Modal

Modal (pronounced mohd-l)

(1) Of, relating to or characteristic of mode, manner, or form.

(2) In music, pertaining to mode, as distinguished from key; based on a scale other than major or minor; of, relating to, or composed in the musical modi by which an octave is divided, associated with emotional moods in Ancient and medieval ecclesiastical music

(3) In transportation logistics, as single-modal, pertaining to or suitable for transportation involving only one form of a carrier, as truck, rail, or ship; related forms are bimodal, intermodal and multi-modal (can also be used figuratively or analogously).

(4) In grammar (of a verb or auxiliary verb form), expressing a distinction of mood, such as between possibility and actuality.

(5) In philosophy & metaphysics, pertaining to a mode of a thing, as distinguished from one of its basic attributes or from its substance or matter; relating to analogous qualifications such as that of rules as obligatory or permissive.

(6) In formal logic, exhibiting or expressing some phase of modality; qualifying or expressing a qualification of the truth of some statement, for example, as necessary or contingent.

(7) In computing, having separate modes in which user input has different effects, as in a graphical user interface (GUI) requiring immediate user interaction and thus presented so that it cannot be closed or interacted behind until a decision is made; used also to indicate different modes operating systems may implement hardware abstraction layers (HAL) such as the real, standard and enhanced modes in early versions of MS-Windows.

(8) In industrial production, a textile made from spun cellulose fiber.

(9) In molecular engineering, a type of analysis used in the study of the dynamic properties of structures under vibrational excitation.

(10) In telecommunications, a measure of bandwidth referencing the signaling rate per distance unit.

(11) In genetics, an ancestral haplotype derived from the DNA test results of a specific group of people.

(12) In linear algebra, a matrix, used in the diagonalization process involving eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

1560-1570: From the Middle French modal (pertaining to or affected by a mode), from the Medieval Latin modālis (of or pertaining to a mode), from the Classical Latin modus (measure, extent, quantity; proper measure, rhythm, song; a way, manner, fashion, style (in Late Latin also "mood" in grammar and logic)) and thus a doublet of mode; the Latin root also supplied the modern modal in French, Spanish & Portuguese and the Italian modale.  The Latin modus is from the primitive Indo-European modos (measure) from med- (to measure; take appropriate measures).  The use in music was first adopted in the 1590s and the word became part of formal grammar in 1798.  Modal is the adjective; modally the adverb.

The modal verbs shall & will

A modal verb is a type of verb used to indicate modality (likelihood, ability, permission, request, capacity, suggestions, order, obligation, or advice) and modal verbs always accompany the base (infinitive) form of another verb having semantic content.  In English, the modal verbs most commonly used are can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should, ought, need & dare.

Regarding the use of shall and will when speaking of the future, there’s no definitive rule, just conventions, which, in a manner not unfamiliar in English, are subject to another contradictory convention.  From that, English speakers are left to make of things what they can.

Will is used:

(1) To describe the future: “The flight will be delayed because of fog.”

(2) To make a prediction: “Italy will one day win the Six Nations.”

(3) To express a decision made at the time: “I will have a G&T”.

(4) To make a request: “Will you get me a G&T?”

(5) To make promises and offers: “I will buy you a G&T.”

(6) To describe the consequence of a conditional phrase: “If it is raining, I will put an umbrella in my bag.”

Historically, “shall” (including other spellings), was often used as an alternative to “will” but, in modern English, “will’ tends now to be preferred for affirmative and negative sentences although “shall” still is used to form questions with “I” & “we”, a practice less common in North America than the rest of the English-speaking world.

Sentences with “shall” are formed in the same way as those built with “will”, the negative form created by adding “not”; the question is made by inverting the subject and “shall”, a universal form although “shall” appears usually only in questions containing “I” & “we”.  As a point of use, some suggest the contraction “shan’t”, commonly used in spoken English, should never appear in the written except in transcription but there’s no historic or etymological basis for this.

