Sanction

Sanction (pronounced sangk-shuhn)

(1) Authoritative permission or approval, as for an action.

(2) Something that serves to support an action, condition, etc.

(3) Something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.

(4) In (usually contract) law, a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience.

(5)  A penalty or reward.

(6) In international law, action by one or more states (or a multi-national institution) toward another state, institution or individual(s), calculated to force it compliance with certain obligations.

(7) To authorize, approve, or allow; to ratify or confirm.

1555–1565: From the Latin sānctiōn- (stem of sānctiō (the establishment of an inviolable decree)), genitive sānctiōnis, the construct being sānct(us) (past participle of sancīre (to prescribe by law; to make law by decree) + -iōn (from the Latin suffix -iō (genitive -iōnis), appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action).  The Middle English borrowing came directly from the French sanction and the usual early form in English meant "confirmation or enactment of a law" and was sometimes used interchangeably with the Latin sanctionem (nominative sanctio) (“act of decreeing or ordaining” or “decree, ordinance" the noun of action from the past-participle stem of sancire (to decree, confirm, ratify, make sacred)) which was used especially of ecclesiastical decrees.  The verb form in the sense “confirm by sanction, make valid or binding” dates from 1778 and by 1797 it meant also “authoritatively to permit”, both derived from the noun.  The seemingly contradictory meaning "impose a penalty on" was first used in 1956 but is rooted in an old legalistic sense of the noun and, when deconstructed, the ambiguity dissolves, this use in international diplomacy first documented in 1900 as a plural of the noun sanction in the sense of "part or clause of a law which spells out the penalty for breaking it", a meaning which can be traced back to the 1650s.  From the Latin, influenced by the spread of Roman civil law, derivatives appear in many languages including Catalan (sanció), French (sanction), Galician (sanction), Italian (sanzione), Piedmontese (sansion), Portuguese (sanção), Russian (санкция (sankcija)) and Spanish (sanction).  Sanction & sanctioner are nouns, sanctioned & sanctioning are verbs and sanctionable, sanctionless & sanctionative are adjectives; the noun plural is sanctions.

Sanction busting

Although in some ways a simple language to learn, English has some quirks, notably a massive vocabulary in which one word can have many meanings and multiple words can mean the same thing.  There are also cases where a word can seem simultaneously to sustain two diametrically opposite meanings and these are called auto-antonyms (or contronym or Janus words), the technical term for the phenomenon being enantiosemy ((from the Ancient Greek ἐναντίος (enantíos) (opposite)).  Sanction can convey opposite meanings, depending on context, the Janus-faced nature more evident when used as a noun.  The noun historically referred to the "action of ordaining as inviolable under a penalty" but, in a manner not unfamiliar in English, it evolved in opposite directions, one relating to legal or ethical rules, the other to the penalties imposed for violating these rules.  From the eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century, the verb tended to the positive, the negative meaning "penalize" in general use until the 1950s.  Sanction in this sense is most commonly used in official (though not exclusively governmental) contexts, most often when one government imposes economic measures on another to try to force it to comply with laws or expectations.  The linguistic evolution wasn’t deliberate because that’s not how English usually works; instead it was an adoption of the verbal shorthand of the world of diplomacy.

The Kim Dynasty's new (used) cars

Like his grandfather Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994), and father Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011), Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011), is a great admirer of big Mercedes and the regime is believed still to be the only outfit on earth owning a brace of long-roofed (presidential in collector slang) Mercedes-Benz 600s (W100, 1963-1981) Pullman Landaulets (only twelve of which were built).  The Supreme Leader however must have decided to update and it appears that in 2018, several "special" Mercedes-Benz were shipped from the Dutch Port of Rotterdam, via China and five other countries, to the DPRK.  The cars appear to be from the factory's "Guard" programme and there’s an unconfirmed rumor a toilet is installed in at least one for the Great Leader’s convenience.

The Great Leader's motorcade on the way to meet with Vladimir Putin (b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999), Mercedes Maybach S600 Pullman Guard in front, Mercedes Maybach S62 following, Vladivostok, Russia, April 2019. 

The “Guard” range of vehicles are produced on a special post-production assembly line to meet the demand from heads of state, royalty, oligarchs and leading figures in organized crime for a vehicle which retains the traditional aura of a limousine while affording the levels of protection associated with the smaller armored personnel carriers (APC) & troop carriers used by the military.  The most expensive in the range is based on the opulent Mercedes-Maybachs and meet VR10 protection standards (defined under Directive BRV 2009 v2.0, only some of the specifications of which publicly are disclosed) but it’s known additional steel-alloy & composite panels are installed between the unibody and outer body panels, overlapped at key points to provide what’s described as “comprehensive ballistic protection”, a similar approach applied to the floor to deflect the blast from explosives (conforming to the ERV 2010 protocol).  The windows are thicker and coated with polycarbonate to prevent splintering with the panes permanently fixed (that approach may have been thought not suitable if the rumors of the toilet are true and the Great Leader's car is the previous version with an opening window).  Although the Guard has a wheelbase eight inches (200 mm) longer than the Standard Mercedes-Maybach platform and weights (presumably much) more, the factory lists the power-train as identical to the base vehicle, the 5.5 litre (365 cubic inch) twin-turbocharged V-12 rated at 523 horsepower and 612 lb-ft of torque.

