IIII

IIII (pronounced fawr (U) or fohr (non-U))

A translingual form, an alternative form of IV: the Roman numeral representing four (4), the other known forms being iv, iiii & iiij

Circa 500 BC: The Roman numeral system spread as Roman conquest expanded and remained widely used in Europe until from circs 1300 it was replaced (for most purposes) with the more adaptable Hindu-Arabic system (including the revolutionary zero (0) which remains in use to this day.

IIII as a representation where the value four is involved has long been restricted to the value 4.  To avoid numbers becoming too cumbersome, the Roman system always used subtraction when a smaller numeral precedes a larger numeral so the number 14 would be represented as XIV instead of XIIII.  The convention which emerged was that a numeral can precede only another numeral which is less than or equal to ten times the value of the smaller so I can precede only (and thus be subtracted from) V (five) & X (ten).  However, these “rules” didn’t exist during Antiquity and weren’t (more or less) standardized until well into the medieval period; it’s thus not unusual to find old documents where 9 is represented as VIIII instead of IX.  The practical Romans, unlike the Greeks for whom abstraction was a calling, were little concerned with the concepts of pure mathematics, such as number theory or geometric proofs, and other abstract ideas, devoted instead to utilitarian purposes such as financial accounting, keeping military records and building things.

The numeral system had to be manageable to make simple calculations like addition and subtraction so it was attractive to make the text strings conveniently short: 44 as XLIV obvious preferable to XXXXIIII.  Although its limitations seem obvious to modern eyes, given the demands of the times, the system worked remarkably well for almost two millennia despite the largest numeral being M (1000).  It was silly to contemplate writing a string of 1000 M’s to indicate a million (presumably not a value then often used) so the Romans concocted a bar (the vinculum) which, when it appeared above a numeral, denoted a multiplier of 1000: MMMM (6000) could thus appear as V̄Ī and a million as M̄.  Compared with the Hindu-Arabic system, it was a fudged but one which for centuries proved serviceable.

Where Roman numbers are occasionally still used (book prefaces & introductions, some aeroplanes & automobiles and charmingly, some software), the number four is almost always represented by IV rather than IIII.  One exception to this however is watch & clock faces where the use of IIII outnumbers IV, regardless of the cost of the device.  Watchmakers have provided may explanations for the historical origin of this practice, the most popular of which dates from Antiquity: Because “I” stood for the “J” and “V” for the “U”, IV would be read as JU and thus Jupiter, an especially venerated Roman god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus being the king of all gods, chief of the pantheon and protector of ancient Rome.  The suggestion is that invoking the name of Jupiter for such a banal purpose would be thought offensive if not actually blasphemous.  Thus IIII it became.

Lindsay Lohan wearing 19mm (¾ inch) Cartier Tank Americaine in 18 karat white gold with a quartz movement and a silver guilloche dial with Roman numerals including the traditional IIII.  The Cartier part-number is B7018L1.

There’s the notion to that the convention arose just because of one of those haphazard moments in time by which history sometimes is made.  The appearance of IIII was said to be the personal preference of Louis XIV (1638–1715; le Roi Soleil (the Sun King), King of France 1643-1715), the Sun King apparently issuing an instruction (though there’s no evidence it was ever a formal decree) that IIII was the only appropriate way to write the number four, watchmakers ever since still tending to comply.  Whether Louis XIV wished to retain some exclusivity in the IV which was part of “his” XIV isn’t known and it may be he simply preferred the look of IIII.  Despite the belief of some, it’s anyway wrong to suggest IIII is wrong and IV right.  The design of the IIII was based upon four outstretched fingers which surely had for millennia been the manner in which the value of 4 was conveyed in conversation and V denoted 5 in tribute to the shape the hand formed when the thumb was added.  The IV notation came later and because it better conformed with the conventions used for writing bigger numbers, came in medieval times to be thought correct; it was thus adopted by the Church, becoming the “educated” form and that was that.

Not all agree with those romantic tales however, the German Watch Museum noting that in scholarly, ecclesiastical and daily use, IIII was widely used for a millennia, well into the nineteenth century, while the more efficient “IV” didn’t appear with any great frequency until circa 1500.  The museum argues that the watch and clock-makers concerns may have been readability and aesthetics rather than any devotion to historic practice, IIII having display advantages in an outward-facing arrangement relative to the centre of the dial (ie partially upside down, such as on wall, tower or cuckoo clocks), any confusion between IV (4) & VI (6) eliminated.  Also, a watch, while a functional timepiece, is also decorative and even a piece of jewellery so aesthetics matter, the use of III rendering the dial symmetrically balanced because 14 individual characters exist on each side of the dial and the IIII counterbalances the opposite VIII in the manner IX squares off against III.  So there’s no right or wrong about IIII & IV but there are reasons for the apparent anomaly of the more elegant IV appearing rarely on the dials of luxury watches.

Homonym

Homonym (pronounced hom-uh-nim)

(1) In phonetics, a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air; a homophone.