Shall is used:

(1) To make offers using I or we: “Shall I make us some lunch?”

(2) To make suggestions using I or we: “Shall we go on a picnic?”

(3) To express formal obligations: “The accused shall plead guilty or not guilty.”

(4) To make a promise: “I shall not be late for lunch.”

(5) To describe the future in a formal manner: “We shall fight them on the beaches…”

So, the convention is to use “will” for affirmative and negative sentences about the future or to make requests.  To make an offer or suggestion with “I” or “we”, use “shall” in the question form.  However, if it’s wished to impart a sense of formality, use “shall” instead of “will”.  So, “will” and “shall” can be interchangeable, adoption depending on context.

Lindsay Lohan will star in Netflix's upcoming film Falling For Christmas which will be available on the platform from 10 November 2022.  The film is the first of her two picture creative partnership with the streamer, the romantic comedy Irish Wish currently in production.  It's predicted most Lohanics swiftly shall stream both.

Refute

Refute (pronounced ri-fyoot)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deny, deny, deny

Mr Barilaro preparing pasta sheets.

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

Mr Barilaro preparing lasagna.

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

Mr Barilaro serving lasagna.

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

Mr Barilaro plating lasagna.

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

Reactionary

Reactionary (pronounced ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee)

(1) Of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring the politics of reaction, applied especially (if not always accurately) to extreme conservatism or right-wing formations & individuals opposing social change or measures labeled as progressive.

(2) An individual associated with this position.

1830–1840:  From the French réactionnaire (one in favor of narrow conservatism or of a return to a previous social or political state (the colloquial was abbreviation reac)).  The construct was re- + -act- + -ion- + -ary.  Reaction was from the Old French reaction, from the Latin reāctiō, from the verb reagō, the construct being re- (again) + agō (to act).

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

Act was from the Middle English acte, from the Old French acte, from the Latin ācta (register of events) (plural of āctum (decree, law)), from agere (to do, to act), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European héǵeti and related to the German Akte (file); it partially displaced deed (which endured in its other senses), from the Old English dǣd (act, deed).  The –ion suffix was from the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  The suffix –ary (of or pertaining to) was a back-formation from unary and similar, from the Latin adjectival suffixes -aris and -arius; appended to many words, often nouns, to make an adjectival form and use was not restricted to words of Latin origin.  Reactionary is an adjective & noun; the noun plural is reactionaries.

"Reactionary" is used of social behavior often because it's thought to mean "reacting impulsively or badly".  

Because the jargon of political science is of little interest to most sensible folk, it’s not surprising the word reactionary is often misapplied, used to mean “acting in response to an external stimulus”, a condition properly described as “reactive”.  It occurs even among those who should know better, a marker of the decline in the quality of journalists and the extinction of the species of sub-editors who used to correct errors prior to publication.  Although not a related mistake, of note also is the modern buzz-word “proactive” (formed by analogy with “reactive”), used in the sense of distinguishing between prevention and cure although by overuse it’s become clichéd and seems at least superfluous given “active” would usually do as well.  It shows no sign of going away, like that other unhappy pairing of without and within, “without” used as an adverb or noun to mean “outside” when “within and beyond” would be more elegant.  Dictionaries of course concede this use of “without” is both correct and enjoys a long history and none comment on the elegance of a phrase and the two can be used in conjunction as long as the different senses are respected.  The UK Foreign Office for example explained in a 1945 memo that “…the Soviet Government will try a policy of collaboration with ourselves and the US (and China) within the framework of a world organization or without it, if it fails to materialize.”

Even reactive is nuanced.  As used in science it refers usually to a relationship between two substances, one guaranteed to produce a certain reaction if in some way interacting with another.  In general use reactive refers to the consequences rather than the chemistry which induces the reaction; while two chemicals can be guaranteed to be reactive upon contact, in interactions between people, the same circumstances can sometimes produce a reaction, in other cases there is none.  To be reactive can thus be either inevitable among substances or dependent on an individual’s state of mine.

