Pleonasm & Tautology

Pleonasm (pronounced plee-uh-naz-uhm)

(1) In rhetoric, the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; a redundancy in wording.

(2) An instance of this, as free gift or true fact.

(3) Any redundant word or expression.

(4) In a variety of disciplines, an excess in the number or size of parts (now rare except in pathology).

1580–1590: A learned borrowing from the French pléonasme, from the Late Latin pleonasmus, from the Ancient Greek πλεονασμός (pleonasmós) (redundancy, surplus), from πλεονάζω (pleonázō) (to be superfluous), from pleonázein (to be or have more than enough (in grammatical use "superfluously to add”)), a combining form of πλείων (pleíōn) (more), from the primitive Indo-European root pele- (to fill).  The adjective pleonastic (characterized by pleonasm, redundant in language, using more words than are necessary to express an idea) dates from 1778 although sources list the related pleonastical as being in use since the 1650s.  Pleonasm is a noun, pleonastic and pleonasmic are adjectives and pleonastically & pleonasmically are adverbs; the noun plural is pleonasms.  Despite the modern practice, verb forms seem never to have evolved.

Tautology (pronounced taw-tol-uh-jee)

(1) The needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clarity of meaning.

(2) In formal logic, as a logical tautology, something true under any possible case or interpretation; it differs from the linguistic form in that in propositional logic it’s a compound propositional form in which all instances simultaneously are true.

(3) In pathology, an excess in the number or size of parts (archaic).

(4) In engineering, the addition of a strengthening device to a design in which all calculations prove it unnecessary.  By convention tautology is applied to small-scale instances whereas a redundancy tends to be larger, extending even to duplicated systems.

1570–1580: From the Late Latin tautologia (representation of the same thing in other words), from the Ancient Greek ταὐτολογία (tautología from tautologos) (a repetition of something already said (the word originally from rhetoric)), the construct being ταὐτός (tautós) (the same) + λόγος (lógos) (saying; explanation), related to legein (to say), from the primitive Indo-European root leg- (to collect, gather).  The modern version is tauto- +‎ -logy.  The origin in English of the -logy suffix lies with loanwords from the Ancient Greek, usually via Latin and French, where the suffix (-λογία) is an integral part of the word loaned (eg astrology from astrologia) since the sixteenth century.  French picked up -logie from the Latin -logia, from the Ancient Greek -λογία (-logía).  Within Greek, the suffix is an -ία (-ía) abstract from λόγος (lógos) (account, explanation, narrative), and that a verbal noun from λέγω (légō) (I say, speak, converse, tell a story).  In English the suffix became extraordinarily productive, used notably to form names of sciences or disciplines of study, analogous to the names traditionally borrowed from the Latin (eg astrology from astrologia; geology from geologia) and by the late eighteenth century, the practice (despite the disapproval of the pedants) extended to terms with no connection to Greek or Latin such as those building on French or German bases (eg insectology (1766) after the French insectologie; terminology (1801) after the German Terminologie).  Within a few decades of the intrusion of modern languages, combinations emerged using English terms (eg undergroundology (1820); hatology (1837)).  In this evolution, the development may be though similar to the latter-day proliferation of “-isms” (fascism; feminism et al).  Tautology, tautologism & tautologist are nouns, tautologize is a verb, tautologically & tautologously are adverbs and tautological, tautologic & tautologous are adjectives; the noun plural is tautologies.