(2) In phonetics, a word of the same written form as another but of different meaning and usually origin, whether pronounced the same way or not; a homograph.

(3) In phonetics, a word that is both a homophone and a homograph, that is, exactly the same as another in sound and spelling but different in meaning.

(4) A namesake (a person with the same name as another) (obsolete).

(5) In taxonomy, a name given to a species or genus (that should be unique) that has already been assigned to a different species or genus and that is thus rejected.

1635–1645: The construct was homo- +‎ -onym.  From the French homonyme and directly from the Latin homōnymum, from the Greek homṓnymon, neuter of homṓnymos (homonymous) (of the same name).  Homo was from the Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) (same).  The –onym suffix was a creation for the international scientific vocabulary, a combining from the New Latin, from the Ancient Greek ὄνυμα (ónuma), Doric and Aeolic dialectal form of ὄνομα (ónoma) (name), from the primitive Indo-European root no-men- (name); the related form –onymy also widely used.

For a word which some insist has a narrow definition, it’s used by many to mean quite different things, the related forms being (1) homograph which is a word that has the same spelling as another word but has a different sound and a different meaning (such as bass which can be wither “a low, deep sound” or “a type of fish”) & (2) homophone which is a word that has the same sound as another word but is spelled differently and has a different meaning (such as to, two & too).  Homograph and homophone are uncontested but homonym is used variously either to mean (1) a word that is spelled like another but has a different sound and meaning (a homograph), (2) a word that sounds like another but has a different spelling and meaning (a homophone) or (3) a word that is spelled and pronounced like another but has a different meaning (a homograph & homophone).  According to the purists, a homonym must be both a homograph and a homophone and prescriptive dictionaries still tend in this direction but the descriptive volumes (usually while noting the strict construction), acknowledge that as used in modern English, a homonym can be a homograph or a homophone.  The sage advice seems to be (1) to stick to the classics and use all three words in their strict sense, (2) maintain consistency in use and (3) don’t correct the more permissive (on the Christian basis of “forgive them for they know not what they do”).

Crooked Hillary Clinton and the crooked spire of the Church of St Mary and All Saints, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England.  Crooked has two meanings and pronunciations but is the one word used in two senses and thus not homonymic.  Crooked (pronounced krookt) is the past tense of the verb crook (bend or curve out of shape), from the Old English crōcian (to crook, to bend) which was cognate with Danish kroget (crooked; bent) whereas crooked (pronounced lrook-id) is an adjective meaning "bent or not straight" and may be used literally or figuratively to describe someone untrustworthy or dishonest.  Crooked is thus also an example of a hetronym (same spellings with different pronunciations and meanings

Adding to the murkiness, Henry Fowler (1858-1933) noted in Modern English Usage (1926) that some confusion has long clouded homonym and synonym, something he blamed on the “loose” meaning of the latter, explaining that homonyms are “separate words happen to be identical in form” while synonyms exist as separate words which happen to mean the same thing”.  However, at this point an etymological layer intrudes, Fowler noting “pole” in the sense of “a stake or shaft” is a native English word whereas when used to mean “the terminal point of an axis” the origins lie in the Greek.  Rather than one, “pole” is thus two separate words but being identical in form are thought homonyms.  By contrast “cat” the feline and “cat” as a clipping of the Admiralty’s flogging device “cat o' nine tails” “although identical in form and meaning different things are not separate words but the one used in two senses and thus not homonymic.

Lindsay Lohan on the couch, sofa, chesterfield or settee, depending on one’s view.

Layers attach also to synonyms, a word used anyway with notorious sloppiness, true synonyms (separate words identical in meaning in the context in which they’re applied) are actually rare compared with pairs or sets frequently cited, many of which enjoy only a partial equivalence of meaning.  The imprecise use isn’t necessarily bad and often is essential for poetic or literary reasons but technically, synonyms should be separate words identical in denotation (what they reference) and connotation (what they mean); pure synonyms may thus be interchanged with no effect but such pairs or sets are rare although in technical fields (IT & various flavors of engineering) they have in recent decades became more numerous.  However, even when words satisfy Henry Fowler’s standards, nuances drawn from beyond etymology and phonetics can lend a layer of meaning which detract from the purity of the synonymousness.  Sofa & couch for example are often used interchangeably and regarded by most as synonymous but to a student of the history of furniture, because couch is from the French noun couche (a piece of furniture with no arms used for lying) from the verb meaning “to lie down”, it differs from a sofa (a long, upholstered seat usually with arms and a back).  That’s fine but “sofa” is used by some as a class-identifier, being the “U” (upper-class) form while couch, settee and such are “non-U”.

Canthus

Canthus (pronounced kan-thuhs)

The angle or corner on each side of the eye, formed by the natural junction of the upper and lower lids; there are two canthi on each eye: the medial canthus (closer to the nose) and the lateral canthus (closer to the ear).