Because sanctions imposed by the United Nations as punishment for Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development are supposed to bar companies and individuals from selling luxury goods to North Korea, technically, The Supreme Leader shouldn’t have be able to buy them.  It’s however estimated that since 2015, some US$440 million in luxury goods have been imported by the DPRK, sourced from some ninety countries, almost all in violation of UN sanctions.  In response to questions, Daimler, which manufactures Mercedes-Benz, a spokesperson said they had "...no indication on how the mentioned vehicles were delivered and where they come from", later issuing a statement:

"For Daimler, the correct export of products in conformance with the law is a fundamental principle of responsible entrepreneurial activity.  Our company has had no business connections with North Korea for far more than 15 years now and strictly complies with EU and US embargoes.  To prevent deliveries to North Korea and to any of its embassies worldwide, Daimler has implemented a comprehensive export control process. Sales of vehicles by third parties, especially of used vehicles, are beyond our control and responsibility."

Although Daimler seemed to imply The Supreme Leader was now reduced to buying used cars (something never suggested of The Great Leader or The Dear Leader), neither Berlin nor Pyongyang commented on the diplomatic slight.

In the matter of Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018), New York’s highest appellate court dismissed Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V and rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.  Take-Two Interactive Software had requested sanctions be imposed, claiming “Lindsay Lohan complains that her image and persona have been wrongfully used by Take-Two in the video game Grand Theft Auto V, but her claim is so legally meritless that it lacks any good-faith basis and can only have been filed for publicity purposes” and was thus an abuse of process.  Both the trial and appellate judges declined to impose sanctions.

In civil legal proceedings, it's possible in some jurisdictions for a party to request a judge to “sanction” the opposing side by imposing a penalty or punishment for some form of misconduct or violation of the rules of the court.  Typically, sanctions are sought when one party believes the other has engaged in improper behavior, such as failing to comply with discovery obligations, disobeying court orders, or engaging in frivolous or abusive litigation tactics including using the administrative processes of the court to "string out" the length of the hearing, usually in the hope of exhausting an opponent's financial resources, compelling them to discontinue the action.  In most jurisdictions this technically doesn’t extend to “vexatious litigation” (the determination of which remains the preserve of the court) but counsel may raise essentially the same issue as “an abuse of process”.  The mechanism of the sanction is to promote equity of access, fairness of procedure, ensure compliance with court rules, and deter inappropriate conduct during proceedings. The specific sanctions available depend on the jurisdiction and the rules of the court.  Some common types of sanctions include:

(1) Fines may be imposed (payable to the court) or compensation to the other party might be ordered.

(2) Orders may be issued restricting or limiting a party's ability to present certain evidence or arguments related to the issues in the case.  This sanction is invoked where attempts are made to introduce material which is irrelevant, repetitive or in excessive volume.  Pleadings or statements of claim may also be excluded.

(3) In extreme cases of willful or deliberate misconduct, a judge may find the party in contempt of court and this may result in the imposition of fines or even terms of imprisonment. 

Fiat

Fiat (pronounced fee-aht, fee-at, fahy-uht or fahy-at)

(1) An authoritative decree, sanction, or order.

(2) A fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization; official sanction; authoritative permission.

(3) An arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it.

(4) As FIAT, the acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino (originally Italian Automobiles Factory, Turin, now Fiat Automobiles SpA and part of FCA (the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles conglomerate).  The companion initialism (as derogatory slang) in certain places (as an allusion to perceptions of unreliability) was “fix it again Tony”.

(5) In the law of England and some Commonwealth countries, an authority for certain actions issued given by the Lord Chancellor (England) or the attorney-general (elsewhere).

(6) In the law of England, a warrant issued by a judge for certain purposes.

(7) As fiat currency, a government-issued currency backed not by the possession of a physical commodity (typically gold) but inherently by the issuing government (also called fiat money).

1625–1635: From the Latin fiat (literally “let it be done”, the third singular present subjunctive of fierī (be done, become, come into existence).  The original meaning was "authoritative sanction", fiat thus understood as it was used in the preamble of Medieval Latin proclamations and commands.  The Latin fierī was from the primitive Indo-European root bheue- (to be, exist, grow), used as passive of facere (to make, do).  The meaning "a decree, command, order" became formalized circa 1750 and remains in the legal vocabulary of English (and of some Commonwealth countries) law to this day.  Fiat is the third-person singular, fiats the simple present, fiating the present participle and fiated the simple past and past participle.  The noun plural is fiats.  In the transitive, it’s used in academic debate and in role-playing games although use is now less frequent.

It’s also sometimes is a reference to fiat lux (the famous “let there be light") in the biblical Book of Genesis.  In the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Hebrew phrase יְהִי אוֹר‎ (let there be light) is translated in Latin as fiat lux, the relevant scriptural passage (Genesis 1:3 in the Torah (the first part of the Hebrew Bible)) being dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux (And said God let there be light, and there was light) although Fiat lux would actually translate literally as "let light be made" (fiat the third person singular present passive subjunctive form of the verb facio, meaning "to do" or "to make").  Fashions of form and conventions of use in language do however change and translators adjust their work to render sentences in a form familiar to the audiences of the day: The Douay–Rheims Bible (an English translation from the Vulgate made by members of the English College, Douai, under a commission from the Catholic Church and first published in 1858 in Reims, France) translated the phrase as "Be light made. And light was made."  In translations from the Old Testament, the Greek was usually γενηθήτω φῶς (genēthḗtō phôs) and the Latin fiat lux and lux sit.