A tautology is the unnecessary repetition (often in close proximity) of an idea, statement, or word in circumstances in which the meaning has already been expressed.  In the expression 4 am in the morning”, the tautology is created by morning because am (an abbreviation of the Latin ante meridiem (before noon) has already established an unambiguous meaning.  For technical reasons however the odd tautology may be required, 4 am in the morning once used for the lyrics of a pop song because, were either of the tautological elements to be removed, the rhythm of the tune would be lost.  In the same manner a poet might be moved (poets are often moved) to write of the dawn’s sunrise and that’s one word too many but the tautology might be justified if it adds to the lyrical quality (something not guaranteed in poetry).  Tautologies seem sometimes to be used to add emphasis or strengthen a meaning and thus function adjectivally.  To say completely and totally beyond my comprehension and understanding technically loses nothing if either of the two tautological pairs are pared down but the practice is common as a rhetorical device and probably often effective as long as the wordiness is restricted to the odd flourish and doesn’t infect the rest of the speech.  A device of oral use therefore but usually an absurdity in writing.

Tautologies abound but those who condemn need to consider the context and history.  The phrase PIN number has long been ubiquitous and sounds right but seems wrong once deconstructed: undo the acronym and it becomes personal identification number number; what has happened is either PIN has become a word or PIN number an encapsulated phrase.  Democratic English resolves the argument in the usual manner: pedants can have their PINs while the rest of us use pin numbers.  In commerce, tautologies are often part of what the law describes as “mere puffery”.  A phrase like absolutely unique and a one-off, something of a favorite of antique dealers, is not only a tautology but not infrequently also an untruth but in the business such things are understood.  Forgivable then in a way that the linguistic sin very unique is not often tolerated by the fastidious although strangely, quite unique seems to be, presumably because it’s a more elegant construction.

Pleonasm refers to overabundance, and is mow rarely used outside of the medical context in which it describes aspects of tissue growth.  A linguistic pleonasm is usually identified as a phrase with more words than necessary, often by being repetitive or having empty or clichéd words, but is not necessarily wrong or confusing.  At the margins the difference between tautology and pleonasm does get ragged and not all dictionaries and style guides agree.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates the difference seems to be between redundancy of expression and repetition and as a general principle that’s probably helpful, if not exhaustive.  One suggestion of a method to define a tautology is to substitute an antonym for one of the allegedly offending elements.  That works well if it creates contradictions in terms like 4 pm in the morning or the dawn’s sunset but doesn’t resolve everything.  A pleasurable delight seems a pleonasm because it uses unnecessary words to make the point and, under the test, a tautology because there are presumably no un-pleasurable delights although even then there are nuances because the rare delicacy most would enjoy as a delight might to someone with a specific allergy be not at all enjoyable.

Actually, biological reactions aside, something most would not find a delight can to others be entirely that.  In Freudian psychoanalysis, Lustprinzip (the pleasure principle) describes the driving force of the id: the human instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.  However, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders notes the existence of masochism in various forms which involve pleasure being gained from pain.  Thus the connotations of words are a subjective and not objective test for there are those for whom pleasurable pain needs to be distinguished from un-pleasurable pain, the latter a mere tautology to most.  Sexual masochism disorder (SMD) had an interesting history in the DSM.  It wasn’t in the first edition (DSM-1, 1952) but in the second edition (DSM-II 1968) the only mention of masochism was in the categorization of sexual deviations, then defined as applying to those individuals for who sexual interest was directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts not usually associated with coitus, or toward coitus performed under bizarre circumstances as in necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and fetishism.  It was noted that while many patients found their practices distasteful, they were unable to substitute normal sexual behavior and the diagnostic criteria was also exclusionary, noting the diagnosis was not appropriate for individuals who perform deviant sexual acts because normal sexual objects are not available to them.  This changed little in the third & fourth editions issued between 1980-2000 which refined the technical description and diagnostic criteria.  In the fifth editions (2013-2022), while classified as one of the paraphilias (algolagnic disorders) and thus "anomalous activity preferences", clinicians were advised a formal diagnosis of SMD was appropriate only if individual experiences clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  By 2013 the DSM seemed to be back where Freud had started.

A mammary pleonasm (or tautology depending on one's view): Jasmine Tridevil during addition and the final result.

