t happen in the corridors of the Vatican where the curia plot and scheme, doesn’t mean the power structures haven’t changed.  The flock doesn’t mix with the curia; they talk to their parish priest.

Interestingly, for something some fear will be the harbinger of something radical, the Synod on Synodality is structured in the traditional (Vatican II style) modules with un-threatening names like "communion", "mission" & "participation" but however vague may be the indication of the content, few doubt that at the next session the factions will be mapping onto those titles the concerns which have for decades troubled Rome and it’ll be mostly about sex: whether the thousand-year enforcement of clerical celibacy is the underlying cause of the rampant child-sex abuse among its members, the role of women in the power structures and attitudes towards same-sex relationships including marriage.  Those discussions will play out between the factions and there are few with any hope there'll be many minds changed but the tone of the synod will be important and Francis has the advantage of being the absolute monarch in a theocracy; it is Francis who gets to review the synodicon the theologians and the bishops will submit and he will write the final document of the Synod on Synodality.

Working for more synodality in the world: Lindsay Lohan supporting the NOH8 campaign which sought to end California's 2008 voter-approved gay marriage ban (Proposition 8). 

It means Francis has immense power to shape things and point them in the desired direction and his contribution to ecclesiology is likely to be very different to the intriguing exercises in abstraction which came from the pen of Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022).  Whether that means it becomes simultaneously possible for the church simultaneously to continue to condemn homosexuality as a sin yet approve priests giving a blessing to those in a same-sex marriage remains to be seen but in many places, it would merely be an acknowledgement of what’s already happening.  Still, those who enjoy the process of such things more than the outcome can be assured there'll be much weeping and gnashing of teeth during the modules and some rending of garments on the way out.

Tremulous

Tremulous (pronounced trem-yuh-luhs)

(1) Of persons, the body etc, characterized by trembling, as from fear, nervousness, or weakness.

(2) Timid; timorous; fearful.

(3) Of things, vibratory, shaking, or quivering.

(4) Of writing, done with a trembling hand.

(5) Faltering, hesitant, wavering

1605–1615: From the Latin tremulus (shaking, quivering), from tremere (to shake, quake, quiver, tremble), from tremō (I shake).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek τρέμω (trémō) (tremble).  In Latin, the construct was trem(ere ) + -ulus (the Latin adjectival suffix).  In music, the tremulous effect is the tremolo, an 1801 coining from the Italian tremolo, from the Latin tremulus.  The quaver is from the early fifteenth century quaveren (to vibrate, tremble, have a tremulous motion), probably a frequentative of the early thirteenth century cwavien (to tremble, shake, be afraid) which is perhaps related to the Low German quabbeln (tremble), and possibly of imitative origin.  The meaning "sing in trills or quavers, sing with a tremulous tone" is noted from the 1530s; the related forms are quavered & quavering.  In optics, a tremulous light is a shimmer (1821) and in physiology, a shiver (1727), from shiver, "the shivers" in reference to fever chills dating from 1861.  Tremulous is an adjective, tremulously is an adverb and tremulousness is a noun; the noun plural is also tremulousness.

Becoming tremulous: Hitler’s signature: 1933-1945.

Between 1943-1945, Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) handwriting suffered and, towards the end, it took some effort even to etch his name, a process which happened in conjunction with a physical decline noted in many contemporary accounts.  The reason for this deterioration has been discussed by doctors, historians and popular authors, most recently in 2015 by Norman Ohler (b 1970) in Der totale Rausch: Drogen im Dritten Reich (The Total Rush: Drugs in the Third Reich), published in English in 2017 as Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany (Penguin, ISBN: 9780141983165).  Blitzed is a study of the use of methamphetamine stimulants in German society, the military and Hitler himself during the Nazi years with a focus especially on the relationship between the Führer and his personal physician, Dr Theodor Morell (1886–1948) who prescribed and administered a variety of drugs and vitamins between 1936-1945.  It’s the use of opioids and psychoactive drugs that is of most interest.

A best seller, Ohler wrote a lively work in a jaunty style which made his book readable but did attract criticism from the academic and professional historians never happy with journalistic trespassing on their carefully trimmed turf.  While there’s always sensitivity to authors injecting elements of humour and pop-culture references into anything about Hitler and the Third Reich, these essentially stylistic objections matter less than the substantive concerns about presenting as proven fact inferences drawn from incomplete or inconclusive sources.  That critique of scholarship should be noted but Blitzed needs to be read as just another text interpreting the documents of the era and in that, if read in conjunction with other accounts of the time, Ohler’s thesis is in places compelling while sometimes contradicted by multiple other sources.  The argument that the drugs had no effect Hitler’s decline and increasingly erratic behavior were due to stress and the onset of Parkinson’s disease is as dogmatic a position as many accuse Ohler of taking.  There are interesting aspects in the accounts from 1943-1945: the unexpected way Hitler’s physical tremors briefly vanished in the aftermath of the explosion during the assassination attempt in July 1944 and the various clandestine analysis of Morell’s preparations, some of which revealed a strong opioid and some harmless concoctions with barely a pharmacological effect.  While clearly not a conventional work of history, Blitzed seems a valuable contribution.

