Now

Now (pronounced nou)

(1) At the present time or moment (literally a point in time).

(2) Without further delay; immediately; at once; at this time or juncture in some period under consideration or in some course of proceedings described.

(3) As “just now”, a time or moment in the immediate past (historically it existed as the now obsolete “but now” (very recently; not long ago; up to the present).

(4) Under the present or existing circumstances; as matters stand.

(5) Up-to-the-minute; fashionable, encompassing the latest ideas, fads or fashions (the “now look”, the “now generation” etc).

(6) In law, as “now wife”, the wife at the time a will is written (used to prevent any inheritance from being transferred to a person of a future marriage) (archaic).

(7) In phenomenology, a particular instant in time, as perceived at that instant.

Pre 900: From the Middle English now, nou & nu from the Old English nū (at the present time, at this moment, immediately), from the Proto-West Germanic nū, from the Proto-Germanic nu, from the primitive Indo-European nū (now) and cognate with the Old Norse nu, the Dutch nu, the German nun, the Old Frisian nu and the Gothic nū.  It was the source also of the Sanskrit and Avestan nu, the Old Persian nuram, the Hittite nuwa, the Greek nu & nun, the Latin nunc, the Old Church Slavonic nyne, the Lithuanian nū and the Old Irish nu-.  The original senses may have been akin to “newly, recently” and it was related to the root of new.  Since Old English it has been often merely emphatic, without any temporal sense (as in the emphatic use of “now then”, though that phrase originally meant “at the present time”, and also (by the early thirteenth century) “at once”.  In the early Middle English it often was written as one word.  The familiar use as a noun (the present time) emerged in the late fourteenth century while the adjective meaning “up to date” is listed by etymologists as a “mid 1960s revival” on the basis the word was used as an adjective with the sense of “current” between the late fourteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  The phrase “now and then” (occasionally; at one time and another) was in use by the mid 1400s, “now or never” having been in use since the early thirteenth century.  “Now” is widely used in idiomatic forms and as a conjunction & interjection.  Now is a noun, adjective & adverb, nowism, nowness & nowist are nouns; the noun plural is nows.

Right here, right now: Acid House remix of Greta Thunberg’s (b 2003) How dare you? speech by Theo Rio.

“Now” is one of the more widely used words in English and is understood to mean “at the present time or moment (literally a point in time)”.  However, it’s often used in a way which means something else: Were one to say “I’ll do it now”, in the narrow technical sense that really means “I’ll do it in the near future”.  Even things which are treated as happening “now” really aren’t such as seeing something.  Because light travels at a finite speed, it takes time for it to bounce from something to one’s eye so just about anything one sees in an exercise in looking back to the past.  Even when reading something on a screen or page one’s brain is processing something from a nanosecond (about one billionth of a second) earlier.  For most purposes, “now” is but a convincing (an convenient) illusion and even though, in certain, special sense, everything in the universe is happening at the same time (now) it’s not something that can ever be experienced because of the implications of relativity.  None of this causes many problems in life but among certain physicists and philosophers, there is a dispute about “now” and there are essentially three factions: (1) that “now” happened only once in the history of the known universe and cannot again exist until the universe ends, (2) that only “now” can exist and (3) that “now” cannot ever exist.

Does now exist? (2013), oil & acrylic on canvas by Fiona Rae (b 1963) on MutualArt.

The notion that “now” can have happened only once in the history of our universe (and according to the cosmological theorists variously there may be many universes (some which used to exist, some exact duplicates of our own (even containing an identical Lindsay Lohan), some extant and some yet to be created) or our universe may now be in one of its many phases, each which will start and end with a unique “now”) is tied up with the nature of time, the mechanism upon which “now” depends not merely for definition but also for existence.  That faction deals with what is essentially an intellectual exercise whereas the other two operate where physics and linguistics intersect.  Within the faction which says "now can never exist" there is a sub-faction which holds that to say “now” cannot exist is a bit of a fudge in that it’s not that “now” never happens but only that it can only every be described as a particular form of “imaginary time”; an address in space-time in the past or future.  The purists however are absolutists and their proposition is tied up in the nature of infinity, something which renders it impossible ever exactly to define “now” because endlessly the decimal point can move so that “now” can only ever be tended towards and never attained.  If pushed, all they will concede is that “now” can be approximated for purposes of description but that’s not good enough: there is no now.

nower than now!: Lindsay Lohan on the cover of i-D magazine No.269, September, 2006.

The “only now can exist” faction find tiresome the proposition that “the moment we identify something as happening now, already it has passed”, making the point that “now” is the constant state of existence and that a mechanism like time exists only a thing of administrative convenience.  The “only now can exist” faction are most associated with the schools of presentism or phenomenology and argue only the present moment (now) is “real” and that any other fragment of time can only be described, the past existing only in memory and the future only as anticipation or imagination; “now” is the sole verifiable reality.  They are interested especially in what they call “change & becoming”, making the point the very notion of change demands a “now”: events happen and things become in the present; without a “now”, change and causality are unintelligible.  The debate between the factions hinges often on differing interpretations of time: whether fundamentally it is subjective or objective, continuous or discrete, dynamic or static.  Linguistically and practically, “now” remains central to the human experience but whether it corresponds to an independent metaphysical reality remains contested.

