Referendum

Referendum (pronounced ref-uh-ren-duhm)

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

(2) A measure thus referred.

(3) The vote on such a measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meaning has of course shifted.  In Latin, a referendum was “a question to be referred to the people” but in modern European political discourse it was appropriated to describe the mechanics of the vote itself.  Had the original conventions of Latin be adhered to by those who followed. Such a thing would have been “a reference” but referendum is well understood and the original sense is now covered by the ubiquitous “terms of reference” and the preferred plural form is doubtlessly referendums although referenda is heard so often it may well have become an alternative unique to English.  Variations are actually not unusual: a neverendum is political slang for something which a government is never likely to submit to a vote and technically, a preferendum is a referendum in which more than two items or persons are being voted upon.

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

Mr Putin’s use of referendums as an attempt to add a veneer of legal gloss to Moscow’s annexation of parts of the Ukraine are an example of the way dictators often are most concerned with the appearance of lawfulness in what they do.  As a general principle, for an annexation to be valid under international law it requires (1) that the borders be exactly defined, (2) that the nation asserting control be capable of defending the territory, (3) that the population is substantially in accord with the change and (4) that recognition is granted by the international community (these days through the mechanism of the United Nations (UN)).  Given the military situation on the ground, it seems unlikely any of these pre-conditions had been met at the time Mr Putin conducted his triumphal ceremonies in the Kremlin.  The substantial majorities reported as being in favor of annexation in referendums conducted in September 2022 were an echo of the result of the 2014 Crimean status referendum which (according to the Kremlin) validated the earlier Russian occupation.  As comrade Stalin noted in 1945 when assuring his allies that free and fair elections would soon be held in Poland, what’s important is “…not who votes in an election but who counts the votes”.

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

When the political cartoonist David Low (1891-1963) drew his take on the Anschluss referendum, he called it a plebiscite, and included the Duce and the Western powers as complicit.

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

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

Zollverein

Zollverein (pronounced tsawl-fer-ahyn (German) or tsawl-fuh-rahyn (English))

(1) A nineteenth century union of German states for the maintenance of a uniform tariff on imports from other countries, and of free trading among themselves (organized in the early 1830s under Prussian auspices)

(2) Casual term for any similar union or arrangement between states; a customs union.

1833: A Modern German compound word, the construct being zoll (custom, duty, tariff) + verein (union).  Zoll was from the Old High German zol, from the Proto-Germanic tullō (what is counted or told).  An alternatively etymology has been suggested: the Medieval Latin toloneum, from the Classical Latin telōnēum (from the Ancient Greek τελωνεῖον (telōneîon) (custom house) from τέλος (télos) (due, tax, toll) but most scholars prefer the Germanic.  Verein (a union, association or society) is another German compound, the construct being ver- + ein + -en, the colloquial translation being something like “joining one into many”.  Zollverein is a noun, the noun plural is plural Zollvereine (although Zollvereins might be expected in the English-speaking world, possible without the initial capital obligatory in German).

Mission Creep

Changes in the Zollverein (Prussia and the Second Reich), 1834-1888

In the second referendum run on the matter, in 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU (Brexit) and for a while the conventional wisdom was that one's position should be something like : "It may or may not be a good idea; it’s too soon to tell".  That moment has passed and it seems now clear it was a very bad idea.  What the UK joined in 1973 was the European Economic Community (EEC), a Zollverein created by the Treaty of Rome (1957) with the intention of achieving economic integration among its member states and, in the English-speaking world, usually referred to as the common market.  Following the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, the EEC was renamed the European Community (EC) to reflect the extension of the community’s remit beyond trade and economic policy, a structure which existed until 2009 Treaty of Lisbon which created the European Union (EU) a more overtly political entity.  The road to Brexit began in Maastricht, remembered in the lore of the Tory Party's many right-wing fanatics in the phrase of Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990): "A treaty too far".

One who can’t be blamed for the Brexit vote resulting in the UK’s departure from the EU was Lindsay Lohan who, in England at the time, operated as one of planet Earth’s more improbable Cassandras, tweeting during the evening in real-time as the vote count was announced.  Unfortunately, although she made a compelling (if at times idiosyncratic) case for remain, of the 72.21% of registered voters who on 23 June 2016 bothered to cast a ballot, 51.89% disagreed and the leave case prevailed.  As an EU pundit, Ms Lohan displayed a good grasp of the issues including the implications for the exchange rate of Sterling and the positive benefits the UK had gained from the adoption of EU workplace safety directives although despite have apparently for a time “lived in Manchester”, needed to ask “where’s Sunderland”, one of the places expected to be among the first to report a result.  Fortunately, for anyone who doesn’t know where Sunderland is, Twitter (now known as X) is the platform to post the question which was soon answered.  Manchester too proved a disappointment, voting to leave, something Ms Lohan seemed to regard a personal affront given the her connection.