Although the words authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase, command, decree, dictate, dictum, edict, endorsement, mandate, ordinance, permission, precept, sanction & warrant often (in practical application and effect) overlap with fiat, fiat retains at law a precise technical meaning.  While there are variations, the power of an attorney-general in the Australian states to issue a fiat is broadly indicative of the scope (where it exists) in the English-speaking world (although in England all or some of these powers may instead be discharged by the Lord Chancellor).  Essentially, an attorney-general will grant a fiat if it is held to be in the public interest or for the efficient administration of justice. 

In order to participate in a legal proceeding, a person must have "standing" which means their legal rights or interests have been or will be adversely affected by the conduct of another party.   If a person lacks standing, they can request the attorney-general to grant a fiat, or consent to bring the action in the AG's name, a practice sometimes called a "relator action".  An attorney-general has a personal discretion in the matter of fiats but will tend to consent to an issue only if things involve the enforcement or protection of a public right or interest.  What constitutes the public interest is a matter for the attorney and there are no circumstances in which they're obliged to grant a fiat but some jurisdictions require the reasons for a refusal to be provided in writing and tabled in parliament and provision for judicial review is sometimes possible.

FIAT (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino)

The Italian car manufacturer FIAT is now part of FCA (the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles conglomerate).  In business since 1899, sometime in the late twentieth century, FIAT lost its way, essentially because of the need to respond to the challenge of the much-improved Japanese cars which, even if their dynamic qualities were uninspiring, offered very competitive pricing, reliability, superb build-quality, responsive dealer networks and high standard equipment levels.  FIAT’s response was the same as that of many others which hadn’t expected the rapidity of improvement from the far-east manufacturers: they tried to produce “Japanese” cars only to find out the Nipponese were better at it and in the years since have never really recovered the spirit which for decades, once made even modest, low-priced FIATs genuinely exciting cars which were a joy to look at and a pleasure to drive.

Some notable Fiats

Fiat 850 Spider (1965-1973).

Between 1964-1973 (although the commercial derivative, the 850 Familiare would last until 1976), Fiat produced a range of 850s, all rear-engined (which seemed at the time a good idea).  Most were utilitarian family cars or stubby coupés but most memorable were the 850 Spiders, exquisite little roadsters designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro (b 1938) while at Carrozzeria Bertone.  The lovely lines were uncluttered and the restraint extended to the engineering, resulting in a light, aerodynamic body which permitted the engine, although a modest 843 cm³ (51.44 cubic inch), busily to deliver surprising sprightly performance.  Notably too, in a masterpiece of design which eluded generation of English manufacturers, the convertible top folded effortlessly in a one-handed operation and tucked neatly away under a metal lid.

In 1968, except for the US market, the engine was enlarged to 903 cm³ (55.10 cubic inch) which sounds slight but in percentage terms was about the same increase Chevrolet during the same era performed on their small-block (327 (5.3 litre) to 350 cubic inch (5.7 litre)) & big-block (396 (6.5) to 427 (7.0)) V8s so the effect was noticeable, torque and top speed both benefiting (a little) and despite the bump in displacement, instead of being re-named to 900, the new model was instead called the 850 Sport.  US buyers got an engine with a slightly smaller bore, reducing the displacement to 817 cm³ (49.9 cubic inch), a quick and (literally) dirty solution to the new emission-control rules in that the regulations weren't imposed on engines smaller than 50 cubic inches.  Adding insult to injury, the US lighting laws forced Fiat to replace the elegant faired-in headlamps with rather ungainly sealed-beam units, a fate also suffered by machines as diverse as the Jaguar E-Type (XK-E) and the Volkswagen Beetle.  Between 1965-1973, 125,010 were built, 87,360 of which were sold in the US and the few survivors (rust was quite an issue) are a collectable, collectors attracted especially to the limited-production variations, the rare, highly-tuned Abarth version the most coveted.

Fiat 130 Sedan (1969-1976).  Only four of the coach-built estates were made.

Had the Fiat 130 been sold badged as a Lancia or even (with a V8 engine) as a Ferrari (both marques at the time owned by FIAT), it might now be remembered as a great success rather than a failure.  It’s debatable whether brand-name consciousness was any less then than now but perceptions certainly counted against the 130 which moved FIAT suddenly into the upper middle-class market where not only were Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar-Daimler long dominant but the newer, bigger BMWs were also becoming established, building on the successes enjoyed by their smaller models.  Some at the time criticized the styling of the sedan, suggesting it showed little more imagination than increasing the dimensions of the company’s smaller, three-box designs but this was after all exactly the approach of Mercedes-Benz and the 130 was a well-executed, balanced shape with an interior which displayed true Italian flair, offering something more modern than the leather & walnut of the Jaguar or the austere functionality of the German competition.  However, as a driving experience, the 130 was very much in line with the smaller Fiat sedans, demanding involvement from the driver to extract the most from the 2.9 litre (175 cubic inch) V6 but rewarding with fine handling and high levels of adhesion though ultimately not the refinement and effortlessness to which Jaguar and Mercedes drivers had become accustomed.  Not even increasing the engine capacity to 3.2 litres (197 cubic inch) helped sales and when production ending in 1976, only 15,089 had been built, Mercedes-Benz in the same time having produced 243,234 of their comparable (six cylinder) W114 sedans (230.6, 250, 280 & 280E).