Unlike philosophers, cosmologists probably don’t much dwell on the nature of “now” because they have the “Andromeda paradox” which is one of the consequences of Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955) theory of special relativity.  What the paradox does is illustrate the way “now” is relative and differs for observers moving at different speeds, the effect increasing as distances increase, such as when the point of reference is the Andromeda galaxy, some 2½ million light years distant from Earth.  Under special relativity, what one observer sees and perceives as “now” on Andromeda will, by another, moving at a different relative speed, will perceive as occurring in the past or future.   This can happen at any distance but, outside of computer simulations or laboratories, the effects of relative simultaneity is noticeable (even for relatively slow speeds) only at distance.  The way to conceptualize special relatively to imagine everying in the universe happening "at the same time" and "work backwards" as distances between objects increase.  

Seated vis-a-vis (literally "face to face"), Lindsay Lohan (b 1986, right) and her sister Aliana (b 1993, left), enjoying a tête-à-tête (literally, "head to head"), La Conversation bakery & café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Among the implications of the Andromeda paradox is that although the sisters would have thought their discussion something in the "here and now", to a cosmologist they are looking at each other as they used to be and hearing what each said some time in the past, every slight movement affecting the extent of this.  Because, in a sense, everything in the universe is happening "at the same time", the pair could have been sitting light years apart and spoke what they spoke "at the same time" but because of the speed at which light and sound travel, it's only at a certain distance a "practical" shared "now" becomes possible.  One wholly speculative notion even connects "now" with at least one of the mysterious pair "dark energy" & "dark matter", two possibly misleading terms used to describe the "missing stuff" which the cosmologists' models indicate must exist (in great quantity) in the universe but haven't been yet been identified or even described.  The idea is that "dark energy" may be time itself, the implication being that not only can time be used as a measure in the currently accelerating expansion of space but may be the very force responsible for the phenomenon.  Thus far, the speculation has attracted little support and nobody seems to have suggested any sort of experimental test but, the standard is science is disproof and "time may be dark energy" has yet to be disproved.      

Decimate

Decimate (pronounced des-uh-meyt)

(1) To destroy a great number or proportion of; to devastate, to reduce or destroy significantly but not completely (modern use).

(2) To select by lot and kill every tenth person (obsolete except for historic references).

(3) To take a tenth of or from (obsolete except for historic references).

(4) In computer graphics processing, to replace something rendered in high-resolution with something of lower but still acceptable quality.

(5) To exact a tithe or other 10% tax (almost archaic except in the internal rules of some religions).

1590–1600: From the Latin decimātus (tithing area; tithing rights), past participle of decimāre (to punish every tenth man chosen by lot) a verbal derivative of decimus (tenth), a derivative of decem (ten) and decimo (take a tenth), from the primitive Indo-European root dekm (ten).  The related nouns are decimation & decimator, the verbs (used with object) are decimated & decimating.  The most commonly used synonyms now are: wipe out, obliterate, annihilate, slaughter, exterminate, execute, massacre, butcher, stamp out & kill off

Decimate is interesting as an example of two linguistic phenomena.

(1) It’s a foreign word (Latin) which has become part of the English language.  This happens a lot (eg fuselage) because English is a vacuum-cleaner language which sucks in whatever is needed but it’s not universal and there’s no precise rule which decides what become assimilated and what, however frequently used, remains foreign: zeitgeist (spirit of the age) although now common in English, remains German.

(2) It’s a contranym, a word which in modern use, now means the opposite of its classical origins.  In Roman times, it meant to reduce by 10%; now it’s probably understood to reduce to, if not 10% then a least by a large portion.  This is a genuine meaning shift and, except in precise historic references (and then probably foot-noted), the new meaning is now correct.  Decimate thus differs from a word like enormity; if used (as it sometimes is) to mean enormous that’s not an error because by virtue of use, that meaning has been absorbed into the language as a concurrent use with the original.  By contrast, decimate has suffered a meaning shift.

The killing of one in ten, chosen by lots, from a rebellious city or a mutinous army was a punishment sometimes used by the Romans and there have been many instances of it (expressed usually as collective punishment) since, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) explicitly referring to the Roman tradition when in 1934 explaining why there had been so many (retrospectively authorized) executions during the suppression of the so-called "Röhm putsch" (the Führer's actions now sometimes (generously) described as a pre-emptive or preventative strike).  The word has been (loosely and un-etymologically) used since as early as the 1660s to mean "destroy a large but indefinite number of."  This is one of those things which really annoys pedants but given it’s been happening since the seventeenth century, it may be time for them to admit defeat.  Were the word now to be used to convey its original meaning, the result would probably be only confusion.  One point in use which is important is that one should speak of the whole of something being decimated, not a part (eg a plague decimated the population, not disease decimated most of the population).  Decimate remains well-known because is well known because it’s lived on in Modern English, albeit with quite some mission-creep in meaning but the Romans had many other expressions defining the precise proportionality of a reduction by single aliquot part including: tertiate (⅓), quintate (⅕), sextate (⅙), septimate (⅐), duodecimate (¹⁄₁₂) and centesimate (¹⁄₁₀₀).

Smaller but not decimated: Lindsay Lohan full-sized (left), reduced by 10% (centre) & reduced by 90% (right).