1640–1650: From Ancient Greek κανθός (kanthós) (corner of the eye) (and also an alternative spelling of cantus (in music, sung, recited, sounded, blew, chanted etc)), which became conflated the New Latin canthus, from the Classical Latin cantus (the (iron) rim of a wheel)).  The term describing the “iron rim of a wheel” was ultimately of Gaulish origin, from the Proto-Celtic kantos (corner, rim) and related to the Breton kant (circle), the Old Irish cétad (round seat) and the Welsh cant (rim, edge).  The Greek form was borrowed by Latin as canthus and with that spelling it entered English.  In the medieval way of such things, canthus and cantus became conflated, possibly under the influence or regional variations in pronunciation but some etymologists have noted there was tendency among some scribes and scholars to favor longer Latin forms, for whatever reason more letters being thought better than fewer.  The most familiar descendent in music is the canto (a description of a form of division in composition with a surprisingly wide range of application).  Canthus is a noun and canthal is an adjective; the noun plural is canthi (pronounced kan-thahy).

One word in English which has long puzzled etymologists is the late fourteenth century cant (slope, slant) which appeared first in Scottish texts, apparently with the sense “edge, brink”.  All dictionaries list it as being of uncertain origin and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes words identical in form and corresponding in sense are found in many languages including those from Teutonic, Slavonic, Romanic & Celtic traditions.  Rare in English prior to the early seventeenth century, the meaning “slope, slanting or tilting position” had been adopted by at least 1847 and may long have been in oral use.  The speculation about the origin has included (1) the Old North French cant (corner) which may be related to the Middle Low German kante or the Middle Dutch kant, (2) the New Latin canthus, from the Classical Latin cantus (the (iron) rim of a wheel), (3) the Russian kutu (corner) and (4) the Ancient Greek κανθός (kanthós) (corner of the eye).  To all of these there are objections are the source remains thus uncertain.

The metrics of the attractiveness of women

PinkMirror is a web app which helps users optimize their facial aesthetics, using an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to deconstruct the individual components an observer’s brain interprets as a whole.  Because a face is for these purposes a collection of dimensions & curves with certain critical angles determined by describing an arc between two points, it means things can be reduced to metrics, and the interaction of these numbers can used to create a measure of attractiveness.

Positive, (left), neutral (centre) & negative (right) eye canthal tilt.

Perhaps the most interesting example of the components is the eye canthal tilt, a positive tilt regarded as more attractive than a negative.  The eye canthal tilt is the angle between the internal corner of the eyes (medial canthus) and the external corner of the eyes (lateral canthus) and is a critical measure of periorbital (of, pertaining to all which exists in the space surrounding the orbit of the eyes (including skin, eyelashes & eyebrows) aesthetics.  The eye canthal tilt can be negative, neutral, or positive and is defined thus:

Positive: Medial canthus tilt between +5 and +8^o below the lateral canthus.

Neutral: Medial canthus and lateral canthus are in a horizontal line.

Negative: Medial canthus tilt between -5 to -8^o below the lateral canthus.

Pinkmirror cites academic research which confirms a positive canthal tilt is a “power cue” for female facial attractiveness and while it’s speculative, a possible explanation for this offered by the researchers was linked to (1) palpebral (of, pertaining to, or located on or near the eyelids.) fissure inclination being steeper in children than adults (classifying it thus a neonatal feature) and (2) it developing into something steeper still in females than males after puberty (thus becoming a sexually dimorphic feature).  Pinkmirror notes also that natural selection seems to be operating to support the idea, data from Johns Hopkins Hospital finding that in women, the intercanthal axis averages +4.1 mm (.16 of an inch) or +4^o, the supposition being that women with the advantage of a positive medial canthus tilt are found more attractive so attract more mates, leading to a higher degree of procreation, this fecundity meaning the genetic trait producing the characteristic feature is more frequently seen in the population.  Cosmetic surgeons add another layer to the understanding, explaining the canthal tilt is one of the marker’s of aging, a positive tilt exuding youth, health, and exuberance where as a line tending beyond the negative is associated with aging, this actually literally product of natural processes, the soft tissue gradually descending under the effect of gravity, as aspect of Vogue magazine’s definition of the aging process: “Everything gets bigger, hairier & lower”.

With people, medial canthus tilt is thus an interaction of (1) the roll of the genetic dice and (2) the cosmetic surgeon’s scalpel.  With manufactured items however, designers have some scope to anthropomorphize objects and few visages are as obviously related to a human’s eyes than the headlamps on a car.

The positive, neutral & negative: 1965 Gordon-Keeble GK-1 (left), 1958 Edsel Corsair Hardtop (centre) & 1970 Maserati Ghibli Roadster (right).

When headlamps were almost universally separate circular devices, the creation of a medial canthus tilt really became possible in the mid-1950s after dual units were first made lawful in the US and then rapidly became fashionable.  Overwhelmingly, the designers seemed to prefer the neutral and where a positive tilt was use, it was exaggerated well beyond that found in humans.  Instances of the negative were rare, which would seem to support the findings of attractiveness in humans but they were sometimes seen when hidden headlamps were used and there they were necessitate by the form of the leading edge under which they sat.  The suspicion is that designers found a negative slant acceptable if usually they were hidden from view.