Since Brexit, many have expressed the view that had the EU remained a Zollverein and not evolved into a quasi-federal state, there would never have been sufficient public pressure to compel the political class to stage a referendum but Euro-scepticism had quite a pre-Maastricht history in the UK and in June 1975 the Labour government conducted the nation’s first national referendum, asking whether the UK should remain in the EC.  The, there was cross-party support to remain and almost two-thirds of the electorate supported that but then, the movement of people across borders wasn’t the issue it has become and despite all of other matters raised in the 2016 campaign, it was essentially a referendum about immigration, lawful and not.  Those concerns show no sign of going away and for a variety of reasons, the movement of people towards the UK, the EU and the US is likely only to increase but the conditions which were the reasons the UK sought membership in 1963 are not wholly dissimilar to what prevails in 2023.  It seems now unthinkable that London could re-apply for membership but, as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and Lindsay Lohan may yet be vindicated.

Cede

Cede (pronounced seed)

(1) To yield or formally surrender to another; to transfer or make over something (especially physical territory or legal rights).

(2) To allow a point in an argument, negotiation or debate (technically as a synonym of concede).

1625-1635: From the Old & Middle French céder, from the Latin cēdere (to yield, give place; to give up some right or property (and originally "to go from, proceed, leave”)), from cēdō (to yield), (from the Proto-Italic kesd-o- (to go away, avoid), from the primitive Indo-European ḱyesd- (to drive away; to go away), from ked- (to go, to yield).  The original sense in English (to go from, proceed, leave) is long archaic; the transitive meaning “yield or formally surrender (something) to another” dating from 1754.  The sense evolution in Latin was via the notion of “go away, withdraw, give ground” and cēdere, with the appropriate prefix bolted-on, proved extraordinarily in English, yielding forms such as accede, concede, exceed, precede, proceed, recede, secede, antecedent, intercede, succeed & supercede.  Cede (in one context or another) can be vested with specific meanings in law but relinquish, abandon, grant, transfer & convey can sometimes be used as synonyms.  Cede, cedes, ceded & ceding are verbs and ceder & cedents are nouns; the noun plural is ceders.

Senator Lidia Thorpe.

The “debate” between the “yes” and “no” cases for the upcoming referendum to amend the Australian constitution to include a “Voice” to make representations to the parliament and executive on matters concerning Indigenous Australians has evolved to the interesting position of the no case being split between (1) those who argue the Voice would have too much power and (2) those who claim it would possess not enough.  Politics being what it is, that split might be unremarkable except the yes case simultaneously is disagreeing with both while trying hard to avoid having to descend to specifics and by far the interesting position among the noes is that advocated by Lidia Thorpe (b 1973; senator (Independent though elected for the Green Party) for Victoria since 2020).  What Senator Thorpe describes as the basis of the “radical no case” is that (1) colonial settlement of the Australian land mass was effected by an invasion, (2) Indigenous Australians never ceded their sovereignty over that land mass and (3) Indigenous sovereignty is not only ongoing but exclusive and does not co-exist with the claimed sovereignty of the Crown (ie the construct which is the Australian state).  This is the position of the Blak sovereign movement (BSM) which says Indigenous Australians “…are the original and only sovereign of these lands” which would seem to imply the Australian government should be considered an “occupying power”.  Whether that’s an “illegal occupation” or the natural consequence of a successful invasion which extinguished Indigenous sovereignty depends less on what one thinks happened in the past and more on what one would like to happen in the future.  Either way, the Australian government is continuing to promise the matter of a treaty (or treaties) will be pursued “sometime” after the Voice referendum passes; any thought of a failed referendum seems to be unthinkable.  The spelling blak existed in Middle English and several Germanic languages; in all cases meant “black” and it’s used by the movement as a point of political differentiation, “black” being a “white” construct.

