Ambiguous

Ambiguous (pronounced am-big-yoo-uhs)

(1) Open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal.

(2) In linguistics, of an expression exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions.

(3) Of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify.

1528: From the late Middle English ambiguous (of doubtful or uncertain nature, open to various interpretations) Latin ambiguus (moving from side to side, of doubtful or uncertain nature, open to various interpretations), from ambigere (to dispute about (figuratively "to hesitate, waver; be in doubt" and literally “to wander; go about; go around”) the present active infinitive of ambigō from ambi (around) +‎ agō or agere (I drive, move).  The first known citation in English is in the writings of Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) in 1528 but most scholars maintain the noun ambiguity had been in use since circa 1400 in the sense of "uncertainty, doubt, indecision, hesitation", from the Old French ambiguite and directly from Latin ambiguitatem (nominative ambiguitas) (double meaning, equivocalness, double sense), the noun of state from ambiguus (having double meaning, doubtful),  The meaning "obscurity in description" emerged in the early fifteenth century.  The adjective unambiguous dated from the 1630s while the noun disambiguation (removal of ambiguity) is documented since 1827.  Ambiguous is an adjective, ambiguate is a verb and ambiguity, ambiguation & ambiguousness are nouns; the most common noun plural is ambiguities. 

Structural ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity & lexical ambiguity

One of the core concepts in structural linguistics is that the meaning of many combination or words (ie a compound, sentence or phrase) is derived not merely from the meanings of the individual words but also from the way in which they’re combined.  It’s a simple idea which academics have managed to make sound complex, calling the process “compositionality” (that meaning is a construct of word meanings plus morphosyntactic structures).  So, because a structure can contribute to meaning, it follows that changing the order of the words can lead to a different meaning even if the same words are used.  When a word, phrase, or sentence has more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and “ambiguous” has a specific meaning in structural linguistics because it doesn’t mean simply that a meaning is vague or unclear: It means two or more distinct meanings are available and this is called structural ambiguity or syntactic ambiguity (as distinct from when a word has more than one distinct meaning which is known as lexical ambiguity.  Sometimes, the intended meaning can be unclear but often context can be used to assist the deconstruction.  When in December 2017, several news outlets reported, “Lindsay Lohan bitten by snake on holiday in Thailand”, few actually believed serpents take holidays and assumed instead grammatical standards had fallen since sub-editors went extinct.

China, the renegade province of Taiwan and strategic ambiguity

Taiwan (aka Formosa) is an island off the coast of China which separated, politically, from the mainland in 1949.  The Chinese government regards Taiwan as “a renegade province”; the island’s administration maintains a position of structural autonomy without actually declaring independence.  Since 1950, the US has maintained a security guarantee for the de facto independence of Taiwan which has been sometimes explicit, sometimes vague, the latter paradigm known as a policy of strategic ambiguity.

The origins of the guarantee lie in the Korean War.  In 1950, Dean Acheson (1893–1971; US secretary of state 1949-1953) delineated the US security perimeter in Asia and included neither Taiwan nor South Korea.  Chinese leader Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong 1893–1976; chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 1949-1976) and Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994), in an interpretation endorsed by their senior partner, Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953), concluded Washington would not defend either country.  The DPRK acted first, invading South Korea in June 1950 which shocked the US into assembling a military response under the flag of the UN and, fearing further Communist incursions in Asia, sent the Seventh Fleet to deter any attempt by Peking to invade Taiwan.

In 1954, China probed US policy by shelling some Taiwanese islands in what came to be known as the First Taiwan Strait Crisis; the US responded by entering into defense treaties with both Taiwan and South Korea.  The probing continued, notably with the second crisis in 1958 and in the 1960 presidential campaign, both candidates, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963), pledged to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression.  During the 1960s, in a kind of military choreography, US-China standoffs continued.  By 1972, things had changed.  The US sought China’s assistance, both to extricate themselves from the quagmire of the Vietnam War and to become something of a strategic partner against the USSR, Peking having long split from Moscow.  In a communique issued from Shanghai, Washington affirmed Peking’s “one China” principle that Taiwan is part of China saying it was a matter for China and Taiwan to work out the relationship peacefully. 

The nine dash line.

