Omicron

Omicron (pronounced om-i-kron or oh-mi-kron)

(1) The fifteenth letter of the Classical and Modern Greek alphabet and the sixteenth in Ancient archaic Greek; a short vowel, transliterated as o.

(2) The vowel sound represented by this letter.

(3) The common name designated (on 26 November 2021 by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Technical Advisory Group on Virus Evolution (TAG-VE)) for the variant B.1.1.529 of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes the condition COVID-19.

(4) In English, as “o” & “O” (fifteenth letter of the alphabet), a letter used for various grammatical and technical purposes.

Circa 1400: The fifteenth letter of the Greek alphabet (oʊmɪkrɒn; the symbol Oo), literally "small o" (ὂ μικρόν (ò mikrón)), the construct being o + the Ancient Greek (s)mikros (small (source of the modern micro-) and so-called because the vowel was "short" in ancient Greek.  Omega (O) was thus the “long” (O) and omicron the “short” (o).  It’s from omicron both Latin and Cyrillic gained “O”.  Depending on the context in which it’s being written, the plural is omicrons or omicra.

The fifteenth letter of the Greek alphabet was derived from a character which, in Phoenician was called 'ain or ayin (literally "eye") and represented by what most dictionaries record as something like "a most peculiar and to us unpronounceable guttural sound”.  The Greeks also lacked the sound, so when they adopted characters from the Phoenician alphabet, arbitrarily they changed O's value to a vowel.  Despite the medieval belief, there is no evidence to support the idea the form of the letter represents the shape the mouth assumes in pronouncing it.  The Greeks later added a special character for the "long" O (omega), and the original thus became the "little o" (omicron).  In Middle English and later colloquial use, o or o' has a special use as an abbreviation of “on” or “of”, and remains literary still in some constructions (o'clock, Jack-o'-lantern, tam-o'-shanter, cat-o'-nine-tails, will-o'-the-wisp et al).  The technical use in genealogy is best represented by Irish surnames, the “O’” from the Irish ó (ua), which in the Old Irish was au (ui) and meant "descendant".

As a connective, -o- is the most common connecting vowel in compounds either taken or formed from Greek, where it is often the vowel in the stem.  English being what it is, it’s affixed, not only to constructions purely Greek in origin, but also those derived from Latin (Latin compounds of which would have been formed with the L. connecting or reduced thematic vowel, -i).  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) adds the usage note that this occurred especially when what was wanted were compounds with a sense of Latin composition, which even if technically possible, would not be warranted but, were correct under the principles of Greek composition.  Similarly, blood type-O was in 1926 originally designated “0” (zero)" denoting the absence of any type-A & B agglutinogens but the letter O was adopted to align the group with existing nomenclature.  The standardized scale in railroads (O=1:48 (1:25 gauges)) dates from 1905.

As the character to represent the numerical value "zero", in Arabic numerals it is attested from circa 1600, the use based on the similarity of shape.  The similarity would later cause a Gaëtan Dugas (1952–1984), a Québécois Canadian flight attendant, mistakenly to be identified as "Patient Zero" (the primary case for HIV/AIDS in the United States).  The error happened because of a mistake made in 1984 in either the reading or transcription of a database maintained by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which tracked the sexual liaisons and practices of gay and bisexual men, mostly those from California and New York. Dugas, because he was statistically unusual in having no relevant connections with either state, was coded as "Patient O" (indicating out-of-state) but this was at some point misinterpreted as "Patient 0 (Zero)".  Dugas was later identified as "Patient Zero" (ie the person who introduced HIV/AIDS to North America) in Randy Shilts's (1951-1994) book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (1987) which explored the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic in the United States.  Shilts would later dismiss the significance of the technical error, claiming it made no difference to his point that Dugas engaged in behavior by which he either carelessly, recklessly or intentionally infected his many sexual partners with HIV (a claim subsequently contested by others).  Shilts died in 1994 from an AIDS-related condition.

Notable Lancias

1981 Lancia Beta Spyder (Zagato).

Vincenzo Lancia (1881–1937) used letters from the Greek alphabet (Alpha, Beta, Lambda, Kappa, Omicron et al) as model names for many of his early vehicles but, although applied in 1953 to a one-off range based on commercial chassis, with the release of the Beta (1972-1984) in 1972 it was the first time since 1945 the company had used letters from the Greek to designate a passenger vehicle.  It wasn’t Lancia’s first use of Beta, that had been the 1909 car which replaced the Alpha (also Alfa) and, although the 1972 car had been intended to be the model which would symbolize Lancia’s re-birth (il risorgimento), Beta rather than Alfa was chosen to avoid confusion with Alfa-Romeo.  The Beta was available in two four-door saloon bodies, a coupé, a three-door estate and, as a co-project with Zagato, a targa-style convertible with a structural arrangement vaguely similar to that used by the Triumph Stag.  In some markets, in an attempt to enhance the image, the Monte-Carlo sports car was badged as a Beta.  The survival rate of the Betas was low because of the dubious build quality and the poor quality of the steel used in construction, most of it reputedly from the USSR and often described as “porous” although some sources contest that and maintain it was poor design and inadequate corrosion-prevention measures which meant so many rusted so quickly.