Pleonasm should not be confused with pleomastia (now largely supplanted by polymastia in clinical use) which is the condition of having more than two mammary glands (breasts) or nipples.  It’s a rare condition which doesn’t present in the geometrically perfect example presented in 2014 by Jasmine Tridevil, the stage name of Florida massage therapist Alisha Jasmine Hessler (b 1993).  Ms Tridevil initially claimed to have had the central unit implanted by a plastic surgeon but later admitted it was a construction made substantially of latex and silicone, attached to her with surgical glue, helpfully providing photographs of the maintenance being undertaken.  However, encouraged by enjoying more than fifteen minutes of fame, in 2019 Ms Tridevil sought to crowdfund the money (apparently US$50-000) needed actually to have the surgery performed.  Progress on this project hasn’t been reported but Ms Tridevil has maintained her presence on a number of internet platforms including vlogs on topics as varied as "How to dominate your boyfriend" and “My gothic Christmas tree”.

The offence caused by unnecessary words is such that not only do tautology and pleonasm exist but for serious critics there’s also auxesis (from the Ancient Greek: αὔξησις (aúxēsis) (growth; increase (which in rhetoric references various forms of increase)) and describes exaggerated language, battology (from the Ancient Greek βαττολογία (battología) (stammering speech)) which is the repeated reiteration of the same words, phrases, or ideas and perissology (from the Latin perissologia) which is the use of more words than are necessary to convey meaning.  At the margins, there’s often a bit of overlap so care need to be taken that one’s critique of a redundant (and all the constructions are really forks of that) word or phrase doesn’t itself commit the same offence.  Grammar Nazis of course delight in faulting others when they use a tautology, some particularly pedantic even correcting other obsessives who might wrongly have tagged a tautology when really they should have perceived a pleonasm.

Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.  The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.

Sole

Sole (pronounced sohl)

(1) Being the only one; only.

(2) Being the only one of the kind; unique; unsurpassed; matchless.

(3) Belonging or pertaining to one individual or group to the exclusion of all others; exclusive.

(4) In law, un-married (archaic).

(5) The bottom or under-surface of the foot.

(6) The corresponding under part of a shoe, boot, or the like, or this part exclusive of the heel.

(7) The bottom, under surface, or lower part of anything.

(8) In carpentry, the underside of a plane.

(9) In golf, the part of the head of the club that touches the ground.

(10) A European flatfish, Solea solea.

(11) Any other flatfish of the families Soleidae and Cynoglossidae, having a hook-like snout.

1275-1325:  From the Old French soul & sol (only, alone, just), from the Vlugar Latin sola from the Late Latin sōlus (alone, only, single, sole; forsaken; extraordinary), replacing Middle English soule.  The source was the Classical Latin solea (sandal, bottom of a shoe; a flatfish), derivative of solum (base, bottom, ground, foundation, lowest point of a thing (hence “sole of the foot”)).  The Latin root begat similar words in many European languages: the Spanish suela, the Italian soglia and the Portuguese solha although, technically, the bottom of the foot is the planta, corresponding to the palm of the hand.  The Latin sōlus is of unknown origin but may be related to the primitive Indo-European reflexive root swo- from which English later gained "so".

A fossil flatfish.

The various common European flatfishes (of the ray-finned demersal order Pleuronectiformes) became known as sole in the mid-thirteenth century, an adoption of French use which followed the Latin which named the solea after the sandal because of the resemblance in shape to a flat shoe.  In English, the meaning "bottom of a shoe or boot" is from the late fourteenth century, and the cobbler’s phrase “to heal and sole a boot (or shoe)” to describe a repair or replacement is a verb form from the 1560s.  Another linguistic innovation of boot-makers was the noun insole (an inner lining of a shoe or boot affixed inside to the bottom and following exactly the shape) which appeared in 1838; it soon became known as the inner sole or inner-sole.