2005 Porsche 911 Turbo S (996) (left), 2016 Ford (Australia) Falcon XR8 (FG) (centre) & 2000 Ferrari 550 Maranello.

As the interest in aerodynamics grew and there were advances in shaping glass and plastic economically to render compound shapes, headlights ceased to be merely round (though rectilinear shapes did start to appear in the 1960s) and took on abstract forms.  The demands of aesthetics however didn’t change and designers tended still to neutral or positive tilts.  Care needed still to be taken however, the derided “poached egg” shape on the 996 generation of the Porsche 911 (1997-2006) not popular with the obsessives who buy the things, their view being each update should remain as devoted to the original (1963) lines as themselves.  One of the closest to a flirtation with a negative tilt showed up on the Ferrari 550 Maranello (1996-2001) and the factory hasn’t repeated the experiment.

Deconstructing Lindsay Lohan

The Pinkmirror app exists to quantify one’s degree of attractiveness.  It’s wholly based on specific dimension and thus as piece of math, is not influenced by skin tone although presumably, its parameters are defined by the (white) western model of what constitutes attractiveness.  Users should therefore work within those limitations but the model would be adaptable, presumably not to the point of being truly cross-cultural but specifics forks could certainly be created to suit any dimensional differences between ethnicities.  Using an industry standard known as the Photographic Canthal Index (PCI), one’s place on Pinkmirror’s index of attractiveness is determined by the interplay of (1) Nose width, (2) Bi-temporal to bi-zygomatic ratio, (3) chin length, (4) chin angle, (5) lower-lip height & (6) eye height.

Lindsay Lohan scored an 8.5 (out of 10), was rated as “beautiful” and found to be “very feminine, with great features of sexual dimorphism”, scoring highly in all facets except lower lip height and eye height.  Her face shape is the heart, distinguished by a broad forehead and cheekbones, narrowing in the lines of down to the jaw-line, culminating in a cute pointy chin.  Pinkmirror say the most attractive face shape for women has been found to be the triangle, scoring about the same as the oval while the heart, round, diamond, rectangle and square are also attractive to a lesser degree.  Within the app, pears and oblongs are described as “not typically seen as attractive” and while the word “ugly” isn’t used, for the unfortunate pears and oblongs, that would seem the implication.

Random

Random (pronounced ran-duhm)

(1) Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern; lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard.

(2) In statistics, of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen (the random sample); having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically.

(3) Of materials used in building and related constructions, lacking uniformity in size or shape.

(4) Of ashlar (stonework), laid without continuous courses and applied without regularity:

(5) In slang (also clipped to “rando” and some on-line sources insist “randy” is also used), something or someone unknown, unidentified, unexpected or out of place; anything odd or unpredictable (not necessarily a pejorative term and used as both noun & adjective).

(6) In slang, someone unimportant; a person of no consequence (always a pejorative).

(7) In printing, the sloping work surface at the top of a compositor's workbench on which type is composed (also called a bank and use now almost exclusive to the UK).

(8) In mining, the direction of a rake-vein.

(9) Speed, full speed; impetuosity, force (obsolete).

(10) In ballistics, the full range of a bullet or other projectile and thus the angle at which a weapon is tilted to gain maximum range (obsolete).

(11) In computing (as pseudorandom), mimicking the result of random selection.

1650s: From the earlier randon, from the Middle English randoun & raundon, from the Old French randon, a derivative of randir (to run; to gallop) of Germanic origin (related to the Old High German rinnan (to run) (from which Modern French gained randonnée (long walk, hike), from either the Frankish rant (a running) & randiju (a run, race) or the Old Norse rend (a run, race), both from the Proto-Germanic randijō, from rinnaną (run), from the primitive Indo-European r̥-nw- (to flow, move, run).  It was cognate with the Middle Low German uprinden (to jump up) and the Danish rende (to run).  The development of the adjective to mean “having no definite aim or purpose, haphazard, not sent in a special direction” evolved in the 1650s from the mid-sixteenth century phrase “at random” (at great speed) which picked up the fourteenth century sense from the Middle English noun randon & randoun (impetuosity; speed).  In English, the meaning closely mirrored that in the Old French randon (rush, disorder, force, impetuosity), gained from Frankish or other Germanic sources.  The spelling shift in Modern English from -n to –m was not unusual (seldom, ransom et al).  Random is a noun & adjective, randomness & randomosity are nouns, randomize is a verb and randomly is an adverb; the noun plural is randoms.

A “random person” is one variously unknown, unidentified, unexpected or out of place.