Fiat 130 Coupé (1971-1977).  The Maremma (a two-door shooting brake) and the Opera (a four-door sedan) were both one-offs.

If the avant-garde had thought the appearance of the 130 sedan underwhelming, few were less than effusive in praising the coupé when first it was displayed in 1971.  Styled by Paolo Martin (b 1943) of Carrozzeria Pininfarina , it makes an interesting contrast with the Citroën SM (1970-1975) on which barely a straight-line could be found and the 130’s knife-edged lines so defined the European rectilinear motif that no manufacturer has since attempted to push the envelope further.  In Europe, like the sedan, it was available with a five-speed manual gearbox which really suited the characteristics of the high-revving V6 but in most exports markets it was offered only with an uninspiring three-speed automatic, resulting in performance which, while not exactly anemic, was lethargic by comparison. Again, the badge meant that sales suffered but Pininfarina saw the possibilities offered by the severe lines and fabricated two prototypes, the Maremma (a two-door shooting brake) in 1974 and the four-door Opera the following year.  Both were much admired but FIAT, disappointed and financially chastened by what would be their last foray into the (European) large-car market, had already decided to abandon the segment and neither project proceeded.  When production of the 130 coupé ended in 1977, only 4,498 had been made.

Fiat 124 Sport Coupé (1967-1975).

The versatile platform on which FIAT built the 124 sedan (1966-1974) is now probably best recognized as the remarkable Russian-made Lada VAZ-21xx (Zhiguli in the home market but often known by the nickname Kopeyka) which in modified but substantially original form remained in production until 2012 (lasting ever longer in the license-built versions produced in Egypt).  However, FIAT also leveraged the platform even before selling designs and tooling to the USSR, in 1967 producing the stylish Fiat 124 Sport Coupé on a shortened wheelbase but otherwise using most of the sedan's mechanical and structural components.  Sold over three generations with three engine displacements (1438 cm³ (88 cubic inch), 1608 cm³ (98 cubic inch) & 1756 cm³ (107 cubic inch), it was an immediate hit in both home and export markets, and worldwide, often in short supply, sales constrained only by FIAT’s inability to increase production.  One quirk was the 1592 cm³ (97 cubic inch) version produced for the home market to take advantage of tax regulations, a regime which also produced oddities such as the two litre (122 cubic inch) Lamborghini & Ferrari V8s.  Over 285,000 had been built when in 1975, production ended and another 24,000 odd were built under licence by the Spanish manufacturer SEAT between 1970 and 1975.

Fiat 124 Sport Spider.

Long lived though the 124 coupé was, the 124 roadster lasted another decade, produced by FIAT until 1982 and then by Pininfarina as a separate line until 1985.  The 124 Sport Spider used the same mechanical components as the coupé although in 1979, a two litre version of the familiar twin-cam four was made available, eventually gaining fuel-injection and a turbocharger although the most powerful of all was the Volumex, a supercharged model which for reasons of compatibility reverted to carburetors; it was sold only in Europe, there being no prospect of engineering the induction system to conform with US emission rules.  Despite being available only in left-hand drive, over 200,000 124 spiders were made in the two decades it was produced and, perhaps improbably, the roadster also enjoyed an illustrious career in competition, Abarth in 1971 co-operating with FIAT in homologating it in the FIA’s Group 4 for entry into the World Rally Championship where it proved competitive, winning the 1972 European Rally Championship despite competing against more obviously credentialed machinery.  The experience gained proved useful when the factory later embarked on more serious campaigns using the Lancia Stratos and the Fiat-Abarth 131.

Fiat G.55 Centauro (Centaur) (1943-1948).

The Fiat G.55 Centauro was a single-engine, single-seat fighter aircraft used by the Regia Aeronautica (though not in combat) and the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana between 1943–1945.  Acknowledged by both sides as the best Italian fighter produced during the war, it was in some aspects as good as most competitive types of the era, only the very last of the Allied fighters demonstrably superior.  It was an extensively re-designed development of the earlier G.50 Freccia, distinguished by a highly efficient wing, a more slender fuselage, heavier armament and the use of the much more powerful Daimler-Benz 605A V12 engine or the FIAT-built RA 1050 equivalent.  Manufacture began early in 1943 but it wasn’t until shortly before Italy’s capitulation in September 1943 that the first planes were delivered to operational squadrons, too late to be deployed in combat.  Instead, it entered service with the pro-Nazi Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, partly equipping six fighter groups operating with Luftwaffe units defending the skies of northern Italy.  Fewer than 300 had been completed by the end of hostilities in 1945 but the quality of the airframe was noted and production resumed in 1946, almost all of which were exported, used by the military in Argentina, Egypt and Syria.  Demand continued however and, once stocks of the now out-of-production Daimler-Benz and Fiat engines were exhausted, the front sub-frames were re-designed to use the Rolls-Royce Merlin V12; in this form production continued in 1948 as the G.59.

Fiat 127 (1971-1983).