The use in both Church and common law to mean "single, alone, having no husband or wife” was an appropriation of form reflecting the normal, everyday meaning of the sole (one and only, singular, unique) and was first used in that context in the late fourteenth century and, in some technical uses, appeared still as late as the early nineteenth.  The adjective solely began to appear in the late fifteenth century.  A particular adjectival adoption was the direct borrowing from Latin of solus, used in the theatre for stage directions by 1590s.  It’s a masculine (the feminine is sola) but, as part of an industry-specific jargon, solus was used for both.  In certain circles, including poets and lawyers, use of the word persisted in old Latin phrases such as solus cum sola (alone with an unchaperoned woman) and solus cum solo (all on one's own” (which translates literally as "alone with alone")).

Studies of the soles of the Lindsay Lohan’s feet in three aspects.

Sole and its antecedents proved a a productive source in English, the soleus (muscle of the calf of the leg) a creation in the 1670s in the Modern Latin used in medicine and, like the fish, inspired by the similarity to the Roman shoe.  The adjective solitary (alone, living alone) was a mid-fourteenth century formation from the Old French solitaire, from the Latin solitarius (alone, lonely, isolated) from solitas (loneliness, solitude) from solus (alone).  The meaning "single, sole, only" is from 1742 and the related forms are a solitarily & solitariness.   It was a noun as early as the late 1300s but the most inventive adaptation was probably the 1690s prison slang in which it described the punishment of solitary confinement; in 1854 the phrase became an official part of the administration of jails.

Martin Luther aged 43 (1529) by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1653).

As a Reformation coinage, solus also provided theology with the 1590s solifidian (one who believes in salvation by faith alone), a tenet of Protestant Christianity based on the translation by the dissident, one-time Augustinian monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) of Romans 3:28, the construct being solus (alone) + fides (faith) from the primitive Indo-European root bheidh- (to trust, confide, persuade).  It must have been a success because solifidian was used as an adjective early in the new century; the related form is solifidianism.  Philosophy gained solipsism, the theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real and that all else must be denied.

The solo as a “piece of music for one voice or instrument” dates from the 1690s and was in English a commonly used adjective as early as 1712, although the early uses had nothing to do with music, instead referring to activities undertaken alone or unassisted.  The verb is first attested 1858 in the musical sense, 1886 in a non-musical sense and was adopted in the business of pilot training to describe a pupil’s first flight without an instructor in the cockpit.  Among those who attend rock concerts, there seems to be one faction which regards the drum solo as a highlight and one for which it's a bore to be endured.

A desolate emo.

Desolate, the emo’s standard alliterative companion to devastated, in the mid-1300s meant “a person disconsolate, miserable, overwhelmed with grief, deprived of comfort", extended later in the century to “persons without companions, solitary, lonely".  If the word didn’t exist, emos would have invented it.  By the early fifteenth century, it became applied to the natural environment to describe places, "uninhabited, abandoned" from the Latin desolatus, past participle of desolare (leave alone, desert), the construct being de- (completely) + solare (make lonely).  It’s not clear when it came also to be used as a criticism of urban, built environments (typically industrial or suburban) but it was well-established early in the twentieth century.  Desolation (sorrow, grief, personal affliction), circa 1400 meant the "action of laying waste, destruction or expulsion of inhabitants" is from the twelfth century Old French desolacion (desolation, devastation, hopelessness, despair) and directly from the Church Latin desolationem (nominative desolatio), a noun of action from the past-participle stem of desolare (leave alone, desert).  The sense of a "condition of being ruined or wasted, destruction" is from the early 1400 and the sense of "a desolated place, a devastated or lifeless region" is from 1610s.  Also emo-themed was the adjective sullen, a 1570s alteration of the Middle English soleyn (unique, singular) from the Anglo-French solein, formed on the pattern of the Old French solain (lonely), from the Latin solus.  The emo-inspired sense shift in Middle English from "solitary" to "morose" occurred in the late fourteenth century.  Solitude is from the mid-fourteenth century, from the Old French solitude (loneliness) and directly from the Latin solitudinem (nominative solitudo) (loneliness, being alone; lonely place, desert, wilderness) from solus but didn’t become common use in English until the seventeenth century.  The solitudinarian (a recluse, unsocial person) is recorded from 1690s and it’s perhaps surprising such a modern-sounding word isn’t today more popular.