For something which is the fundamental tenet of the international order, the modern understanding of sovereignty is a surprisingly recent thing and though political arrangements which are recognizable as “nations” have existed for thousands of years, the concept of the nation-state began to coalesce only in the late Middle Ages.  In international law, sovereignty encapsulates the supreme authority and independence of a state but it depends not only on an assertion but also recognition by other sovereign entities.  Internally, it implies a government enjoys an exclusive right to exercise authority and make decisions within its borders, free from control or influence by other states but in its purest form it now rarely exists because so many states have entered into international agreements which to some degree impinge on their sovereignty.  Externally, it means that a state is recognized by other sovereign states and is thus able to conduct foreign policy, enter into agreements with other states and participate in international organizations.  It also implies non-interference in a state's domestic affairs by others.  All of this illustrates why sovereignty is so important and why the ongoing existence matters to the BSM activists.  Only sovereign entities can enter into legally binding treaties with others which is why Senator Thorpe observed: “Treaty is so important because we don’t want to cede our sovereignty. We have maintained our sovereign status in our own country since forever. We are not about to cede our sovereignty.”  However, as many “sovereign citizens” have discovered when attempting to evade their speeding tickets using arguments invoking everything from scripture, the writings of medieval natural law theorists and the Magna Carta, sovereignty is determined not by assertion but by recognition.

In the case of the Indigenous Australians, quite how a conception of their sovereignty at the point of the colonial invasion should be constructed is interesting, not only in the abstract but because the BSM wants treaty negotiations to begin rather than the creation of “a Voice” on the grounds the latter might be seen to imply an acquiescence to the sovereignty of the Australian state, thus extinguishing Indigenous Australian sovereignty.  The rapidity with which the government moved to assure all the Voice would not have this effect suggests not a statement of constitutional law but an indication they don’t take the BSM position too seriously.  However, sovereign entities can enter into treaties and although as a pre-literate culture, there are no pre-1788 written records (in the Western sense), the work of anthropologists has established the first peoples did have a concept of sovereignty over their lands.  Importantly though, implied in the phrase “first nations”, the peoples were organized into tribes (“mob” the preferred modern slang) and their understanding of sovereignty related to each of the tribal lands.  In a legal sense, that is thought not to be a problem because the Western concept of sovereignty is quite compatible and for treaty purposes could be considered equivalent (indeed there was nineteenth century colonial case law which said exactly that).  In a practical sense however, there is one sovereign Australian state and (at least) hundreds of first nations so the mechanics of the treaty process would seem onerous although almost all the other former colonies of the British Empire have managed, however imperfectly, to execute treaties.  However, it seem inevitable the Australian government would prefer to enter into one treaty, even one with hundreds of signatories but as the Voice discussions have proved (and the very existence of the BSM has emphasized), Indigenous Australia is not monolithic and a treaty process could be long and involved.

An outgrowth of a small music store which in 1976 opened in the Swiss town of Winterthur selling vinyl records and cassettes, the Music Box added Compact Discs (CD) and Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) as the new formats became available and in 1997 became one of the pioneers of Swiss e-commerce, launching CeDe.com (pronounced see-dee-dot-com) as an online shop.  That might have been a bad choice as the CD faded from use but CeDe gained sufficient market presence to become an established brand-name and has transcended its etymology.

Nexus

Nexus (pronounced nek-suhs)

(1) A means of connection, tie or link; a form or state of connection.

(2) A connected series or group (objects or concepts); a network or web.

(3) The core or center or a matter, discussion or situation.

(4) In cellular biology, a specialized area of the cell membrane involved in intercellular communication and adhesion.

(5) In digital anthropology, the world’s first web browser.

(6) In law in many North American jurisdictions, the relationship between a vendor and a jurisdiction taxation purposes.

(7) In formal grammar, a technical term in the work of Danish linguist Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) describing a group of words expressing two concepts in one unit (such as a clause or sentence).

(8) In the civil law of Ancient Rome, a person who had contracted a nexum (obligation) such that, if they failed to re-pay that obliged, a creditor could compel them to work as a servant until the debt was paid; an indentured servant.