Hitler and Dr Morell.

The fault in Blitzed is probably that habitual journalistic tendency to exaggeration.  That stimulants were widely available and demonstratively popular in Germany doesn’t mean the entire workforce, every hausfrau and all servicemen in the Wehrmacht were habitual or even occasional users of amphetamines although, given the documentary evidence and the observational accounts of behavior, the case for Hitler’s addictions (or at least dependence) is stronger.  Critics felt also compelled to run the usual objection to anything which could be constructed as some sort of exculpatory argument; the idea that being stupefied by psychoactive drugs could somehow absolve individual or collective guilt.  Among those who lived the Nazi experience, long has been established the guilt to one degree or another of the many and the innocence of a few.  That said, there seems little doubt the rapidity of the Wehrmacht's advances in 1939-1941 were at least partially attributable to the soldiers being supplied amphetamines which enabled a heightened level of alertness and performance for sometimes thirty hours without need for sleep.  It was a most effective force multiplier.  Other factors, notably (1) the revolutionary approach to deploying tanks as armored spearheads, (2) the used of dive-bombers, (3) the ineptness of the Allied response and (4) luck were more significance but the speed did make a contribution.

Not tremulous: Lindsay Lohan and block capitals, Los Angeles, 2010.

Graphology (the analysis of handwriting to determine personality traits) did once enjoy quite wide acceptance in many places including being admissible as evidence in some courts but has in recent years come to be regarded as at least scientifically dubious while other condemn the whole thing as a pseudoscience deserving about the same status as astrology.  However, there are aspects of it which seem helpful in comparing the differences in the handwriting of individuals at various times and anyway, it's often fun to read, even if only to confirm our prejudices.  During Lindsay Lohan’s court appearances, she was known to take notes so, when the opportunity presented itself, a photographer snapped an image and it was provided to graphologist Bart Baggett (b 1969; founder of the Handwriting University, a distance learning school) who wrote an analysis.  He’d actually assessed her handwriting when younger and the style adopted then was different from the all block printing exhibited in 2010.  While he cautioned he wasn’t convinced the sample could provide any insight “…into her psyche” the change between the two was interesting:

”Despite her youth and tendency to find trouble I did see a high level of intelligence in her handwriting.  But, intelligence does not always translate into good behavior or emotional stability.  I will say this: the handwriting shown on this page is not that of an erratic, scattered drug addict.  It is the handwriting of a focused individual; with a high degree of perfectionism.  The straight baseline reveals an overall anxiety at things not going right; someone who loves order and structure.

In graphology, anytime somebody consistently blocked prints it’s seen as a huge (but common) defense mechanism.  Often this is a positive defense mechanism such as extreme masculinity.  I would say most individuals would find it difficult to distinguish between this handwriting and that of a military strategist or perhaps even an engineer who clock prints everything.  The one thing graphologists do agree on is that when someone only block prints, they don’t want people to know their most innermost thoughts and feelings, they are putting up a shield and protecting their intimacy.  Therefore you can bet she now has some major trust and privacy issues and has a guard up.  Who would blame her for having guard up, considering everything that you write is published and everywhere you go someone is snapping a picture of you? I think I would become a block printer too.”

Less & Fewer

Less (pronounced les)

(1) As an adverb or adjective, a comparative of little, with least as the superlative.

(2) To a smaller extent, amount, or degree.

(3) An emphasizer when conveying “most certainly not” (often preceded by much or still).

(4) In any way different; other (as in “nothing less than a scoundrel).

(5) Smaller in size, amount, degree, etc.; not so large, great, or much.

(6) Lower in consideration, rank, or importance; something inferior or not as important.

(7) A synonym for fewer, though subject to conventions of use.

(8) As the adjectival suffix –less, used to convey the meaning “without” (eg breathless), and in adjectives derived from verbs, indicating failure or inability to perform or be performed (eg tireless).

(9) When truncated as a conjunction, it means “unless” (increasingly rare but preserved in the forms of some rituals).

Pre 900: From the Middle English les, lesse, lease & lasse, from the Old English lǣs (adverb) & lǣssa (adjective) (less, lest) from the Proto Germanic laisiz (smaller, lesser, fewer, lower), from the primitive Indo-European leys- (to shrink, grow thin, become small, be gentle).  It was cognate with the Old Frisian lês (adverb) & lêssa (adjective) (less) and the Old Saxon lēs (less).  The Old English was a special use of lēas (free from, lacking, without, false) which was cognate with the Old Norse lauss and the German los & loose.  It existed also as –lās.  In Modern English, the verb and noun came respectively from the Middle English lessen and lesse, from the determiner.  The conjunction “less” indicating “unless” is now increasingly rare but preserved in the forms of some rituals.  It dates from the early fifteenth century, the extended contraction of lessen, “less'n” was a US dialectal form attested from 1881.  As an adverb, it’s often been used with negatives (eg none the less); “much less” (still more undesirable yet) dating from the 1630s.  It was formerly used to convey "younger," as a translation of the Classical Latin minor, but that’s now obsolete except in historic biblical use as “James the Less”, a translation often misleading for modern readers.

