Rat

Rat (pronounced ratt)

(1) In zoology, any of several long-tailed rodents of the family Muridae, of the genus Rattus and related genera, distinguished from the mouse by being larger.

(2) In (scientifically inaccurate) informal use, any of the numerous members of several rodent families (eg voles & mice) that resemble true rats in appearance, usually having a pointy snout, a long, bare tail, and body length greater than 5 inches (120 mm).

(3) In hairdressing, a wad of shed hair used as part of a hairstyle; a roll of material used to puff out the hair, which is turned over it.

(4) In the slang of certain groups in London, vulgar slang for the vagina.

(5) As “to rat on” or “to rat out”, to betray a person or party, especially by telling their secret to an authority or enemy; to turn someone in.

(6) One of a brace of rodent-based slang terms to differentiate between the small-block (mouse motor) and big-block (rat motor) Chevrolet V8s built mostly in the mid-late twentieth century but still available (as "crate" engines) from US manufacturers.

(7) As RAT, a small turbine that is connected to a hydraulic pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft and used as a power source.

(8) Slang term for a scoundrel, especially men of dubious morality.

(9) In the criminal class and in law enforcement, slang for an informer.

(10) In politics, slang for a person who abandons or betrays his party or associates, especially in a time of trouble.

(11) Slang for a person who frequents a specified place (mall rat, gym rat etc).

(12) In hairdressing, a pad with tapered ends formerly used in women's hair styles to give the appearance of greater thickness.

(13) In the slang of blue-water sailors, a place in the sea with rapid currents and crags where a ship is prone to being broken apart in stormy weather.

(14) In zoology (in casual use), a clipping of muskrat.

Pre 1000: From the Middle English ratte, rat & rotte, from the Old English ræt & rætt, and the Latin rodere from the Proto-Germanic rattaz & rattō (related also to the West Frisian rôt, the German Ratz & Ratte and the Swedish råtta & the Dutch rat), of uncertain origin but perhaps from the primitive Indo-European rehed- (to scrape, scratch, gnaw).  Zoological anthropologists however point out it’s possible there were no populations of rats in the Northern Europe of antiquity, and the Proto-Germanic word may have referred to a different animal.  The attestation of this family of words dates from the twelfth century.  Some of the Germanic cognates show considerable consonant variation such as the Middle Low German ratte & radde and the Middle High German rate, ratte & ratze, the irregularity perhaps symptomatic of a late dispersal of the word, although some etymologists link it with the Proto-Germanic stem raþō (nom); ruttaz (gen), the variations arising from the re-modellings in the descendants.

Mall rats.  In North America and other developed markets, there is now less scope for habitués because changing consumer behavior has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the volume of transactions conducted in physical stores and some malls are being either abandoned or re-purposed (health hubs and educational facilities being a popular use).  

The human distaste for these large rodents has made rat a productive additive in English.  Since the twelfth century it’s been applied (usually to a surname) to persons either held to resemble rats or share with them some characteristic or perception of quality with them. The specific sense of "one who abandons his associates for personal advantage" is from the 1620s, based on the belief that rats leave a ship about to sink or a house about to fall, and this led to the meaning "traitor” or “informant" although, perhaps surprisingly, there no reference to rat in this sense prior to 1902 where as the modern-sounding sense of associative frequency (mall-rat, gym-rat etc) was noted as early as 1864, firstly as “dock-rat”.  Dr Johnson dates “to smell a rat”, based on the behaviour of cats, to the 1540s.  Sir Boyle Roche (1736-1807), was an Irish MP famous for mangled phrases and mixed metaphors, of the best remembered of which was “I smell a rat; I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky; but I'll nip him in the bud".  There’s the rat-terrier (1852), the rat-catcher (1590s), the rat-snake (1818), rat-poison, (1799), the rat trap (late 1400s), the rat-pack (1951) and rat-hole which in 1812, based on the holes gnawed in woodwork by rats meant “nasty, messy place”, the meaning extended in 1921 to a "bottomless hole" (especially one where money goes).  Ratfink (1963) was juvenile slang either coined or merely popularized by US custom car builder Ed "Big Daddy" Roth (1932-2001), who rendered a stylised rat on some of his creations, supposedly to lampoon Mickey Mouse.

Cricket's most infamous rat (mullygrubber), MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground), 1 February, 1981.  In the 1970s brown & beige really had been a fashionable color combination but this was the combo's death knell.

Rat has a specific meaning in the cricketing slang of the West Indies, referring to a ball which, after being delivered by the bowler, rather than bouncing off the pitch at some angle, instead runs along the ground, possibly hitting the stumps with sufficient force to dislodge the bails, dismissing the batsman, the idea being of a rat scurrying across the ground.  In Australian slang, the same delivery is called a mullygrubber which, although it sounds old-fashioned, is said to date only from the 1970s, the construct thought based on the dialectal rural term mully (dusty, powdery earth) + grub(ber) in the sense of the grubs which rush about in the dirt if disturbed in such an environment.  Such deliveries are wholly serendipitous (for the bowler) and just bad luck (for the batsman) because it's not possible for such as ball to be delivered on purpose; they happen only because of the ball striking some crack or imperfection in the pitch which radically alters it usual course to a flat trajectory.  If a batsman is dismissed as a result, it's often called a "freak ball" or "freak dismissal".  Of course if a ball is delivered underarm a rat is easy to effect but if a batsman knows one is coming, while it's hard to score from, it's very easy to defend against.  The most infamous mullygrubber was bowled at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) on 1 February 1981 when, with New Zealand needing to score six (by hitting the ball, on the full, over the boundary) of the final delivery of the match, the Australian bowler sent down an underarm delivery, the mullygrubber denying the batsman the opportunity to score and securing an Australian victory.  Although then permissible within the rules, it was hardly in the spirit of the game and consequently, the regulations were changed.

The Ram Air Turbine

Ram Air Turbine (RAT) diagram.