In general use, the meanings related to speed (full speed; force, trajectory of delivery etc) faded from use between the fourteenth & seventeenth centuries but persisted in the field of ballistics where “random” described the limit of the range of a bullet or other projectile (thus the angle at which a weapon was tilted to gain the maximum range.  Even that was largely obsolete by the early twentieth century but the idea of the angle being “a random” persists still in pockets in the UK to describe a sloping work surface on which printers compose pages (although few now use physical metal type).  The now familiar twenty-first century slang use can be either pejorative (someone unimportant; a person of no consequence) or neutral tending to the amused (something or someone unknown, unidentified, unexpected or out of place; anything odd or unpredictable).  The modern adoption appears to have its origin in 1980s US college student slang when “a person who does not belong on our dormitory floor” was so described; from this the hint of “inferior, undesirable” was perhaps inevitable.  “Rando” seems to be the standard abbreviation but some on-line sources also list “randy” which would seem to risk confusion or worse.

School lunch social engineering: Some sources recommend parents cut their children’s sandwiches in random ways.  The theory is it helps train their minds to accept change and helps them learn to adapt.

In computing, random access memory (RAM) had since the 1980s become familiar as one of a handful of the critical specifications of a computer (CPU, RAM, drive space) and the origin of the terms dates from IBM’s labs in the early 1950s when it was used to describe a new form of memory which could be read non-sequentially.  The modern RAM used by personal computers, servers, smart phones etc is an evolution from the original memory model; in the world of the early mainframes there was simply storage which could fulfil the functions now performed by both RAM and media like hard disks & solid state drives.  RAM is now a well-known commodity but the companion ROM (Read-Only Memory) is understood only by nerds and only an obsessional few of them give it much thought.  RAM volatile in that the contents are inherently temporary lost when the device is powered-down or re-started; it can thus be thought of as using static electricity for data storage.  That characteristic means it’s fast, affording the most rapid access by the CPU (Central Processing Unit) so is used to hold whatever data is at the time most in demand and that can be parts of the operating system, applications or documents.  ROM is non-volatile and whatever is written to ROM remains even if a device is switched-off; it’s thus used for essential, information like firmware and hardware information.

In mathematics and statistics, random does have precise definitions but in general use it’s used also as a vague synonym for “typical or average”.  To a statistician, the word implies “having unpredictable outcomes to the extent all outcomes are equally probable and if any statistical correlation is found to exist it will be wholly coincidental.  Thus, although all dictionaries list the comparative as more random and the superlative as most random, a statistician will insist these are as absurd as “very unique” although even among mathematicians phrases like “increasingly random” or “tending to randomness” are probably not unknown.  For others, the forms are useful and the colloquial use to mean “apropos of nothing; lacking context; unexpected; having apparent lack of plan, cause or reason” is widely applied to events, even those which to a specialist may not be at all random and may even be predictable.  For most of us, any sub-set of numbers which appears to have no pattern will appear random but mathematicians need to be more precise.  In the strict, technical sense, a true random number set exists only when two conditions are satisfied: (1) the values are uniformly distributed over a defined interval or set and (2) it is impossible to predict future values based on past or present ones.  In the pre-computer age, creating random number lists was challenging and subsequent analysis has found some of the sets created by manual or mechanical means were not truly random although those which were sufficiently large probably were functional for the purposes to which they were put.

“Random news” is something strange, unexpected and often amusing.    

Now, random number generators (RNG) are used and they can exist either in hardware or software and there are two types (1) pseudorandom number generators (PRNG) and true random number generators (TRNG).  A software algorithm, a PRNG emulates a TRNG by mimicking the selection of a value to approximate true randomness, the limitation being the algorithm being based on a distribution (the origin of the term pseudorandom) which can only produce something ultimately deterministic and predictable (although to determine the pattern can demand much computational power).  Relying on a seed number, if that can be isolated, other numbers can be predicted although, if the subset is large, for many purposes, what PRNGs generate is functional.  TRNGs don’t use an algorithm (although their processes can be represented by one) but are instead based on an unpredictable physical variable such as radioactive decay of isotopes, airwave static, or the behaviour of subatomic particles, the latter now favoured for their utterly unpredictable movements, now called “pure randomness”.  So random is the behaviour of subatomic particles that their observation appears to be immune to measurement biases which can (at least in theory) afflict other methods.

Random numbers are important in a number of fields including (1) statistical sampling and experimentation where it’s essential to select a random sample to ensure that the results are representative of the entire population, (2) cryptography where random numbers are used to generate the encryption keys which ensure the security of data and communications, (3) simulation and modelling where there’s a need to replicate real-world scenarios, (4) gaming & gambling where the need exists to create unpredictable outcomes and (5) randomized controlled trials (RCT), notably in medical and scientific research where true randomness is needed to assist in the assessment of the effectiveness of treatments, interventions, or policies.

Authentic

Authentic (pronounced aw-then-tik)

(1) Something not false or copied; genuine; real.

(2) Having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: with certified provenance.

(3) Representing one’s true nature or beliefs; true to oneself or to the person identified.

(4) Entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy.