1987 Lancia Thema 8·32.

By the standards of European front wheel drive mass-production, the Lancia Thema (1984-1994), available as a four-door saloon and a five door estate (although a tiny number of long wheelbase limousines were built) was completely conventional and mostly unexceptional but there was one exception, the Thema 8·32.  Introduced at the 1986 Turin Motor Show, instead of the variety of four and six-cylinder petrol and diesel engines used in the mainstream range, the 8·32 was fitted with a version of the three litre V8 Ferrari used in their 308 and Mondial models.  By the mid-1980s, although it was no longer novel to put powerful engines into previously nondescript saloons, the 8·32 was in the avant garde of the more extreme, pre-dating the BMW M5 by a year and the Mercedes-Benz 500E by seven but what made it especially bizarre was that it retained the Thema’s front wheel drive configuration.  That probably sounds like the daftest idea since Oldsmobile and Cadillac in the mid 1960s decided to offer big, front wheel drive personal coupés with 425 & 429 cubic inch (6.9 & 7.0 litre) V8s but the contemporary press reports suggest the 8·32, as a road car, was surprisingly good although those who tested them on racetracks did note the prodigious understeer.  Ferrari supplying Lancia with a V8 was actually returning a favor: In 1954, it was the Lancia D50 Formula One car which became the First Ferrari V8.

1974 Lancia Stratos HF.

The Thema experiment wasn’t the first time Ferrari had provided engines for a Lancia. The Lancia Stratos HF (1973-1978; the HF stands for High Fidelity, a moniker sometimes attached to Lancia’s high performance variations) was named after a 1970 show car designed by Bertone’s Marcello Gandini, the Stratos Zero, although, except conceptually, the production vehicle bore little resemblance to that which lent the name.  The tiny, wedge-shaped coupe was powered by the 2.4 litre V6 with which Ferrari powered their Dino 246 and it was one of the outstanding rally cars of the 1970s, winning the 1974 Targa Florio and taking the World Rally Championship (WRC) in 1974, 1975 & 1976.  Still competitive in the late 1970s when factory support was withdrawn because Fiat, the conglomerate which by then owned Lancia, wished to use its activities in motorsport to promote more mainstream models, it continued in private hands to win events into the 1980s.

1971 Lancia 2000 Coupé.

The Lancia Flavia was in production between 1961 and 1971 before it was re-named the 2000, a reference to the two litre flat-four, introduced in 1969, an enlarged version of the power-plant which, in 1.5 and 1.8 litre displacements, had powered the Flavia.  Although a decade old at its introduction, the two litre Flavia was still of an advanced specification including the then still unusual option of fuel injection.  Although the earlier Flavias were built as four-door saloons, two-door coupés & convertibles (including a quite strange looking coupé variant by Zagato), the 2000 was offered only with saloon and coupé coachwork, the latter so elegant that most forgive the front wheel drive.

1983 Lancia 037.

The last rear-wheel drive car to win the WRC, the Lancia 037 was a highly modified version of the Montecarlo, a Pininfarina-designed mid-engined coupé produced between 1975 to 1981 (and in some markets called the Beta Montecarlo to maintain a link with the more mainstream Beta models).  The Montecarlo had begun life as a project undertaken by Pininfarina to replace Fiat’s much admired but outdated 124 Coupé but Bertone’s X1/9 design was thought so outstanding it was instead chosen; Pininfarina’s bigger, heavier car was then designated the Fiat X1/8, envisaged to compete as an up-market, mid-engined, three litre V6 sports car.  However, after the first oil shock began in 1973, the market was re-evaluated and the Montecarlo, now named X1/20, was re-positioned as a two litre, four cylinder car and handed to Lancia.  In development since 1980, the competition version, the Lancia Rally 037, was released late the next year and in its first competitive season in Group 5 rallying proved fast but still fragile although, it was certainly promising enough for the factory to return in 1983 when, fully developed, it won the WRC.  It was however the end of an era, the 037 out-classed late in the season by the all-wheel-drive competition which has since dominated the WRC.

1971 Lancia Fulvia 1.3 Coupé.

The slightly frumpy looking Fulvia saloon was the mass-selling (a relative term) model of Lancia’s range between 1963 and 1976 but the memorable version is the exquisite coupe produced between 1965-1977.  Mechanically similar to the saloon except that it was on a short wheelbase platform, the front wheel drive Fulvias were only ever offered with tiny V4 engines between 1.1-1.6 litres, the relatively high-performance achieved by virtue of light weight, high specific output and, in the two-door versions,  a surprisingly efficient aerodynamic profile, belying the rather angular appearance (except for the usual special coupes by Zagato which managed, unusually, to look quite attractive).  The HF versions were built for competition with more spartan interior trim, aluminum doors and non-structural panels, the engines tuned for higher power.  Produced in small runs, the early Flavia HFs used quite highly-strung 1.2 & 1.3 litre engines, the last batch gaining a five-speed gearbox.  The definitive competition HF was released in 1969 with a 1.6 litre engine and was nicknamed the Fanalona (big headlamps), an allusion to the seven inch units which had replaced the earlier five inches.  Almost mass-produced by earlier standards, over thirteen hundred were build and it delivered for the factory-supported Squadra Corse team, winning the 1972 Monte Carlo Rally.  The success inspired the factory to capitalize on the car’s success, a purely road-going version, the 1600 HF Lusso (Luxury) with additional interior appointments and without the lightweight parts manufactured between 1970-1973.  This one really was mass-produced, nearly four thousand were made.

