TikToker

TikToker (pronounced tik-tok-ah)

(1) One who is a regular or frequent viewer of the content posted on the short-form video (which, with mission-creep, can in certain circumstances now be up to sixty (60) minutes in duration) sharing site TikTok.com.

(2) One who is a regular or frequent content provider on the TikTok platform.

(3) With a variety of spellings (ticktocker, tictoker, tiktoka etc), a slang term for a clock or watch, derived from the alternating ticking sound, as that made by a clock (archaic).

(4) In computing, with the spelling ticktocker (or ticktocker), slang for a software element which emulates the sound of a ticking clock, used usually in conjunction with digitals depictions of analogue clocks.

2018: The ancestor form (ticktock or tick-tock) seems not to have been used until the mid-nineteenth century and was purely imitative of the sound of mechanical clocks. Tick (in the sense of "a quiet but sharp sound") was from the Middle English tek (light touch, tap) and tock was also onomatopoeic; when used in conjunction with tick was a reference to the clicking sounds similar to those made by the movements of a mechanical clock.  The use of TikToker (in the sense of relating to users (consumers & content providers) of the short-form video (which, with mission-creep, can be up to ten (10) minutes in duration) sharing site TikTok.com probably began in 2018 (the first documented reference) although it may early have been in oral use.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  TikToker is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is TikTokers (the mixed upper & lower case is correct by commercial convention but not always followed).  The PRC- (People’s Republic of China) based holding company ByteDance is said to have chosen the name “TikTok” because it was something suggestive of the “short, snappy” nature of the platform’s content; they understood the target market and its alleged attention span (which, like the memory famously associated with goldfish might be misleading).

Billie Eilish, Vogue, June, 2021.

Those who use TikTok (whether as content providers or consumers) are called “tiktokers” and the longer the aggregate duration of one’s engagement with the platform, the more of a tiktoker one can be said to be.  The formation followed the earlier, self-explanatory “YouTuber” and the use for similar purposes (indicating association) for at least decades.  So the noun tiktoker is a neutral descriptor but it can also be used as a slur.   In February 2024, at the People’s Choice Awards ceremony held in Los Angeles, singer Billie Eilish (b 2001) was filmed leaning over to Kylie Minogue (b 1968) ,making the sotto voce remark “There’s some, like, TikTokers here…” with the sort of distaste Marie Antoinette (1755–1793; Queen Consort of France 1774-1792) might have displayed if indicating to her companion the unpleasing presence of peasants.  The clip went viral on X (formerly known as Twitter) before spreading to Tiktok.  Clearly there is a feeling of hierarchy in the industry and her comments triggered some discussion about the place of essentially amateur content creators at mainstream Hollywood (and such) events.  That may sound strange given a platform like TikTok would, prima facie, seem the very definition of the “people’s choice” but these events have their own history, associations and connotations and what social media sites have done to the distribution models has been quite a disturbance.  Many established players, even some who have to some extent benefited from the platforms, find disquieting the intrusion of the “plague of TikTokers”.

Pop Crave's clip of the moment, Billie Eilish & Kylie Minogue, People's Choice Awards ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2024.

There will be layers to Ms Eilish’s view.  One is explained in terms of mere proximity, the segregation of pop culture celebrities into “A List”, B List, D List” etc, an important component of the creation and maintenance of one’s public image and an A Lister like her would not appreciate being photographed at an event with those well up (ie down) the alphabet sitting at the next table; it cheapens her image.  Properly managed, these images can translate into millions (and these days even billions) of dollars so this is not a matter of mere vanity and something for awards ceremonies to consider; if the TikTokers come to be seen as devaluing their brand to the extent the A Listers ignore their invitations, the events either have to move to a down-market niche or just be cancelled.  Marshall McLuhan’s (1911-1980) book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) pre-dates social media by decades but its best-remembered phrase (“The medium is the message”) could have been coined for the era, the idea being the medium on which content is distributed should be the first point of understanding its significance, rather than actual content, the theory being the initial assessment of the veracity or the value of something relies on its source.  In the case of pop music, this meant a song distributed by a major label possessed an inherent credibility and prestige in a way something sung by a busker in a train station did not.  What the existence of YouTube and TikTok meant was the buskers and the artists signed to labels began suddenly to appear on the same medium, thus at some level gaining a sort of equivalency.  On TikTok, it’s all the same screen.