The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is a small, propeller-driven turbine connected to a hydraulic pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft to generate emergency power.  In an emergency, when electrical power is lost, the RAT drops from the fuselage or wing into the air-stream where it works as a mini wind-turbine, providing sufficient power for vital systems (flight controls, linked hydraulics and flight-critical instrumentation).

Vickers VC10 in BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation (1939-1974) livery.

Built between 1962-1970, although fast and a favorite with passengers because the rear-engine layout guaranteed a quiet cabin, only 54 VC10s were built and, in a market dominated by Boeing's epoch-making 707 (1956-1978), success proved elusive.  Even before the 747 in 1969 ushered in the wide-body era it was clear the elegant VC10 was a cul-de-sac but the airframe enjoyed a long career.  The RAF (Royal Air Force) had some configured as VIP transports and the last of those used as in-flight re-fueling platforms (tankers) weren't retired until 2013.  Most modern commercial airliners are equipped with RATs, the first being installed on the Vickers VC10 in the early 1960s and the big Airbus A380 has the largest RAT propeller in current use at 64 inches (1.63 metres) but most are about half this size.  It’s expected as modern airliners begin increasingly to rely on electrical power, either propeller sizes will have to increase or additional RATs may be required, the latter sometimes the desirable choice because of the design limitations imposed by the height of landing gear.  A typical large RAT can produce from 5 to 70 kW but smaller, low air-speed models may generate as little as 400 watts.  Early free-fall nuclear weapons used rats to power radar altimeters and firing circuits; RATS being longer-lasting and more reliable than batteries.  

A RAT deployed.

The airline manufacturers have been exploring whether on-board fuel-cell technology can be adapted to negate the need for RAT, at least in the smaller, single-aisle aircraft where the weight of such a unit might be equal to or less than the RAT equipment.  The attraction of housing in an airliner's wing-body fairing is it would be a step towards the long-term goal of eliminating an airliner's liquid-fuelled auxiliary turbine power unit.  Additionally, if the size-weight equation could be achieved, there’s the operational advantage that a fuel-cell is easier to test than a RAT because, unlike the RAT, the fuel-cell can be tested without having to power-up most of the system.  The physics would also be attractive, the power from a fuel cell higher at lower altitudes where as the output of a RAT declines as airspeed decreases, a potentially critical matter given it’s during the relatively slow approach to a landing that power is needed to extend the trailing edge of the wing flaps and operate other controls.

If the weight and dimensions of the fuel cell is at least "comparable" to a RAT and the safety and durability testing is successful, at least on smaller aircrafts, fuel-cells might be an attractive option for new aircraft although, at this stage, the economics of retro-fitting are unlikely to be compelling.  Longer term research is also looking at a continuously running fuel cell producing oxygen-depleted exhaust gas for fuel-tank inerting (a safety system that reduces the risk of combustion in aircraft fuel tanks by lowering the oxygen concentration in the ullage (the space above the fuel) to below the level needed to support a fire, typically by replacing oxygen with an inert gas like nitrogen), and water for passenger amenities, thereby meaning an aircraft could be operated on the on the ground without burning any jet-fuel, the fuel-cell providing power for air conditioning and electrical systems.

1944 Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet  (1944-1945).

The only rocket-powered fighter ever used in combat, the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet had a small RAT in the nose to provide electrical power.  The early prototypes of the somewhat more successful (and much more influential) Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter also had a propeller in the nose for the first test flights but it wasn't a a RAT; it was attached to a piston engine which was there as an emergency backup because of the chronic unreliability of the early jet engines.  It proved a wise precaution, the jets failing on more than one occasion.

1974 Suzuki's air-cooled GT380 Sebring with Ram Air System (left) and 1975 Suzuki GT750 with water-cooling (right).

The other “Ram Air” was Suzuki’s RAS (Ram Air System), fitted to the GT380 Sebring (1972-1980) and GT550 Indy (1972-1977) as well as (off and on) several versions of the smaller, two-cylinder models.  It wasn’t used on the water-cooled GT750 Le Mans (1972-1977) because the radiator acted to impede the airflow to the engine.  The GT380, GT550 and GT750 were two-stroke triples noted for an unusual 3-into-4 exhaust system which the central header-pipe was bifurcated, thus permitting four tail-pipes.  There was no justification in engineering for this (indeed it added cost and weight) and it existed purely for visual effect, allowing an emulation of the look on the four-cylinder Hondas and Kawasakis.  Ironically, despite the additional metal, the asymmetric 3-into-3 system on the Kawasaki triples (1969-1976) is better remembered although the charismatic (if sometimes lethal) qualities of the machines may be a factor in that; exhaust systems do exert a powerful fascination for motor-cyclists.  The RAS was nothing more than a cast aluminum shroud fixed atop the cylinder head to direct air-flow, enhancing upper cylinder cooling.  The “ram air” idea had been used in the 1960s by car manufacturers to “force feed” cool air directly into induction systems and when tested it did in certain circumstances increase power but whether Suzuki's RAS delivered more efficient cooling isn’t clear.  When the twin-cylinder GT250 Hustler (1971-1981 and thus pre-dating the pornography magazine Hustler, first published in 1974) was revised in 1976, the RAS was deleted and replaced by conventional fins without apparent ill-effect but the RAS was light, cheap to produce, maintenance-free and looked sexy so some advantages were certainly there.  Interestingly, the companion GT185 (1973-1978) retained the RAS for the model’s entire production.

Big and small-block Chevrolet V8s: the Rat and the Mouse

Small and big-block Chevrolet V8s compared, the small-block (mouse) to the left in each image, the big-block (rat) to the right.