Porträt des Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar, Prince of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein in Ritterorden des Godenen vlies (cerimonial robes of the Order of the Golden Fleece) (1836), oil on canvas by Johann Nepomuk Ender (1793-1854).

In political science, the term reactionary is applied with rather more precision than in general use where, like fascist, it’s tended to become a general term of disapprobation for those who espouse an opposing view.  When applied with some academic rigor, it refers properly to the view that a previous political state of society is desirable and that action should be taken to return to those arrangements.  A reactionary is thus different from a conservative who wishes to keep things as they are but perhaps (at least sometimes) synonymous with ultra-conservative or arch-conservative, the classic example in politics being Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859; foreign minister or chancellor of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848) who constructed an intricate model of Europe which was design to avoid another unpleasantness (for the ruling class) like the French revolution (1789) and its aftermath.  It’s usually thought of as somewhere on the spectrum of conservatism although there are logical (as well as linguistic) problems with that and either in theory or historic practice, reactionary ideologies, although radical, haven’t always been the most extreme of the breed.  Even that sort of terminology wasn’t reliably indicative of anything except what the author intended, Sir Garfield Barwick (1903–1997; Chief Justice of Australia 1964-1981) giving his autobiography the title A Radical Tory (1995), a few reviewers enjoying the opportunity to point out he was neither.

Thou shalt not: Pope Pius IX and friends.

In the UK there were of course already the Tories but it was the French Revolution from which English gained the descriptors "conservative", "right-wing" and "reactionary".  Conservative was from the French conservateur and was applied to those deputies of the French assembly which supported the monarchy (ie they wish to conserve that which was).  The term right-wing came to be used because when the Estates General was summoned in 1789, liberal deputies (the Third Estate) sat usually to left of the presiding officer's chair while the (variously usually either conservative or reactionary) members of the aristocracy (the Second Estate) sat to the right (the clerics were the First Estate and it’s from here is derived the later idea of the press as the Fourth Estate).  Reactionary was from the late eighteenth century French réactionnaire (from réaction (reaction)) and was used to denote "a ideology directed to return the structure of the state and the operation of society to a previous condition of affairs".  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) dates the first use of the word in English to 1799 and political scientists have managed to coin variations like reactionist and even the (thankfully rare) reactionaryism.  In theology, the classic reactionary was Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti, 1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) who in 1864 published Syllabus Errorum (Syllabus of Errors), a still controversial document which listed all the ideas of modernity which His Holiness thought most appalling and which should be abandoned because the old ways are the best.  Had he lived, his Holiness would have noted with approval the entry in that manual curmudgeons, Henry Fowler's (1858–1933) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926): "The word derives its pejorative sense from the conviction, once firmly held but now badly shaken, that all progress is necessarily good."

Referendum

Referendum (pronounced ref-uh-ren-duhm)

(1) The principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislature or executive authority to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection; the submission of an issue of public importance to the direct vote of the electorate.

(2) A measure thus referred.

(3) The vote on such a measure.

(4) A poll of the members of a club, union, or other group to determine their views on some matter.

(5) In historic diplomatic use, a diplomat’s official's note to their government requesting instructions.

(6) In legal & diplomatic use (as ad referendum (To reference)), an indication that although the substantive issues have been agreed, some differences on matters of detail need still to be resolved.

1847: From the Latin referendum (something to be referred; that which ought to be announced), neuter future passive participle (gerundive) of referre (to bring back), the construct being the verb ferre (to bear, bring, carry) + re- (here used to mean “back”).  It was an inflection of referendus, gerundive of referō (I announce).  Modern use appears to have begun in 1847 to describe the voting process used by the Swiss cantons (provinces) to validate certain laws passed by a legislature and use extended to the English-speaking world in 1882.

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

The "Brexit" referendum in June 2016 in which citizens in the UK voted (narrowly) to leave the EU (European Union) was one of history's more bizarre self-inflicted political injuries.  Then in the country, Lindsay Lohan revealed herself to be a "remainer" and on X (then known as Twitter) provided a real-time commentary on the count.  She did try to help and may have concluded "forgive them for they known not what they do".