1930 Lancia Omicron with two and a half deck arrangement and a clerestoried upper windscreen.

The Lancia Omicron was a bus chassis produced between 1927-1936; over 600 were built in different wheelbase lengths with both two and three-axle configurations.  Most used Lancia's long-serving, six-cylinder commercial engine but, as early as 1933, some had been equipped with diesel engines which were tested in North Africa where they proved durable and, in the Sudan, Ethiopia, Libya and Algeria, petrol powered Omicron chassis were being re-powered with diesel power-plants from a variety of manufacturers as late as the 1960s.  Typically of bus use, coachbuilders fabricated many different styles of body but, in addition to the usual single and double deck arrangements, the Omicron is noted for a number of two and a half deck models, the third deck configured usually as a first-class compartment but in at least three which operated in Italy, they were advertised as “smoking rooms”, the implication presumably that the rest of the passenger compartment was smoke-free.  History doesn't record if the bus operators were any more successful in enforcing smoking bans than the usual Italian experience.

1928 Lancia Lambda series 7 tipo Siluro Bateaux (torpedo) "Casaro".

One of the most innovative designs of the 1920s, the Lamba was produced between 1922-1931 and was the first car to enter volume production using a stressed, unitary body.  It featured very effective four-wheel brakes (something surprisingly rare at the time) and independent front suspension, the competence of which was such that it was able to more than match the point-to-point performance of many cars much more powerful but with more brutishly simple chassis.  However, because it was so attractive, demand much exceed Lancia’s capacity to build sufficient numbers and the factory was forced to offer a model with a conventional chassis so coachbuilders could provide bodies to fill the supply gap.  All Lambdas were powered by advanced and compact narrow-angle aluminum overhead camshaft V4 engines between 2.1-2.6 litres and over eleven thousand were built.

Clerestory

Clerestory (pronounced kleer-stawr-ee or kleer-stohr-ee)

(1) In architecture, a portion of an interior rising above adjacent rooftops, fitted with windows admitting daylight.

(2) In church architecture, a row of windows in the upper part of the wall, dividing the nave from the aisle and set above the aisle roof (associated particularly with the nave, transept and choir of a church or cathedral.

(3) In transportation vehicles (usually busses, railroad cars and occasionally cars & vans), a raised construction, typically appended to the roof structure and fitted with (1) windows to admit light or enhance vision or (2) slits for ventilation (or a combination of the two).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English, the construct being clere (clear (in the sense of “light” or “lighted”)) + story (from storey (a level of a building).  The word is obviously analyzed as “a story (upper level) with light from windows”.  Storey was from Middle English stori & storie, from the Anglo-Latin historia (picture), from the Latin, from the Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía) (learning through research, narration of what is learned), from ἱστορέω (historéō) (to learn through research, to inquire), from ἵστωρ (hístōr) (the one who knows, the expert, the judge).  In the Anglo-Latin, historia was a term from architecture (in this case “interior decorating” in the modern sense) describing a picture decorating a building or that part of a building so decorated.  The less common alternative spellings are clearstory & clerstory.  Clerestory is a noun and clerestoried is an adjective; the noun plural is clerestories.

From here was picked up the transferred sense of “floor; level”.  The later use in church architecture of “an upper story of a church, perforated by windows” is thought simply to be a reference to the light coming through the windows and there is nothing to support the speculation the origin was related to a narrative (story) told by a series of stained glass windows, illuminated by sunlight.  Historians have concluded the purpose of the design was entirely functional; a way of maximizing the light in the interior space.  The related architectural design is the triforium.  The noun triforium (triforia or triforiums in the plural) (from the Medieval Latin triforium, the construct being tria (three) + for (opening) + -ium) describes the gallery of arches above the side-aisle vaulting in a church’s nave.  The –ium suffix (used most often to form adjectives) was applied as (1) a nominal suffix (2) a substantivisation of its neuter forms and (3) as an adjectival suffix.  It was associated with the formation of abstract nouns, sometimes denoting offices and groups, a linguistic practice which has long fallen from fashion.  In the New Latin, it was the standard suffix appended when forming names for chemical elements.

Clerestories which once shone: Grand Central Terminal (the official abbreviation is GCT although the popular form is "Grand Central Station" (often clipped to "Grand Central")), Midtown Manhattan, New York City, 1929 (left) and the same (now dimmed) location in a scene from the Lindsay Lohan film Just my Luck (2006) (right).  Because of more recent development in the surrounding space, the sunlight no longer enters the void through the clerestoried windows is such an eye-catching way.  In modern skyscrapers, light-shafts or atriums can extend hundreds of feet.

Tourist boat on a canal cruise, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Boats with clerestory windows are commonly seen on waterways like the canals of Amsterdam and are valued by tour-guides because they make excursions possible in (almost) all-weathers.  Those designing passenger busses and train carriages were also early adopters of clerestory windows, initially because they were a source of “free” light but as packaged tourism developed into “sightseeing”, tour operators recognized the potential and commissioned versions optimized for outward visibility, essentially a form of “value-adding” which made even the dreary business of bus travel from one place to the next more of a “sightseeing” experience, something probably most valued by those afforded a greater vista to observe in mountainous regions.