Saint Augustine of Hippo (circa 1510) by Berto di Giovanni (d 1529).

The noun soliloquy is from the 1610s, from the Late Latin soliloquium (a talking to oneself", the construct being solus + loqui (to speak) from the primitive Indo-European root tolkw- (to speak).  Earlier, it appeared in a translation of the Latin Soliloquiorum libri duo a treatise by Saint Augustine (354-430), who is said to have coined the word, on analogy of Greek monologia.  The related form is soliloquent.

Exordium

Exordium (pronounced ig-zawr-dee-uhm or ik-sawr-dee-uhm)

(1) The beginning of anything.

(2) The introductory part of an oration, treatise etc.

(3) In formal rhetoric, the introductory section of a discourse in Western classical rhetoric.

(4) In legal drafting (probate), as an exordium clause, the first paragraph or sentence in a will and testament

1525–1535: From the Latin exōrdium (beginning, commencement), from exōrdīrī (I begin, commence) the construct being ex- (out of; from) + ōrd(īrī) (to begin) + -ium.  The ex- prefix was from the Middle English, from words borrowed from the Middle French, from the Latin ex (out of, from), from the primitive Indo-European eǵ- & eǵs- (out).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek ἐξ (ex) (out of, from), the Transalpine Gaulish ex- (out), the Old Irish ess- (out), the Old Church Slavonic изъ (izŭ) (out) & the Russian из (iz) (from, out of).  The “x” in “ex-“, sometimes is elided before certain constants, reduced to e- (eg ejaculate).  The –ium suffix (used most often to form adjectives) was applied as (1) a nominal suffix (2) a substantivisation of its neuter forms and (3) as an adjectival suffix.  It was associated with the formation of abstract nouns, sometimes denoting offices and groups, a linguistic practice which has long fallen from fashion.  In the New Latin, it was the standard suffix appended when forming names for chemical elements.  Exordium and exord are nouns, exordior is a verb, exordial is an adjective; the noun plural is exordiums or exordia, the choice dictated by consistency of use within a document, either the Latin or English being used in all cases where both exist.

The original meaning of the Latin exōrdium was “the warp laid on a loom before the web is begun” which entered general use as “starting point” and used liberally of physical objects, processes or abstractions.  The term came to assume a specific technical meaning when it was applied to the first of the traditional divisions of a speech established by classical rhetoricians, this later extended to many forms of literature to describe introductions, especially the opening section of a discourse or composition.  In English law, this was formalized in the law of probate as the exordium clause in wills, an opening statement of (more or less) standardized facts. In English, there are many words used to convey the same meaning including introduction, forward, preamble, abstract, (executive) summary, preface, prologue, preliminary, prelude, opening, presentation, proposition, signal, overture, preliminary, prolegomenon, prelusion & proem.  However, although English is notorious for accumulating synonyms (often with other or overlapping meanings), the language is not unique in that, the synonyms of the Latin verb exōrdior (I begin) (present infinitive exōrdīrī, perfect active exōrsus sum) including incohō, occipiō, incipiō, coepiō, ōrdior, initiō, ineō, moveō & mōlior.

The exordium clause

In common law jurisdictions a will need not contain an exordium clause, indeed, an English court once held to be valid a will which consisted of the words “All to mum” scratched on the paint of the overturned tractor which would crush to death the writer.  It was a document of interest too because the judge ruled the “mum” referred not to the deceased’s mother (as would be the prima facie assumption under the usual principles of interpretation) but instead his wife, the decision based on evidence of the man’s use of the term.  It’s said to be the shortest legitimate will in the English language although a Czech court trumped it for brevity by accepting the linguistically unambiguous Vše ženě (everything to wife) scrawled on a bedroom wall.  One might be tempted to ponder the circumstances in which that transpired.