1655-1665: From the Latin nexus (the act of binding together; bond), the perfect passive participle of nectō (bind) and past participle of nectere (to bind).  Nectō was from the primitive Indo-European gned & gnod (to bind) and was cognate with nōdus (knot), the Ancient Greek γνάθος (gnáthos) (a jaw), the Avestan naska (bundle), the Old Irish nascim (to bind), the Old Norse knútr (from which German gained knude, Norwegian knute, and Icelandic hnútur).  Related were the Old English cnotta (which survives in Modern English as knot), the Old English cnyttan (which in Modern English is knit), the Old High German knotto (knoten in modern German) and the Middle Dutch cnudde (the Modern Dutch knot).  The suffix created the Latin verb of action.  Nexus is a noun; the noun plural is nexuses, nexusses or (the very rare) nexus although the Latin plural form (written nexūs or nexûs) is used in process philosophy, a highly technical branch of the discipline which administers the school of thought that change (ie alterations in the state of relationship(s) between things) constitute the only experience of life (the alternative schools focused on the process of change being understood as inadvertent or illusory).

Australia's defeated 1967 nexus referendum

Section 24 of the Australian Constitution provides for a numerical nexus between the House of Representatives (lower house) and the Senate (upper house):

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The senate chamber in the new parliament house, opened in 1988.  The scope of works given to the architects required that both chambers should be able (without major structural change) to be re-configured to accommodate up to twice the number of members.  The building is said to have an anticipated life of some two-hundred years so it would appear in the 1970s, nobody expected there was for centuries any possibility of breaking the nexus between the houses.  Despite the ominous prospect, Australians seem rarely to think the quantity of politicians is lacking although they are often sceptical about the quality.  

Lindsay Lohan in Nexxus Style Swap hair campaign, October 2024.

After an abortive attempt in 1966, a referendum was held the following year which sought to remove the nexus, thereby freezing the number of senators at ten per state (an increase from the original six triggered by the enlargement of the lower house in 1949).  The cabinet’s enthusiasm for curbing any proliferation of senators was prompted by concern an increase in the size of the upper house would make it easier for minor parties to win seats.  The referendum was defeated and the problem persists.  As the number of senators to be elected increases, the votes each needed to gain a seat (a quota) reduces and by the 1980s, a quota in a normal half-senate election was well under 20%; in a double-dissolution, less than 8%.  That, when combined with preferential voting, means votes surplus to a quota flow through the system and it’s become successively easier to succeed, a few senators having been elected with but a handful of first-preference votes.  Section 24 is not monocausal, there being many reasons for the decline in the share of the vote enjoyed by the major parties but the recent success of micro-parties would not have been possible without the operation of the clause.  For a generation, political excrement like the Democratic Labor Party (the DLP, a right-wing, predominately Roman Catholic breakaway from the Australian Labor Party (ALP)) was helped by the lower quotas demanded in a senate of sixty rather than thirty-six.  The modern senate of seventy-six is democratically more promiscuous still.

Lindsay Lohan in a lilac dress, desktop wallpaper available from Desktop Nexus.

In Australia, as in all modern Westminster systems, the major parties alternate in their roles as "His Majesty's Government" and "His Majesty's loyal opposition" but they are as one in their attempt to keep others out of the cozy little system they've designed for themselves and, ahead of the 2016 election, changes were implemented to stop preference arrangements between minor parties and independents producing results said to be "a distortion of the electoral process" (ie independents and those from minor parties being elected to seats the majors regarded as "belonging to them").  Further to advantage the majors, a form of optional preferential voting was introduced, said to have been done to assist voters but the most obvious beneficiaries were the major parties because it became harder for independents or minor party candidates to be elected to the Senate.

Voice

Voice (pronounced vois)

(1) The sound made by the vibration of the vocal cords, especially when modified by the resonant effect of the tongue and mouth; the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures, especially of human beings in speaking, shouting, singing etc.

(2) The faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air; speech.

(3) A range of such sounds to some extent distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal.

(4) The condition or effectiveness of the voice for speaking or singing (usually expressed in the phrases “in good voice” or “in poor voice” (although “in good voice” is also used sarcastically to refer to someone merely talkative or voluble).

(5) A sound likened to or resembling vocal utterance.

(6) Something likened to speech as conveying impressions to the mind (voice of the forest etc).

(7) Expression in spoken or written words, or by other means (to give voice); that which is communicated; message; meaning.

(8) The right to present and receive consideration of one's desires or opinions (usually in a political context, “the voice of the people” said to be expressed by voting in elections).

(9) An expressed opinion or choice (literally, electorally or behaviorally); an expressed will or desire, wish or injunction (“with one voice” meaning unanimous).

(10) The person or other agency through which something is expressed or revealed such as the notion of the Roman Catholic Pope being the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” and thus “The voice of God”.

(11) A warning that proved to be the voice of prophecy.

