Only

Only (pronounced ohn-lee)

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

(2) No more than; merely; just.

(3) As recently as.

(4) In the final outcome or decision.

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

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

(7) Mere (obsolete).

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

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

(10) Except (frowned upon by some).

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

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

No ambiguity intended: Lindsay Lohan in sweatshirt from the I ONLY SPEAK LILOHAN range.  Lilohan is a non-geographically specific dialect of English, the name a contraction derived from that of its creator.  It appears to use a conventional US English vocabulary but is delivered, with an occasionally halting delivery, in an accent vaguely Russian or Eastern European.  Pedants would of course have preferred the text to be: "I SPEAK ONLY LILOHAN".

The construct of the Old English ānlīc being ān (one) + -līc (-ly), only is thus understood in Modern English as on(e) + -ly.  One was from the Middle English oon, on, oan & an, from the Old English ān (one), from the Proto-West Germanic ain, from the Proto-Germanic ainaz (one), from the primitive Indo-European óynos (single, one).  It was cognate with the Scots ae, ane, wan & yin (one); the North Frisian ån (one), the Saterland Frisian aan (one), the West Frisian ien (one), the Dutch een & één (one), the German Low German een; the German ein & eins (one), the Swedish en (one), the Norwegian Nynorsk ein (one), the Icelandic einn (one), the Latin ūnus (one) & Old Latin oinos and the Russian оди́н (odín); doublet of Uno.  The –ly prefix was from the Middle English -ly, -li, -lik & -lich, from the Old English -līċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -līk, from the Proto-Germanic -līkaz (having the body or form of), from līką (body) (from whence Modern German gained lich); in form, it was probably influenced by the Old Norse -ligr (-ly) and was cognate with the Dutch -lijk, the German -lich and the Swedish -lig.  It was used (1) to form adjectives from nouns, the adjectives having the sense of "behaving like, having a likeness or having a nature typical of what is denoted by the noun" and (2) to form adjectives from nouns specifying time intervals, the adjectives having the sense of "occurring at such intervals".

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

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

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

Pink-themed vegan protest in Perth, Western Australia:  Activist herbivore Tash Peterson (b 1995; in sensible running shoes, right) and unidentified associate (in strappy stilettos, left), spreading their PSAs (public service announcement).  Geographically, Perth is the world's most isolated regional capital city but culturally, it's plugged-in and stuff happens there.

Although transgressions are something the grammar Nazis rush to correct with more than their usual relish, the placement of “only” as a modifier matters only if putting it one place or the other would hinder clarity; there’s never been an absolute grammatical rule and, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s probably better to adopt whatever is the usual conversational style.  In his authoritative A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), the not always tolerant Henry Fowler (1858–1933) cited the report of a man who "only died a week ago" and while acknowledging the error defended the use on the basis the placement represented "the order that most people have always used and still use", adding "any risk of of misunderstanding was chimerical".  Strictly speaking, although “We only fuck vegans” means a life consisting of nothing else, most would understand it as the view of one prepared to contemplate intimacy only with vegans.  The best compromise to adopt is probably that recommended for handling the split infinitive: Use the more exact “We fuck only vegans” in formal use (such as in writing) and the more natural, conversational “We only fuck vegans” otherwise.  Note that a PSA on a sign held aloft at a protest, although obviously “in writing” is not an example of formal use; it’s just part of the conversation.  Care though must be taken to avoid ambiguity, especially in writing because the intonations of speech and other visual clues are not there to assist in the conveying of meaning.  Were one to say “She only fucks vegans after midnight”, quite what is meant isn’t clear and the sentence is better rendered either as “she fucks only vegans after midnight" (ie carnivores will be accommodated only before midnight) or “she fucks vegans only after midnight” (ie vegans must wait for "the stroke of the midnight hour").  In informal English, “only” is a common sentence connector but again, this should be avoided in formal writing where “only” should be placed directly before the word or words that it modifies.

Front door of a Salvation Army store.