Despite that, the US-Taiwan Treaty remained but it needed now to be viewed in the context of Richard Nixon's Guam Doctrine, issued in 1969, in which the president noted "…the US would assist in the defense… of allies and friends" but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world."  For Taiwan, and presumably everyone else, strategic ambiguity thus began.  Seven years after the Shanghai statement, later, the Carter administration recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC, the old Red China), severed formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan and terminated the treaty.  Strategic ambiguity has shrouded Washington’s position on Taiwan ever since.  US presidents have on occasion suggested both something more robust and something less so it appears to remain the position that the US might defend Taiwan were China to invade but it might not.  It would depend on the circumstances.  For seventy-odd years, the US position has been enough to deter China from exercising the military option to restore the renegade province to the motherland but a multi-dimensional chess game will play-out over the next decade in the South China Sea.

Twelvemonth & Year

Twelvemonth (pronounced twelve-month)

Twelve months (one year).

Pre 1050: From the Middle English twelmonth, twelfmonthe, twelfmonþe or twelv′munth, from the Old English twelfmōnþ or twelfmōnaþ.  The construct was twelve +‎ month. Twelve was from the Middle English twelve, from the Old English twelf (twelve), from the Proto-Germanic twalif, an old compound of twa- (two) + -lif (left over (in the sense of the two left over after having already counted to ten)) from the primitive Indo-European leyp- (leave, remain). It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian tweelf, tweelif & tweelich (twelve), the West Frisian tolve (twelve), the Dutch twaalf (twelve), the German & Low German twalf & twalv (twelve), the German zwölf (twelve), the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian tolv (twelve) and the Icelandic tólf (twelve).  Month was from the Middle English month & moneth, from the Old English mōnaþ (month), from the Proto-Germanic mēnōþs (month), from the primitive Indo-European mḗhins (moon, month), probably from meh- (to measure), a reference to the moon's phases as the measure of time, the construct understood as moon +‎ -th.  It was cognate with the Scots moneth (month), the North Frisian muunt (month), the Saterland Frisian mound (month), the Dutch maand (month), the Low German Maand & Monat (month), the German Monat (month), the Danish and Norwegian Bokmål måned (month), the Norwegian Nynorsk & Swedish månad (month), the Icelandic mánuði (month), the Latin mēnsis (month), the Ancient Greek μήν (mḗn), the Armenian ամիս (amis), the Old Irish mí and the Old Church Slavonic мѣсѧць (měsęcĭ).  Twelvemonth is a noun; the noun plural is twelvemonths.

The adverb was twelvemonthly which is not the same as twelve-monthly, another ill-defined construction which originally meant one thing annually done but was used by some in the sense of something done every month of the year.  It’s now regarded as an archaic or dialect word for year and seen only in historic texts or as a literary device. In the mid-twentieth century there was movement among some to offer it as a way offering more precision in language, the notion being that year would describe a calendar year (eg 1999) whereas September 1998-August 1999 would be a twelvemonth.  The idea never caught on.

Year (pronounced yeer)

(1) A period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into twelve calendar months, now reckoned as beginning 1 January and ending 32 December (the calendar or civil year).  The 366 day leap year happens (with a few exceptions) every four years; 29 February being the quadrennial addition.  The leap year (mostly) fixes the calendar and maintains it at the same length, mechanics of adjustments described in Medieval Latin as saltus lunae (omission of one day in the lunar calendar every 19 years) which in the Old English was monan hlyp. 

(2) A period of approximately the same length in other calendars; The traditional Chinese calendar, which determines the date of the Lunar New Year, is lunisolar (based on the cycle of the moon as well as on Earth's course around the sun).  A month on this Chinese calendar is 28 days long, and a normal year lasts between 353-355 days.  Other methods of calculation include from Tishiri 1 to Elul 29 in the Jewish calendar, and from Muharram 1 to Dhu al-Hijjah 29 or 30 in the Islamic.

(3) A period of 12 calendar months calculated from any point.

(4) In astronomy, also called the lunar year, a division of time equal to twelve lunar months and equal to 354.3671 days

(5) In astronomy, as tropical year (also known as a solar or astronomical year), the time the Sun takes to return to the same position in the cycle of seasons, as seen from Earth and equal to 365.242 (eg the time from vernal equinox to vernal equinox, or from summer solstice to summer solstice).

(6) In astronomy, as sidereal year, the time taken by the Earth to orbit the Sun once with respect to the fixed stars (equal to 365.256).  Hence, it is also the time taken for the Sun to return to the same position with respect to the fixed stars after apparently travelling once around the ecliptic; the time in which any planet completes a revolution round the Sun (eg the Martian year).