Mouse and rat are informal terms used respectively to refer to the classic small (1955-2003) and big-block Chevrolet V8s (1958-2021).  The small-block was first named after a rodent although the origin is contested; either it was (1) an allusion to “mighty mouse” a popular cartoon character of the 1950s, the idea being the relatively small engine being able to out-perform many bigger units from other manufacturers or (2) an allusion to the big, heavy Chrysler Hemi V8s (the first generation (Firepower) 331 cubic inch (5.4 litre), 354 (5.8) & 392 (6.4) versions) being known as “the elephant”, the idea based on the widely held belief elephants are scared of mice (which may actually be true although the reason appears not to be the long repeated myth it’s because they fear the little rodents might climb up their trunk).  Zoologically, "bee" might have been a better choice; elephants definitely are scared of bees.  The mouse (small-block) and rat (big-block) distinction is simple to understand: the big block is externally larger although, counterintuitively, the internal displacement of some mouse motors was greater than some rats.  

1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 396 (with 402 cid V8).

Whether that seeming anomaly (actually common throughout the industry during the big-block era) amused or disturbed the decision-makers at Chevrolet isn't known but in 1970 when the small block 400 (6.6) was introduced, simultaneously the big-block 396 (6.5) was enlarged to 402 (6.6) but the corporation then muddied the waters by continuing to call the 402 a "Turbo-Jet 396" when fitted to the intermediate class Chevelle, the rationale presumably that "SS 396" had such strong "brand recognition".  Available since 1965, by 1969 the SS 396 Chevelle was finally out-selling the Pontiac GTO (which in 1964 had seeded the muscle car movement) so the attachment was understandable.  Further to confuse people, the 400 was advertised as the "Turbo-Fire 400" while if fitted to the full-size line, the 402 was called the "Turbo-Jet 400".  Presumably, the assumption was anyone understanding the 400 & 402 ecosystems would buy the one they wanted while those not in the know would neither notice nor care.  Nor was the deviation in displacement between what was on the badge and what lay beneath the hood (bonnet) exclusive to Chevrolet, there being a long list of things not quite what was on the label although the true specifications usually were listed in the documentation and even the advertising.  The variations occurred for a number of reasons but rarely was there an attempt to deceive, even if sometimes things were left unstated or relegated to the small print.

The “428 Cobra Matter”

That’s not to say there were no disputes about the difference between what was “in the tin” compared with what was “on the tin”.  In June 1969, a certain Mr Karl Francis “Fritz” Schiffmayer (1935-2010) of Lake Zurich, Illinois, wrote to Ford’s customer relations department complaining about the “427 Ford Cobra” he had purchased (as a new car) from a Chicago “Ford Dealer”.  What disappointed Mr Shiffmayer was the performance which didn’t match the widely publicized numbers achieved by many testers and, perhaps more to the point, he found his “$8500 Super Ford could barely keep up with” various $5000 Chevrolets.  For a Ford driver, few things could be more depressing.  Upon investigation, he discovered that despite “‘427’ signs all over the engine and the front fenders”, his car was not “a ‘427’ as advertised and labelled but a ‘428’”.  Both V8s were around seven litres but were in many ways not comparable.

Mr Shiffmayer's letter to Ford, 23 June 1969.

Notionally, Mr Shiffmayer got more than he paid for (ie 428 v 427 is nominally an extra cubic inch) and had he bought a dozen (12) bread rolls from the bakery and been supplied a “baker’s dozen” (13) there’d have been no grounds for complaint because bread rolls are a “fungible” (ie functionally identical) so getting 13 is always better than getting 12 at the same price.  However, the 427 and 428 engines, although from the same FE (Ford-Edsel) family and externally similar (until closely inspected), were very different internally with the former notably more oversquare (ie big-bore) and fitted with cross-bolted main bearings; additionally, the 427s used in the Cobras featured “side-oiling”, a more extensive system of lubrication which afforded priority deliver of oil to the bottom-end, making the engine more robust and better suited to the extreme demands of competition.  By contrast, the a Cobra’s 428 was a modified version of the “Police Interceptor 428”, a high-output edition of a powerplant usually found in Ford’s full-sized line including luxury cars and station wagons where it’s smoothness and effortless low-speed torque was appreciated.  The “Police Interceptor” specification was literally that: the engine used by law enforcement in highway patrol vehicles and for street use, it offered a useful lift in performance but it was not suitable for racetracks.  Later, Ford would “mix & match” the 427 & 428 to create the 428 Cobra Jet, the 427’s heads, intake manifold and some other “bolt-on” bits & pieces creating a combination of power and torque close to ideal for ¼ mile (402 m) runs down drag strips although even then Ford cheated, under-rating the output so the cars would be placed in a different category.  That year, in drag racing, the 428 Cobra Jet Mustangs dominated their class which prompted the sanctioning body to change the rules, imposing their own nominal output ratings rather than accepting those of the manufacturer.  Still, even the Cobra Jet 428 remained suitable only for street and strip because ¼ mile runs were done in a straight line and, without the cross-bolting and enhanced lubrication, it wouldn’t have matched the 427’s ability to endure the extreme lateral forces encountered on high-speed circuits.

AC Shelby Cobra CSX3209 after 427 transplant.

That “427 Cobras” with 428 engines even existed was a product of circumstances rather than planning.  Although now million dollar collectables, it’s sometimes forgotten the 427 Cobra was a commercial failure and that meant production numbers never reached the levels required for homologation to be granted for competition in the category for which it was intended so as well as not selling as well as the small block predecessors on which the model’s reputation was built, nor did the seven litre version ever match its success on the track.  When it came time to build the second batch of 100 427 Cobras, the engine was in short supply because the intricacies in construction, coupled with the wider bore being at the limit the block would accommodate (at the foundry, with a slight shifting of the casting cores, a 427 block would have to be scrapped), it was expensive to produce and inconvenient for Ford to schedule in the small batches the sales supported.  The cheap, mass-produced 428 Police Interceptor was both readily available and half the cost so it was an attractive alternative for Shelby and that it bolted straight without needing any changes made it more desirable still; thus 428-powered “427s”.  For the final run of 48, Shelby procured from Ford genuine 427 side-oilers so the 100 428s were a minority of the big-blocks used and many have since been converted (“rectified” some prefer to say) with the substitution of a 427.  Interestingly, four of the 428s were fitted with automatic transmissions which actually made them more-suitable for street use but nobody seems subsequently have done this as a modification.