Like language, signs exist in context and the nuances are examples of one of the ways the famous “everything is text” works.  Tash Peterson's signs are written language but operate as speech, their form denoting "shouting".  A static sign on a door is different.  If that sign reads “SERVICE ANIMALS ONLY”, literally that means only such creatures are allowed in (ie no humans) and obviously that's not what's intended.  Also, that the text is in upper case does not imply “shouting” as it would in an e-mail or a social media post because the message remains conversational.  Traditionally the term "service animals" was limited to the “seeing eye” dogs used by the visually impaired but in some jurisdictions, there’s been a bit of mission-creep in the category with a menagerie of “support animals” now added to the lists though the dogs are still the most numerous.  It’s doubtful any humans have ever read the sign and departed disappointed, thinking themselves not wanted, but just in case, one Salvation Army store included some small print: “For the safety of our customers and team we kindly ask that all other pets are kept outside the store.”  Perhaps “For the safety of our customers and team, kindly we ask other pets are kept outside the store” would have been more elegant but Henry Fowler would have called that “linguistic pettifogging”.  Even if unnecessary in this case, clarifying small print appended to a sign on a door can be helpful but on one of Tash Peterson’s protest banners, it would be absurd.

Solipsism

Solipsism (pronounced sol-ip-siz-uhm)

(1) An extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires etc; egoistic self-absorption.

(2) In philosophy, the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.  The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real is technically, an extreme form of scepticism, a denial of the possibility knowledge can exists other than that of one's own existence.

1871: A invention of Modern English from the Latin, the construct being sōlus (alone) +‎ ipse (self) +‎ -ism.  The origin of sōlus is murky, some suggest a link with the earlier swolos, from the Proto-Italic swelos, from the primitive Indo-European swé, a reflexive pronoun from whence came se (oneself) + -los, hence the meaning "by oneself".  Another theory references solhz (whole, healthy) which would make it akin to sollus and salvus.  The third alternative is a connection with the Proto-Germanic sēliz, the Gothic sēls, (happy, good) and the Old English sēlra (better), again from the primitive Indo-European sōlhz (from whence sōlor (to console)).  Ipse (feminine ipsa, neuter ipsum; the demonstrative pronoun) was compounded from the primitive Indo-European éy and swé and, for highly technical reasons, was ipsus in the pre-classical lexicon.  Root of the –ism suffix was either the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (from which English gained -ize), or was from the related Ancient Greek suffix -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done.  Solipsism is a noun, solipsist is a noun & adjective, solipsistic is and adjective and solipsistically is an adverb; the noun plural is solipsisms.  For whatever reason, the potentially useful solipsismal seems never to have been coined.

Much ado about nothingness

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (circa 1818) by Caspar David Friedrich (1774–1840).  German painters of the Romantic era weren't necessarily the most solipsistic of the era but can seem so.  They painted under the long shadow cast by G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831). 

In casual use, solipsism is a useful word to refer to the self-obsessed and there are a lot of them about.  There is a solipsism quiz to work out the extent of one’s own tendency to the solipsistic.  Solipsism is the (ultimately wholly abstract) position in metaphysics that the mind is the only thing that can be known to exist and that knowledge of anything outside the mind is not merely false but unjustified.  It can be thought of as a sceptical hypothesis of life and, if pursued to as close to a logical conclusion as it allows, can lead only to a belief that the whole of reality and the external world and other people are merely representations of the individual self, having no independent existence of their own, and may not even exist.  It differs therefore from pure scepticism in that the solipsist is actually asserting something; it should instead be thought of as a fork of pure idealism.  In Philosophy 101 classes, it’s one of the tools to train the mind.  Lecturers find it amusing because there’s sometimes a student who takes all this seriously and starts to worry; sometimes for years.  Debates between nihilists and solipsists shouldn't of course happen but they do, descending often to a contest of onedownmanship about who holds the most extreme position.

The Mean Girls (2004) crew in their native environment.  For the modern young solipsist, there is only self and shopping.