(7) With various modifiers (fiscal year, liturgical year, academic year et al), a period out of every twelve months, devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like.

(8) A group of students entering school or college, graduating, or expecting to graduate in the same year (as in class of 2020).

(9) In English common law as legal year, a measure equal to a year and a day, the period fixed to ensure the completion of a full year. It was used in admiralty law to determine the time within which wrecks had to be claimed and in the criminal law to determine liability in murder cases; if the victim of an assault lived a year and a day from the assault, the perpetrator could not be charged with murder, even were the victim subsequently to die from his injuries.  The rule was translated to statute law in some jurisdiction and was repealed only because of advances in medical care and technology.

Pre 900: From the Middle English yeer, from the Old English gēar, gearlic & gear (yearly, of the year, annual).  It was related to the Gothic jēr, the Old Saxon & Old High German jār, the Old Norse ār (year), the Polish jar (springtime), the Latin hōrnus (of this year), the Dutch jaar, the German Jahr, the Gothic jēr and the Greek hôros (hṓrā) (year, season, part of a day, hour).  The alternative spellings were yeare, yeer, yeere & yere, all long obsolete.  Year & yearling are nouns and yearly is a noun, adjective & adverb; the common noun plural is years.

Twelvemonth does still get the odd use, usually as a novelty or deliberate anachronism.

Year-long (also yearlong) dates from 1813, year-round from 1917 and as an adverb from 1948.  The light-year (also lightyear), the distance light travels in one year (circa 5.87 trillion miles (944 trillion km)) was first defined in 1888.  Yearling (an animal a year old or in its second year) is attested from the mid-fifteenth century, the noun year-old in this sense being from the 1530s.  Yearbook (also year-book) dates from the 1580s as (book of reports of cases in law-courts for that year), the sense extended to other books of “accumulated events and statistics of the previous year" by 1710.  The first used in the sense of a “graduating class album" is attested from 1926, an invention of American English.  The Dutch schrikkeljaar (leap year) is from the Middle Dutch schricken (leap forward) which translates literally as "be startled, be in fear" and the 29 February is schrikkeldag.  The Danish skudaar & Swedish skottår translate literally as "shoot-year”; The German schaltjahr is from schalten (insert, intercalate) and the Late Latin phrase was annus bissextilis, source of the Romanic words.  One quirk in modern commerce is that payrolls tend to be administered in weekly or multiples of weekly cycles and for most purposes there are 52 weeks in a year.  However, the year (to four decimal places) is actually about 52.1775 weeks long so, every thirteen years-odd, accountants often have to ensure provision has been made for an additional payroll period; modern software has solved the problem for most.

Many rules have been suggested to avoid any ambiguity when writing the year in text but the best method is simply to write if out in full (1999-2002).  There have been publications with rules which differ under different circumstances but any technical need to limit the number of characters used has long gone and the simple form avoids any ambiguity.  Should the need arise of to write using the tags BD and AD, it also important to choose a style that avoids ambiguity.  AD (anno domini (Latin: in the year of the lord), refers to the birth of Jesus Christ, the year 1 AD (somewhat inaccurately but notionally) being his year of birth, and anything tagged BC (before Christ) being the years prior, counted backwards and starting at 1 BC, there being no year zero (which is a nuisance because it means not all the twentieth century consists of years numbered 19xx, the last year of the century being 2000; 1 January 2001 being the first day of the new century and millennium).  Classically, the convention in English was to place the letters BC after the year and AD before.  That was so the written word would pay tribute to the spoken, the common expression in formal and ecclesiastical use being "in the year of our Lord 2021".  That’s now rare and it may be preferable to use the suffixed (55 BC, 2021 AD) for both.  The alternatives to BC &AD are BCE (before common era) & CE (common era), the years exactly aligned and, although there seems no accepted convention about where the letters are placed, use should be consistent.

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.

Scum

Scum (pronounced skuhm)

(1) A film or layer of foul or extraneous matter that forms on the surface of a liquid as a result of natural processes such as the greenish film of algae and similar vegetation on the surface of a stagnant pond

(2) A layer of impure matter that forms on the surface of a liquid as the result of boiling or fermentation

(3) A low, worthless, or evil person.

(4) Such persons collectively.