Greyhound Scenicruiser in original livery.

A variation of the idea was used for long-distance busses in North America, the best known of which remains the Greyhound Scenicruiser (PD-4501), featuring a raised upper deck with a clerestory windscreen.  Although the view through that was enjoyed by many passengers, the design was less about giving folk a view and more a way to maximize revenue within the length restrictions imposed by many US states.  What the upper deck did was allow a increase in passenger numbers because the space their luggage would absorb in a conventional (single layer) design could be re-allocated to people, their suitcases (and in some cases also freight, another revenue stream) relegated to the chassis level which also improved weight distribution and thus stability.

A predecessor: 1930 Lancia Omicron.

Famous as it became, the Scenicruiser, 1001 of which were built by General Motors (GM) between 1954-1956, was to cause many problems for both manufacturer and operator, the first of which caused by the decision to use twin-diesel engines to provide the necessary power for the new, heavy platform.  The big gas (petrol) units available certainly would have provided that but their fuel consumption would not only have made their operation ruinously expensive (both the fuel burn and the time lost by needing frequently to re-fill) and the volume of gas which would have to be carried would have both added to weight and reduced freight capacity.  Bigger GM diesel units weren’t produced in the early 1950s so the twin engines were a rational choice and the advantages were real, tests confirming that even when fully loaded, the coupled power-train would be sufficient for hill climbing while on the plains, the Scenicruiser happily would cruise using just a single engine.  However, as many discovered (on land, sea and in the air), running two engines coupled together is fraught with difficulties and these never went away, the busses eventually adopting one of GM’s new generation of big-displacement diesels as part of the major re-building of the fleet in 1961, a programme which also (mostly) rectified some structural issues which had been recognized.  Despite all that, by 1975 when Greyhound retired the model, the company still had hundreds in daily service and many of those auctioned off were subsequently used by other operators and in private hands, some are still running, often as motor homes or (mostly) static commercial displays or museum exhibits.

1951 Pegaso Z-403 (left) and 1949 Brill Continental (right).

GM’s Scenicruiser was influential and clerestory windscreens soon proliferated on North American roads although the idea wasn’t new.  The Spanish manufacturer Pegaso (a creation of Generalissimo Francisco Franco’s (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) industrial policy) between 1951-1957 produced the Z-403 (1951-1957) which used the same design and before even that a bus with an almost identical profile had been sold in the US by the JG Brill Company, albeit with a conspicuous lack of success.  As early as 1930 the Italian concern Lancia offered the Omicron bus with a 2½ half deck arrangement with a clerestoried upper windscreen.  The Omicron’s third deck was configured usually as a first-class compartment but at least three which operated in Italy were advertised as “smoking rooms”, the implication presumably that the rest of the passenger compartment was smoke-free.  History doesn't record if the bus operators were any more successful in enforcing smoking bans than the usual Italian experience.

1968 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser.

One quirky offering which picked up the Scenicruiser’s clerestoried windscreen was the Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser (1964-1977), a station wagon which, until the release of the third series in 1973 featured one at the leading edge of a raised roof section, the glass ending midway over the backseat, the shape meaning it functioned also as a “skylight”.  Above the rear side windows were matching clerestories which might sound a strange thing to add above a luggage compartment but during those years, a “third seat” was a popular option to install in the space, transforming the things into eight or nine seat vehicles; families were bigger then.  The Vista Cruiser sold well and Buick later adopted the idea for some of its range until the concept was abandoned in 1972 because of concerns about upcoming safety regulations.  Such rules were however never imposed and both manufacturers revived the idea in the 1990s for their (frankly ugly) station wagons and when the Buick was discontinued in 1996, it was the last full-sized station wagon to be made in the US, the once popular market segment cannibalized to the point of un-viability by the mini-van (people-mover) and the sports utility vehicle (SUV).

The arrangement of a series of windows in a high-mounted row, borrowed from architecture, became familiar on train carriages and buses, especially those which plied scenic routes.  Usually these were added to the coachwork of buses built on existing full-sized commercial chassis which could seat 40-60 passengers but in the 1950s, there emerged the niche of the smaller group tour, either curated to suit a narrower market or created ad-hoc by hotels or operators; smaller vehicles were required and these offered the additional advantage of being able sometimes to go where big buses could not.  In places like the Alps, where those on the trip liked to look up as well as out, rows of clerestoried windows were desirable.