On trend: Lindsay Lohan announces she is now a Tiktoker.

Ms Eilish and her label have been adept at using the socials as tools for this and that so presumably neither object to the existence or the technology of the sites (although her label (Universal Music) has only recently settled its dispute with TikTok over the revenue sharing) but there will be an understanding that while there’s now no alternative to, in a sense, sharing the digital space and letting the people choose, that doesn’t mean she’ll be happy about being in the same photo frame when the trophies are handed out.  Clearly, there are stars and there are TikTokers and while the latter can (and have) become the former, there are barriers not all can cross.

1966 Jaguar Mark X 4.2 (left), 1968 Dodge Charger RT 440 (centre) and 1981 Mercedes-Benz 500 SLC (right).  Only the Americans called the shared tachometer/clock a “Tic-Toc Tach”.

Jaguar had long been locating a small clock at the bottom of the tachometer but in 1963 began to move the device to the centre of the dashboard, phasing in the change as models were updated or replaced.  By 1968 the horological shift was almost complete (only the last of the Mark II (now known as 240, 340 & Daimler V8 250) models still with the shared dial) and it was then Chrysler adopted the idea although, with a flair the British never showed, they called it the "Tic-Toc-Tachometer.  Popularly known as the “Tic-Toc Tach”, it was also used by other US manufacturers during the era, the attraction being an economical use of dash space, the clock fitting in a space at the centre of the tachometer dial which would otherwise be unused.  Mercedes-Benz picked up Jaguar's now abandoned concept in 1971 when the 350 SL (R107) was introduced and it spread throughout the range, almost universal after 1981 when production of the 600 (W100) ended; Mercedes-Benz would for decades use the shared instrument.  A tachometer (often called a “rev counter”) is a device for measuring the revolutions per minute (RPMs) of a revolving shaft such as the crankshaft of an internal combustion engine (ICE) (thus determining the “engine speed”).  The construct was tacho- (an alternative form of tachy-, from the Ancient Greek ταχύς (takhús) (rapid) + meter (the suffix from the Ancient Greek μέτρον (métron) (measure) used to form the names of measuring devices).

Conventions in English and Ablaut Reduplication

In 2016, the BBC explained why we always say “tick tock” rather than “tock-tic” although, based on the ticking of the clocks at the time the phrase originated, there would seem to be no objective reasons why one would prevail over the other but the “rule” can be constructed thus: “If there are three words then the order has to go I, A, O.  If there are two words then the first is I and the second is either A or O which is why we enjoy mish-mash, chit-chat, clip-clop, dilly-dally, shilly-shally, tip-top, hip-hop, flip-flop, tic tac, sing song, ding dong, King Kong & ping pong.  Obviously, the “rule” is unwritten so may be better thought a convention such as the one which dictates why the words in “Little Red Riding Hood” appear in the familiar order; there the convention specifies that in English, adjectives run in the textual string: opinion; size; age; shape; colour; origin; material; purpose noun.  Thus there are “little green men” but no “green little men” and if “big bad wolf” is cited as a violation of the required “opinion (bad); size (big); noun (wolf)” wolf, that’s because the I-A-O convention prevails, something the BBC explains with a number of examples, concluding “Maybe the I, A, O sequence just sounds more pleasing to the ear.”, a significant factor in the evolution of much that is modern English (although that hardly accounts for the enduring affection some have for proscribing the split infinitive, something which really has no rational basis in English, ancient or modern.  All this is drawn from what is in structural linguistics called “Ablaut Reduplication” (the first vowel is almost always a high vowel and the reduplicated vowel is a low vowel) but, being English, “there are exceptions” so the pragmatic “more pleasing to the ear” may be helpful in general conversation.

Rolls-Royce, the Ford LTD and NVH

Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud II, 1959.  Interestingly, the superseded Silver Cloud (1955-1958) might have been quieter still because the new, aluminium 6¼ litre (380 cubic inch) V8 didn’t match the smoothness & silence of the previous cast iron, 4.9 litre (300 cubic inch) straight-six, despite the V8 being remarkably heavy for something made substantially from "light metal".