(5) In law, executed with all due formalities; conforming to process.

(6) In music (of a church mode and most often applied to the Gregorian chant), having a range extending from the final to the octave above.

(7) In music (of a cadence), progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord.

(8) In musical performance, using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written (or in certain cases, first performed).

(9) Authoritative; definitive (obsolete).

1300–1350: From the Middle English authentik & autentik (authoritative, duly authorized (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French autentique (authentic; canonical (from which thirteenth century Modern French gained authentique)), from the Late Latin authenticus (the work of the author, genuine ( which when used as a neuter noun also meant “an original document, the original”), from the Ancient Greek αὐθεντικός (authentikós) (original, primary, at first hand), the construct being αὐθέντης (authéntēs) (lord, master; perpetrator (literally, “one who does things oneself; one who acts independently (the construct being aut(o-) (self-) + -hentēs (doer)) + -ikos (–ic) (the adjective suffix)), from the primitive Indo-European root sene- (to accomplish, to achieve).  The alternative spellings authentical, authentick, authenticke & authentique are all archaic.  Authentic is an adjective (and a non-standard noun), authentically is an adverb, authenticity & authentification are nouns, authenticate, authenticating & authenticated are verbs; the most common noun plural is authentifications.

The modern sense of something “real, entitled to acceptance as factual” emerged in the mid-fourteenth century and synonyms (depending on context) include true, veritable, genuine, real, bonafide, bona fide, unfaked, reliable, trustworthy, credible & unfaked.  As antonyms (the choice of which will be dictated by context and sentence structure) the derived adjectives include: non-authentic, inauthentic & unauthentic (the three usually synonymous but nuances can be constructed depending on the context) and the curious quasi-authentic, used presumably to suggest degrees of fakeness, sincerity etc).  Inauthentic from 1783 is the most often used and thus presumably the preferred form and in this it competes also with phony, fake, faux, bogus, imitation, clone, impersonation, impression, mimic, parody, reflection, replica, tribute, reproduction, apery, copy, counterfeit, ditto, dupe, duplicate, ersatz, forgery, image, likeness, match, mime, mimesis, mockery, parallel, resemblance, ringer, semblance, sham, simulacrum, simulation, emulation, takeoff, ripoff, transcription, travesty, Xerox, aping, carbon copy, echo, match, mirror, knockoff, paraphrasing, parroting, patterning, representation & replica & the rare ingenuine.  The verb authenticate (verify, establish the credibility of) dates from the 1650s and was from the Medieval Latin authenticatus, the past participle of authenticare, from the Late Latin authenticus; the form of use in the mid seventeenth century was sometimes “render authentic”.  The noun authenticity (the quality of being authentic, or entitled; acceptance as to being true or correct) dates from the 1760 and replaced the earlier authentity (1650s) & authenticness (1620s).

Beware of the inauthentic: The authentic Lindsay Lohan (left) and the Grand Theft Auto's (GTA 5) ersatz (right), a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

Real & fake appears as simple and obvious a dichotomy as black & white but humanity has managed over the millennia to create many grey areas in many shades, thus the wealth of antonyms and synonyms for “authentic”.  Authentic now carries the connotation of an authoritative confirmation (which can be formalized as a process which culminates with the issue of a “certificate of authenticity” although the usefulness of that of course depends on the issuing authority being regarded as authentic.  Genuine carries a similar meaning but in a less formalized sense and in some fields (such as the art market), something can simultaneously be genuine yet not authentic (a painting might for example be a genuine seventeenth century oil on canvas work yet not be the Rembrandt it was represented to be; it’s thus not authentic).  The word real is probably the most simple term of all and can often be used interchangeably but unless what’s being described is unquestionable “real” in every sense, more nuanced words may be needed.  Veritable was from the Middle French veritable, from the Old French veritable, from the Latin veritabilis, from vēritās (truth), the construct being vērus (true; real) +‎ -tās (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  The traditional of use in English however means veritable had become an expression of admiration (eg “she is a veritable saint”) rather than a measure of truthfulness or authenticity.

Other nuances also organically have evolved.  Authentic now implies the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious while genuine implies that whatever is being considered is something unadulterated from its original form although what it contains may in some way be inauthentic.  This is serviceable and as long as it’s not used in a manner likely to mislead is a handy linguistic tool but as Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), it was an artificial distinction, “…illustrated by the fact that, “genuine” having no verb of its own, “authenticate” serves for both”.

Degrees of authenticity: 2016 Jaguar XKSS (continuation series)

In 2016 Jaguar displayed the first of nine XKSS "continuation" models.  In 1957, Jaguar had planned a run of 25 XKSSs which were road-going conversions of the Le Mans-winning D-type (1954-1956).  Such things were possible in those happier, less regulated times.  However, nine of the cars earmarked for export to North America were lost in fire so only 16 were ever completed.  These nine, using the serial numbers allocated in 1957 are thus regarded as a "continuation of the original run" to completion, Jaguar insisting it is not "cloning itself".  The project was well-received and the factory subsequent announced it would also continue the production run of the lightweight E-Types, again using the allocated but never absorbed ID numbers.  Other manufacturers, including Aston Martin, have embarked on their own continuation programmes and at a unit cost in excess of US$1 million, it's a lucrative business.