Replacing the rear-engined 850s, the 127, along with the Peugeot 104 and Renault 5 set the template for what would be called the European “supermini” class, the design imperatives of which would last for three decades, the influences seen still today.  What however distinguished the Fiat 127 from the French (and soon the Japanese) competition was its Italian flair, the driving experience genuinely involving though admittedly at the expense of NVH (noise, vibration & harshness) to which others paid more attention but Italian drivers probably didn’t object, enjoying pushing the little (903 cm³ (55.10 cubic inch)) engine to the redline with one hand on the stubby gear lever, the other hovering above the horn button.  One magazine tested a 127 and called it “the .9 litre Ferrari which was hyperbolic but made the point the thing was a hoot to drive.  Like the 124, the 127’s platform also had a long life even after Fiat ceased production in 1983, made in Spain for another year and in South America until 1996.  Ominously too, the 127 was the basis for some of the Yugos, the Yugoslav-built cars which feature so frequently on list like “the ten worst cars ever built”.

Fiat Dino (1966-1973).

The Fiat Dino (Type 135) was from a happy era when manufacturers built road cars with racing car engines so a sufficient number would exist to homologate them for use in competition.  In what was at the time a novel arrangement (and similar to the later agreement between Volkswagen and Porsche for the 914), the all aluminum 2.0 litre (122 cubic inch) V6 would be used in the front-engined Fiat Dinos and Ferrari’s mid-engined Dino (1967-1974).  It was the Dino spider which Fiat first displayed, the coupé released a few months later and the Dino 206 (made by Ferrari), some weeks later still.  In 1969, Ferrari and Fiat almost simultaneously announced revised Dinos, the engine now with an iron block and enlarged to 2.4 litres (146 cubic inch), the configuration and tune more suited to use on the road, the highly-strung two litre version most at home at high revs on a race track.  Now named the Fiat Dino 2400, it also gained an independent rear suspension, revised gearing and upgraded brakes.  The Fiat Dinos were always expensive and very much a niche product so production was accordingly low: 6225 coupés and 1583 spiders, most being the earlier, two litre versions.  Interestingly, the pattern was reversed at Ferrari which, having made only 152 Dino 206 GTs, entered almost mass-production when the more manageable 2.4 liter Dino 246 GT was released, 3569 being sold, 1274 as the 246 GTS with a (Porsche targa style) removable roof-panel.

Fiat 8V (1952-1954).

The Fiat 8V (Otto Vu) was powered by a 2.0 litre (122 cubic inch) V8 intended originally for a luxury car but when that project was cancelled, the power-plant became available for re-deployment, the curious name 8V adopted, according to industry legend, because FIAT’s in-house legal department became convinced Ford held a world-wide trademark to “V8”.  Displayed first at the 1952 Geneva Motor Show, the car generated great publicity for the company but few sales and apparently little or no profit as it shared few parts with other Fiats although production costs were reduced somewhat by most of the 8Vs being supplied only as a rolling chassis, external coach-builders being contracted by customers to fabricate the bodywork, Zagato, Ghia, and Vignale all building their own versions although the factory’s experimental division did make one fibreglass body, FIAT’s first ever use of the composite material.  Most were coupés although a handful of roadsters were also made and eventually 114 were built, 34 of which were bodied by FIAT’s Dipartimento Carrozzerie Derivate e Speciali (Special Bodies Department).  Being light, powerful and by the standards of the time, apparently aerodynamic, they enjoyed some success in competition, over 200 km/h (120 mph) attainable in racing trim and the 8V gained a class wins at the 1955 Targa Florio and the 1957 Mille Miglia, taking the 1956 Italian Sports Car Championship in the two litre class.  The 8V remains a genuine one-off, the only Fiat ever fitted with a V8 engine.

Pragmatic

Pragmatic (pronounced prag-mat-ik)

(1) Of or relating to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

(2) Advocating behavior that is dictated more by practical consequences than by theory or dogma

(3) In philosophy, of or relating to pragmatism.

(4) Of or relating to pragmatics.

(5) In historiography, treating historical phenomena with special reference to their causes, antecedent conditions, and results.

(6) Of or relating to the affairs of state or community (archaic).

(7) An officious or meddlesome person, especially a priest (archaic).

(8) In logic, the branch of semiotics dealing with the causal and other relations between words, expressions, or symbols and their users.

(9) In linguistics, a sub-field in which the analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.

1580-1590:  From the Late Latin prāgmaticus, (practical), from the Ancient Greek prāgmatikós (practical) equivalent to prāgmat, stem of prâgma (act) from prā́ssein (to do).  Related forms are the nouns pragmaticality & pragmaticalness and the more common adverb pragmatically.

In the sense of the meddlesome priest, use dates from circa 1610 in the sense of “meddling; impertinently busy" and was either short for earlier pragmatical, or from the fifteenth century French pragmatique, from the Latin pragmaticus (skilled in business or law) from the Ancient Greek pragmatikos (fit for business, active, business-like; systematic) from pragma (genitive pragmatos) (a deed, act; that which has been done; a thing, matter, affair," especially an important one; also a euphemism for something bad or disgraceful; in plural, "circumstances, affairs" (public or private, often in a bad sense, "trouble"), literally "a thing done") from the stem of prassein & prattein (to do, act, perform), related to the modern practical.

From the 1640s, pragmatic came to be used in the sense of "relating to the affairs of a state or community" and the modern sense of "matter-of-fact, treating facts systematically and practically" is from 1853; influenced by the use in nineteenth century German philosophy of pragmatisch.

The noun pragmaticism, which as late as 1865 could be used to mean "officiousness", by 1905 had been adopted by American philosopher CS Peirce (1839-1914) to refer to the doctrine that abstract concepts must be understood in terms of their practical implications; he coined the use to distinguish his philosophy from pragmatism.