The word referendum illustrates the difference between the Latin constructs known as gerunds & gerundives and their English equivalents.  In Latin, gerunds are neuter singular nouns formed from verbs by appending -ndum to the stem whereas in English, gerunds are verbal nouns formed by adding an -ing.  The Latin legendum (reading) is for example formed from the verb legere (to read) while the English gerund is reading (read + -ing).  Because English gerunds are nouns, the preceding pronouns should take the possessive form (“we noticed him reading” (present participle)) but “we enjoyed his reading of that passage” (gerund).  By contrast, the Latin gerundive has the same form as a gerund but is used as an adjective and can take any number (singular or plural) and gender.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), there exists in English some sixty words which are unchanged from the original Latin (gerundives & gerunds) in a ratio of about two to one.  Some two-dozen are Latin phrases, noted from their continued use in legal jargon (such as capias ad respondendum (to enforce attendance at court) while the remainder are often from Medieval or Church Latin, unknown to Classical Latin.  Curiously, the OED was (at least earlier) ambivalent about whether referendum comes from a gerund or a gerundive but most agree a gerund it is and thus would have no plural in Latin so the rules of English plural construction would apply, creating referendums.  Were it a gerundive, the alternative plural in English could be referenda and that has attained some popularity but most authorities think this usually a misunderstanding based on the treatment of nouns (eg stadium & stadia). 

The meaning has of course shifted.  In Latin, a referendum was “a question to be referred to the people” but in modern European political discourse it was appropriated to describe the mechanics of the vote itself.  Had the original conventions of Latin be adhered to by those who followed. Such a thing would have been “a reference” but referendum is well understood and the original sense is now covered by the ubiquitous “terms of reference” and the preferred plural form is doubtlessly referendums although referenda is heard so often it may well have become an alternative unique to English.  Variations do exist: a neverendum is political slang for something which a government is never likely to submit to a vote and technically, a preferendum is a referendum in which more than two items or persons are being voted upon.

In modern use, plebiscite has a similar meaning in modern use and by many is used interchangeably.  It was from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant “decree of the Concilium Plebis (Plebeian Council)”, the popular assembly of the Roman Republic.  English gained the word from the Middle French plébiscite, from the Latin plebiscita from plebs & plebis (the common people) and the construct of the Latin plēbīscītum (decree of the plebs) was plēbī (for plēbis & plēbēī genitive singular of plēbs & plēbēs) + scītum (“resolution, decree”, the noun use of neuter of scītus, the past participle of scīscere (to enact, decree) (originally, to seek to know, learn)), inchoative of scīre (to know).  Despite some imprecision in modern use, there are places where some distinction is (at least to some extent) maintained, usually with a referendum being a vote binding upon a government whereas a plebiscite is merely indicative.  The initiative (usually in the form ballot initiative) is related in that it refers to a process (usually signatures on a form of petition) by which a matter may be submitted to a referendum.

Watched by an approving comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) casts his vote in the 1937 election for the Supreme Soviet.  To the left, Comrade Marshal Kliment Voroshilov (1881–1969) watches Comrade Nikolai Yezhov (1895–1940, head of the NKVD 1936-1938).

Those voting in 1937 may have had high hopes for the future because, read literally, the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union (adopted 5 December 1936) described a democratic utopia.  Unfortunately, within months, comrade Stalin embarked on his Great Purge and turned his country into a kind of combination of prison camp and abattoir, many of those involved in drafting the constitution either sent to the Gulag or shot.  In 1937 the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) was declared to have won 99% of the vote so it was not an exceptional result but the photograph is unusual in that it’s one of the few in which the usually dour comrade Molotov is smiling.  It was comrade Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924; head of government of Russia or Soviet Union 1917-1924) who dubbed Molotov “stone ass” because of his famous capacity (rare among the Bolsheviks) to sit for hours at his desk and process the flow of paperwork the CPSU’s bureaucracy generated.  Precise in every way, Molotov would correct those who suggested Lenin’s moniker had been “iron ass” but, disapproving of “shameful bureaucratism”, he may have used several variants in the same vein and in another nod to Molotov’s centrality in the administrative machinery of government, he was known also as “comrade paper-clip”.