In the upper (or at least the most obsessional) reaches of the collector car market, the idea of “authenticity” is best expressed as “originality”.  As early as the 1950s when the market began to the process of assuming its present form, originality was valued because many of the pre-war machines first to attract interest (Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lagonda et al from the UK, Duisenberg, Stutz, Cadillac et al from the US and Mercedes-Benz, Isotta Fraschini, Bugatti et al from Europe) had over the years receive different coachwork from that which was originally supplied.  At the time however, the contemporary records suggest that if a rakish new body had replaced something dowdy, it was a matter for comment rather than objection.  Nor were replacement engines and transmissions thought objectionable as long as they replicated the originals, there then being an understanding things wear out.  Those mechanical components were however among the first to come to the attention of the originality police and “matching numbers” became a thing, every stamped component with a serial number (engine blocks & heads, transmission cases, differential housings etc) which could be verified against factory records, made a car more collectable and thus more valuable.  It was a matter of originality which came to matter, not functionality which mattered; a newer, better engine detracted from the value.  In some cases originality was allowed to be a shifting concept especially with vehicles used in competition; if a Ferrari was found to be on its third engine, that was fine as long as each swap was performed, in period, by the factory or its racing team.

An authentic 1968 Chevrolet SS427.  Because Chevrolet was during the 1960s somewhat lax in recording the exact details of the exact configuration of the cars as they left the assembly line, it can be difficult to verify what's an authentic Chevrolet SS and what's not.  Quite a few Impalas and others have been modified and represented as what they're not and it can take an expert to tell the difference and that difference can be worth tens of thousands of dollars.  Fortunately, there are many experts.    

That exception aside, it’s now very different and, all else being equal, the most authentic collectable of its type is the one most original.  These days collectors will line up their possessions in rows to be judged by “certified judges” who, clipboards in hand will peak and poke, ticking or crossing the boxes as they go.  They’re prepared to concede the air in the tyres, the fuel in the tank and the odd speck of dust on the carpet may not be what was there when first the thing left the factory but points will be deducted for offenses such as incorrect screw heads, or a hose clap perhaps being installed clockwise rather than anti-clockwise.  Sometimes a variation from the original can’t be detected, even by a certified judge.  If a component (without a verifiable serial number) has been replaced with a genuine factory part number, if done properly that will often get a tick whereas a reproduction part from a third-party manufacturer will often have some barely discernible difference and thus get a cross.  Given the money which churns around the market, there’s a bit of an informal industry in faking authenticity and with some vehicles it is actually technically possible exactly to take a mundane version of something and emulate a more desirable model; the difference in value potentially in the millions.  In some cases however, even if technically possible, it may be functionally not: If it’s notorious that only ten copies were produced of a certain model and all have for decades been accounted for, it’s not plausible to possess and eleventh. However, there are instances where the combination of (1) the factory not maintaining the necessary records and (2) the vehicle itself not being fitted with the requisite stampings or identification plates to determine exactly what options may originally have been fitted.

Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery by Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) following Vermeer (1632-1675).

The matter of authenticity is obviously important in the art market.  Usually the critical factor is the identity of the artist.  In May 1945, immediately after the liberation from Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the authorities arrested Dutch national Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) and charged him with collaborating with the enemy, a capital crime.  Evidence had emerged that van Meegeren had during World War II sold Vermeer's Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery to Hermann Göring (1893–1946; prominent Nazi 1922-1945, Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).  His defense was as novel as it was unexpected: He claimed the painting was not a Vermeer but rather a forgery by his own hand, pointing out that as he had traded the fake for over a hundred other Dutch paintings seized earlier by the Reich Marshal and he was thus a national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator.  With a practical demonstration of his skill, added to his admission of having forged five other fake "Vermeers" during the 1930s, as well as two "Pieter de Hoochs" all of which had shown up on European art markets since 1937, he convinced the court and was acquitted but was then, as he expected, charged with forgery for which he received a one year sentence, half the maximum available to the court.  He died in prison of heart failure, brought on by years of drug and alcohol abuse.

His skills with brush and paint aside, Van Meegeren was able successfully to pass off his 1930s fakes as those of the seventeenth century painter of the Dutch baroque, Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675), because of the four years he spent meticulously testing the techniques by which as a new painting could be made to look centuries old.  The breakthrough was getting the oil-based paints thoroughly to harden, a process which naturally occurs over fifty-odd years.  His solution was to mix the pigments with the synthetic resin Bakelite, instead of oil.  For his canvas, he used a genuine but worthless seventeenth-century painting and removed as much of the picture as possible, scrubbing carefully with pumice and water, taking the utmost care not to lose the network of cracks, the existence of which would play a role in convincing many expert appraisers they were authentic Vermeers.  Once dry, he baked the canvas and rubbed a carefully concocted mix of ink and dust into the edges of the cracks, emulating the dirt which would, over centuries, accumulate.