1959 Volkswagen Microbus Deluxe (23 Window Samba). 

The best known of these vehicles was the Volkswagen “Samba”, a variation of the Microbus, one of the range of more than a dozen a models built on the platform of the Type 2, introduced in 1950 after a chance sighting by a European distributer of a VW Beetle (Type 1) chassis which had been converted by the factory into a general-purpose utility vehicle.  The company accepted the suggestion a market for such a thing existed and in its original, air-cooled, rear-engined configuration, it remained in production well into the twenty-first century.  Between 1951-1966, the Microbus was available in a “Deluxe” version which featured both a folding fabric sunroof and rows of rows of clerestoried windows which followed the curve of the sides of the roof.  Available in 21 & 23 window versions, these are now highly collectable and such is the attraction there’s something of a cottage industry in converting Microbuses to the clerestoried specification but it’s difficult exactly to emulate the originals, the best of which can command several times the price of a fake (a perfectly restored genuine Samba in 2017 selling at auction in the US for US$302,000).  Such was the susceptibility to rust, the survival rate wasn’t high and many led a hard life when new, popular with the tour guides who would conduct bus-loads of visitors on (slow) tours of the Alps, the sunroof & clerestory windows ideal for gazing at the peaks.  To add to the mood, a dashboard-mounted valve radio was available as an option, something still for many a novelty in the early 1950s.  The Microbus Deluxe is rarely referred to as such, being almost universally called the “Samba” and the origin of that in uncertain.  One theory is it’s a borrowing from the Brazilian dance and musical genre that is associated with things lively, colorful, and celebratory, the link being that as well as the sunroof and windows, the Deluxe had more luxurious interior appointments, came usually in bright two-tone paint (other Type 2s were usually more drably finished) and featured lashings of external chrome.  It’s an attractive story but some prefer something more Germanic: Samba as the acronym for the business-like phrase Sonnendach-Ausführung mit besonderem Armaturenbrett (sunroof version with special dashboard).  However it happened, Samba was in colloquial use by at least 1952 and became semi official in 1954 when the distributers in the Netherlands added the word to their brochures.  Production ended in July 1967 after almost 100,000 had been built.

1966 Volkswagen Samba (21 Window, Left) and 1962 Volkswagen Samba (23 Window, Right).  The 23 Window van is a conversion of a Microbus and experts (of which there seem to be many, such is the following these things have gained) say it's close to impossible exactly to replicate a factory original.  In theory, the approach would be to take the parts with serial numbers (tags, engine, gearbox etc) from a real Samba which has rusted into oblivion (something not uncommon) and interpolate these into the sound body of a Microbus with as close a build date as possible.  Even then, such are the detail differences that an exact replication would be a challenge.  Because the Sambas received the same running changes and updates as the rest of the Microbus range, there was much variation in the details of the specification over the years but the primary distinction is between the “21” & “23” window vans, the difference accounted for by the latter’s pair of side-corner windows to the left & right of the rear top gate opening.  In 1964, when the rear doors were widened, the curved windows in the roof were eliminated because there would no longer be sufficient metal in the coachwork to guarantee structural integrity.

Mutual & Common

Mutual (pronounced myoo-choo-uhl)

(1) Possessed, experienced, performed, etc by each of two or more with respect to the other; reciprocal.

(2) Having the same relation each toward the other.

(3) Of or relating to each of two or more; held in common; shared.

(4) In corporate law, having or pertaining to a form of corporate organization in which there are no stockholders, and in which profits, losses, expenses etc, are shared by members in proportion to the business each transacts with the company:

(5) In informal use, an entity thus structured.

1470–1480: From the Middle English mutual (reciprocally given and received (originally of feelings)), from the Old & Middle French mutuel, from the Latin mūtu(us) (mutual, reciprocal (originally “borrowed”)), the construct being mūt(āre) (to change (source of the modern mutate (ie delta, omicron and all that))) + -uus (the adjectival suffix) + the Middle French -el (from the Latin –ālis (the third-declension two-termination suffix (neuter -āle) used to form adjectives of relationship from nouns or numerals) and rendered in English as –al.  Root was the primitive Indo-European mei- (to change, go, move).  The alternative spelling mutuall is obsolete.  Derived forms used to describe ownership structures such as quasi-mutual and trans-mutual are created as required.  Mutual & mutualist are nouns & adjectives, mutuality, mutualization, mutualism & mutualness are nouns, mutualize, mutualizing & mutualized are verbs and mutually & mutualistically are adverbs; the noun plural is mutuals.

The term "mutually exclusive" is widely used (sometimes loosely) but has a precise meaning in probability theory & formal logic where it describes multiple events or propositions such that the occurrence of any one dictates the non-occurrence of the other nominated events or propositions.  The noun mutualism is used in fields as diverse as corporate law, economic theory, materials engineering, political science and several disciplines within biology (where variously it interacts with and is distinguished from symbiosis).  The phrase "mutual admiration society" is from 1851 and appears to have been coined by Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) to describe those who habitually were in agreement with each-other and inclined to swap praise.  The "mutual fund", although the structure pre-existed the adjectival use, is from 1950 and these soon came to be known simply as “mutuals”, the word appearing sometimes even in the registered names and the best known of the type were the building societies & benevolent (or friendly) societies, the core structural element of what was the ownership being held in common by the members rather than shareholders.  The concept of the mutual structure is of interest in some jurisdictions because of the suggestion the large assets held by chapters of the Freemasons may be so owned and, with the possibility the aging membership may ultimately result in these assets being dissolved and the proceeds distributed.  If, under local legislation, the structure was found to be mutual, membership might prove unexpectedly remunerative.