The “tick-tocking” sound of a clock was for some years a feature of the advertising campaigns of the Rolls-Royce Motor Company, the hook being that: “At 60 mph (100 km/h) the loudest noise in a Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock”.  Motoring journalists did verify the claim (at least in ideal conditions) but given electric clocks can be engineered silently to function, the conclusion was the company deliberately fitted time-pieces which emitted an untypically loud “tick-tock”, just to ensure the claims were true.  The Silver Clouds were, by the standards of the time, very quiet vehicles but in the US, Ford decided they could mass-produce something quieter still and at the fraction of the cost.  Thus the 1965 Ford LTD, a blinged-up Ford (the add-on "gingerbread" at the time known as "gorp") advertised as: “Quieter than a Rolls-Royce”.  Just to ensure this wasn’t dismissed as mere puffery, Ford had an independent acoustic engineering company conduct tests and gleefully published the results, confirming what the decibel (dB) meters recorded.  Sure enough, a 1965 Ford LTD was quieter than a 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud III.  Notably, while Rolls-Royce offered only one mechanical configuration while the Ford was tested only when fitted with the mild-mannered 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) V8; had the procedure included another variation on the full-size line which used the 427 (7.0) V8, the results would have been different, the raucous 427 side oiler offering many charms but they extend to unobtrusiveness.  Not much noticed at the time was another intrusion.  Although the trend had been creeping through the industry for years, what the 1965 LTD did was make blatant Ford's incursion into the market territory once reserved for the corporate stablemate, Mercury, the "middle class" brand between Ford & Lincoln.  This would have consequences and become one of the reasons Mercury no longer exists.

1965 Ford LTD (technically a “Galaxie 500 LTD” because in the first season the LTD was a Galaxie option, not becoming a stand-alone model until the 1966 model year).

Ford justly deserves credit for what was achieved with the 1965 full-sized range because it wasn’t an exercise merely in adding sound insulation.  The previous models had a good reputation for handling and durability but couldn’t match the smoothness and ride of competitive Chevrolets so within Ford was created a department dedicated to what came to be called HVH (Noise, Vibration & Harshness) and this team cooperated in what would now be understood as a “multi-disciplinary” effort, working with body engineers and suspension designers to ensure all components worked in harmony to minimize NVH.  What emerged was a BoF (Body on Frame) platform (a surprise to some as the industry trend had been towards unitary construction) to ensure the stiffest possible structure but the combination of the frame’s rubber body-mounts, robust torque boxes and a new, more compliant, coil-spring rear suspension delivered what even the competition's engineers (though probably not the sales staff) acknowledged was the industry’s quietest, smoothest ride.  Ford didn’t mention the tick-tock of the clock.

Cartnaping

Cartnaping (pronounced kahrt-nap-ing)

(1) In retail industry slang, the act of customers taking a shopping cart (in some markets a “shopping trolley, buggy, trundler etc”) beyond the designated confines (usually a car-park).

(2) In slang, a customer (now presumed to be a “Karen”) who purloins another’s (empty) shopping cart for their own use, usually when no others conveniently are to hand.

1990s: First recorded in California on the model of “kidnaping”, the construct being cart + nap + -ing.  In much non-US use, the spelling would usually be “cartnapping”.  Historically, a cart was a small, open, wheeled vehicle, drawn or pushed by a person or animal and used usually for transporting goods (although many passenger transports (often towed) have been described thus.  Go-carts (also as go-kart), the small motor vehicles, powered by lawn-mower or motorcycle engines remain one of the most popular platforms in entry-level motorsports although the sport no prefers they be called “karts”.  Cart was from the Middle English cart & kart, from the Old Norse kartr (wagon; cart), akin to the Old English cræt (chariot; cart), from the Proto-Germanic krattaz, krattijô & kradō, from the primitive Indo-European gret- (tracery; wattle; cradle; cage; basket), from ger- (to turn, wind).  It was cognate with the West Frisian kret (wheelbarrow for hauling dung), the Dutch krat & kret (crate; wheelbarrow for hauling dung), the German Krätze (basket; pannier); the most obvious wider cognate was the Sanskrit ग्रन्थ (grantha) (a binding).