The origins of Solipsism in western philosophy are in the writings of the Greek pre-Socratic sophist philosopher Gorgias (483–375 BC) who asserted (1) nothing exists, (2) even if something exists, nothing can be known about it and (3), even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others.  That of course is internally perfect and can go no further but because solipsism can be neither proved nor disproved, some otherwise sensible folk felt obliged to bolt it onto the universe.  Philosopher Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753), argued physical objects do not exist independently of the mind that perceives them and that an item truly exists only so long as it is observed (otherwise it is not only meaningless but simply non-existent).  Berkeley however argued this as part of his world-view which included God and God, even if one accepts he’s probably an Anglican, surely can’t be a solipsist although, if he is, truly we do know the mind of God.

Students seduced by his dark visions may well be tempted to describe Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) as solipsist on the basis that’s how his writings make them feel but he never really explored metaphysical solipsism and it was his radical perspectivism which causes misunderstanding.  In a sense, Nietzsche not only was not, but could not be a solipsist because while solipsism is the belief only one's own mind exists, or can be known to exist, Nietzsche viewed the self not as a separate entity from existence, but rather as an integrated part of a chaotic “will-to-power” driven reality.  In Beyond Good and Evil (1886), Nietzsche argued that “there are no facts, only interpretations”, and knowledge was subjective, created by individual perspectives, meaning there was no single “objective reality” accessible to all.  In the wake of post-modernity, that no longer sounds exceptional but in the milieu of late nineteenth century intellectual life, it was a stark vision.  Nietzsche was one of those figures upon whom students were inclined to map their own world view and that was possible because of the way he phrased things; it was that adaptability (exploited by the Nazis) which persuaded later philosophers (notably Leo Strauss (1899–1973)) to write in a manner which meant their words couldn’t be misappropriated.  For Strauss, that avoided misrepresentation but didn’t help accessibility and if reading for pleasure rather than enlightenment, Nietzsche rewards more than Strauss.  To students, being told by Nietzsche that “God is dead” could be heady stuff so they should be forgiven for thinking him a solipsist; in urging them to stop valuing the “fake” worlds of Plato (or anyone else) he did seem to imply a belief only in his own constructed reality.  After all, if God was dead, there can be no objective divine perspective so each individual must create their own sense of meaning.

Nietzsche fan boy (bottom left) on the floor of a Siemens factory, Nuremberg 1910.  In German workplaces, the rules included “No smiling” and “No laughter”.

So while it’s easy to understand why the “Nietzsche a solipsist” label is tempting, most historians would call that either a mischaracterization or misunderstanding.  Certainly, there’s little in Nietzsche’s writings which could be constructed as the defense of solipsism as a doctrine and rarely did he engage in the kind of systematic, foundational epistemology in which solipsism typically is discussed.  Of course, merely that a philosopher didn’t write of something has never prevented latter-day adherents or critics interpreting what they did say which is why the neo-Marxists managed to create a reasonably hefty volume of work covering “Marxist aspects of crime & punishment” despite Karl Marx (1818-1883) mostly being silent on both topics.  Nietzsche did not argue that only one’s mind is certain to exist so in that sense rejects the very framework underpinning solipsism and was critical of the idea a stable, self-transparent subject (the I) could serve as the foundation of knowledge; his famous quip that “there is no ‘being’ behind doing” would seem at least a nail in solipsism’s coffin.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) gazing at a bust of Friedrich Nietzsche.  “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” (Aphorism 146 in Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche).

The problem was, and remains, that while perspectivism (all knowledge is from a perspective, shaped by physiology, culture, and drives) was not the same as solipsism, but for romantic youth seduced by Nietzsche’s words, things became teleological and, as Leo Strauss concluded, Nietzsche’s texts could be said to mean whatever one wanted them to mean.  He deserves still to be read but needs to be read with care because perspectivism at least implies (and probably demands) a plurality of interpretations and viewpoints rather than collapsing things to a singularity; where the confusion lies is that there’s really no denial of the existence if external world, his point rather that man has no uninterpreted access to it; what lies beyond is real, but we can perceive and understand it only through interpretive lenses.