The 1540s adjective pragmatical (pertaining to material interests of a state or community) by the 1590s had extended to "concerned with practical results", the formation from the Latin pragmaticus.  It was, during the 1600s & 1700s often applied in the negative (unduly busy over the affairs of others) which is how pragmaticism same to be associated with “intrusive officiousness” and meddling from the 1610s, the layer of "busy over trifles” or “self-important" noted in 1704.

The noun pragmatism had by 1825 assumed something like its modern sense, then meaning “matter-of-fact treatment" borrowed from the Greek pragmat- (stem of pragma) as "that which has been done".  As a philosophical doctrine, it was used in the English language by 1898 and generally accepted as a borrowing from the 1870s German Pragmatismus.  Despite that, it wasn’t accepted as the name a political theory until 1951 although the historical record can be misleading, a pragmatist being a "busybody" from circa 1630 yet by 1892, noted as an "adherent of a pragmatic philosophy”.

Pragmatics in Theoretical Linguistics

Pragmatics exists in what practitioners in the field call the symbiosis of linguistics and semiotics; essentially the study of the ways in which context either is or can be vital to understanding the meaning(s) of text.  Highly technical, it has built a number of models (sometimes called codes) which, if (sometimes cumulatively, sometimes lineally) applied, can determine meaning(s) which may not be obvious or confused by ambiguity.  Pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the structural and linguistic knowledge of both speaker and listener, but also on the context in which the words are used, all pre-existing knowledge of those involved, and matters of implication and inference.  Properly applied, the ability to understand another intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.

Basically the product of squabbles between academics anxious to become dominant in some aspect of the surprisingly sexy discipline of linguistics, pragmatics was created in reaction to the structuralist linguistics models of the 1960s.  Pragmatics both borrows from structuralism and builds its own critique, especially from the way structuralism tended towards finding all meaning at least can come purely from the abstract space language creates.  It probably was a useful discussion to have but it’s never been entirely clear where semantics ends and pragmatics begins or if that’s even a helpful way to think about meaning.

The discipline seemed never to move in the direction of making pragmatics a toolbox of use to those beyond the field.  Instead, there emerged mysterious forks such as indexicals, intuitionistic semantics and computational pragmatics, all of which appear weird beyond immediate understanding.

The Pragmatic Sanction of 1713

Archduchess Maria Theresia (1727) by Andreas Møller (1684–circa 1762), oil on canvas, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

There have been quite a few pragmatic sanctions, the first known to be that issued in Constantinople in 554 by Justinian I (Justinian the Great, 482-565; Byzantine emperor 527-565).  Nearly twelve centuries later, the Sanctio Pragmatica (Pragmatic Sanction) was an edict issued in 1713 by Charles VI (1685-1740; Holy Roman Emperor 1711-1740); it was a device to ensure the Habsburg hereditary possessions, could be inherited by his eldest daughter, the sanction necessitated by the lack of a male heir and a law which precluded female inheritance.  However, for Charles to promulgate the sanction was one thing, having it respected by others was another and, immediately upon the accession to the throne in 1740 of his daughter Maria Theresa (1717-1780), the expected War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) began.

Had the pretext of female succession not existed, the desire of other European states, notably France, Bavaria and Prussia, anxious to gain territorial and commercial advantage over the Habsburgs, conflict would likely soon anyway have arisen.  The British became involved because of their geopolitical interests and the Dutch because they wished to rid themselves of French hegemony; as the war widened, Spain, Sardinia, Saxony, Sweden and Russia became involved in what was soon a multi-theatre affair on land and at sea.  It was a textbook case of mission-creep.

Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor (circa 1707) by Francesco Solimen (1657–1747), oil on canvas, in a private collection.

The war was concluded by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748.  Maria Theresa was recongised as Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary but, regardless of the impressive but isolated tactical victories which typified European wars of the era, so inconclusive had been the battlefield that, except for the Royal Navy’s notable success in the blockade of French ports, things ended in such a series of stalemates that most of the treaty’s signatories were hardly content with the terms.  Even Maria Theresa, whose throne had been the ostensible reason for the spilling of so much blood, resented having to cede what she did though was mollified by the horse-trading of the Treaty of Füssen (1745) which permitted her husband to be elected Holy Roman Emperor as Francis I (1708-1765).  The British, although satisfied with the commercial rights gained, would spend years glumly counting the cost.

In geopolitical terms however, the consequences were profound.  In what came to be known as the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, the central dynamics in European affairs became the alliances between Austria and France and between Prussia and Great Britain, creating a template for the shifting military and political relationships which would be maintained, adjusted and sundered all through the eighteenth century in an attempt to maintain the balance of power.  The newly built coalitions, with Russia augmenting the Austro-Franco alliance, would fight the Seven Years War (1756-1763) in which Britain and Prussia would prevail, only because of something of a Prussian miracle and the Royal Navy’s control of the seas.

Under Germanic linguistic influence, word assumed a handy role as a kind of political shorthand; article seven of the 1712 Croatian Constitution being remembered to this day as the Pragmatic Sanction.  The clause permitted a Habsburg princess to become hereditary Queen of Croatia despite, in a typical Balkan squabble, opposition from both the Hungarian parliament and royal court.  Considered ever since a symbol of Croatian independence, the Pragmatic Sanction is included still in the preamble of the Constitution of Croatia.