(12) In music, a substitute word which can apply to a singer, a voice part or that part of musical score which involves singing and (in harmony) an independent melodic line or parta fugue in five voices.

(13) In phonetics, the audible result of phonation and resonance; to pronounce with glottal vibration (and distinguished from the mere breath sounds heard in whispering and voiceless consonants).

(14) In grammar, a set of categories for which the verb is inflected in some languages (notably Latin) and which is typically used to indicate the relation of the verbal action to the subject as performer, under-goer, or beneficiary of its action; a particular way of inflecting or conjugating verbs, or a particular form of a verb, by means of which is indicated the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses.

(15) In grammar, a set of syntactic devices in some languages, as English, that is similar to this set in function; any of the categories of these sets (eg the English passive voice; the Greek middle voice).

(16) In the tuning of musical instruments, the finer regulation (expressed usually as intensity, color or shades of light), used especially of the piano and organ.

(17) To give utterance or expression to; declare; proclaim (“to voice one’s approval”, “to voice one’s discontent” etc).

(18) In sign languages, the interpretation into spoken language.

(19) In computers. of or relating to the use of human or synthesized speech (as voice to text, text to voice, voice-data entry; voice output, voice command etc).

(20) In telecommunications, of or relating to the transmission of speech or data over media designed for the transmission of speech (in classifications such as voice-grade channel, voice-data network, voice-activated, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) etc); in internet use, a flag associated with a user on a channel, determining whether or not they can send messages to the channel.

(21) A rumor; fame, renown; command precept; to vote; to elect; to appoint; to clamor; to cry out (all obsolete).

(22) In entertainment, to provide the voice for a character (as voice-over for purposes such as foreign translations).

(23) In literary theory (1) the role of the narrator, (2) as viewpoint, the position of the narrator in relation to their story & (3) the content of what is delivered behind a persona (mask), the most basic form of aesthetic distance.

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun voice, voys & vois (sound made by the human mouth), from the Anglo-French voiz, voys & voice or directly from the Old French voiz & vois (voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report (which survives in Modern French as voix)), from the Latin vōcem (voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word (and accusative of vōx (voice)), from the primitive Indo-European wṓkws, root noun from wekw- (to utter, speak).  It was cognate with the Latin vocāre (to call), the Sanskrit वाच् (vāc) & vakti ((he) speaks), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (voice) & épos (word (and related to the later “epic”)) and the Persian آواز‎ (âvâz).  The Latin was the source also of the Italian voce and the Spanish voz. The Anglo-French borrowing displaced the native Middle English steven (voice), from the Old English stefn, from the Proto-Germanic stemno, from the primitive Indo-European stomen-.  The extension of use to mean "ability in a singer" dates from the early seventeenth century while the idea of "expression of feeling etc." (in reference to groups of people etc) was known as early as the late fourteenth century (and persists in uses such as the broadcaster “Voice of America”) The meaning "invisible spirit or force that directs or suggests, (used especially in the mental health community in the context of “voices in one's head” dates from 1911.  The verb was from the Middle English voysen & voicen, from the noun and emerged in the mid fifteenth century, initially in the sense of "to be commonly said" (familiar still in terms like “the Arab voice”) and from circa 1600s it was understood to mean "to express, give utterance to a feeling, opinion etc”.  From 1867 there was also the technical meaning "utter (a letter-sound) with the vocal cords", used often as voiced or voicing.  The spelling voyce is long obsolete.  Voice & voicer are nouns; voiced is a verb & adjective and voicing is a noun & verb; the noun plural is voices.

The noun voicemail (originally voice mail) dates from 1982 and was one of the bolt-ons to fixed-line telephony which was among the most popular features of the early cellular (mobile) phones but, interestingly, by the late 1990s users had come much to prefer SMS (short message service or text).  The adjective voiceless began in the 1530s as a doctor’s description of one who had “lost their voice” but within a century was used to refer to those who had no say in affairs of Church and state: The voiceless masses”.  It was first used in the sense of "unspoken, unuttered" to refer to non-verbal communication in 1816 and in phonology "unvoiced" dates from 1867.  In idiomatic use, the phrases include “at the top of one's voice”, chest voice, chipmunk voice. liking the sound of one's own voice, outdoor voice, raising one's voice, voice changer, voice coil, voiceprint & voice quality.  In formal grammar, there’s active voice, anti-passive voice, middle voice, neuter voice & passive voice.