The Cold War's "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) is attested from 1963 (although it wasn’t until 1966 it entered general use) and was actually a modification of the Pentagon’s 1962 term “assured destruction” which was a technical expression from US military policy circles to refer to the number of deliverable nuclear warheads in the arsenal necessary to act as a deterrent to attack.  In the public consciousness it was understood but vaguely defined until 1965 when Robert McNamara (1916–2009; US Secretary of Defense 1961-1968) appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and explained the idea was "the minimum threat necessary to assure deterrence: the capability in a retaliatory nuclear attack to exterminate not less than one third the population of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)”.  The “mutual” was added as the number of deployable Soviet warheads reached a critical strategic mass.  The mastery of statistical analysis served McNamara well until the US escalation of the war in Vietnam when the Hanoi regime declined to conform to follow his carefully constructed models of behavior. 

In social media, a mutual is a pair of individuals who follow each other's social media accounts, whether by agreement or organically and there’s something a niche activity is working out the extent to which the behavior happens between bots.  Mutuality (reciprocity, interchange) was from the 1580s.  Mutually (reciprocally, in a manner of giving and receiving), was noted from the 1530s and the phrase mutually exclusive was first recorded in the 1650s.  The specialized mutualism (from the Modern French mutuellisme) dates from 1845, referring to the doctrine of French anarchist-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) that individual and collective well-being is attainable only by mutual dependence.  In the biological sciences, it was first used in 1876 to describe "a symbiosis in which two organisms living together mutually and permanently help and support one another" although there are those who differentiate mutualism (a type of co-existence where neither organism is directly affected by the other but the influence they exert on other organisms or the environment is of benefit to the other) from symbiosis (where there’s a co-dependency).

Parimutuel betting is from the French invention pari mutuel (mutual betting), the construct being pari (wager, from parier (to bet) from the Latin pariare (to settle a debt (literally “to make equal”)) from par, from paris (equal) + mutuel (mutual).  It describes a gambling system where all bets of a particular type are pooled and from this (gross-pool), taxes and the vigorish (from the Yiddish וויגריש‎ (vigrish), from the Russian вы́игрыш (výigryš) (winnings), the commission or “hose-take" are deducted.  The dividends are then calculated by dividing the remainder (net pool) by all winning bets.  In many jurisdictions it’s called the Tote after the totalisator, which calculates and displays bets already made; in Australia and New Zealand it’s the basis of the original agency structure of the Totalisator Agency Board (TAB).

The adoption of mutual as a synonym for "common" is from 1630s and was long condemned as being used “loosely, improperly and not infrequently, often by those who should know better”; “mutual friend" seemed the most common offence.  The view was that “mutual” could apply to only two objects and “common” should be used if three or more were involved.  Opinion has thankfully since softened.  Mutual and common (in the sense of the relation of two or more persons or things to each other) have been used synonymously since the sixteenth century and the use is considered entirely standard.  Objections are one of those attempts to enforce create rules in English which never existed, the only outcome being the choice of use treated as a class-identifier by those who care about such things and either ignored or un-noticed by most.  Tautologous use of mutual however should be avoided: One should say co-operation (not mutual co-operation) between two states.

Common (pronounced kom-uhn)

(1) Belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question (as in common property; common interests et al).

(2) Pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public (as in common language; common history et al).

(3) Joint; united.

(4) Prevailing; Widespread; general; universal (eg common knowledge).

(5) Customary, habitual, everyday.

(6) In some jurisdictions a tract of land owned or used jointly by the residents of a community, usually a central square or park in a city or town (often as “the commons” or “the common”).

(7) In domestic & international law, the right or liberty, in common with other persons, to take profit from the land or waters of another, as by pasturing animals on another's land (common of pasturage ) or fishing in another's waters (common of piscary).  Of interest to economist and ecologists because of the disconnection between the economic gain from the commons and the responsibility for its care and management.

(8) Vulgar, ordinary, cheap, inferior etc (as a derogatory expression of class, often in phrases such as “common as muck” or “common as potatoes”, the back-handed compliment “the common-touch” applied to politicians best at disguising their contempt for the voters (or, as they refer to us: “the ordinary people”).

(9) In some (particularly Germanic) languages, of the gender originating from the coalescence of the masculine and feminine categories of nouns.

(10) In grammar, of or pertaining to common nouns as opposed to proper nouns.

(11) In the vernacular, referring to the name of a kind of plant or animal but its common (ie conversational) rather than scientific name (the idea reflected in the phrase “common or garden”).

(12) Profane; polluted (obsolete).

(13) Given to lewd habits; prostitute (obsolete).

(14) To communicate something; to converse, talk; to have sex; to participate; to board together; to eat at a table in common (all obsolete vernacular forms).