(5) An alternative name for scoria, the slag or dross that remains after the smelting of metal from an ore.

1200–1250: From the Middle English scume, derived from the Middle Dutch schūme (foam, froth) cognate with German schaum, ultimately of Germanic origin, drawn from the Old High German scūm and Old French escume.  In Old Norse word was skum, thought derived from the primitive root (s)keu (to cover, conceal).  By the early fourteen century, the word scummer (shallow ladle for removing scum) had emerged in Middle Dutch, a borrowing from the Proto-Germanic skuma, the sense deteriorated from "thin layer atop liquid" to "film of dirt," then just "dirt" and from this use is derived the modern skim.  The meaning "lowest class of humanity" is from the 1580s; the familiar phrase “scum of the earth” from 1712.  In modern use, the English is scum, French écume, Spanish escuma, Italian schiuma and Dutch schuim.  Scum is a noun & verb and scumlike & scummy are adjectives; the noun plural is scums.

The Society for Cutting Up Men: The S.C.U.M. Manifesto

S.C.U.M.  Manifesto (1968 Edition).

Although celebrated in popular culture as the summer of love, not everyone shared the hippie vibe in 1967.  The S.C.U.M. Manifesto was a radical feminist position paper by Valerie Solanas (1936-1988), self-published in 1967 with a commercial print-run a year later.  Although lacking robust theoretical underpinnings and criticized widely within the movement, it remains feminism’s purest and most uncompromising work, an enduring landmark in the history of anarchist publishing.  In the abstract, S.C.U.M. suggested little more than the parlous state of the word being the fault of men, it was the task of women to repair the damage and this could be undertaken only if men were exterminated from the planet.  The internal logic was perfect. 

The use of S.C.U.M. as an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men existed in printed form from 1967 (though not in the manifesto’s text) although Solanas later denied the connection, adding that S.C.U.M. never existed as an organization and was just “…a literary device”.  The latter does appear true, S.C.U.M. never having a structure or membership, operating more as Solanas’ catchy marketing label for her views.  Calling it a literary device might seem pretentious but, given her world-view, descending to the mercantile would have felt grubby.  That said, when selling the original manifesto, women were charged US$1, men US$2.

While perhaps not as elegant an opening passage as a Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) might have penned, Solanas’ words were certainly succinct.  "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.”  Ominously, “If S.C.U.M. ever strikes” she added, “it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.”  No ambiguity there, men would know what to expect.

On set, 1967, Andy Warhol (1928-1987) & Nico (1938-1988).

Author and work were still little-known outside anarchist circles when in 1968 Solanas attempted to murder Andy Warhol, firing three shots, one finding the target.  Despite her comments in the aftermath linking the manifesto to the shooting, her motive was a dispute between the two over copyright and money rather than anything political or artistic.  In hospital for months, Warhol never fully recovered; Solanas, although found to be a paranoid schizophrenic, was judged fit to stand trial and served three years for "reckless assault with intent to harm".  Warhol died in 1987, Solanas a few months later.  Her fame lasted beyond fifteen minutes and in certain feminist and anarchist circles she remains a cult figure although, it takes some intellectual gymnastics to trace a lineal path from her manifesto to the work of even the more radical of the later-wave feminists such as Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005), Susan Brownmiller (b 1935) and Catharine MacKinnon (b 1946).

Rendezvous: David Low's (1891-1963) famous take on the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov (Nazi-Soviet) Pact.  Although Low at the time couldn't have known it, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) was sensitive to public opinion and when presented with the draft text of the pact, decided the rather flowery preamble extoling German-Soviet friendship was just too absurd, telling the visiting delegation that "...after years of pouring buckets of shit over each-other...", it'd be more convincing were the document to be as formal as possible. 

Oral & Verbal

Oral (pronounce awr-uhl or ohr-uhl)

(1) Uttered by the mouth; spoken.

(2) Of, using, or transmitted by speech.

(3) Of, relating to, or involving the mouth.

(4) Done, taken, or administered through the mouth.

(5) In phonetics, articulated with none of the voice issuing through the nose, as the normal English vowels and the consonants b and v.

(6) In psychoanalysis, of or relating to the earliest phase of infantile psychosexual development, lasting from birth to one year of age or longer, during which pleasure is obtained from eating, sucking, and biting.

(7) In psychology, of or relating to the sublimation of feelings experienced during the oral stage of childhood.