On paper, between 1936-1991, the Supreme Soviet was the highest institution of state authority in the Soviet Union (1922-1991) but was in reality a “rubber stamp parliament” which existed only to ratify, adding a veneer of legality to laws sent down by the executive, controlled exclusively by the CPSU although it was valued for photo-opportunities, enthralled delegates always seen attentively listening to comrade Stalin’s speeches.  On election night comrade Stalin was quoted in the Soviet press as saying: “Never in the history of the world have there been such really free and really democratic elections -- never!  History knows no other example like it...our universal elections will be carried out as the freest elections and the most democratic compared with elections in any other country in the world.  Universal elections exist and are also held in some capitalist countries, so-called democratic countries.  But in what atmosphere are elections held there?… In an atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity.”  The statement often attributed to comrade Stalin: “It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes” probably was apocryphal but indicative of how he did things and his psephological model has been an inspiration to figures such as Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) and Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).

Mr Putin’s (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) use of referendums as an attempt to add a legal gloss to Moscow’s annexation of parts of the Ukraine are an example of the way dictators often are most concerned with the appearance of lawfulness in what they do.  As a general principle, for an annexation to be valid under international law it requires (1) that the borders be exactly defined, (2) that the nation asserting control be capable of defending the territory, (3) that the population is substantially in accord with the change and (4) that recognition is granted by the international community (these days through the mechanism of the United Nations (UN)).  Given the military situation on the ground, it seems unlikely any of these pre-conditions had been met at the time Mr Putin conducted his triumphal ceremonies in the Kremlin.  The substantial majorities reported as being in favor of annexation in referendums conducted in September 2022 were an echo of the result of the 2014 Crimean status referendum which (according to the Kremlin) validated the earlier Russian occupation.

In this, Moscow’s referendums were to some extent similar to the infamous referendum conducted by the Nazis in 1938 to validate the Anschluss (joining) with Germany.  Although the reported result had some 99% voting in favor, it was not a vote which could be considered in any way free or fair although it may be a majority might have been achieved, based on the response of the population when the occupation was executed.  In some ways, the exaggeration of the yes vote by the Nazis worked to Austria’s long-term advantage, the improbability of the published result allowing the creation of the post-war narrative of Austria as the first of the Nazi’s victims rather than a nation which welcomed the incorporation.  The voting papers were headed Referendum and Greater German Parliament and the question was: Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that took place on 13 March 1938 and do you vote for the list of our Leader Adolf Hitler?  The choice was Yes or No.

When the political cartoonist David Low (1891-1963) drew his take on the Anschluss referendum, he called it a plebiscite (a word which better describes how things were done by the Nazis) and suggested (rightly) the Duce was as complicit as the Western democracies.  Depicted marching unwillingly to cast their "Ja" ballots are (left to right) Édouard Daladier (1884–1970; prime minister of France in 1933, 1934 & 1938-1940), then UK foreign secretary Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959), Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940; prime minister of the UK 1937-1940) and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943).  Under a smiling (complete with halo) portrait of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) sits the corpulent and bemedaled Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) while behind the ballot box stands the diminutive Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945).  The military figures are used by Low as symbols of German militarism and Göring's contented smirk was well-deserved because, more even than Hitler, he was the driving force in the Anschluss.