Fewer (pronounced fyoo-er)

(1) As an adjective, of a smaller number.

(2) As a pronoun (used with a plural verb), a smaller number:

(3) A synonym for less (but subject to conventions of use).

(4) The comparative degree of few; a smaller number.

Pre 900: The construct was few + -er.  Few was from the From Middle English fewe, from the Old English fēaw (few), from the Proto-Germanic fawaz (few), from the primitive Indo-European pehew- (few, small).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon fā (few), the Old High German fao & fō (few, little), the Old Norse fár (few), the Gothic faus (few) and the Latin paucus (little, few).  From paucus, English gained pauper, poor etc, the noun paucity, often used as a substitute for less & fewer.  Paucity, was in the early fifteenth century borrowed from the French paucite (smallness of quantity, scantiness), from the fourteenth century Old French paucité and directly from the Latin paucitatem, from paucitas (fewness, scarcity, a small number), from paucus (few, little), from the primitive Indo-European pau-ko-, a suffixed form of the root pau- (few, little).  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought usually to have been borrowed from Latin –ārius and reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  The –er suffix was added to verbs to create a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb; used to form an agent noun.  If added to a noun it usually denoted an occupation.

It was thought in Old English always to have been a plural form, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) basing this on “the analogy of the adverbial fela" which meant "many".  The phrase “few and far between” dates from the 1660s and is a use of the word as conventionally understood but there was also the quirky dialectical (north of England) use which is quite subversive: “a good few” which actually means “a good many”, noted in 1803 but presumed to have been long in use and spreading slowly from its regional origin.

Fewer was from the Middle English feue, feawe, fewe & fewere, from the Old English fēawera, genitive plural of fēawa (few) and later contracted to fea (not many, a small number; seldom, even a little), from the Proto-Germanic fawaz (source also of the Old Saxon fa, the Old Frisian fe, the Old High German fao, the Old Norse far & the Danish faa, from the primitive Indo-European root pau- (few, little).  The superlative was fewest.

Conventions of Use

Lindsay Lohan rendered with fewer freckles.

In many cases, “less” and “fewer” may without clumsiness be used interchangeably but, being English, there are exceptions so the mere avoidance of the clumsy may be a good a practice as the distinction in grammar, whether thought a rule or convention.  The rule, as usually explained, is to use “fewer” when referring to things which may be counted (ships, questions, restrictions et al) and less for stuff which can’t be reduced to a precise numerical value (love, hate, oxygen, stuff et al).  That sort of works in that “fewer” can be applied only to nouns but, “less” is often attached to both the uncountable and countable and with good reason: “twenty minutes or less” a better sentence that “twenty minutes or fewer” which is why “less” is so used with such frequency.  The best trick is to assess the clumsiness: there’s none in “twelve items or less” but “the cat is fewer playful than the kitten” is absurd so a fuzzier “rule” like “fewer means ‘not as many’ and less means ‘not as much’, while not bulletproof, is more helpful.  The grammar Nazis do take this seriously and sometimes demand the same diligence from others.  Not long ago, one UK supermarket chain responded to the many complaints received about "Ten Items or Less" and changed their check-out signage to “Up to Ten Items” although that may have excited the pedants to point out the ambiguity and demand Tesco make clear if that’s really “as many as ten items” or just a maximum of nine, 9 not quite up to 10.

Lindsay Lohan wearing less lingerie.

The intrusion of less where fewer probably belongs is not new, used this way since Old English and that was centuries ago.  The “rule” that aims to create a sharp distinction between “less” and “fewer” can be dated from 1770 when, in his Reflections on the English Language: In the Nature of Vaugelas's Reflections on the French, Robert Baker declared the expression “no fewer than a hundred” looked more elegant and was therefore correct English and his view proved influential; well before the turn of the twentieth century, the style and grammar guides now emphatic Mr Baker’s opinion was a rule.  It was of course never a rule but certainly was a useful convention of use to adopt: one which may now be summarized: (1) Fewer refers numbers of things and is used with count nouns. Less refers to quantities of things, and is generally used with mass nouns (fewer Calories, less sugar), (2) Less is also used to modify units of time, money, measurement, and other general statistics (fewer days, less time) and where a mass noun can become countable, fewer may be applied and (3), Less may also used for some specific constructions (2000 words or less).

The use of "less than" where the pedants would prefer "fewer than" is well-credentials and not just in this century.  The historian AJP Taylor (1906-1990), whatever his politics, not one with any fondness for new ways in the language, when discussing the casualty figures from the Great War, wrote that "Less than 1,500 civilians were killed by enemy action from sea or air" in English History 1914-1945.  That was published in 1965 yet within a decade, in his 1972 biography of Lord Beaverbrook (1879-1964), "fewer than" had crept in.