The Australian Labor Party, the “Voice to Parliament” and the referendum process.

With great enthusiasm from one faction and a feeling of impending dread from the other, Australia’s brand new Labor Party (ALP) government has confirmed the election promise to submit to the people a referendum to append to the Constitution of Australia a “Voice to Parliament” for the indigenous peoples will be honored, the vote scheduled for the second half of 2023.  In Australia, even to submit a referendum is ambitious given that of the 44 submitted since 1901, only eight have been approved and the bar to success is high, demanding (1) an absolute majority of voters nationally and (2) a majority in at least four of the six states.

The “Voice to Parliament” does seem to be wholly symbolic given the consensus view among legal academics that it neither “confers upon Indigenous Australians any special rights” nor “takes away any right, power or privilege from anyone who is not indigenous”.  In other words, it will have the same constitutional effect as the words “…humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” have had since being enacted as part of the constitution in 1901: Nothing.  The view seems to be that the voice will provide “a strong basis on which to conduct further consultation”, the implication being the creation of a mechanism whereby there’s a standing institution of communication between the political elite and an indigenous elite.  So logical and efficient does that appear, it looks like one of the classic colonial fixes at which the British were so adept under the Raj.  In India they were the key to minimizing troubles while in Fiji they worked so well even the British administrators were astonished.  There, the Great Council of Chiefs, an institution entirely of the Raj’s imagination became so culturally entrenched that within a generation, the chiefs themselves were speaking of the council as if it had existed a thousand years.

2023 Toyota Land Cruiser Sahara ZX.

The ALP government has been at pains to ensure there’s nothing to frighten the horses, repeatedly confirming the voice will have “no veto power over the functions or powers of the parliament or the executive” and is limited to a purely advisory role in “making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters, including existing or proposed laws, policies or decisions that have a connection to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”  It also maintains the opportunity to make these representations will be “…available to any individual or organisation”.  That of course is unlikely to mean that all voices will be created equal and the government, like the Raj, will find the system most agreeable once it decides which are the Indigenous Australians whose representations prove most helpful and thus worthy of a salaried position, an expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  This will give the voice a coherent form and in a nice piece of political window-dressing, will likely include mostly (reasonably) tame “Brezhnev approved dissident” types there to protest just enough to seem edgy but not enough to forsake a salaried position, expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  Those who get ideas above their station will be offered a trip to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly or a six month "study tour" taking in Rome, Venice and Paris in the late spring; it will be a job for those "hard faced men and women who have done very well out of colonization".

The government has said “the ultimate model was still being debated by internal groups, and would be subject to negotiation” but given the need to create something which gives the appearance of being much yet has absolutely no constitutional effect, it difficult to see what the basis for discussion might be other than details about Toyota Land Cruisers.  Despite that, there is opposition, one source of which comes from within the ALP, certain figures convinced (and the history of referendums in Australia is not encouraging) it’s impossible to get a vote to pass unless both side of politics advocate a “yes” vote.  So sensitive has become the issue of race they fear a no vote would be damaging internationally so are lobbying to find some excuse to “delay” the vote, even arguing it would be better first to pursue a treaty, the theory being if the can is kicked far enough down the road, by the time the matter re-surfaces, they’ll be retired and it’s someone else’s problem.

The leader of the opposition has announced the Liberal Party will be advocating a “no” vote, something which has doomed every referendum submitted without bipartisan support.  The leader of the opposition didn’t articulate any coherent reason to oppose the voice but history suggests saying “no” when the government says “yes” can be a successful approach and Lord Randolph Churchill’s (1849-1895) dictum that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose” remains good politics.  Of interest too among those opposing the voice is their language: Eschewing the popular (if contested) phrase “first nations” to describe Indigenous Australians for “first peoples”, they are anxious to ensure that any notion of sovereignty can’t be part of the discussion although, given the indivisibility of the doctrine (as opposed to land title) under law, it’s hard to see how this could be part of the debate about the voice.  Perhaps they are fretting about negotiating treaties and perhaps they should.

Finally, there are the “black-letter lawyers” who, noting that judicial activism seemed to be fashionable on the bench of the High Court of Australia not that long ago, worry some judges might find in the words of “the voice” things which on the basis of the usual techniques of linguistic or judicial construction would seem not to exist.  The High Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters; what a majority there says the words of the constitution mean is what they mean and while parliaments can by legislative change impose their will upon laws, the only way the wording of a passage in the constitution can be changed is to have substitute words approved by referendum; a probably improbable prospect.