Shelby American's reply to Mr Shiffmayer, 21 July 1969.

As it was, As it was, Mr Shiffmayer decided to persevere and kept Shelby Cobra CSX3209 until he died, in the 1970s replacing the 428 with a specially built “tunnel port” (a trick with the pushrods to optimize the fluid dynamics of the fuel-air flow) 427.  Whether he was impressed with the reply (Ford referred his letter to Shelby American) he received in response to his complaint isn’t known but it’s an interesting document for a number of reasons:

(1) “…during the five year existence of the Cobra, three engines were used, the 289, the 427 and the 428.”  Actually, the first 75 used the 260.

(2) “Only a very few of the 959 Cobras built contained the 427 engine.”  Actually of the 998 built (in fairness this wasn’t in 1969 the agreed “final count” but it’s hard to understand how 959 was calculated) more than 150 had the 427 and whether this constitutes “very few” is debatable but it’s also not relevant to the complaint.

(3) “The 427 is a nomenclature such as the GT-500 is for the Shelby car.  It does not relate to the cubic displacement of the engine.  We are sorry that this misunderstanding occurred.”  Actually, when the Cobra 427 was released, “427” was a direct reference to displacement.  The “GT500” label was never likely to cause a “misunderstanding” because (1) there was no Ford 500 cid engine and (2) the GT500 was always advertised as being equipped with the 428.

Indisputably as labeled: 1966 Shelby 427 S/C Cobra (CSX 3040).  In 2018, it sold at auction for US$2,947,500.

So, the letter from Shelby really wasn’t a great deal of help (it was dated the day after man set foot on the moon so perhaps the writer's attention was divided).  Were such a case now to go to court several matters would need to be considered:

Was it notorious (ie widely known; common knowledge) in the circles of potential purchasers of such a car that some were powered by 427s and some by 428s and the differences between the two were well documented?  According to some sources, it was only after the “428 Cobra matter” began to attract comment that sales literature was updated to reflect the changed specification while others maintain publication was concurrent with production.

Was the fact the car had only “427” badges an indication of which engine was fitted or just a “model name” al la the Shelby GT500 (which used a 428) & GT350 (which used either a 289 or 302 (and later a 351))?  That originally (in 1965) “427” was a reference to the 427 engine seem incontestable but the question would be whether this changed to a mere “model name” when the 428 was adopted.  It would seem the evidential onus of proof of that would rest with Shelby American.

When making the decision to purchase, did the buyer rely on representations from an authority (in this case a “Ford dealer”) which might reasonably have been expected to (1) possess and (2) communicate all relevant facts?  In that matter, the court would need to consider whether, in the circumstances, there is any substantive difference between a “Ford dealer” and a “Shelby franchised dealer”.  This would be decided by (1) any competing claims from the parties and (2) what documents were supplied prior to or at the point of purchase.

Is it relevant that in 1966-1967 when Ford offered both the 427 & 428 in the Galaxie, that car was sold as the “7 Litre” (they really did use the French spelling) irrespective of which seven litre (427 or 428) V8 was fitted?  Given that, should the Cobra have been thus labelled and was the continued use of the 427 badge a misrepresentation in 428-powered cars?

Was the dealer aware of the buyer’s background?  Mr Shiffmayer was (1) an engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin and (2) he was not only an owner of a 289 Shelby Cobra but also raced it with notable success.  If the dealer was aware of those facts that doesn’t absolve them of a responsibility fully to disclose all relevant information but a court could consider it a mitigating factor.  If the dealer was aware those facts, what would then have to be considered is whether it would have been reasonable for it to be assumed the buyer either knew of the mechanical details or could reasonably have been expected to know.

Evidence: Shelby American "Shelby Cobra 427" spec sheet listing the 428 as the engine, thereby suggesting "427" was a model name rather than a reference to a specific engine.  The significance of this document rests on whether it appeared before or after Shelby American began selling 428 powered Cobras.   

Mouse

Mouse (pronounced mous (verb form sometimes mouz))

(1) Any of numerous small Old World rodents of the family Muridae, especially of the genus Mus, introduced widely in other parts of the world.

(2) Any similar small animal of various rodent and marsupial families.

(3) As a verb (used with object), moused or mousing (1) to hunt out, as a cat hunts out mice, (2) to move a cursor about a screen using a mouse or (3) to prowl about, as if in search of something.

(4) In nautical use, to secure with a mousing (a turn or lashing of spun yarn or small stuff, or a metallic clasp or fastening, uniting the point and shank of a hook to prevent its unhooking or straightening out).

(5) As mouse-like, when applied to people, a descriptor of timidity.

(6) One of a brace of rodent-based slang terms to differentiate between the small-block (mouse motor) and big-block (rat motor) Chevrolet V8s built mostly in the mid-late twentieth century.

(7) In computing, a hand-held device used to control the cursor movement and select computing functions without using the keyboard.

(8) As a descriptor of hair color, a dull and lifeless blonde.

(9) In boxing, slang for black eye (hematoma).

(10) In early artillery, a match used in firing guns or in blasting.

(11) In the mathematics of set theory, a fragment of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with desirable properties (depending on the context).

(12) A small cushion for a woman's hair (obsolete).

(13) As mouse hair, an expression used to describe the suede-like covering used by some low-volume Italian car manufacturers for some interior fittings.