Extract from Adolf Hitler’s last will & testament (with English translation, held by US National Archives).

Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) will contained an exordium which was unlike the prosaic list of facts familiar in English law but, in the circumstances prevailing in the Führerbunker on 29 April 1945, it was probably thought redundant to bother with things like name, address or an assertion of one’s soundness of mind although he did mention his upcoming marriage, though without naming the lucky woman.

As I did not consider that I could take responsibility, during the years of struggle, of contracting a marriage, I have now decided, before the closing of my earthly career, to take as my wife that girl who, after many years of faithful friendship, entered, of her own free will, the practically besieged town in order to share her destiny with me. At her own desire she goes as my wife with me into death. It will compensate us for what we both lost through my work in the service of my people.

He went on to the brief business of what he was leaving to his beneficiaries:

What I possess belongs - in so far as it has any value - to the Party. Should this no longer exist, to the State; should the State also be destroyed, no further decision of mine is necessary.  My pictures, in the collections which I have bought in the course of years, have never been collected for private purposes, but only for the extension of a gallery in my home town of Linz on Donau.  It is my most sincere wish that this bequest may be duly executed.

I nominate as my Executor my most faithful Party comrade, Martin Bormann.  He is given full legal authority to make all decisions. He is permitted to take out everything that has a sentimental value or is necessary for the maintenance of a modest simple life, for my brothers and sisters, also above all for the mother of my wife and my faithful co-workers who are well known to him, principally my old Secretaries Frau Winter etc. who have for many years aided me by their work.

Saving others the trouble, he thoughtfully then made the funeral and cremation arrangements.

I myself and my wife - in order to escape the disgrace of deposition or capitulation - choose death. It is our wish to be burnt immediately on the spot where I have carried out the greatest part of my daily work in the course of a twelve years' service to my people.

Page 1 of Adolf Hitler’s political testament.

As a will, Hitler’s document was valid at the time of its execution and remained so even after the dissolution German state.  Hitler’s sister Paula (1896-1960) attempted in 1952 to enforce the will in a FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, the old West Germany) court but was denied on the technical grounds that he’d not yet been declared legally dead and it wasn’t until 1960, some six months after her death, that a Federal Court in Berchtesgaden awarded her a portion of the estate.  The companion document, Hitler’s political testament, has bothered legal theorists and political scientists ever since.  Arbitrarily, Hitler reverted to the constitutional model to that which had last existed in 1934, splitting the roles of head of state (president) and government (chancellor), appointing two different people although the title of Führer remained unique to him.  He also named a new cabinet (although not all of these offices were so-filled) and the consensus among historians is that in the circumstances of the time and given the nature of the führerstaat (the leadership practices and principles in the Nazi state), the appointments were lawful between Hitler’s death and the dissolution of the German state on 8 May 1945.  It was thus a continuation of the existing entity, not a "Fourth Reich" as the last few weeks are sometimes called and certainly, there was after the dissolution no legal basis for the so-call “cabinet” which continued to meet until the members were arrested on 23 May 1945. 

Jane Austen’s (1775–1817) last will & testament.

However it’s recommended a will include an exordium clause in something like its standard form though it need not be described as such and what the clause does is list the document’s key elements including (1) the name of the person making the will (including any other names by which they may then or in the past have been known), (2) the person’s normal place of residence (expressed in full including street or flat numbers, the locality and province etc), (3) a declaration revoking any earlier wills and (4) a declaration the document is the will belonging to the named person.  The historical practice (still often seen in fiction) of (5) including a phrase like “being sound of mind and body” seems now used with less frequency but some still feature this.  In long or complex wills, all other matters may be handled in other clauses but if the matters are simple, (6) beneficiaries can be included in the exordium clause, as can (7) any other parties who may in some way be involved including issues dealing with the guardianship of minors.