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.  Acronym Finder lists 26 NOW acronyms including National Organization for Women, Night of Worship, No Other Way, Nightmares on Wax, Never Open Wide, National Orchestra of Wales, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal, New Opportunities for Women, No Opportunity Wasted, Non-hazardous Oilfield Waste, Northamptonshire Orchestral Winds, and Network-grade Optical Wireless.  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 common occurrences treated as happening “now” (such as seeing or hearing something) are really experiences of past events.  Because light travels at a finite speed, it takes time for it to bounce from something to one’s eye so visual perception is 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 an essential convenience, “now” is but a convincing illusion and even though, in a special sense, everything in the universe is happening at the same time (now), while that can be imagined, it's not something easily 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.  These positions do appear irreconcilable.

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 is nuanced because even the concept of "universe" is contested.   According to some cosmological theorists, variously there may be many universes, some which used to exist, some exact duplicates of our own (for students of the implications of "infinity", at least one of then even containing an identical Lindsay Lohan), some extant and some yet to be created (or "emerge"; the speculations differ).  An alternative view is "our universe" may now be in one of its many phases, each which will start and end with a unique “now” and that's 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 others operate where physics and linguistics intersect.  Within the community holding "now can never exist" there's a sub-faction arguing 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 part of the nature of infinity, something which renders it impossible ever exactly to define “now” because endlessly the decimal point can shift so “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 because there can't be.

nower than now!: Lindsay Lohan on the cover of i-D magazine No.269, September, 2006.  If initial capitals are eschewed, it's a hint the publication is positioned as "edgy".

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 a dispute that, pleasingly for those involved, can go on endlessly because there's unlikely ever to be a "right" answer.  Pleasingly, most people "now" alive (and most now dead) have dealt with the concept "now" and its companions (past & future) without being much troubled by the squabbles among philosophers or cosmologists.  

Cosmologists, if so minded, can dwell less on the nature of “now” because they have the “Andromeda paradox”, 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, be perceived 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 are noticeable (even at relatively low speeds) only at distance.  The way to conceptualize special relatively is to imagine everything in the universe happening "at the same time" and "work backwards" as distances between objects increase.

Two views of both "now" and "then": Declaration of Independence (1819), oil on canvas by John Trumbull (1756–1843) (left) and US astrophysicist Fred Espenak's (1952–2025) image of the Spica binary system (right).  Forty-odd years on, Trumbull took a little artistic licence in his depiction of that night in Philadelphia on 4 July, 1776.  The painting on the left was of what was once "now" but is now "then" while on the right, the photograph simultaneously captured "now" (here) and "then" (there).  Technically, every photograph of an object has that characteristic but the greater the distance (time), the more obvious the difference.  

One way to illustrate the curious nature of “now” is to conduct a thought experiment.  Imagine, on 4 July, 2026, being in a remote part of Wyoming on a clear night and looking up to a sky full of stars, one of which would be Spica (Alpha Virginis), the brightest star in the Virgo constellation and the 16^th brightest visible on Earth.  Because Spica lies 250 light-years distant, the light seen in Wyoming would have been travelling through space since 4 July 1776 when the delegates to the Second Continental Congress, meeting at the Pennsylvania State House (later renamed Independence Hall) in Philadelphia, adopted unanimously the text of the US Declaration of Independence.  In other words, those on Earth viewing Spica on 4 July, 2026 would see the interacting binary system as it was on 4 July, 1776.  So that’s “now” watching something that is both 250 years old and yet still “now”.  Of course Spica is approximately 250 light years away so the "two fourths of July" might not exactly align but for though experiment purposes they do and that's fine.  Spica (two massive, hot blue stars orbiting each other every four days) presumably still (in its local sense) looks much the same but if anything has changed, not for a quarter-millennium will we notice.    

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 experience their discussion as 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 (even quantum entanglement not able to overcome such an instance of a "distance" problem).  One wholly speculative notion is to connect "now" with at least one of the mysterious pair "dark energy" & "dark matter", two possibly misleading terms used to describe the "missing stuff" the cosmologists' models indicate must (in great quantity) exist in the universe but haven't been yet been identified or even described.  That idea is that "dark energy" may be time itself, the implication being 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.  Professional cosmologists are unlikely much to be drawn to that speculation, not least because it's not obvious how an experimental test could be be designed but, as the Austrian–British philosopher Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) explained, the essence of the scientific method is "disproof" and "time may be dark energy" has yet to be disproved.