However, although most probably now understood what is meant by decimate even if they're unaware of the word's origin, it should still be use with some care.  Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966) in his revision (1965) of Henry Fowler's  (1858–1933) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) objected to the "virtual extermination" of rabbits by the agent of the myxomatosis virus being described as a decimation because, with a reported death rate of 99.8%, it was something notably more severe than modern understanding of the word let alone that of a Roman.  In the way of such things the rabbits anyway staged a revival as natural selection did its thing.  Fowler's guide also cautioned that any use "expressly inconsistent with the proper sense... must be avoided", citing "A single frost night decimated the currants by as much as 80%".  The point is taken but that sentence does seem helpfully informative.  Nor are all acts of reduction of necessity instances of decimation; there has to be something destructive about the process.  A photograph can be reduced in size by a Roman 10% or a modern 90% but one wouldn't suggest it has been decimated; it has just be rendered smaller.

Slag

Slag (pronounced slag)

(1) The substantially fused and vitrified matter separated during the reduction of a metal from its ore; also called cinder.

(2) The scoria (the mass of rough fragments of pyroclastic rock and cinders produced during a volcanic eruption) from a volcano.

(3) In the post-production classification of coal for purposes of sale, the left-over waste for the sorting process; used also of the waste material (as opposed to by-product) from any extractive mining.

(4) In industrial processing, to convert into slag; to reduce to slag.

(5) In the production of steel and other metals, the scum that forms on the surface of molten metal.

(6) In commercial metallurgy, to remove slag from a steel bath.

(7) To form slag; become a slaglike mass.

(8) In slang, an abusive woman (historic UK slang, now a rare use).

(9) In slang, a term of contempt used usually by men of women with a varied history but now to some degree synonymous with “unattractive slut” (of UK origin but now in use throughout the English-speaking world and used sometimes also of prostitutes as a direct synonym, the latter now less common).

(10) In the slang of UK & Ireland, a coward (now regionally limited) or a contemptible person (synonymous with the modern “scumbag” (that use still listed by many as “mostly Cockney” but now apparently rare).

(11) In Australian slang, to spit.

(12) Verbally to attack or disparage somebody or something (usually as “slag off”, “slagged them”, “slagged it off” etc); not gender-specific and used usually in some unfriendly or harshly critical manner; to malign or denigrate.  Slang dictionaries note that exclusively in Ireland, “slagging off” someone (or something) can be used in the sense of “to make fun of; to take the piss; the tease, ridicule or mock” and can thius be an affectionate form, rather in the way “bastard” was re-purposed in Australian & New Zealand slang.

1545–1555: From the Middle Low German slagge & slaggen (slag, dross; refuse matter from smelting (which endures in Modern German as Schlacke)), from the Old Saxon slaggo, from the Proto-West Germanic slaggō, from the Proto-Germanic slaggô, the construct being slag(ōną)- (to strike) + -gô (the diminutive suffix).  Although unattested, there may have been some link with the Old High German slahan (to strike, slay) and the Middle Low German slāgen (to strike; to slay), the connection being that the first slag from the working of metal were the splinters struck off from the metal by being hammered.  Slāgen was from Proto-West Germanic slagōn and the Old Saxon slegi was from the Proto-West Germanic slagi.  Slag is a noun & verb, slagability, deslag, unslag & slaglessness are nouns, slagish, slagless, slagable, deslagged unslagged, slaggy & slaglike are adjectives and slagged, deslagged, unslagged, slagging, deslagging & unslagging are verbs; the noun plural is slags.  As an indication of how industry use influences the creation of forms, although something which could be described as “reslagging” is a common, it’s regarded as a mere repetition and a consequence rather than a process.

In the UK & Ireland, the term “slag tag” is an alternative to “tramp stamp”, the tattoo which appears on the lower back.  Both rhyming forms seem similarly evocative.

The derogatory slang use dates from the late eighteenth century and was originally an argot word for “a worthless person or a thug”, something thought derived from the notion of slag being “a worthless, unsightly pile” and from this developed the late twentieth century use to refer to women and this is thought to have begun life as a something close to a euphemism for “slut” although it was more an emphasis on “unattractiveness”.  The most recent adaptation is that of “slagging off” (verbal (ie oral, in print, on film etc) denigration of someone or something, use documented since 1971 although at least one oral history traces it from the previous decade.  In vulgar slang, slag is one of the many words used (mostly) by men to disparage women.  It’s now treated as something akin to “slut” (in the sense of a “women who appears or is known to be of loose virtue) but usually with the added layer of “unattractiveness”.  The lexicon of the disparaging terms men have for women probably doesn’t need to precisely to be deconstructed and as an example, in the commonly heard “old slag”, the “old” likely operates often as an intensifier rather than an indication of age; many of those labeled “old slags” are doubtless quite young on the human scale.  Still, that there are “slags” and “old slags” does suggest men put some effort into product differentiation.

How slag heaps are created.