In English the familiar meaning of “nap” is “to sleep for a brief time, especially during the day”.  In that sense, nap was from the Middle English nappen, from the Old English hnappian (to doze, slumber, sleep), from the Proto-West Germanic hnappōn (to nap) and was cognate with the Old High German hnaffezan & hnaffezzan (from which Middle High German gained nafzen (to slumber), source of the German dialectal napfezen & nafzen (to nod, slumber, nap).  In this sense, “nap” is used figuratively, often in the phrase “caught naping” which suggests being “caught off guard (in military conflicts, sporting competitions etc.  However, one of the other meanings of “nap” was “to grad; to nab”) and while the use is long extinct as a stand-alone word, as an element it endures in “kidnap” (and the derived “cartnap”, “catnap” etc).  In that sense the source of “nap” is murky but it was probably of North Germanic origin, from the Old Swedish nappa (to pluck, pinch).  The suffix –ing was from the Middle English -ing, from the Old English –ing & -ung (in the sense of the modern -ing, as a suffix forming nouns from verbs), from the Proto-West Germanic –ingu & -ungu, from the Proto-Germanic –ingō & -ungō. It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian -enge, the West Frisian –ing, the Dutch –ing, The Low German –ing & -ink, the German –ung, the Swedish -ing and the Icelandic –ing; All the cognate forms were used for the same purpose as the English -ing).  Cartnaping & cartnap are nouns & verbs, cartnaper is a noun and cartnaped is a verb; the noun plural is cartnapings and although also rare, cartnapers is more widely used, usually on internet “shaming” sites which document the devices abandoned or dumped in streets, waterways, parks etc.

How it all began: US Patent 2,196,914.

Although it’s clear such things had been used in many cultures for millennia, as a mass-produced commodity, the modern shopping cart was “invented” by Sylvan Goldman (1898-1984) an Oklahoma-based supermarket mogul.  It was in 1936, during the Great Depression, that Mr Goldman built his first prototypes and the following year, he began a trial of the devices in his chain of Humpty Dumpty grocery stores.  Although the early take-up rate was “sluggish”, by 1938, when he filed a patent application for his original design (“a combination basket and carriage”) the things had becoming popular with customers and in April 1940 the US Patent and Trademark Office granted US Patent 2,196,914 (Folding Basket Carriage for Self-Service Stores).

Sylvan Goldman with shopping cart, 1960.

The utility was so obvious that shopping carts rapidly became features of large shopping centres throughout the nation and he soon added features, most famously as “baby seat” although the implementation of that would probably shock & appal today’s H&S (health & safety) regulators.  In the post-war years the shopping carts multiplied by the million because of a then unique combination of circumstances in the US economy: (1) widespread prosperity, (2) a shift of population from town centres to (often newly developed) remote suburbs, (4) clusters of those suburbs being serviced by large shopping centres & supermarkets and (4) multi-vehicle households which meant women had begun to drive to shop.  What the shopping centres tended to do was provide a space in which all a week’s shopping could be done in one place, purchases collected by customers who parked their car in a vast car park and it was the shopping cart which made this structural model possible.

1964 GM Runabout show car with obligatory white, happily married, middle-class woman with one of her 2.8 children (who were always well-behaved).  Note the child's white gloves, a wise parental precaution (even pre-COVID-19) given the volume of pathogens found on the typical supermarket shopping cart.

One refinement to the concept was the GM Runabout, displayed at the General Motors Futurama Exhibit the 1964 New York World's Fair.  The three-wheeled car was able to seat two adults and three children (approximately the size projected for the “average” white, middle-class US family of the late 1960s) and was optimized for ease of handling, the single front wheel able (at low speeds) to turn through 180^o.  The target market was made obvious by its most innovative feature: two fitted shopping carts which slotted into the rear bodywork, the wheels and lower assembly folding away when locked into position.  That might seem superfluous given supermarkets provided such things but the advantage was the carts could also be used at home, obviating the need to make several trips between car and kitchen.  The retail industry presumably would have liked to have seen the idea catch on because, having already off-loaded onto the customer the task of carrying the groceries to the car, it would have meant they could do away with most of their own stock of carts, needing only a few for those who needed to take their goods as far as a taxi.  The poor, able to afford neither cab nor car would just have to work it out.