Homologate

Homologate (pronounced huh-mol-uh-geyt or hoh-mol-uh-geyt)

(1) To approve; confirm or ratify.

(2) To register (a specific model of machine (usually a car), engine or other component) in either general production or in the requisite number to make it eligible for racing competition(s).

(3) To approve or ratify a deed or contract, especially one found to be defective; to confirm a proceeding or other procedure (both mostly used in Scottish contract law).

1644: From the Latin homologāt (agreed) & homologātus, past participle of homologāre (to agree) from the Ancient Greek homologeîn (to agree to, to allow, confess) from homologos (agreeing), the construct being homo- (from the Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) (same) + legein (to speak).  Homologate, homologated and homologating are verbs, homologation is a noun.

Once often used to mean “agree or confirm”, homologate is now a niche word, restricted almost wholly to compliance with minimum production numbers, set by the regulatory bodies of motorsport, to permit use in sanctioned competition; the words "accredit, affirm, approbate, authorize, certify, confirm, endorse, ratify, sanction, warrant & validate etc" are otherwise used for the purpose of agreeing or confirming.  It exists however still in Scottish law as a legal device, used (now rarely) retrospectively to declare valid an otherwise defective contract.  The best known application was to validate contracts of marriage where some technical defect in the legal solemnities had rendered the union void.  In such cases case a court could hold the marriage “. . . to be homologated by the subsequent marriage of the parties”.  It was a typically Scottish, common-sense application of the law, designed originally to avoid children being declared bastards (at a time which such a label attracted adverse consequences for all involved), vaguely analogous with a “contract by acquiescence” from contract law though not all were pleased: one dour Scottish bishop complained in 1715 that homologate was a "hard word".

Case studies in homologation

1962 Ferrari GTO

In 1962, fearing the effectiveness of Jaguar’s new XKE (E-Type) which looked faster even than it was, Ferrari created a lighter, more powerful version of their 250 GT, naming the new car 250 GTO (Gran Turismo Omologato (Grand Touring Homologated)).  The regulatory body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) required a production run of at least one-hundred for a car to be homologated for the Group 3 Grand Touring Car class but Ferrari built only 33, 36 or 39 (depending on how one treats the variations and 36 is most quoted) 250 GTOs, thus encouraging the myth the car violated the rules.  However, as was acknowledged at the time, the FIA regarded the 250 GTO as a legitimate development the 250 GT Berlinetta SWB (Short wheelbase), homologation papers for which had been first issued in 1960 with variations, including the GTO, approved between 1961-1964.  They’re now a prized item, one selling in 2018 for a world-record US$70 million which makes it the second most expensive car ever sold, the sum exceeded only by the US$142 million paid in 2022 for one of the two Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR Uhlenhaut gull-wing coupés.

1965 Ferrari 250 LM

The FIA’s legislative largess didn’t extend to Ferrari’s next development for GT racing, the 250 LM. The view of il Commendatore was the 250 LM was an evolution as linked to the 250 GT’s 1960 homologation papers as had been the 250 GTO and thus deserved another certificate of extension.  This was too much for the FIA which pointed out 250 LM (1) was mid rather than front-engined, (2) used a wholly different body and (3) used a different frame and suspension.  Neither party budged so the 250 LM could run only in the prototype class until 1966 when it gained homologation as a Group 4 Sports Car.  Although less competitive against the true prototypes, it’s speed and reliability was enough for a private entry to win the 1965 24 Hours of Le Mans, a Ferrari’s last victory in the race until 2023.   One quirk of the 250 LM was that when the FIA ruled against its homologation, the point of retaining the 3.0 litre displacement became irrelevant and most 250 LMs used a 3.3 litre engine and when fitted with the enlarged power-plant, under Ferrari’s naming convention, the thing properly should have been called a 275 LM.  

1969 Porsche 917

In 1969, needing to build twenty-five 917s to be granted homologation, Porsche did... sort of.  When the FIA inspectors turned up to tick the boxes, they found the promised twenty-five cars but most were in pieces.  Despite assurances there existed more than enough parts to bolt together enough to qualify, the FIA, now less trusting, refused to sign off, despite Porsche pointing out that if they assembled them all, they'd then just have to take them apart to prepare them for the track.  The FIA conceded the point but still refused to sign-off.  Less than a month later, probably nobody at the FIA believed Porsche when they rang back saying twenty-five completed 917s were ready for inspection but the team dutifully re-visited the factory.  There they found the twenty-five, lined-up in a row.  The FIA delegation granted homologation, declining the offer of twenty-five test-drives.