All uses of “slag”, figurative & literal, can be traced back to the vitreous mass left as a residue by the smelting of metallic ore, the fused material formed by combining the flux with gangue, impurities in the metal, etc.  Although there’s much variation at the margins, typically, it consists of a mixture of silicates with calcium, phosphorus, sulfur etc; in the industry it’s known also as cinder and casually as dross or recrement (the once also-used "scoria" seems now exclusively the property of volcanologists).  When deposited in place, the piles of slag are known as “slag heaps” and for more than a century, slag heaps were a common site in industrial regions and while they still exist, usually they’re now better managed (disguised).  A waste-product of steel production, slag can be re-purposed or recycled and, containing a mixture of metal oxides & silicon dioxide among other compounds, there is an inherent value which can be realized if the appropriate application can be found.  There are few technical problems confronting the re-use of slag but economics often prevent this; being bulky and heavy, slag can be expensive to transport so if a site suitable for re-use is distant, it can simply be too expensive to proceed.  Additionally, although slag can in close to its raw form be used for purposes such as road-base, if any reprocessing is required, the costs can be prohibitive.  The most common uses for slag include (1) Landfill reclamation, especially when reclaiming landfills or abandoned industrial sites, the dense material ideal for affording support & stability for new constructions, (2) the building of levees or other protective embankments where a large cubic mass is required, (3) in cement production in which ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) can be used as a supplementary component material of cement, enhancing the workability, durability and strength of concrete, (4) manufacturing including certain ceramics & glass, especially where high degrees of purity are not demanded, (5) as a soil conditioner in agriculture to add essential nutrients to the soil and improve its structure, (6) as a base for road-building and (7) as an aggregate in construction materials such as concrete and asphalt.  The attraction of recycling slag has the obvious value in that it reduces the environmental impact of steel production but it also conserves natural resources and reduces the impact of the mining which would otherwise be required.  However, the feasibility of recycling slag depends on its chemical composition and the availability of an appropriate site.

Harold Macmillan, Epsom Derby, Epsom Downs Racecourse, Surrey, 5 June 1957.

The word “slag” has been heard in the UK’s House of Commons in two of the three senses in which it’s usually deployed.  It may have been used also in the third but the Hansard reporters are unlikely to have committed that to history.  In 1872, Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) cast his disapproving opposition leader’s gaze on the cabinet of William Gladstone (1809–1898; prime-minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, Feb-July 1886 & 1892–1894) sitting on the opposite front bench and remarked: “Behold, a range of extinct volcanoes; not a flame flickers upon a single pallid crest.”.  Sixty-odd years later, a truculent young Harold Macmillan (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) picked up the theme in his critique of a ministry although he was slagging off fellow Tories, describing the entire government bench as “a row of disused slag heaps”, adding that the party of Disraeli was now “dominated by second-class brewers and company promoters.”  Presumably Macmillan thought to be described as a “slag heap” was something worse than “extinct volcano” and one can see his point.  The rebelliousness clearly was a family trait because in 1961, when Macmillan was prime-minister, his own son, by then also a Tory MP, delivered a waspish attack on his father’s ministry.  When asked in the house the next day if there was “a rift in the family or something”, Macmillan said: “No.”, pausing before adding with his Edwardian timing: “As the House observed yesterday, the Honorable Member for Halifax has both intelligence and independence.  How he got them is not for me to say."

Lindsay Lohan and the great "slagging off Kettering scandal".

Although lacking the poise of Macmillan, Philip Hollobone (b 1964; Tory MP for Kettering since 2005), knew honor demanded he respond to Lindsay Lohan “slagging off” his constituency.  What caught the eye of the outraged MP happened during Lindsay Lohan’s helpful commentary on Twitter (now known as X) on the night of the Brexit referendum in 2016, the offending tweet appearing after it was announced Kettering (in the Midlands county of Northamptonshire) had voted 61-39% to leave the EU: “Sorry, but Kettering where are you?”

Philip Hollobone MP, official portrait (2020).

Mr Hollobone, a long-time "leaver" (a supporter of Brexit), wasn’t about to let a mean girl "remainer's" (one who opposed Brexit) slag of Kettering escape consequences and he took his opportunity in the House of Commons, saying: “On referendum night a week ago, the pro-Remain American actress, Lindsay Lohan, in a series of bizarre tweets, slagged off areas of this country that voted to leave the European Union.  At one point she directed a fierce and offensive tweet at Kettering, claiming that she had never heard of it and implying that no one knew where it was.  Apart from the fact that it might be the most average town in the country, everyone knows where Kettering is.”  Whether a phrase like “London, Paris, New York, Kettering” was at the time quite as familiar to most as it must have been to Mr Hollobone isn’t clear but he did try to help by offering advice, inviting Miss Lohan to switch on Kettering's Christmas lights that year, saying it would “redeem her political reputation”.  Unfortunately, that proved not possible because of a clash of appointments but thanks to the Tory Party, at least all know the bar has been lowered: Asking where a town sits on the map is now “slagging it off”.  Learning that is an example of why we should all "read our daily Hansards", an observation Mr Whitlam apparently once made, suggesting his estimation of the reading habits of the general population might have differed from reality.

Screen grab from the "apology video" Lindsay Lohan sent the residents of Kettering advising she'd not be able to switch on their Christmas lights because of her "busy schedule".

Undertaker

Undertaker (pronounced uhn-der-tey-ker)

(1) A person whose profession is the preparation of the dead for burial or cremation and the management of funerals (like embalmer, now mostly a historic reference, the preferred modern terms being funeral director or mortician)

(2) A person receiving land in Ireland during the Elizabethan era, so named because they gave an undertaking to abide by several conditions regarding marriage, to be loyal to the crown, and to use English as their spoken language (obsolete, now used only for historic references).

(3) A contractor for the royal revenue in England, one of those who undertook to manage the House of Commons for the king in the Addled Parliament of 1614 (obsolete, now used only for historic references).