Mitt Romney (b 1947; Republican nominee in the 2012 US presidential election, US senator (Republican-Utah) 2019-2025, left), buying 12-packs of caffeine-free Diet Coke and Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi, Hunter's Shop and Save, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, August 2012.  Lindsay Lohan, shopping in Beverley Hills in December 2007 (right), uses a shopping cart because a half-dozen 500 ml (16.9 fl oz) bottles of Evian water are heavier than they look and maybe she thought she was buying "heavy water" (in inorganic chemistry, water containing deuterium instead of normal hydrogen (protium) and used as a moderator in nuclear reactors).  Neither Mitt nor Lindsay have ever been accused of cartnaping.

Mormons are not allowed to do anything “evil” (though it's rumored some do and scandalously, there are Mormons with OnlyFans pages) and the Doctrine and Covenants (the D&C (1835); referred to usually as the Word of Wisdom) is the scriptural canon of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), section 89 of which provides dietary guidelines which prohibit, inter alia, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and hot drinks (ie tea & coffee).  This index of forbidden food accounts not only for why noted Mormon Mitt Romney usually looks so miserable but also why manufacturers of chocolate, candy & soda have long found Utah a receptive and lucrative market; other than joyful singing, the sugary treats are among their few orally enjoyed pleasures.  Despite all that and being restricted to caffeine-free soda, Mitt still knows how to have a good time.  

Dumped in the wild: victims of cartnaping. 

Carts built into cars never reached the market so the shopping cart remained ubiquitous, thus the emergence of the crime of “cartnaping”, a poorer demographic (such as university students with carts loaded with beer & frozen pizzas) sneaking from the store, using their cart to carry the load all the way home.  So the students got their beer and pizza but now had the problem of disposing of an unwanted cart and waiting for darkness to fall before dumping the things in local parks, waterways or underpasses was a popular solution.  Because there were so many drunkard, cartnaping students, it became a real problem (1) for the environment and (2) for the stores which paid several hundred dollars for each sturdy cart.  One early response was to pay third-party contractors a “fee per cart recovered” but more recently there have been measures to prevent cartnaping including electronic devices which make it difficult to push the things beyond a certain point and a deposit scheme in which a low-denomination coin is inserted to gain use, the money refunded when the cart is returned.  The latest approach is to require a swipe with a credit card or phone, not to extract a payment but to register the name of the user and local authorities have a variety of schemes to address the problem including a "report-a-cart hotline" and regimes under which stores are fined for each of their carts found "in the wild".

Lex powering through the pharmacy section, dreading the next turn in the aisle.

Strangely, despite Australia having been founded as a convict society (something which in time became a matter of national pride and in some suburbs an inter-generational inheritance), when it came to the design of the shopping trolley (local term for the shopping cart), it was done in a way making cartnaping easier.  The difference between the US original and the Australian adaptation recently was explained by expat US TikToker Lex in Wonderland who noted the critical difference occurred to her when she realized the reason she was struck with dread when “…having to make a turn at the supermarkets; I suck at it and of course the story in my head is everyone’s watching me and they know I am a foreigner.”  This feeling was induced by Australian trolleys having all four wheels able to rotate through 360^o while on US carts the rear units are locked in place.  The observant TikToker explained the counterintuitive: “You’d think this would make it harder to manoeuvre but it’s quite the opposite!”, adding “What’s funny is the majority of Aussies agree that the trolleys here are difficult to manoeuvre.  I was shocked at just how many agreed with me.  We all share the same struggle.”  However, the Australian shopping experience turned out to be not all bad, Lex noting the supermarkets were smaller than those in her home town of Houston, Texas, the advantage of the “smaller shop vibe” being “not as burdened with decision fatigue”, a less extreme version of what shopping was like behind the Iron Curtain.  Her experience would not be wholly shared by all US residents because "everything is bigger in Texas" but for at least those from big cities the difference in scale often would be obvious.  So there are advantages and disadvantages between hemispheres but what Lex left unexplored was the way cartnaping is easier down under, the US carts ideal for smooth, flat surfaces (shops & car parks) but not as suited to negotiating the less predictable topography beyond where the “four wheel steering” of an Australian trolley aids controllability.