1250–1300: From the Middle English comun (belonging to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character), from the Anglo-French commun, from the Old French, commun (Comun was rare in the Gallo-Romance languages, but reinforced as a Carolingian calque of the Proto-West Germanic gamainī (common) in the Old French and commun was the spelling adopted in the Modern French) (common, general, free, open, public), from the Latin commūnis (universal, in common, public, shared by all or many; general, not specific; familiar, not pretentious), thought originally to mean “sharing common duties,” akin to mūnia (duties of an office), mūnus (task, duty, gift), from the unattested base moin-, cognate with mean.  The Latin was from a reconstructed primitive Indo-European compound ḱom-moy-ni-s  (held in common), a compound adjective, the construct being ko- (together) + moi-n- (a suffixed form of the root mei- or mey (to change, go, move (hence literally "shared by all").  The second element of the compound was the source also of the Latin munia (duties, public duties, functions; specific office).  It was possibly reinforced in the Old French by the Germanic form of ḱom-moy-ni-s  (ko-moin-i) and influenced also the German gemein, and the Old English gemne (common, public).  Comun and its variations cam to displace the native Middle English imene & ȝemǣne (common, general, universal (from the Old English ġemǣne (common, universal)), and the later Middle English mene & mǣne (mean, common (also from the Old English ġemǣne)) and the Middle English samen & somen (in common, together (from the Old English samen (together)). A doublet of gmina.  Common is a noun, verb & adjective, commoner is a noun & adjective, commonality is a noun and commonly is an adverb; the noun plural is commons.

Common has been used disparagingly of women and criminals since at least the fourteenth century and snobs have added categories since as required.  The meanings "pertaining equally to or proceeding equally from two or more" & "not distinguished, belonging to the general mass" was from circa 1400 whereas the sense of "usual, not exceptional, of frequent occurrence" & "ordinary, not excellent" dates from the late fourteenth century.  Common prayer was that done in public in unity with other worshipers as contrasted with private prayer, both probably more common then than now.  The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer was first published in 1549 and went through several revisions for reasons both theological and political.  The 1662 edition remains the standard collection of the prayer books used in the Anglican Communion and while many churches now use versions written in more modern English, there remain traditionalists who insist on one of the early editions.

The common room was noted first in the 1660s, a place in the university college to which all members were granted common access.  The late fourteenth century common speech was used to describe both English and (less often) vernacular (which came to be called vulgar) Latin.  From the same time, the common good was an English adoption of the Latin bonum publicum (the common weal).  Common sense is from 1839 and is U whereas, because of the tortured grammar, 1848’s common-sensible is thought non-U.  The idea of common sense had been around since the fourteenth century but with a different meaning to the modern: The idea was of an internal mental power supposed to unite (reduce to a common perception) the impressions conveyed by the five physical senses (sensus communisin the Latin, koine aisthesis in the Ancient Greek). Thus it evolved into "ordinary understanding, without which one is foolish or insane" by the 1530s, formalised as "good sense" by 1726 with common-sense in the modern sense the nineteenth century expression.

The mid-fourteenth century common law was "the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases", as opposed to statute law.  Over the years, this did sometimes confuse people because in different contexts (common law vs statute law; common law versus equity; common law vs civil law) the connotations were different.  The phrase common-law marriage is attested from a perhaps surprisingly early 1909.  In the English legal system, common pleas was from the thirteenth century, from the Anglo-French communs plets (hearing civil actions by one subject against another as opposed to pleas of the crown).  In corporate law, common stock is attested from 1888.  The late fourteenth century commoner is from the earlier Anglo-French where in addition to conveying the expected sense of "one of the common people” also had the technical meaning “a member of the third estate of the estates-general".  In English it acquired the dual meaning as (1) of non-royal blood and (2), since the mid-fifteenth century “a member of the House of Commons”.  Commonly the adverb is from circa 1300 and commonness the noun from the 1520s though it originally meant only "state or quality of being shared by more than one", the idea of something of "quality of being of ordinary occurrence" not noted until the 1590s.  The adjective uncommon assumed a similar development, in the 1540s meaning "not possessed in common" and by the 1610s meaning "not commonly occurring, unusual; rare".

Last thoughts on a non-rule

The distinction between mutual (reciprocal; between two) and common (among three or more) probably once was, at least to some extent, observed by educated writers, Dr Johnson (1709-1984) in his A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) allowing but one definition: MUTUAL a. Reciprocal; each acting in return or correspondence to the other.

G K Chesterton.

That old curmudgeon G K Chesterton (1874-1936) was certainly convinced.  Writing about Charles Dickens (1812–1870) novel Our Mutual Friend (1864-1865), he claimed the title was the source of the phrase in general speech, snobbily noting of it was the “…old democratic and even uneducated Dickens who is writing here. The very title is illiterate. Any priggish pupil teacher could tell Dickens that there is no such phrase in English as 'our mutual friend'.  Anyone could tell Dickens that 'our mutual friend' means 'our reciprocal friend' and that 'our reciprocal friend' means nothing. If he had only had all the solemn advantages of academic learning (the absence of which in him was lamented by the Quarterly Review), he would have known better. He would have known that the correct phrase for a man known to two people is 'our common friend'."

The phrase in the English novel however pre-dated Dickens, Jane Austen (1775-1817) using it in both Emma (1816) and Persuasion (1818) and long before 1864, Mary Shelley (1797–1851), Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832), William Makepeace Thackeray (1811–1863), Herman Melville (1819–1891), James Fenimore Cooper (1789–1851) and Elizabeth Gaskell (1810–1865) all had “mutual friend” in their text.  Dickens, with the prominence afforded by the title and serialized in the press, doubtless popularized it and, as Chesterton well knew, literature anyway isn’t necessarily written in "common speech".  Whoever opened the floodgates, after 1864, mutual friends continued to flow, George Orwell (1903-1950), Joseph Conrad (1857–1924), Jerome K Jerome (1859–1927), Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), Mark Twain (1835-1910), Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), Henry James (1843–1916), Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–1894), Arthur Conan Doyle (1859–1930) & Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) all content with "mutual friend" so those condemned by Chesterton are in good company.  The old snob probably did ponder if calling someone a “common friend” might create a misunderstanding but then, good with words, he’d probably avoid that by suggesting they were “rather common” or “a bit common" if that was what he wanted to convey, which not infrequently he often did.