(8) In zoology, pertaining to that surface of polyps and marine animals that contains the mouth and tentacles.

1620–1625: From the Late Latin oralis, from ōr, the stem of ōs (genitive oris) (mouth, opening, face, entrance), from the primitive Indo-European root os & ous (mouth) and cognate with the Sanskrit āsya, asan & asyam (mouth, opening), the Avestan ah, the Hittite aish, the Old Norse oss (mouth of a river) and the Old English or (beginning, origin, front).  The meaning in psychology is from 1910, the sexual sense first recorded by US professor of zoology Alfred Kinsey (1894–1956) in his two seminal reports on human sexuality, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) & Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) (usually referred to as "the Kinsey Reports") although, few doubt the actual acts had been practiced for sometime prior.  The noun use is attested from 1876.  Oral is a noun & adjective, oralize is a verb, oralization is a noun & orally is an adverb; the noun plural is orals.

Verbal (pronounced vur-buhl)

(1) Of or relating to words.

(2) Consisting of or in the form of words.

(3) Consisting of or expressed in words (as opposed to actions).

(4) As a technical use in linguistics, of, relating to a word, particularly a noun or adjective, derived from a verb.  Alternative form is verbid.

(5) In formal grammar, used in a sentence as or like a verb, as participles and infinitives.

(6) In the plural, modern slang term of abuse or invective.

(7) A slang term for a criminal's (real or faked) admission of guilt on arrest or under interrogation (the idea of “putting words in the mouth”).

1483: From the Middle English verbal, from the Old French verbal, from the Latin verbālis (belonging to a word; consisting of words) the construct being verb(um) (word) + ālis (the Latin suffix which, when added to a noun or numeral, forms an adjective of relationship with that noun or numeral).  The phrase verbal conditioning dates from 1954 and the colloquial "verbal diarrhea" (needlessly or excessively loquacious) was noted as early as 1823 and then in relation to speech which hints at the long tradition of the word being used in places pedants would have insisted on "oral".  Verbal is a noun, verb & adjective, verballed is a verb, verballing & verbilization are nouns, verbalize is a verb and verbally is an adverb; the noun plural is verbals.

Oral or Verbal?

Lindsay Lohan, Speak (Casablanca Records, 2004).  Usually, whether text is oral or verbal hangs on whether it was spoken.

The classical distinction is that verbal applies to anything put into words, whether written or spoken, while oral pertains to the mouth, like medications taken by mouth and things spoken; the homophone “aural” is related to the sense of hearing.  Whether or not because of oral’s prurient associations, it’s one of those rules modern grammar Nazis like to try to enforce but verbal and oral have become so inextricably conflated that the tautological phrase “verbal and written” has become entrenched and verbal has enjoyed the meaning “spoken” since the late sixteenth century.  There’s a contested attestation of verbal meaning “composed of words” from 1530 but the first confirmed use meaning “conveyed by speech” is “verbale sermons” in 1589 and it was common by 1617 when a description of advocates before a court was phrased “… the Chamber of the Pallace where verball appeales are decided”.

Something like phone sex can be helpfully illustrative.  The provider in speaking is selling a service delivered orally but it's not "oral sex" because that depends on physical contact and phone sex is too remote; even if oral sex comes up un conversation, over the phone it's still not and is just an emulation delivered orally.  Of course, provider & customer can make arrangements to meet and enjoy oral sex in its accepted sense and that would be a contact, entered into by both parties on the basis of oral statements and it’s probably only in law the distinction between oral a verbal remains important.  In contract law, a contract is often verbal, indeed is frequently reduced to writing but contracts can be created in other ways, either by conduct alone or by oral statements, both of which can be enough in the absence of anything in writing.  A plaintiff issuing a writ alleging a verbal contract exists can expect to be asked to produce the appropriately executed document; if they meant there was just a discussion between the parties, they should avoid any ambiguity by claiming the existence of an oral contract.  This is often done when offering evidence to argue the conduct of a party being such that a contract by acquiescence has been created.

Duplicity

Duplicity (pronounced doo-plis-i-tee or dyoo-plis-i-tee)

(1) Deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.

(2) An act or instance of such deceitfulness.