Pre 900: From the Middle English mous (plural mis) and Old English mūs (small rodent (also “muscle of the arm”)) (plural mȳs), from the Proto-Germanic mus, probably ultimately derived from the primitive Indo-European mus & muhs.  Germanic cognates include the Old Frisian mūs, the Old Saxon mūs, the Low German Muus, the Dutch muis, the Old High German mūs (German Maus), the Old Norse mús, the Swedish mus, the Danish mus, the Norwegian mus, the Icelandic mús & the Faroese mús.  Indo-European cognates include the Ancient Greek μῦς (mûs), the Latin mūs, the Spanish mur, the Armenian մուկ (muk), the Old Church Slavonic myšĭ, the Russian мышь (myšʹ), the Albanian mi, the Persian موش‎ (muš) & the Sanskrit मूष् (mūṣ).  Mouse & mousing are nouns & verbs, moused is a verb, mousy is an adjective and mousily is an adverb; the noun plural is mice (mouses a curious and best-avoided invention used to refer to the computer hardware).

Lindsay Lohan at Disneyland Resort, Anaheim, California with Mickey Mouse in 2003 (left) and, 21 years on, in 2024 (right).  Lindsay still looks good but Mickey hasn't aged a day.

The use to describe something (or more commonly someone) as timid or weak dates from the late fourteenth century and the phrase of diametric contrast “an or mouse” emerged in the 1620s.  The meaning "black eye" (or other dis-colored lump on the body) is from 1842 and is part of the jargon of boxing.  The familiar use in computing to describe a "small device moved by the hand over a flat surface to maneuver a cursor or arrow on a display screen" is from 1965, though the word had been applied to many objects with some vague remembrance to the rodent was applied to many objects since 1750 and was especially popular in Admiralty use.  The computer mouse picked up the name because the cord which connected it to the computer (which in the early days of PCs was usually a serial or bus connection) was compared to the creature’s tail; although the things increasingly are wireless and thus have no “tail” the name has stuck, divorced from the original imagery.  The preferred plural is mice (pronounced mahys); in the Old English it was mys and mice is thus an example if i-mutation.  The curious adoption of mouses as the plural for the computer mouse had no etymological or other basis and seems to have come into use to ensure references to the plastic pointing device wouldn’t be confused with rodents though it’s difficult to imagine that would often happen.  In the espionage community, MICE is a term used to refer to the four factors most likely to induce people to "work for the other side" by becoming traitor to their own country: Money, Ideology, Corruption & Ego.  In the hospitality industry, MICE is Meetings, Incentives, Conferences & Exhibitions which collectively describes a market segment distinct from activities such as weddings or birthday celebrations which can be held in the same physical space.  

Lindsay Lohan in Minnie Mouse mode, smoking.

The verb mouse (to hunt or catch mice) developed from the noun in the mid-thirteenth century and was from the earlier mousen while the noun mouse-hole (very small hole where mice go in and out, a hole only big enough to admit a mouse) dates from the early fifteenth century; from later that century, the noun mouser (cat that hunts mice) was an agent noun from the verb.  The adjective mousy (resembling a mouse) dates from 1812 was actually used mostly as a synonym of “mouse-like” to describe the demeanour of the timid although there are instances of use in zoology as an anatomical descriptor; after 1512 it came to describe hair color, now more memorably referred to as dirty blonde”.  The noun mousetrap (trap for catching mice) emerged in the mid-fifteenth century with figurative use noted since the 1570s.  The device however is an ancient design (which, conceptually, probably can’t be improved upon) and in the Old English was musfealle (literally "mouse-fall" after the imagery of the trap falling on the mouse); in the late fourteenth century Middle English it was mouscacche (literally "mouse-catch").

The figurative use of Mickey Mouse, the cartoon character created in 1928 by US animator Walt Disney (1901-1966) is interesting.  As an adjective meaning "small and worthless, petty, inconsequential" it was in use by 1951, presumably a reference to the less than exact accuracy in time-keeping by the popular, cheaply made Mickey Mouse wristwatch.  A similar negative connotation had emerged in 1935 to describe the innocuous but unimaginative dance-band music played as background in cartoon films.  However, by the 1950s, the Californian hot-rod movement had adopted Mickey Mouse as a contronym to describe the best and most desirable after-market equipment.

Small and big-block Chevrolet V8s compared, the small-block (mouse) to the left in each image, the big-block (rat) to the right.

Mouse and rat are informal terms used respectively to refer to the classic small (1955-2003 although still produced as a crate-engine) and big-block Chevrolet V8s (1958-2021 although still produced as a crate-engine).  The small-block was first named although the origin is contested; either it was (1) an allusion to “mighty mouse” a popular cartoon character of the 1950s, the idea being the relatively small engine being competitive with many bigger units from other manufacturers (which is some cases was true) or (2) an allusion to the big, heavy Chrysler Hemi V8s (the first generation 331 354 & 392 cubic inch (5.4. 5.8 & 6.4 litre) versions) being known as “the elephant”, the idea based on the widely held belief that elephants are scared of mice (which may actually be true although the reason appears not to be the long repeated myth it’s because the little rodents might climb up their trunk and it transpires they probably are more averse to bees).  The mouse (small-block) and rat (big-block) distinction is simple to understand: the big block is externally larger although confusingly the internal displacement of some mouse motors was greater than that of some rats.

The plural in Modern English

The tendency by the mid-1980s to differentiate between multiple rodents and multiple Computer-Aided Display Control Devices (as mice were first called) as mice and mouses respectively was curious.  While the onset of mass-market computing in the 1980s made some linguistic differentiation desirable (eg between program for software and programme for all other contexts), there has never been much chance, in any context, of confusing rodents with two or more computer mice.  Hopefully, mouses will go extinct.

One mouse, two mice.

That does beg the question of why multiple rodents are mice and not mouses given that would be the usual practice in English: add an “s”.  Among animals, the mouse is not unique in this variation; there’s also moose, ox and goose, none of which enjoy plurals created by adding an “s” and there’s no apparent consistency for were the model for oxen to be universal, Modern English would enjoy goosen, micen and moosen, an echo of Old English.  In Modern English, mostly the noun plural is made by adding an “s” but there are irregular plurals, many but not all of which are animal names.   