Much has changed since 1945 but the recommendations for the best way for the West to handle the Kremlin today are exactly the same as those included in a paper called Facts and Tendencies in Wartime, 1944, written by Ronald Matthews (1904-1963), while Moscow correspondent (1942-1944) for the Daily Herald :

"It is of absolutely paramount importance that the Western powers should be able to give Russia at the end of the war... a sense of security.  Though I think it is just as important from all points of view that they should be able to do so without making concessions to her which they feel to be unjustified.  Such concessions would make only for further rankling ill-feeling; nor do I think the Russians will ever really trust us till we show firmness as well as conciliation in our dealings with them.  I may be wrong but I cannot help feeling that the effects of our giving in to them on points on which we feel we are right is doubly unfortunate.  First, it loses us their respect (the Russians respect and respond to tough bargaining).  And, secondly, it may well give them not confidence in us, but a sense that we are temporarily buying them off, just as the Germans and they bought each other off in August 1939 (ie the Nazi-Soviet Pact)".

React

React (pronounced ree-akt)

(1) To act in response to an agent or influence.

(2) To act reciprocally upon each other, as two things.

(3) To act in opposition, as against some force.

(4) To respond to a stimulus in a particular manner.

(5) In physics, to exert an equal force in the opposite direction to an acting force; to act in a reverse direction or manner, especially so as to return to a prior condition.

(6) In chemistry, to act upon each other; to exercise a reciprocal or a reverse effect, as two or more chemical agents; to act in opposition.

(7) In chemistry, to cause or undergo a chemical reaction.

(8) In the hyphenated form re-act, to act or again perform.

(9) To return an impulse or impression; in Internet use, to post a reaction (now often in the form of an emoji), indicating how one feels about a posted message.

1635–1645: From the early Modern English react (to exert, as a thing acted upon, an opposite action upon the agent).  The construct was re- + act, thought to have been modeled on the Medieval Latin reagere, the construct being re- + agere (to drive, to do).  Act was from the Middle English acte, from the Old French acte, from the Latin ācta (register of events), the plural of āctum (decree, law), from agere (to do, to act), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European héǵeti and related to the German Akte (file); it partially displaced deed, from the Old English dǣd (act, deed) which endured and (especially in law), flourished in parallel.  The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

The hyphenated form re-act (to act or again perform) began to develop during the 1650s (although the hyphen wasn’t de rigueur for decades) and there’s evidence to suggest there was often either an exaggerated pronunciation of the “re-“ or a slight pause between syllables to distinguish it from react.  Forms like overreact & overreaction (1928), interreact, interreaction (1820s), reactivate (1902 & reactivation etc were coined as required.  React is a noun & verb, reactive is an adjective, reactor, reaction & reactant are nouns, reactionary is a noun & adjective, reactivate, reacted & reacting are verbs,; the noun plural is reacts.

Lindsay Lohan reacting, demonstrating her emotional range (left to right:  happy, surprised, terrified and despairing).

The noun reactant (a reacting thing) came from chemistry and dates from 1901; as an adjective it was noted in the literature by 1911 although it may have been in oral use for some time and the noun reactance had been in the vocabulary of science since at least 1893.  The noun reactor (one that reacts) was a standard entry in the books of Latin instruction by 1825 but came into common use in the electrical industry after 1915 to describe “coil or other piece of equipment which provides reactance in a circuit”.  The word is now most commonly associated with nuclear energy, the reactor technically the component in a power-plant, submarine etc, where the nuclear reactions are contained but in the popular imagination often used of the power-generating installations to describe the entire facility.  The adjective reactive dates from 1712 in the sense of “a repercussive, echoing” although that use is long obsolete.  It was re-purposed in the early nineteenth century to mean “caused by a reaction” and by 1888 as “susceptible to (chemical) reaction” and in chemistry the related forms were reactively, reactiveness & reactivity, the words required as new chemicals and elements were subjected to experiments determining the behavior when exposed to others.