Still, it’s difficult to advocate anything but a yes vote.  Since white settlement, Indigenous Australians have at times endured dispossession, discrimination, conditions which can be described only as slavery and not a few instances of mass murder and it’s absurd to suggest the level of disadvantage so many continue to suffer is not a consequence of this history.  What’s remarkable is not that among them there are expressions of discontent but that so many manage to maintain such generosity of spirit and willingness to engage.  The Voice may appear, as the Holy Alliance seemed to Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense” but it’s worth remembering he anyway recommended Britain signed the thing on the basis that although too vague to achieve anything substantive, it was unlikely to make things worse.  Something good may come from the Voice while little good can come from rejecting it.

Lindsay Lohan in promotional interview for debut album Speak (2004, Casablanca Records-UMG).

Lindsay Lohan’s sometimes hoarse voice has attracted comment, some finding the gravelly tone sexy, others expressing concern the change might be lifestyle induced. The voices of actors and singers are after all their stock-in-trade so something so distinctive can limit the one’s range of characters or repertoire although notable artists such as Marlene Dietrich (1901–1992) and Marianne Faithfull (1946-2025) made a signature of what used to called a “gin-soaked voice”.  Still, Lindsay Lohan’s vocal dynamics piqued the interest of Dr Reena Gupta, Director of the Division of Voice and Laryngology at the Osborne Head & Neck Institute (OHNI) and she provided some explanatory notes, noting that while inherent for some, hoarseness can be a serious matter for those whose living depends on their voice, the condition sometimes reversible, sometimes not.  According to Dr Gupta, a clear voice requires (1) straight edges of the vocal cords, (2) regular and symmetric vibration of the vocal cords, (3) no space between the vocal cords, (4) no mucous on the vocal cords, healthy lungs and (5) a healthy vocal tract (and that includes the mouth, nose, sinuses etc).  Hoarseness occurs when there is damage to the vocal cords that either disrupts the straight edge of the vocal cords or disrupts their vibration, the other factors more important for ease of voice use and vocal tone.

Many injuries can cause the vocal edge to be irregular, thereby inducing hoarseness including polyps, cysts & nodules but even when the edges are straight, scarring can also dampen vibrations and make them irregular, scarred vocal cords having lost their ability to vibrate due to a loss of the vibrating layer and there is currently no cure for the loss of vibration due to scarring.  The scarring can happen for many reasons but is almost always caused by vocal trauma which can be induced by (1) talking loudly or frequent yelling, (2) singing with a flawed technique, (3) smoking (any substance) or (4) a chronic cough or habitual throat clearing.  Any behavior that causes inflammation of the vocal cords will result in a higher likelihood of scarring and a videostroboscopy is the only non-surgical procedure which can confirm the presence of scarring.  There’s nothing unusual or concerning about a hoarseness which lasts only a day or so but if it persists beyond that, a professional evaluation should be sought and many of the causes of are treatable, almost all able to be at least to some extent ameliorated.

Celebrity site ETOnLine.com in 2016 noted the “darkening” in Lindsay Lohan’s voice and posted examples of the variations.

However, prevention being better than cure, Dr Gupta provided the following guidelines for caring for one’s voice and there’s probably no other aspect of our physiology which, despite being so important, is so taken for granted:

(1) No smoking (that’s anything, including vaping).

(2) No heavy use of alcohol, though in moderation it’s OK.

(3) When in a loud environment (restaurants, clubs, parties, sporting events et al), restrict the use of the voice use to a minimum and resist the temptation to shout except in cases of life or death.

(4) Hydration is especially important when in a loud environment (always carry water).

(5) If the voice has been subject to loud or prolonged use, rest the vocal cords the next day.  Under extreme conditions (towards the end of epic-length Wagnerian opera, the voices of even the most skilled will sound a little ragged) there will always be some damage, just as many athletes will tear a few things in competition which is why the recovery protocols must be observed.

(6) If scheduled to need one’s voice in perfect shape, do not the previous evening go somewhere one may be required to shout.

(7) Avoid recreational drugs; their effects are always uncertain.

(8) Learn correct voice use.  Although actors & singers often undertake professional voice training for reasons of articulation and projection, they also learn techniques to ensure damage is minimized and a clinical vocal exam prior to these lessons is advisable to ensure that physically, all is well.