(4) A person who undertakes something (became rare because of the likelihood of confusion with funeral directors but "undertake", "undertaking" and "undertaken" now common).  Historically, the word was associated in Middle and early Modern English with those running businesses but as the association with embalming and burials became pervasive, it came to be replaced with the French entrepreneur.

1350–1400: A compound word under- + -take- + -er, a back-formation from the earlier undertake (after undernim (from the Middle English undernimen, from the Old English underniman (to take in, receive, comprehend, understand, blame, be indignant at, take upon oneself, steal), the construct being under- +‎ nim.  It was cognate with the Dutch ondernemen (to undertake, attempt) and the German unternehmen (to undertake, attempt).  Under is from the Middle English under-, from the Old English under-, from the Proto-Germanic under, from the primitive Indo-European n̥dhér (lower) and n̥tér (inside).  Take was from the Middle English taken (to take, lay hold of, grasp, strike), from the Old English tacan (to grasp, touch), of North Germanic origin, from the Old Norse taka (to touch, take), from the Proto-Germanic tēkaną (to touch), from the primitive Indo-European dehig- (to touch).  Gradually, it displaced the Middle English nimen (to take), from the Old English niman (to take).  It was cognate with the Icelandic and Norwegian Nynorsk taka (to take), the Norwegian Bokmål ta (to take), the Swedish ta (to take), the Danish tage (to take, seize), the Middle Dutch taken (to grasp), the Dutch taken (to take; grasp) and the Middle Low German tacken (to grasp); tackle is related.  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 denoted an occupation.  The suffix is from the Middle English -er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, a borrowing from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought to have been borrowed from Latin -ārius and reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French -or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant of which was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.

In English, undertaker was an agent noun from the verb undertake, the early meaning, strictly speaking, "a contractor of any sort hired to perform some task" but it was applied mostly to those engaged is some sort of commercial enterprise.  There had long been instances of the use of “funeral-undertaker” but by the 1690s, “undertaker” had come to mean almost exclusively those whose profession was to “embalm and bury”.  Most etymologists conclude this organic shift to linguistic exclusivity came via the word being used as a euphemism for the mechanics of the profession, matters of mortality something of a taboo topic.  Undertaker faded from use as “mortician” and “funeral director” came to be preferred, firstly in the US with the latter soon becoming the standard form in the rest of the English-speaking world.  It was at the July 1895 meeting of the Funeral Directors' Association of Kentucky that it was proclaimed “…an undertaker will no longer be known as an "undertaker and embalmer." In the future he will be known as the "mortician."  This soon spread and the term undertaker is now almost unknown except in historic references or in figurative use in fields such as politics and sport.  In general use, the words "undertake", "undertaken" or "undertaking" are now used to describe just about any activity and with no sense of a taint of association with corpses. 

In the narrow technical sense, even in modern use, the terms funeral director, mortician, and undertaker mean the same thing (a person who supervises or conducts the preparation of the dead for burial and directs or arranges funerals"  Nuances have however emerged, especially in the US where a funeral director tends to be someone who owns or operates a funeral home whereas the term mortician implies a technical role, a person who handles the body (the embalmer) in preparation for a funeral.  Often of course, these roles are combined, especially in smaller operations so for practical purposes, funeral director and mortician are generally interchangeable.  Although it would probably once have seemed a bizarre construction, there are also now funeral celebrants who officiate at ceremonies not (or only vaguely) connected with religious practice and are thus analogous to the civil celebrants who perform secular marriage ceremonies.  They're not directly connected with the school of thought which prefers to "celebrate a life" rather than "mourn a death" at a funeral, an approach which can be taken even in an overtly religious service.  

So it's largely a matter of how those within the profession prefer to style themselves and Funeral Director seems now the most popular choice although mortician remains widely used in the US.  Mirriam-Webster provides:

Funeral Director: A person whose job is to arrange and manage funerals.

Mortician: A person whose job is to prepare dead people to be buried and to arrange and manage funerals.

Undertaker: One whose business is to prepare the dead for burial and to arrange and manage funerals.

Lieutenant General Nagaoka Gaishi san, Tokyo, 1920.

One thing upon which undertakers usually could rely for their planning and budgeting was the traditional metric: one body = one casket.  There have though been exceptions and one was Lieutenant General Gaishi Nagaoka san (1858-1933) who served in the Imperial Japanese Army between 1978-1908, and was vice chief of the general staff during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905).  While serving as a military instructor, one of his students was the future Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975),  After retiring from the military, he entered politics, elected in 1924 as a member of the House of Representatives (after Japan in the 1850s ended its “isolation” policy, it’s political and social system were a mix of Japanese, British and US influences).  After he died in 1933, by explicit request, his impressive "handlebar" moustache carefully was removed and buried in a separate casket in Aoyama Cemetery.

Mercedes-Benz 600 hearse

1967 Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100) hearse by German coach builders, Pollmann of Bremen.