(3) In law, the act or fact of including two or more offenses in one count, or charge, as part of an indictment, thus violating the requirement that each count contain only a single offense.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Old French duplicite, from the Late Latin duplicitatem (nominative duplicitas (doubleness)).  Technically, the word wa borrowed from Latin duplicāre (double), present active infinitive of duplicō and the Medieval Latin duplicitās differed with ite replacing itās.  The notion is of being "double" in one's conduct ultimately is derived from the Ancient Greek diploos (treacherous, double-minded) which translates literally as "twofold, double".  Related in Medieval Latin was ambiguity, noun of quality from duplex, genitive (duplicis (two-fold)).

Duplicity good and bad

Because such conduct is inherent to human interaction, there are many words either similar in meaning or a synonym of duplicity.  Duplicity is the form of deceitfulness that leads one to give two impressions, either or both of which may be false.  Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading.  The quality of guile leads to craftiness in the use of deceit; one uses guile and trickery to attain one's ends. Hypocrisy is the pretence of possessing virtuous qualities such as sincerity, goodness or devotion.  Fraud refers usually to the practice of subtle deceit or duplicity by which one may derive benefit at another's expense.  Trickery is the quality that leads to the use of tricks and habitual deception.  In modern English usage, the most common sense of duplicity is “deceitfulness.”  The roots of this meaning are in the initial dupl from the Latin duplex (twofold, or double).  We do seem a duplicitous lot.

Alexander Haig (1924–2010; US Secretary of State 1981-1982) & Ronald Reagan (1911–2004; US President 1981-1989) (left) and Lord Carrington (1919–2018; UK Foreign Secretary 1979-1982) & Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK Prime Minister 1979-1990) (right).

To accuse someone duplicity is usually to allege or suggest something negative, the idea that someone has acted in a manner perhaps not dishonest but certainly misleading or dishonorable.  However there are fields of endeavor where the successfully duplicitous are often admired and the most Machiavellian can be held in awe.  In international relations, it’s true in the upper reaches of diplomacy.

Duplicity, art and science: Haig and Carrington, the White House, 26 February 1981.

More than General Colin Powell (b 1937; US Secretary of State 2001-2005) and more even than General Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969; US President 1953-1961), General Alexander Haig (1924-2010) was an exemplar of that uniquely Washington DC creature, the political soldier, whose career shuttled between the military, diplomacy and politics.  After a meeting in 1981, Haig was heard to remark the UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, was a "duplicitous bastard".  Beyond the beltway, that would be a disparaging comment, but, in the world of international diplomacy, it’s more an expression of admiration of professional skill.

Mean Girls (2004), a story of duplicity, low skulduggery, Machiavellian manipulation, lies & deceit.  As a morality tale, the message can be reduced to: “Women would rather hear brilliant lies than honest truths”.

Pandemonium

Pandemonium (pronounced pan-duh-moh-nee-uhm)

(1) Wild uproar or unrestrained disorder; tumult or chaos.

(2) A place or scene of riotous uproar or utter chaos.

(3) Satan’s palace at the centre of Hell in Milton’s Paradise Lost.

(4) Following Milton, the abode of all the demons (often with initial capital letter).

1667: In John Milton’s (1608-1674) epic poem, Paradise Lost (1667-1674), Pandæmonium was the name of the palace in the centre of hell, "the high capital of Satan and all his peers”.  Milton coined the word as a construct of the Ancient Greek πᾶν (pân) (all; every (and equivalent to the English pan-)) + the Late Latin daemonium (evil spirit, demon), from the Ancient Greek δαιμόνιον (daimónion) (a diminutive form of δαίμων (daímōn) (“little deity”, “little spirit”, “little angel” or (as Christians interpreted it) “little daemon”, later modernized as “demon”).  Depending on one’s didactic or literary purpose, Pandæmonium may thus be translated variously as “All Demons” or, following Milton, as Pandemoneios (Παν-δαιμον-ειον) (the place of all demons).  The transferred sense of “a place of uproar” dates from 1779 while the general use meaning “wild, lawless confusion” has been in use since 1865.  The alternative spellings are pandaemonium & pandæmonium, the latter still in literary use.  Pandemonium is a noun, pandemoniacal, pandemonious, pandemonic & pandemonian are adjectives, pandemoniac is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is either pandemoniums or pandemonia.