1969 Dodge Daytona & 1970 Plymouth Road Runner Superbird

By the mid 1950s, various NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) competitions had become wildly popular and the factories (sometimes in secret) provided support for the racers.  This had started modestly enough with the supply of parts and technical support but so tied up with prestige did success become that soon some manufacturers established racing departments and, officially and not, ran teams or provided so much financial support some effectively were factory operations.  NASCAR had begun as a "stock" car operation in the literal sense that the first cars used were "showroom stock" with only minimal modifications.  That didn't last long, cheating was soon rife and in the interests of spectacle (ie higher speeds), certain "performance enhancements" were permitted although the rules were always intended to maintain the original spirit of using cars which were "close" to what was in the showroom.  The cheating didn't stop although the teams became more adept in its practice.  One Dodge typified the way manufactures used the homologation rule to effectively game the system.  The homologation rules (having to build and sell a minimum number of a certain model in that specification) had been intended to restrict the use of cars to “volume production” models available to the general public but in 1956 Dodge did a special run of what it called the D-500 (an allusion to the number built to be “legal”).  Finding a loophole in the interpretation of the word “option” the D-500 appeared in the showrooms with a 260-hp V8 and crossed-flag “500” emblems on the hoods (bonnet) and trunk (boot) lids, the model’s Dodge’s high-performance offering for the season.  However there was also the D-500-1 (or DASH-1) option, which made the car essentially a race-ready vehicle and one available as a two-door sedan, hardtop or convertible (the different bodies to ensure eligibility in NASCAR’s various competitions).  The D-500-1 was thought to produce around 285 hp from its special twin-four-barrel-carbureted version of the 315 cubic inch (5.2 litre) but more significant was the inclusion of heavy-duty suspension and braking components.  It was a successful endeavour and triggered both an arms race between the manufacturers and the ongoing battle with the NASCAR regulators who did not wish to see their series transformed into something conested only by specialized racing cars which bore only a superficial resemblance to the “showroom stock”.  By the 2020s, it’s obvious NASCAR surrendered to the inevitable but for decades, the battle raged.

1970 Plymouth Superbird (left) and 1969 Dodge Daytona (right) by Stephen Barlow on DeviantArt.  Despite the visual similarities, the aerodynamic enhancements  differed between the two, the Plymouth's nose-cone less pointed, the rear wing higher and with a greater rake.  

By 1969 the NASCAR  regulators had fine-tuned their rules restricting engine power and mandating a minimum weight so manufacturers resorted to the then less policed field of aerodynamics, ushering what came to be known as the aero-cars.  Dodge made some modifications to their Charger which smoothed the air-flow, labelling it the Charger 500 in a nod to the NASCAR homologation rules which demanded 500 identical models for eligibility.  However, unlike the quite modest modifications which proved so successful for Ford’s Torino Talladega and Mercury’s Cyclone Spoiler, the 500 remained aerodynamically inferior and production ceased after 392 were built.  Dodge solved the problem of the missing 108 needed for homologation purposes by introducing a different "Charger 500" which was just a trim level and nothing to do with competition but, honor apparently satisfied on both sides, NASCAR turned the same blind eye they used when it became clear Ford probably had bent the rules a bit with the Talladega.  Not discouraged by the aerodynamic setback, Dodge recruited engineers from Chrysler's aerospace & missile division (which was being shuttered because the Nixon-era détente had just started and the US & USSR were beginning their arms-reduction programmes) and quickly created the Daytona, adding to the 500 a protruding nosecone and high wing at the rear.  Successful on the track, this time the required 500 really were built, 503 coming of the line.  NASCAR responded by again moving the goalposts, requiring manufacturers to build at least one example of each vehicle for each of their dealers before homologation would be granted, something which typically would demand a run well into four figures.  Plymouth duly complied and for 1970 about 2000 Superbirds (NASCAR acknowledging 1920 although Chrysler insists there were 1,935) were delivered to dealers, an expensive exercise given they were said to be invoiced at below cost.  Now more unhappy than ever, NASCAR lawyered-up and drafted rules rendering the aero-cars uncompetitive and their brief era ended.  So extreme in appearance were the cars they proved at the time sometimes hard to sell and some were actually converted back to the standard specification to get them out of the showroom.  Views changed over time and they're now much sought by collectors, the record price the US$1.43 million realized in January 2023 at a Mecum auction in the pleasingly named Kissimmee, Florida.  That car was an exceptional example, one of only 70 built with the 426 cubic inch (7.0 litre) Street Hemi V8 and one of the 22 of those with the four-speed manual transmission.

1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429

NASCAR could however be helpful, scratching the back of those who scratched theirs.  For the Torino and Cyclone, Ford was allowed to homologate their Boss 429 engine in a Mustang, a model not used in stock car racing.  Actually, NASCAR had been more helpful still, acceding to Ford's request to increase the displacement limit from 427 to 430 cubic inches, just to accommodate the Boss 429.  There was a nice symmetry to that because in 1964, Ford had been responsible for the imposition of the 427 limit, set after NASCAR became aware the company had taken a car fitted with a 483 cubic inch engine to the Bonneville salt flats and set a number of international speed records.  The car used on the salt flats was one which NASCAR had banned from its ovals after it was found blatantly in violation of homologation rules so there was unlikely to be much leeway offered there.

1971 Ford Falcon GTHO Phase III

Australian manufacturers were (mostly) honest in their homologation programmes, Ford’s GTHO, Chrysler’s R/T Charger and Holden’s L34 and A9X were produced in accordance both with the claimed volumes and technical specification.  However, they weren't always so punctilious.  Ford's RPO83 (Regular Production Option #83) was a run of XA Falcon GTs completed late in 1973 which included many of the special parts intended for the aborted GTHO Phase IV and although, on paper, that seemed to make the things eligible for use in competition, it transpired the actual specification of various RPO83 cars wasn't consistent and didn't always match the nominal parts list.  History has been generous however and generally it's conceded that in aggregate, the parts subject to the homologation rules appear to have been produced in the requisite number.  By some accounts, this included counting the four-wheel disk brakes used on the luxury Landau hardtops but CAMS (the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, at the time the regulatory body) was in the mood to be accommodating.

No homologation issues: Between 1938-2003, Volkswagen produced 21,529,464 Beetles (officially the VW Type 1).