What an exordium clause thus does is set out basic facts and it’s important they are written in such a way that there can be no misinterpretation or ambiguity, beneficiaries for example identified where necessary with some collateral information such as a date of birth or some other information unique to them.  A well-written exordium clause can ensure there can be no contesting of a will on the basis of factual error and seeking legal advice is recommended, even Warren Burger (1907–1995 US Chief Justice 1969-1986) causing his executor problems because the judge was a bit sloppy in his drafting.  A model example might be:

I, Lindsay Dee Lohan, born July 2, 1986, residing at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025, being sound of mind and body, declare this to be my will and I revoke any and all wills and codicils previously made.

Although not allowed in all jurisdictions, the exordium clause can work in conjunction with other clauses including (1) the residuary clause which deals with any assets which remain after the specifics of the will have been executed, (2) the in terrorem (in fear) clause which states that should a beneficiary challenge the will, they will be denied any benefits of that will, (3) the testamentary trust clause which, for various purposes, passes the estate into a trust prior to any distribution of assets and (4) a no-contest clause, a variation of the in terrorem clause in that it denies benefits to any beneficiary who challenges the will and loses, the purpose being to discourage vexatious actions or those with no prospect of success.

Only

Only (pronounced ohn-lee)

Adverb

(1) Without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively.

(2) No more than; merely; just.

(3) As recently as.

(4) In the final outcome or decision.

Adjective

(5) Being the single one or the relatively few of the kind.

(6) Having no sibling or (less common) no sibling of the same sex (also a noun in this context).

(7) Mere (obsolete).

(8) Single in superiority or distinction; unique; the best.

Conjunction

(9) But (introducing a single restriction, restraining circumstance, or the like).

(10) Except (frowned upon by some).

Pre 900: From the Middle English oonly, onli, onlych, onelich & anely, from the Old English ānlich, ānlīc & ǣnlich (like; similar; equal; unique, solitary, literally "one-like”), from the Proto-Germanic ainalīkaz (one + -ly).  It was cognate with the Old Frisian einlik, the obsolete Dutch eenlijk, the German ähnlich (similar), the Old Norse álíkr, the Old High German einlih, the Danish einlig and the Swedish enlig (unified).  Synonyms include solitary & lone in one context and peerless & exclusive in the other.  Only is a noun, adjective, adverb & conjunction, onliness, onlyer & onlier are nouns and onliest & onlest are adjectives ; the noun plural is either onlys or onlies (both rarely used).

Only’s use as an adverb (alone, no other or others than; in but one manner; for but one purpose) and a conjunction (but, except) developed in Middle English.  In English, the familiar distinction of only and alone (now usually in reference to emotional states) is unusual; in many languages the same word serves for both although Modern German has the distinction in allein/einzig.  The mid fifteenth century phrase "only-begotten" is biblical, translating Latin unigenitus and Greek monogenes; the Old English word was ancenned. The term "only child" has been in use since at least the early eighteenth century.  The derived forms were once in more frequent use than now.  Someone who only adheres to the particular thing mentioned, excluding any alternatives. Onlyism (definitely non-standard) used to be quite a thing in Christianity in matters where there were different versions of documents and among Church of England congregations (often in the same parish) some were once adamant that only a certain edition of the Book of Common Prayer was acceptable and the others represented revisionism, heresy or, worse of all, smelled of popery.  Thus there were 1549-onlyiers, 1559-onlyiers, 1562-onlyiers etc.  The same factionalism of course continues to exist in many religions (and in secular movements and institutions too) but onlier has faded from use.  The adjectives onliest & onlest (a superlative form of only used almost exclusively in the US) are now rare and onlest is used mostly in African American Vernacular English (AAVE).  