The notion of time as a form of energy is intoxicating and linked to the idea time either (1) may have been "started" by the unleashing of energy at the moment of the universe's creation or (2) time was that energy and the ongoing (and accelerating) expansion of the universe is just "time being time" (or "time marching on" as it were).  Certainly, time is a useful because without it everything literally "would happen at the same time" and that, in some theories, was what was happening (or "not happening" for those tied to linguistic conventions) prior to what's now usually (if misleadingly) called the "Big Bang".  So, the absence of time may have happened before and may happen again; in that state, the nature of "now" would for many reasons be uncontested.  The idea of time being the "dark energy" is in a sense implied in some of the theories speculating about the "end of the universe" in that some models are based on the universe "going dark" when its last source of energy is exhausted and it may be "running out of energy" and "running out of time" are two ways of expressing the same consequence, the difference being in the mechanics of "cause and effect".         

Sole

Sole (pronounced sohl)

(1) Being the only one; only.

(2) Being the only one of the kind; unique; unsurpassed; matchless.

(3) Belonging or pertaining to one individual or group to the exclusion of all others; exclusive.

(4) In law, un-married (archaic).

(5) The bottom or under-surface of the foot.

(6) The corresponding under part of a shoe, boot, or the like, or this part exclusive of the heel.

(7) The bottom, under surface, or lower part of anything.

(8) In carpentry, the underside of a plane.

(9) In golf, the part of the head of the club that touches the ground.

(10) A European flatfish, Solea solea.

(11) Any other flatfish of the families Soleidae and Cynoglossidae, having a hook-like snout.

1275-1325:  From the Old French soul & sol (only, alone, just), from the Vlugar Latin sola from the Late Latin sōlus (alone, only, single, sole; forsaken; extraordinary), replacing Middle English soule.  The source was the Classical Latin solea (sandal, bottom of a shoe; a flatfish), derivative of solum (base, bottom, ground, foundation, lowest point of a thing (hence “sole of the foot”)).  The Latin root begat similar words in many European languages: the Spanish suela, the Italian soglia and the Portuguese solha although, technically, the bottom of the foot is the planta, corresponding to the palm of the hand.  The Latin sōlus is of unknown origin but may be related to the primitive Indo-European reflexive root swo- from which English later gained "so".

A fossil flatfish.

The various common European flatfishes (of the ray-finned demersal order Pleuronectiformes) became known as sole in the mid-thirteenth century, an adoption of French use which followed the Latin which named the solea after the sandal because of the resemblance in shape to a flat shoe.  In English, the meaning "bottom of a shoe or boot" is from the late fourteenth century, and the cobbler’s phrase “to heal and sole a boot (or shoe)” to describe a repair or replacement is a verb form from the 1560s.  Another linguistic innovation of boot-makers was the noun insole (an inner lining of a shoe or boot affixed inside to the bottom and following exactly the shape) which appeared in 1838; it soon became known as the inner sole or inner-sole.

The use in both Church and common law to mean "single, alone, having no husband or wife” was an appropriation of form reflecting the normal, everyday meaning of the sole (one and only, singular, unique) and was first used in that context in the late fourteenth century and, in some technical uses, appeared still as late as the early nineteenth.  The adjective solely began to appear in the late fifteenth century.  A particular adjectival adoption was the direct borrowing from Latin of solus, used in the theatre for stage directions by 1590s.  It’s a masculine (the feminine is sola) but, as part of an industry-specific jargon, solus was used for both.  In certain circles, including poets and lawyers, use of the word persisted in old Latin phrases such as solus cum sola (alone with an unchaperoned woman) and solus cum solo (all on one's own” (which translates literally as "alone with alone")).

Studies of the soles of the Lindsay Lohan’s feet in three aspects.