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

Eurodollar

Eurodollar (pronounced yoor-oh-dol-er)

A US dollar deposited in or credited to an offshore (originally a European) bank.

1958: A compound word, Euro + dollar.  Euro is a contraction of Europe, from the Ancient Greek Εὐρώπη (Eurṓpē); no relationship to the latter-day (eurozone) currency.  Dollar is attested since about 1500, from the early Dutch daler or daalder, from German Taler & Thaler, from the Sankt Joachimsthaler (literally “of Joachimstal”) the name for coins minted in German Sankt Joachimsthal (St. Joachim's Valley, now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic).  Ultimate source is Joachim + tal (valley); cognate with the Danish daler.  Initially, in 1957, known as “Eurbank dollars” and so named after the telex address of one of the first banks involved in the sanction-busting transactions.

Eurodollars

Eurodollars are US dollars on deposit at banks outside the United States.  They’re thus a part of the US money supply not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve (the Fed, the US central bank) and, because of the special role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, are interesting in that they’re subject to oversight by a number of central banks which are national and not international institutions.  The term was originally coined for US dollars in European banks but soon came to refer to all offshore deposits.  Eurodollar is entirely a technical term of the money markets and has no connection with the latter-day currency of the Eurozone although, in the general population, there was some early confusion in the early days of the physical Euro, some mistakenly describing the new paper as Eurodollars.  Within the specialized world of the currency traders, the euro-prefix is sometimes used to refer to any currency held offshore so there’s also the Euroyen, the Europound and even the Euroeuro which, in a charming linguistic paradox, can exist anywhere except within the Eurozone.

In the years immediately following World War II, there was a worldwide shortage of US dollars, the quantity of which outside the US began significantly to increase only as Marshall Plan money began to recapitalize European economies and imports rose in the US, soon to become the largest consumer market of the post-war years.  Another important factor driving the deposits of US dollars into European banks were the pre-emptive moves by the major communist powers, the USSR and the PRC (communist China) to shift their assets from US banks to avoid Washington’s sanctions.  Peaking acted in 1949 at the start of the Korean War; Moscow in 1956 after their invasion of Hungary.

Eurodollars grew in volume also as offshore banks began to offer higher yields on deposits than were available from US institutions; by the early 1970s some US$400 billion (when a billion dollars really was a lot of money) was booked offshore in both short and long-term deposits.  It’s now measured in multiples of trillions (at least for now, a trillion dollars is still a lot of money) but the most important development in the Eurodollar world came in 1981 with the introduction of Eurodollar futures contracts.  Eurodollar futures are an interest rate product, unlike currency futures where contracts are built around actual buying and selling of the commodity.  They’re thus a derivative instrument where players bet on interest rate movements.  Beginning in 1981, during the early days of the Reagan/Thatcher de-regulation project, they were the first of the products which took advantage of the rules of casinos being applied to capital markets.  None of the market crashes since 1987 would have been possible without derivatives.

Eurodollar futures traders who use the market to track short-term US interest rate expectations have for some time been pricing in a rate hike by the Fed by Q3 2022, quite an acceleration on what their earlier charts suggested but increasing uncertainty about the Fed’s reaction to US inflation numbers has seen some traders expect a tightening even earlier.  Some traders have had their Eurodollar fingers burnt before, watching the Fed maintain their existing position and sticking to their long-standing mantra that the US economy needs to achieve certain employment and inflation marks before interest rates will move but the view is now hardening that inflation numbers will force the issue.

The Fed’s position seems to belong to the pre-Omicron world which feels now such a distant memory.  The futures are a bet on the direction of the short-term London interbank offered rate (LIBOR), one of the most widely used interest rate benchmarks in global financial markets.  Investors hedge interest rate risk in the Eurodollar market and in early December 2020, the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract showed an implied yield of 0.50%, suggesting traders were expecting the Fed to deliver a 25 basis-point hike by then.  Since then the world has changed.

Changed so much that predictions for the inflation outcome seem enough for the Fed to reconsider the “Greenspan put” (named after Dr Alan Greenspan (born 1926; Chair of the US Federal Reserve 1987-2006) and the actions he took in ensuring sufficient liquidity remained in the US system for business to continue as close to "normal" as possible; now often called the "Fed put"), in place (off and on) for over thirty years, despite recent declines in US stocks and other risk assets, the tech-heavy Nasdaq having fallen over 10%.  That’s how much the specter of inflation can spook central bankers and the Eurodollar futures suggest the traders have priced-in a quarter-point rate rise for March and perhaps a full percentage point by the end of calendar year 2022.  Despite that, traders still are not writing an obituary for the Greenspan put, noting it has been debatably the most influential tool in the Fed’s century-long history and, as an essentially reactive institution, it’s revival to deal with even a few local difficulties will not be unexpected.