The noun reaction (action in resistance or response to another action or power), although later much used in chemistry, dates from the language of physics & dynamics in the 1640s and came frequently to be seen in discussions of politics and international relations.  It was modeled on the French réaction, from the older Italian reattione, from the Medieval Latin reactionem (nominative reactio), a noun of action formed in Late Latin from the past-participle stem of Latin reagere.  In chemistry it was of course invaluable when describing “a mutual or reciprocal action of chemical agents upon each other” and it was the standard noun thus used by 1836.  The more general sense of "action or feeling in response" (to something said, an event etc) was from the early twentieth century.  The phrase reaction time (time elapsing between the action of an external stimulus and the giving of a signal in reply) was a creation of experimental science and first documented in 1874; it was later widely used (both as a precise measure and something indicative) in fields as varied as zoology, sport and electoral behavior.  Sometimes, the experiments to measure reaction times were conducted in a reaction chamber.

Porträt des Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar, Prince of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein in Ritterorden des Godenen vlies (cerimonial robes of the Order of the Golden Fleece) (1836), oil on canvas by Johann Nepomuk Ender (1793-1854).

The adjective reactionary (of or pertaining to political reaction, tending to revert from a more to a less advanced policy) dates from 1831 and was on the model of the French réactionnaire.  It was part of Karl Marx's (1818-1883) standard set of descriptive terms by 1858, used to convey the idea of “tending toward reversing existing tendencies” and was the opposite of the ”revolutionary”.  The classic reactionary era is now that created by the Congress of Vienna (1514-1815) when the old monarchies contrived to ensure they wouldn’t again be threatened by something like the French Revolution (1789).  So dominant did the use in politics become that the use in science (of or pertaining to a chemical or other reaction) became rare.  In political science, the term reactionary is applied with rather more precision than in general use where, like fascist, it’s tended to become a general term of disapprobation for those who espouse an opposing view.  When applied with some academic rigor, it refers properly to the view that a previous political state of society is desirable and that action should be taken to return to those arrangements.  A reactionary is thus different from a conservative who wishes to keep things as they are but perhaps (at least sometimes) synonymous with ultra-conservative or arch-conservative, the classic example in politics being Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859; foreign minister or chancellor of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848) who constructed an intricate model of Europe which was design to avoid another unpleasantness (for the ruling class) like the French revolution (1789) and its aftermath.  It’s usually thought of as somewhere on the spectrum of conservatism although there are logical (as well as linguistic) problems with that and either in theory or historic practice, reactionary ideologies, although radical, haven’t always been the most extreme of the breed.  Even that sort of terminology wasn’t reliably indicative of anything except what the author intended, Sir Garfield Barwick (1903–1997; Chief Justice of Australia 1964-1981) giving his autobiography the title A Radical Tory (1995), a few reviewers enjoying the opportunity to point out he was neither.

Thou shalt not: Pope Pius IX and friends.

In the UK there were of course already the Tories but it was the French Revolution from which English gained the descriptors "conservative", "right-wing" and "reactionary".  Conservative was from the French conservateur and was applied to those deputies of the French assembly which supported the monarchy (ie they wish to conserve that which was).  The term right-wing came to be used because when the Estates General was summoned in 1789, liberal deputies (the Third Estate) sat usually to left of the presiding officer's chair while the (variously usually either conservative or reactionary) members of the aristocracy (the Second Estate) sat to the right (the clerics were the First Estate and it’s from here is derived the later idea of the press as the Fourth Estate).  Reactionary was from the late eighteenth century French réactionnaire (from réaction (reaction)) and was used to denote "a ideology directed to return the structure of the state and the operation of society to a previous condition of affairs".  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) dates the first use of the word in English to 1799 and political scientists have managed to coin variations like reactionist and even the (thankfully rare) reactionaryism.  In theology, the classic reactionary was Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai Ferretti, 1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) who in 1864 published Syllabus Errorum (Syllabus of Errors), a still controversial document which listed all the ideas of modernity which His Holiness thought most appalling and which should be abandoned because the old ways are the best.  Had he lived, his Holiness would have noted with approval the entry in that manual curmudgeons, Henry Fowler's (1858–1933) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926): "The word derives its pejorative sense from the conviction, once firmly held but now badly shaken, that all progress is necessarily good."