Built on a (lengthened) 1967 short wheelbase (SWB) platform, it’s a genuine one-off, the only 600 hearse ever built.  The story (which may be true), repeated whenever it’s offered for sale, is it was originally a sedan purchased by a German farmer (always referred to as Herr K) whose particular experience of the Wirtschaftswunder (the German post-war economic miracle) was the massive capital gain he enjoyed when he sold his farmland for urban development.  Happy, he bought Mercedes-Benz 600 (in champagne metallic gold) for his wife and commissioned an architect to design a house for them to enjoy.  Unfortunately, he arrived home one day to find the ungrateful hausfrau had run off with the architect and, unable to bear to keep the 600 because it was a reminder of the strumpet’s infidelity, he returned the car to the dealer to off-load.  It was sold to the coach-builders Pollmann which converted it to a hearse which seems appropriate although it's not known if the former farmer was impressed by the symbolism of the transformation.  It was used for some years for the purpose for which it was designed and has since been restored by US-based expert in all things 600esque, Karl Middelhauve.

The Machete funeral hearse and landau irons

Lindsay Lohan in habit, emerging from hearse in Machete (2010).  The Machete hearse was based on a 1987 Cadillac Brougham (1987-1992).

Between 1931-1979, General Motors' Cadillac division offered a line called the Cadillac Commercial Chassis, a long-wheelbase, heavy-duty platform which was mechanically complete but with a partially built body (without bodywork rear of the windscreen, doors and other panels included on request).  Produced on the D platform (exclusive to Cadillac), the "Commercial Chassis" was used by coach-builders to create high-roofed ambulances, hearses (often called funeral coaches in the US) and cleverly designed hybrids which at short notice could be converted from ambulances to hearses or used by a coroner's staff to transport a corpse; these multi-purpose devices were popular in towns with small populations.  The early Commercial Chassis were based on the Series 355 (1931-1935) and the Series 75 (1936-1992) from 1936 and although there were specific modification to the frame, the mechanical components were always shared with the 75 which, used for the big limousines, meant costs were amortized across the ranges.  After 1980, production continued on the downsized platform but there was no longer a separate D platform, the partially bodied cars structurally identical to the mainstream line.

1960 Mercedes-Benz 300d Cabriolet D (left) and 1960 Cadillac hearse (Funeral Carriage) on the Commercial Chassis (right).

Dating from the age of horse drawn carriages, the landau irons (which some coachbuilders insist should be called "carriage bars") on the rear side-panels of hearses emulate in style (though not function) those used on carriages and early automobiles (the last probably the Mercedes-Benz 300 (the “Adenauer”; W186 (1951-1957) & W189 (1957-1962)) Cabriolet D).  On those vehicles, the irons actually supported the folding mechanism for the fabric roof but on hearses they are merely decorative, there to relieve the slab-sidedness of the expanse of flat metal.  The alternative approach with hearses is to use a more conventional glass panel, usually with curtains fitted which can be drawn as desired.  In many cases, there is a desire to make the coffin (casket) as visible as possible because some, to permit the dead a final act of conspicuous consumption, are crafted with some extravagance.

1971 Ford Thunderbird with standard vinyl roof (left) and 1967 Ford Thunderbird with the vinyl removed (right).

There was however one curious use of a stylized iron for a purpose which was both functional and aesthetic.  When, in a sign of the times, the 1967-1971 Ford Thunderbird included a four-door sedan rather than a convertible as a companion to the coupés in the range, the sedans were fitted with the combination of the irons and a vinyl roof.  In this one, unique, case the irons and the vinyl actually improved rather than detracted from the appearance because, built on a surprisingly short wheelbase, the Thunderbird had to be fitted with rather short rear doors (also compelling the use of the front-opening "suicide door" configuration) and to accommodate the shape of C-pillar, each had to intrude on the other.  What the (always dark) vinyl and the sweep of the irons did was conceal the compromise and for that reason, this generation of Thunderbirds is probably the only car where vinyl roofs are rarely removed because exposing the metal results in a very strange look.  Because (1) they're ugly and (2) they trap moisture, thereby encouraging rust, removing a vinyl roof usually improves the appearance of a car but this is the one exception.       

Pernoctate

Pernoctate (pronounced per-nok-tait)

(1) In Christianity, to pass the night in vigil or prayer, prior to a feast (archaic).

(2) To stay (somewhere) all night (now a secular, jocular form).

1610s: From the Latin pernoctat- (spent the night), from pernoctatus, past participle of the verb pernoctare, the construct being per- (through) + noct-, nox (night).  In Christianity, the use of pernoctation to describe “a religious watch kept during normal sleeping hours, during which prayers or other ceremonies are performed” is now rare even in ecclesiastical use and has been supplant by vigil.  Vigil was from the Middle English vigile (a devotional watching), from the Old French vigile, from the Latin vigilia (wakefulness, watch), from vigil (awake), from the primitive Indo-European weǵ- (to be strong, lively, awake).  The English wake was from the same root.  Vigil was related to vigour (vigor the US spelling) (and more distantly to vital), from the Middle English vigour, from the Old French vigour, from vigor, from the Latin vigor, from vigeo (thrive, flourish), again from the primitive Indo-European weǵ-.  Pernoctate, pernoctates, pernoctating & pernoctated are verbs, pernoctation is a noun and the noun plural is pernoctations.

Lindsay Lohan at dawn, resting in a Cadillac Escalade after pernoctating, Los Angeles, May 2007 (right).  The church having adopted vigil, pernoctate and related forms are now words used amusingly to refer to nights spent in decadent pursuits.  The church and the faithful now inhabit the day and the sinners the night.