The first group of irregular nouns come from an obsolete strain of Old English and includes ox and oxen.  Old English was a West Germanic language spoken and written between the mid-fifth and late-eleventh centuries in parts of what are now England and southern Scotland; it’s in this the epic poem Beowulf was written.  Although unintelligible to speakers of Modern English, as it evolved, it retained some elements of Old English including the plural nouns oxen, children and brethren although the evolution was organic and not consistent; some other nouns, such as eye, house and hose used to be pluralized in a similar way, but those forms, eyen, housen and hosen are now dialectic or obsolete.  Hosen of course endures in Modern German, as in lederhosen but, there are at least five different ways German nouns can form the plural.

The second group of irregular plurals are mutants, also from Old English roots.  Examples include foot, goose, woman and louse which as plurals became feet, geese, women, and lice, all under the influence of German.  Mutated plurals are formed simply by changing the vowel sound of the singular, in a process called “umlaut”.  An “umlaut” is better known as the two-dot symbol seen above some German vowels, but there’s also a sense in which it’s a concept in technical linguistics.  While quite rare in Modern English, mutated plurals are in common use and include man & men, mouse & mice and tooth & teeth.

Finally, there are nouns where the singular and plural forms are the same, such as deer, fish, moose, sheep, shrimp and swine; these are called zero-plural nouns.  Many are animals, but there are others such as aircraft and species.  Even here, there are deviations such as the convention in science to use fishes to differentiate between one and multiple species of fish which makes sense in a way mouses never did.

The fish vs fishes thing does have history.  There are many references to fish in the Bible, never species, just fish singular or plural but translators rendered the plural as both “fish” and “fishes” even when not necessarily referring to actual fish.  Translators used “fish” in its plural sense when the Greek opsarion appeared, a word simply denoting food eaten with bread, which was often fish but it’s translated also as "fishes", the original spellings often "fysshe" and "fysshes".  Both the original 1611 and the 1789 revision of the King James Version are rendered thus:

John 21:8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

John 21:10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

John 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

None of this offers any revelation of grammatical or theological truth but it does illustrate the murky history of English plurals.  So, in English, there is no consistent rule for noun plural formations.  Unfortunately, the language is what it is and all that can be done is to memorize weird plurals, just as one has to learn irregular verbs.

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

The “mountain in labor” is imagery dating from Antiquity (thought to be a Greek proverb) and has since often been used in Western literature.  The idea is of speech in a literary or political context which promises much but delivers little (ie “over promising and under-delivering” or “much ado about little”).  It’s best remembered in the phrase used by the the Roman lyric poet Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus, 65-8 BC) in the influential Ars Poetica (The Art of Poetry (19 BC)): Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (The mountains are in labor but only an absurd mouse will be born).

And don’t start like the old writer of epic cycles:

‘Of Priam’s fate I’ll sing, and the greatest of Wars.’

What could he produce to match his opening promise?

Mountains will labour: what’s born? A ridiculous mouse!

Tergiversate

Tergiversate (Pronounced tur-ji-ver-seyt)

(1) To change repeatedly one's attitude or opinions with respect to a cause or subject.

(2) To turn renegade; to change sides, affiliations or loyalties; to apostatize; to desert.

(3) To evade, to equivocate using subterfuge; to obfuscate in a deliberate manner.  To be evasive or ambiguous.

(4) To flee by turning one's back (obsolete).

1645-1655; From the Classical Latin tergiversātus, perfect active participle of tergiversor (to evade, to avoid, to turn one's back on) and past participle of tergiversārī (to turn one's back), the construct being tergi- (a combining form of tergum (back)) + versātus, past participle of versāre, frequentative of +‎ versor or vertere (to turn (from the primitive Indo-European root wer- (to turn; to bend))).  The Vulgar Latin was tergiversationem (nominative tergiversatio).  The original mid-seventeenth century sense of the verb tergiversate was “to shift; practice evasion” and it was used especially in a political or religious context to mean “apostatize, desert one's party”.  It’s not clear whether the verb was a directly from the Latin tergiversates or a back-formation from tergiversation.  The noun tergiversation (turning dishonestly from a straightforward action or statement; shifting, shuffling, equivocation) was in use by the 1560s, from the Latin tergiversationem (a shifting, evasion, declining, refusing), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of tergiversari.  Deconstructed, that meant literally “to turn one's back on”, thus the sense of “to evade” from tergum (the back (of unknown origin) + versare.  In the seventeenth century, there were nuances to tergiversation, on version noting the meaning: “A seeming to runne away, yet (like some cocks) still to fight, wrangling” (ie a tactic of delayed attack rather than a retreat).  Some sources list the verb tergiversate being obsolete by the twentieth century but it survived as a “decorative word” and “deliberate anachronism” before being revived because it was so useful in political commentary.  Tergiversate, tergiversated & tergiversating are verbs and tergiversation & tergiversator are nouns; the noun plural forms (tergiversations & tergiversators) are rare.

While “tergiversate” can be applied to changes of opinion or alignment in many fields, in contemporary practice it’s rare for it to be seen except when speaking of writing about politics & politicians, a rich source of mendacity and inconsistency.  So common is political tergiversation that the frequency with which it’s reported has compelled the coining or adaptation of other terms including “flip-flopping”, “turncoating”, “U-turning”, and “ratting”, some politicians known even to have embraced them.  Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in 1901 entered the UK’s House of Commons as a Tory (Conservative), having on the hustings lambasted his opponents in the Liberal Party as “prigs, prudes and faddists” and once in parliament he warmed to the topic, accusing the Liberals of “…hiding from the public view like a toad in a hole”, adding “…when it stands forth in all its hideousness we Tories will have to hew the filthy object limb from limb.”  That told the country what he must at the time have thought yet in less than three years he’d stand on the same platform and ejaculate: “I hate the Tories.  I am an English Liberal.”  Obviously that was a nailing of the colors to the mast yet by 1924, after a turbulent couple of decades, he returned to the Tory benches, all apparently forgiven (though certainly not forgotten).  Whether those tergiversations were acts of principle or a sniffing of the electoral breeze can be debated but Churchill himself took the view he’d done it all with some panache, joking in his club: “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.”