Authentically guilty as sin: Hermann Göring in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946.

Modern x-ray techniques and chemical analysis mean such tricks can no longer succeed but, at the time, so convincing were his fakes that no doubts were expressed and the dubious Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery became Göring's most prized acquisition, quite something given the literally thousands of pieces of art he looted from Europe.  One of the Allied officers who interrogated Göring in Nuremberg prison prior to his trial (1945-1946) recorded that the expression on his face when told "his Vermeer" was a fake suggested that "...for the first time Göring realized there really was evil in this world".

So the identity of the painter matters, indeed, between 1968-2014, there was a standing institution called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), an initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (the NOW; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), the charter of which included authenticating all works attributed to the artist (Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669).  That was a conventional approach to authentication but there are others.  In the West there’s a long standing distinction between “high art” and “popular art” but not all cultures have that distinction and when the output of artists from those cultures is commoditised, what matters is ethnicity.  In Australia, the distinctive paintings categorized as “indigenous art” have become popular and are a defined market segment and what determines their authenticity is that they are legitimately and exclusively the work of indigenous artists.  The styles, of which dot painting is the best known, are technically not challenging to execute and thus easy to replicate by anyone and this has caused where non-indigenous hands have been found (or alleged) to be involved in the process.

The Times (London), 8 March 1997.

In 1997, Elizabeth Durack (1915–2000), a Western Australian disclosed that the much acclaimed works of the supposed indigenous artist “Eddie Burrup” had actually been painted by her in her studio, Eddie Burrup her pseudonym.  To make matters worse, prior to her revelation, some of the works had been included in exhibitions of Indigenous Australian art.  Although noted since the 1980s, the phrase “cultural appropriation” wasn’t then widely used outside of academia of activist communities but what Ms Durack did was a classic example of a representative of a dominant culture appropriating aspects of marginalized or minority cultures for some purpose.  Sometimes (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood, the critical part of cultural appropriation is the relationship between the hegemonic and the marginal; a white artist creating work in the style of an indigenous, colonized people and representing it in a manner which suggests it’s the product of an indigenous artist is CA.  Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009) playing Chopin on a Steinway is not; that’s cultural assimilation.  Once the truth was known, the works were removed from many galleries where they had hung and presumably the critical acclaim they had once received was withdrawn.  Both responses were of course correct.  Had Ms Durack represented the works as her own and signed them thus that would have been cultural appropriation and people could have responded as they wished but to represent them as the works of someone with a name all would interpret as that of an indigenous artist was both cultural appropriation and deceptive & misleading conduct with all that that implies.

One of the photographs run by The Australian (News Corp) in this report on the involvement of white people in the production of indigenous paintings, April 2023.

More recently, there have been accusations white staff employed in a commercial gallery where indigenous artists are employed to create paintings have been influenced, assisted or interfered with (depending on one’s view) in the production process.  According to the stories run in the Murdoch press, a white staff member was filmed suggesting some modification to an artist although whether this was thought to be on artistic grounds or at attempt to make something more resemble what sells best isn’t clear.  However, in a sense the motive doesn’t matter because the mere intervention detracts from the authenticity of the product, based as it is not on the inherent artistic merit but on the artist being indigenous.  In that the case was conceptually little different from Göring’s “Vermeer” which for years countless experts in fine art had acclaimed as a masterpiece while it hung in Carinhall, an opinion not repeated as soon as its dubious provenance was revealed.  Nor is it wholly dissimilar to the case of the replica 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO which is essentially a carbon copy of one of the 40-odd originals made (indeed it was in some ways technical superior) yet it is worth US$1.2 million while the record price for a genuine one was US$70 million.  So for a product to be thought authentic can depend on (1) that it was created by a certain individual, (2) that it was created by a member of a certain defined ethnicity or (3) that it was created by a certain institution.

Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World, circa 1505), oil on walnut by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519).

In art, authenticity is precious in many senses.  Salvator Mundi, the critics admit, is not an exceptional painting but once authenticated as the work of Leonardo, it created its own exceptionalism, in 2017 becoming the most expensive painting ever sold at public auction, attracting US$450 when offered by Christie's in New York.  The criteria for assessing the works of indigenous artists is also beneficial for them because unlike mainstream art, they’re not assessed as good or bad but merely as authentically indigenous or not.  That’s why there are no bad reviews of indigenous art or performance because the concept is (1) irrelevant, (2) such an idea is alien to indigenous peoples in Australia and (3) if expressed by white critics would represent the imposition of a Western cultural construct on a marginalized group.  Dot paintings and such are marketed through the structures of the art market because physically they’re similar objects (size & weight) to other paintings but they’re really modern, mass-produced artefacts which depend on provenance as much as a Ferrari, Leonardo or Vermeer.