Beginning apparently during the second century of the existence of the Christian Church, during the night before every feast, a vigil (Vigilia in the Latin; pannychis in the Greek), was kept.  On those evenings, the faithful would gather in the church or wherever it was the feast was to be celebrated and prepared themselves by prayers, readings from Holy Writ (now the Offices of Vespers and Matins); sometimes a sermon would be read (as on fast days in general, Mass was celebrated in the evening, before the Vespers of the following day).  Towards dawn, the people dispersed to the streets and houses near the church, to await the solemn services of the forenoon. This was a formalized structure but in places the intermission gave rise to grave abuses; people would assemble, play music and dance in the streets: clear improprieties.  In the way such things happen, the volume of feasts multiplied so the number of vigils was greatly reduced but the abuses could be stopped only by abolishing the vigils and where they remained, they were shifted to begin in the afternoon, a synod held at Rouen in 1231 prohibited all vigils except those before the patronal feast of a church.  The number of vigils in the Roman Catholic Calendar (besides Holy Saturday) is now seventeen: the eves of Christmas, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the eight feasts of the Apostles, St. John the Baptist, St. Laurence, and All Saints although some dioceses and religious orders have particular vigils.

Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) baptizes a Japanese faithful during the Easter Vigil ceremony, Saint Peter's Basilica, the Vatican, 15 April 2006.

In the Christian tradition, a vigil is now understood as a period of purposeful wakefulness devoted to prayer or ceremonies and although vigils may happen at any time, historically they came to be observed during darkness and became quite common before being restricted to special occasions, such as feasts, solemnities, or important liturgical events.  No longer conducted overnight, during a vigil, participants may engage in prayer, reflection, scripture reading, and hymn singing and the direction of a vigil should be thematic, the purpose to prepare spiritually for a significant religious event or to commemorate a particular occasion.  The best known in Christianity is the Easter Vigil, which takes place on the evening of Holy Saturday, commemorating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and is the most important liturgy of the entire liturgical year.  Typically it will include the blessing of the Easter fire, the lighting of the Paschal candle, scripture readings recounting salvation history and the celebration of the Eucharist.  The reason for the significance of the Easter vigil is that the Resurrection of Christ is the central event of Christianity.  If one accepts the Resurrection, then the internal logic of Christianity is perfect but if not, while the tenants may still appeal as a guide to morality, it’s just another set of competing arguments.  Rationalists who want both can adopt the view of the more radical of the nineteenth century theologians: “One need not believe, one needs only to accept”.

Problematic

Problematic (pronounced prob-luh-mat-ik)

(1) Of the nature of a problem; doubtful; uncertain; questionable; a problem or difficulty in a particular field of study.

(2) Involving or presenting a problem that is difficult to deal with or solve.

(3) Tending or likely to elicit objections or disapproval; offensive.

(4) A generalized euphemism used to refer to unfashionable opinions or statements and deployed usually as a critique of anything thought to contribute to or reinforce systemic discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc), particularly if expressed implicitly or with some tricks of subtlety.

(5) In formal logic (of a proposition), asserting that a property may or may not hold; only affirming the possibility that a predicate be actualized (now rare).

1600-1610: From the Middle French problématique (doubtful, questionable, uncertain, unsettled), from the Late Latin problēmaticus, from the Ancient Greek προβληματικός (problēmatikós) (pertaining to a problem), from problēmatos, from πρόβλημα (próblēma) (out-jutting, barrier, problem), from προβάλλω (probállō) (I throw, place before), the construct being πρό (pró) (before) + βάλλω (bállō) (I throw, place).  The most common derived form is unproblematic and the connotations of problematic are now such that words once (depending on context) effectively synonymous such as ambiguous, dubious, moot, precarious, puzzling, questionable, tricky, uncertain, unsettled, arguable, chancy, debatable, disputable, doubtful, dubitable, enigmatic, iffy, indecisive & open no longer convey the same implications.  Problematic is a (rare) noun and (more commonly) an adjective, problematical is an adjective, problematically is an adverb.  Attempts to deploy problematic as a verb seem inevitable because the existing problematize ((1) to make something into a problem; (2) to consider something as if it were a problem & (3) (as an intransitive verb) to propose problems) is neutral and a loaded verb would be a more useful weapon.  In that sense the noun plural ploblematics, now rare (some claim obsolete) in formal logic, will likely evolve in parallel.

Michel Foucault (1926-1984).

The specific sense in formal logic, differentiating what is possible from what is necessarily true, has been used since the early seventeenth century although problematical appears in the papers of mathematicians, engineers and architects as early as the 1560s and the first entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 1609 defined problematic as “presenting a problem or difficulty”.  The related but distinct meaning "constituting, containing, or causing a difficulty" is a modern form from a modern discipline, used first by US sociologists in 1957.  From there (like paradigm, methodology etc), it was picked up elsewhere in academia (impressionistically appearing most popular in newer fields (gender studies, communications studies etc)) where it padded out the length a bit but added little to meaning.  What lent problematic the meaning shift which is now its most celebrated sense was one of the strands of post-modernism, the adoption by English-speaking academia of the theories of French structuralists like philosopher and literary critic Michel Foucault (1926-1984) who defined “problematization” as a process whereby something treated previously as uncontroversial by a dominant culture came to be understood not just as a problem but one demanding (political, social, legal, linguistic etc) change.