#freckles: Lindsay Lohan out shopping. Tergiversate’s origin lies in the Latin tergiversari (to turn one's back) but that sense of the word has for more than a century been extinct and it’s now a “loaded” word; a pejorative characterization rather than a neutral description.

The Athenian statesman and general Alcibiades (circa 450-404 BC) ratted more often than Churchill and did in circumstances wholly more distasteful, his allegiance shifting on several occasions during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC, fought between the Athenians and Spartans).  Historians have attributed his repeated acts of treachery not to ideological commitment or even avarice but to what a modern HR (Human Relations) department might describe as “difficulties in personal relationships” that led not infrequently to erstwhile colleagues becoming enemies.  Prominent in his native Athens where he advocated a hard line against the Spartans in both foreign policy and military matters, Alcibiades proved skilful in Masonic-like plotting and scheming but his ruthlessness made many enemies and they too proved adept at character assassination; reading the writing on the wall (about to be written in his blood) he decamped to Sparta, taking with him valuable secrets about the military plans of Athens, making him a most useful “consultant”.  However, the problem inherent in being a turncoat (however useful) is that one never is wholly trusted by ones new “friends” and this tension, coupled with Alcibiades’ clearly abrasive personality made him realise he’d do well to depart and so he did, defecting the court of the Persian Empire where he served as a strategic advisor.  However, so much had the power centres in Athens shifted that remarkably (given his history), he was recalled to military command there, serving for several years before the faction that had never forgiven him engineered his second exile to Persia.  There he was murdered, reputedly on the orders of his enemies in Sparta but there’s a long list of likely suspects.

What’s now the most frequent use of tergiversation is to refer to promises made and broken by those most notorious of tergiversators: politicians.  Although the term “law-maker” is less commonly used beyond the US, it’s a revealing way to describe those elected or appointed to legislatures and the key to why they are able to break what should be regarded as contractual promises while others doing the same thing can severely be punished.  When seeking election to what most people casting a vote would regard as a highly paid job, politicians make what are known as “campaign promises”.  The promises are an inducement to make people vote for them so they get the well paid job so what should be created is a “social contract”; upon being elected, the politician should fulfil their promises.  In that it should be no different from the furniture store advertising their “special deal” of “one coffee table, two chairs and one sofa for $1,999”; that’s what should be delivered.  Were the store to take the $1,999 and deliver only one chair and one sofa, the customer would have legal recourse.  What that might be (an order for specific performance of the contract (ie delivering the missing table and chair)); a refund; compensation for the missing items etc) might vary according to this and that but there would be come redress available and that’s because the law-makers have passed laws protecting consumers from those breaking promises.

Day of the Tergiversate (2017), directed by Alex Michael Smith (known also for Bed of Fear (2014) and Monsters of Suburbia (2019).

However, lawmakers everywhere (as far as is known) have not passed laws making political promises enforceable despite the principle being the same as the furniture store (promises made to deliver something exchange for something (money or votes).  Political scientists have noted the social contract between politician & voter conforms with the four essential element of a contract listed in every text book in the common law world: (1) Offer (a politician makes a promise in exchange for a vote), (2) Acceptance (by voting a voter in engaging in an act of “acceptance by acquiescence”), (3) Consideration (in voting the voter is “paying” the politician for their promise(s)) and (4) Certainty of terms (helpfully, political parties list their promises in the “party platform”, usually in simple, unambiguous language of the advertising slogan).  So that would appear to suggest that according to the legal principles the lawmakers impose on everybody else, the promises they made to get their well-paid jobs should at law be enforceable.  Of course they are not and the lawmakers remain free to break their promises at will.  While the politicians can argue that any voter sufficiently upset about one or more broken promises can in the next election vote for somebody else, that really doesn’t much help because (1) the politician will enjoy some years (typically between 2-8) in the high paid job they obtained by making promises that were broken and (2) the alternatives are just a likely to break promises.

The roll-call of tergiversating politicians is of course long and rarely noble; sometimes the consequences have for decades rippled.  Overturning long-standing party policy, Tory Sir Robert Peel (1788–1850; Prime Minister of the UK 1834–1835 & 1841–1846) had to rely on the support of the Whig opposition to in 1846 repeal the UK’s protectionist “Corn Laws”, triggering the “free trade” squabbles which would for decades rage.  A most unusual reform by a Tory administration (it benefited the poor and cost the rich!); shortly after that his ministry fell and Peel would never again hold office.  Still, he’s remembered because of another of his innovations lent his names to two of the original slang terms for police constables: “Peelers” and “Bobbies”.

Front page of Rupert Murdoch's (b 1931) New York Post, 27 June 1990.  The editors of Mr Murdoch's tabloids prefer punchy words like “lied” to decorative forms like “tergiversated”.

George H.W. Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; VPOTUS 1981-1989 and POTUS 1989-1993) might have got away with breaking his “…no new taxes” promise had it been an anodyne line of electoral orthodoxy buried somewhere in the Republican’s 1988 manifesto but he made the mistake of standing at rallies and loudly declaring: “Read my lips: no new taxes”, probably the most widely televised fragment of the campaign and greeted always with resounding applause.  It must at the time have seemed a good idea and probably it was; certainly nobody doubts Mr Bush really believed what he was promising and few politicians could convey sincerity like him.  Unfortunately, economic conditions worsened and by 1990 he took the decision to raise taxes in an attempt to “reign in” the growing deficit.  This was the era before Dick Cheney (1941-2025; VPOTUS 2001-2009) helpfully explained: “Deficits don’t matter”, a new (at least temporary) orthodoxy explaining why the US deficit is now nudging US$40 trillion which, although only a few dozen Elon Musks (b 1971), is a big number.  In 1990, Mr Bush preferred to avoid what he might once have called “voodoo economics”, stuck to the text books and raised taxes, something which contributed to Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) winning the “It’s the economy stupid” 1992 presidential election, voters, however unhappily, receiving a free copy of crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).