Sole and its antecedents proved a a productive source in English, the soleus (muscle of the calf of the leg) a creation in the 1670s in the Modern Latin used in medicine and, like the fish, inspired by the similarity to the Roman shoe.  The adjective solitary (alone, living alone) was a mid-fourteenth century formation from the Old French solitaire, from the Latin solitarius (alone, lonely, isolated) from solitas (loneliness, solitude) from solus (alone).  The meaning "single, sole, only" is from 1742 and the related forms are a solitarily & solitariness.   It was a noun as early as the late 1300s but the most inventive adaptation was probably the 1690s prison slang in which it described the punishment of solitary confinement; in 1854 the phrase became an official part of the administration of jails.

Martin Luther aged 43 (1529) by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1653).

As a Reformation coinage, solus also provided theology with the 1590s solifidian (one who believes in salvation by faith alone), a tenet of Protestant Christianity based on the translation by the dissident, one-time Augustinian monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) of Romans 3:28, the construct being solus (alone) + fides (faith) from the primitive Indo-European root bheidh- (to trust, confide, persuade).  It must have been a success because solifidian was used as an adjective early in the new century; the related form is solifidianism.  Philosophy gained solipsism, the theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real and that all else must be denied.

The solo as a “piece of music for one voice or instrument” dates from the 1690s and was in English a commonly used adjective as early as 1712, although the early uses had nothing to do with music, instead referring to activities undertaken alone or unassisted.  The verb is first attested 1858 in the musical sense, 1886 in a non-musical sense and was adopted in the business of pilot training to describe a pupil’s first flight without an instructor in the cockpit.  Among those who attend rock concerts, there seems to be one faction which regards the drum solo as a highlight and one for which it's a bore to be endured.

A desolate emo.

Desolate, the emo’s standard alliterative companion to devastated, in the mid-1300s meant “a person disconsolate, miserable, overwhelmed with grief, deprived of comfort", extended later in the century to “persons without companions, solitary, lonely".  If the word didn’t exist, emos would have invented it.  By the early fifteenth century, it became applied to the natural environment to describe places, "uninhabited, abandoned" from the Latin desolatus, past participle of desolare (leave alone, desert), the construct being de- (completely) + solare (make lonely).  It’s not clear when it came also to be used as a criticism of urban, built environments (typically industrial or suburban) but it was well-established early in the twentieth century.  Desolation (sorrow, grief, personal affliction), circa 1400 meant the "action of laying waste, destruction or expulsion of inhabitants" is from the twelfth century Old French desolacion (desolation, devastation, hopelessness, despair) and directly from the Church Latin desolationem (nominative desolatio), a noun of action from the past-participle stem of desolare (leave alone, desert).  The sense of a "condition of being ruined or wasted, destruction" is from the early 1400 and the sense of "a desolated place, a devastated or lifeless region" is from 1610s.  Also emo-themed was the adjective sullen, a 1570s alteration of the Middle English soleyn (unique, singular) from the Anglo-French solein, formed on the pattern of the Old French solain (lonely), from the Latin solus.  The emo-inspired sense shift in Middle English from "solitary" to "morose" occurred in the late fourteenth century.  Solitude is from the mid-fourteenth century, from the Old French solitude (loneliness) and directly from the Latin solitudinem (nominative solitudo) (loneliness, being alone; lonely place, desert, wilderness) from solus but didn’t become common use in English until the seventeenth century.  The solitudinarian (a recluse, unsocial person) is recorded from 1690s and it’s perhaps surprising such a modern-sounding word isn’t today more popular.

Saint Augustine of Hippo (circa 1510) by Berto di Giovanni (d 1529).

The noun soliloquy is from the 1610s, from the Late Latin soliloquium (a talking to oneself", the construct being solus + loqui (to speak) from the primitive Indo-European root tolkw- (to speak).  Earlier, it appeared in a translation of the Latin Soliloquiorum libri duo a treatise by Saint Augustine (354-430), who is said to have coined the word, on analogy of Greek monologia.  The related form is soliloquent.