Foucault’s imperative thus was political but use of the word as exists in the twenty-first century has become nuanced.  The criticism is that problematic frequently is used merely a form of virtue-signaling, what used to be called the politics of warm inner glow: a perfunctory expression of disapprobation at something thought oppressive (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia et al) disconnected from any positive action which might address the underlying problem (in the traditional sense of the word).  In the contemporary parlance, it’s thus a passive aggressive word, an almost polite euphemism handy to use when one wishes to show they understand something is racist, sexist, homophobic etc without wishing to be sufficiently confrontational to do anything about it.

Whether that’s a problem (or indeed problematic) has in itself been positioned as a problem in itself because, in the narrow technical sense, those who advocate a linguistic crackdown on anything which they construe as oppressive are themselves imposing another form of oppression.  Although modern terminology (like transphobia, ageism etc) might make this appear novel, the culture wars, political correctness or however else such things are described are not new and have probably operated since the earliest instances of differentiated expression in human culture.  There is however something new in the layers of deconstruction now attached to the process and the evolution of problematic is an interesting contribution to the discourse.

Generational shifts

Scarlett Harris on The Parent Trap.

In a phenomenon which is not so much new as newly institutionalized, things once not “problematic” are now often reclassified as “problematic” once analysed using current thinking in the various strains of critical theory.  That’s been going on for at least decades but is now much more obvious because social media platforms mean the number of those able instantly to find a potential world-wide audience has proliferated and, as the field become more congested, forms of expression have become increasingly strident as the algorithms rewarded those who generate the most controversy.  Structurally, re-classifications can gain critical mass because of a specific event but, as a general principle, the trend probably tends to be generational.  It was in 2023, 25 years (one of the convenient measures of “a generation” in thought) after the movie The Parent Trap (1998) was released that cultural critic Scarlett Harris explained why the comedy, once thought innocuous enough safely to be watched by young children, must now be listed as “deeply problematic”.  Acknowledging the “hijinks the twins get up to” has for decades kept it on the family friendly roster of networks and streaming services, Ms Harris observed “nostalgia is notoriously rose-colored” and if viewed through a “modern lens”, The Parent Trap must be judged: “deeply isturbed”.

Quoting psychiatrist Dr Sulman Aziz Mirza, Ms Harris says what makes The Parent Trap problematic is the way it “…glosses over the aspect of anger and resentment towards parents” and that does seem a reasonable point given the twins seemed both to cope with remarkable equanimity the sudden knowledge that after living for almost twelve years as “an only child”, each actually had a twin sibling.  Dr Mirza said, on the basis of his experience with young and adolescent patients, the children should be suffering from “the loss of a sibling bond.  To reconnect at that age [amplifies] the loss, especially in the developmental years.  We rely so much on our siblings.”  His point was the sense of loss would have been heightened in the case of twins because of the well-documented “twin bond” whereas in the film all this was ignored and what would usually have been at least potentially traumatic instead was deployed just “as a flimsy plot point to get this boring white couple back together” (in critical theory, a way usually is found to blame white people (preferably Christian, hetrosexual men) for something), adding that also could be “damaging to viewers with similar experiences.”

Ms Harris suggests that were The Parent Trap again to be remade today, “much more credence would be given to the psychological ramifications of the twins” and what should be explored would be issues like “family separation, incarceration, missing children and immigration”, which, she adds “disproportionately affect families of color.”  Dr Mirza did concede the parents in the film weren’t guilty of “child abuse per se” but it was an example of “shitty parenting”, parental separation being “…one of the ten adverse child experiences that can have impacts in adulthood.”  Now we know why The Parent Trap is “deeply problematic”.

Not all found the film problematic but then such judgements can be influenced by one’s personal experiences.  Berlin based cultural critic Olivia Ladanyi revealed that growing up with a stepfather, she’d often wondered about her “real dad” and it was The Parent Trap which inspired her “to seek him out”.  Six years old when the film was released, Ms Ladanyi reacted to her father having deserted the family as Dr Mirza suggested would be expected: feeling her “life felt as if it had been torn in half, right down the middle – like the photograph of their parents that Hallie and Annie piece together in the film.”  Looking often at a few photographs of him, she’d “fantasised about what it would be like to be reunited with this mythical man whom my childish imagination had turned into someone great” and although there had over the years been “strange” birthday gifts and “long, self-pitying letters”, it was when, at 15, she got a Facebook account that his messages “flooded” her inbox.  Included in the information imparted was that she’d been conceived in a dilapidated Transylvanian church and “real” father also had “four other children with three different women”.  Whether The Parent Trap had included details like that in the plot would have made Ms Harris think it more or less problematic is something to ponder.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap: Unlike in Disney movies, there are not always happy endings.

When Ms Ladanyi did meet him, although the reunion happened at Budapest Airport, it lacked the emotional impact of what happened in the film and the rest of her visit was similarly disappointing although on the drive to the city, her father did point out the jail where her great-grandfather had been imprisoned after being convicted of “malpractice as a gynaecologist”.  Again, splicing a gem like that into The Parent Trap’s screenplay would have made for a different sort of movie.  At the end of her brief trip, she was anxious to return to her family, her stepfather and two half-sisters feeing related in a way her “real” father did not.  Probably the most problematic thing about The Parent Trap is it gives youth an unrealistic expectation of life for rarely is it possible to go back and often it's a mistake to seek the opportunity to try.