Many economists at the time commended Mr Bush for breaking his promise but there weren’t many of them and there were many more angry voters.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) found the electorate more forgiving of him breaking the promise made in the 1932 campaign to “cut federal spending by 25%”.  Instead, he embarked upon the “New Deal” and while some economists have argued all that “tax & spend” churn delayed economic recovery, the many who at the time benefited from the stimulus weren’t inclined to decline support because of FDR’s broken promise.  As ever, “it’s the economy stupid”.  Now of course, in the time of the US$40 trillion deficit, it’s different and the shadow since 1987 cast by the “Greenspan put” (recessions ultimately reducible to “rich people losing money” the solution of celebrity economist (a rare breed) Dr Alan Greenspan (1926-2026; chairman of the Fed (US Federal Reserve) 1987-2006) being to “give them money”) grows ever longer.  In a sense, that has removed from the US political debate much of the need for politicians to make promises about taxes or spending because they know that while the Fed’s mechanism to “create money” may be different from the Nazi-era “wizardry” of Dr Hjalmar Schacht’s (1877–1970; president of the Reichsbank 1923-1930 & 1933-1939), “Mefo bills” (promissory notes, drawn upon the artificial company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Metallurgical Research Corporation), the “bottom line” outcomes are strikingly similar.  How long this system can be sustained has attracted comment, the Dick Cheney faction in one corner and in the other, those saying “It’s the stupid economy”.

“Core” and “non core” promises explained.  Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011. 

A breathtakingly audacious “justification” of breaking election promises was in 1996 coined (apparently on-the-spot so he gets points for that) by John Howard (b 1939; prime minister of Australia 1996-2007).  When challenged by a journalist over having blatantly just broken several promises made during the election campaign only a few months earlier, Mr Howard constructed a new theory, one previously unknown to political science and never codified even by such cleverly wicked chaps as the Florentine diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469–1527), the “Welsh wizard” David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) or the truly evil Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), none of whom were ever much bothered by the notion of “keeping promises”).  What Mr Howard extemporized was that election promises can be categorized into “core” pledges that must be kept, and “non-core” pledges able to be broken or amended (also an interesting distinction).  That really would have been a most useful contribution to democratic theory had Mr Howard explained things prior to the election and listed his party’s “core” and “non-core” promises in the manifesto thus.  Unfortunately, his concept appeared only after the promised had “done the job” and elected him.  So, given the cynicism in the “core” vs “non-core” dichotomy he retrospectively applied, one might have thought the electorate might have punished Mr Howard but he went on to win another three elections (holing office for more than a decade and becoming the country's second-longest serving leader), the voters apparently concluding that even though he’d broken his promises, at least he’d had the chutzpah to come up with an even bigger lie in justification.  Never forgetting their convict origins, Australians can’t help but admire successful skulduggery and Mr Howard was a “conviction politician”; never was it said of him he was one of those “who lacked the courage of his lack of convictions”.

In modern use the understanding of “tergiversation” has shifted from its origin in the Latin tergiversari (to turn one's back) and while more than “flip-flop”, “U-turn” or “lie”, generally it’s now used to convey the idea of evasion, duplicity, abandonment of a previously held position, shifting a previously expressed stance for mere expediency or base self-interest; most associated with politicians it thus carries connotations of bad faith or basic dishonesty.  “Tergiversation” is thus a “loaded” word; a pejorative characterization rather than a neutral description.  Even for politicians however there can be good reasons to break promises.  Although phrases in the vein of “When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?” usually are attributed to the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), there’s no evidence he ever used those words but the sentiment certainly exists in his writings including: “The company must maintain constant vigilance and revise preconceived ideas in response to changes in external situations” and “The inactive investor who takes up an obstinate attitude about his holdings and refuses to change his opinion merely because facts and circumstances have changed is the one who in the long run comes to grievous loss.”

Chopstick diplomacy.

Comrade Zhou Enlai (1898–1976; premier of the People's Republic of China (PRC) 1949-1976, left), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 & POTUS 1969-1974) (centre) and comrade Zhang Chunqiao (1917–2005, right) at the welcome banquet for President Nixon's visit to the PRC, Tiananmen Square, Beijing, 26 February 1972.

It was in that spirit Richard Nixon, who had built a political career on his virulent anti-communism and support for the renegade province of Taiwan, switched to achieve a détante with the PRC (People’s Republic of China, the old “Red China”) and ultimately grant diplomatic recognition.  That was quite a switch and one at the time only someone with his solid anti-communist credentials could have achieved; while his motivations weren’t wholly pure, he did understand the geopolitical environment he and Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1973-1977) were confronting was very different to that which a generation earlier had existed for Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; POTUS 1953-1961) and John Foster Dulles (1888–1959; US secretary of state 1953-1959).  Most historians have since seen the shift as an inevitable strategic adaptation to Cold War realities rather than mere tergiversation but they’re not as forgiving of all adaptations to changed circumstances.  In his pre-political life, Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) would probably not ever have been labelled a “liberal” but his public positions on at least some issues would suggest he was sympathetic to some liberal positions including gun control and the right to abortion (“pro-choice” in the US discourse).  What can’t be denied is that since the 1980s the spate of mass shootings (many of them in schools) means “circumstances have changed” yet Mr Trump is now a most doughty opponent of any attempt to strengthen gun control in the US (although in NYC’s Trump Tower a “No Carry” policy strictly is enforced).  This isn’t exactly the sort of “change of opinion”  Keynes had in mind but rather what David Stockman (b 1946; Director of the US OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 1981–1985) called “The Triumph of Politics”, the sub-title of his 1986 book the explanatory: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.  A quick learner, Mr Trump found at least some of the techniques in property development were transferable to electoral politics: Results matter and don’t be too bothered by principles.