The construct of the Old English ānlīc being ān (one) + -līc (-ly), only is thus understood in Modern English as on(e) + -ly.  One was from the Middle English oon, on, oan & an, from the Old English ān (one), from the Proto-West Germanic ain, from the Proto-Germanic ainaz (one), from the primitive Indo-European óynos (single, one).  It was cognate with the Scots ae, ane, wan & yin (one); the North Frisian ån (one), the Saterland Frisian aan (one), the West Frisian ien (one), the Dutch een & één (one), the German Low German een; the German ein & eins (one), the Swedish en (one), the Norwegian Nynorsk ein (one), the Icelandic einn (one), the Latin ūnus (one) & Old Latin oinos and the Russian оди́н (odín); doublet of Uno.

The –ly prefix was from the Middle English -ly, -li, -lik & -lich, from the Old English -līċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -līk, from the Proto-Germanic -līkaz (having the body or form of), from līką (body) (from whence Modern German gained lich); in form, it was probably influenced by the Old Norse -ligr (-ly) and was cognate with the Dutch -lijk, the German -lich and the Swedish -lig.  It was used (1) to form adjectives from nouns, the adjectives having the sense of "behaving like, having a likeness or having a nature typical of what is denoted by the noun" and (2) to form adjectives from nouns specifying time intervals, the adjectives having the sense of "occurring at such intervals".

The different phonological development of only and one was part of the evolution of English.  One was originally pronounced in the way which endures in only, atone and alone, a use which to this day persists in various dialectal forms (good 'un, young 'un, big 'un et al), the long standard pronunciation "wun" emerging around the fourteenth century in southwest and west England.  William Tyndale (circa 1494–1536), who grew up in Gloucester, used the spelling “won” in his translations of the Bible which were first published between 1525-1526 and the form slowly spread until it was more or less universal by the mid-eighteenth century.  The later use as indefinite pronoun was influenced by the unrelated French on and Latin homo.

Tyndale, before being strangled and burned at the stake in Vilvoorde (Filford near Brussels).  Woodcut from The Book of Martyrs (1563) by John Foxe (circa 1516-1587).

The cardinals and bishops in England probably neither much noticed nor cared about Tyndale’s phonological choice but they certainly objected to his choice of words in translation (church became “congregation” and priest became “elder”) which appeared to threaten both the institution of the Church and the centrality to Christianity of the clerical hierarchy.  Tried for heresy in 1536, he was pronounced guilty and condemned to be burned at the stake although, for reasons not documented, he was, after a ceremonial defrocking, strangled until dead while tied to the stake, his corpse then burned.

Activist herbivore Tash Peterson (b circa 1995, centre) at a vegan protest, Perth, Australia.

Although a thing which pedants enjoy correcting, the placement of “only” as a modifier matters only if putting it one place or the other would hinder clarity; there’s never been an absolute grammatical rule and, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s probably better to adopt whatever is the usual conversational style.  Strictly speaking, although “We only fuck vegans” means an assertion of a life consisting of nothing else, most would understand it as a statement of one who is prepared to contemplate intimacy only with vegans.  The best compromise to adopt is probably that recommended for handling the split infinitive: Use the more exact “We fuck only vegans” in formal use such as in writing and the more natural, conversational “We only fuck vegans” otherwise.  Note that a sign held aloft at a protest, although obviously something “in writing” is not an example of formal use; it’s just part of the conversation.

No ambiguity: Lindsay Lohan in sweatshirt from the I Only Speak LiLohan range.

Care must be taken to avoid ambiguity, especially in writing because the intonations of speech and other visual clues are not there to assist in the conveying of meaning.  Were one to say “She only fucks vegans after midnight”, quite what is meant isn’t clear and the sentence is better rendered either as “she fucks only vegans after midnight" (ie carnivores need not apply) or “she fucks vegans only after midnight” (ie vegans must wait till the midnight hour).  In informal English, only is a common sentence connector but again, this should be avoided in formal writing where “only” should be placed directly before the word or words that it modifies.