There are special, technical uses of “pandemonium”.  In physics, a pandemonium describes a problem that leads to inaccurate results from high-resolution gamma ray detectors in cases of beta decay when the decay product has a large Q value because the decay product has too many possible energy excitation levels with too much variation in the amount of energy emitted by different levels.  Those who understand that doubtlessly visualize the phenomenon while the rest of us probably need something like a cartoon.  In cognitive science, a pandemonium is a conception of visual object recognition in the brain as a hierarchical system of detection and association by a metaphorical set of "demons" sending signals to each other.  No cartoons required.

Some who have inspired fandemonium: The anyway statuesque Taylor Swift, adding to the effect in 6 inch (150 mm) heels (2016, right), the mean girls of Mean Girls (2004, centre) and the more diminutive Lady Gaga (2023, right).

By way of portmanteau nouns, pandemonium has been an element in (1) pandemonium (panda + (pande)–monium) (the furor induced by the reaction of people to the sight of pandas) and (2) fandemonium (fan + -(pan)demonium) (in pop-culture, the furor caused by or involving fans).  In the matter fandemonium, Lady Gaga (b 1986) called her fans “little monsters” while devotees of the Taylor Swift (b 1989) cult are known as “Swifties” (apparently always with an initial capital).

Paradise Lost

Written in the epic tradition of starting in medias res (in the midst of things), John Milton’s Paradise Lost was published originally as a poem of some ten-thousand lines in ten books (1667) before the second edition (1674) was re-organized into twelve volumes, possibly a nod to the Roman poet Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 BC)) whose epic work the Aeneid (circa 30-19 BC) was thus assembled.  The poem is an account of the biblical tale of the fall of man: the temptation of Adam & Eve by the fallen angel Satan and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden and was structured in two narrative threads, one following Satan, the other about Adam and Eve, a depiction of the tragedy of human existence which can be transformed only by a pure will for redemption.  The second edition is easier to read because it includes chapter summaries.

Milton coined the name for the capital of Hell, “the High Capital, of Satan and his Peers”, built by the fallen angels at the suggestion of Mammon and it appears at the end of Book I of Paradise Lost (1667), noted as having been designed by the architect Mulciber (In Ancient Rome, Mulciber was another name for the Roman god Vulcan), the designer of palaces in Heaven before his fall.  Book II begins with the debate among the Stygian Council (known also as the Infernal Council and the grand gathering of the demons of the Inferno; apparently something like a Tory Party conference but with better catering) in the council-chamber of Pandæmonium.  In an example of free-market efficiency, the demons built the structure in little more than an hour though by far it surpassed in grandeur all human palaces and, being made from solid gold, it never tarnished.  Interestingly, it was Tardis-like, being both small yet with a vast and spacious hall which thronged with swarms of shape-shifting demons, a quality which may account for the spatial ambiguity in the account of the dimensions.

The Shepherd’s Dream (1793), from Paradise Lost, oil on canvas by Henry Fuseli (1741-1825).

One mid-century critique was Milton's God (1965) by Sir William Empson (1906–1984), among the earliest published examples of the techniques of literary deconstructionism being applied to poetic text.   Milton noted his work was a way of “…justifying the ways of God to men” and Empson deconstructed those means, mapping them onto a framework of theological paradox.  While Milton’s God had a mixed reception, it was briefly influential as an early post-modern text although one of the problems inherent in deconstruction is it tempts others to reconstruct and there was a critic who deduced Empson had claimed “the poet felt an active hatred for the God of Christianity.”  That was a challenging notion given the book for so long sat on shelves next to the King James Bible (KJV 1611) and it seemed Epson’s subconscious was being probed.  Although in Milton’s God there was the observation Milton’s social judgment had told him that the Heaven he was imagining before the fall of the angels was already a horrible place, “against his overall intention”, it seems a quite a leap from that to a hatred of the God of the New Testament.

Empson explained what needed better to be understood (because, as he put it, modern Christianity has gone to extreme lengths “to hush it up”) was the moral character of God had become very hard to defend and that this was widely known by the time John Calvin (1509–1564) and Martin Luther (1483–1546) had trod the path of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).  Milton was struggling to defend God, noting that in the De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Teaching (397-426)), Aquinas himself had written there were many who believed God caused evil, practically making God the Devil and Milton would assert the relevant Bible texts must not be interpreted literally.  Milton certainly presents God at his worst but the Almighty is a agreeable figure by Book III although it remains clear his path for man will long and painful with many casualties but the poet's theme remained that there would be awful consequences if “the widespread hatred of God could no longer be contained” and this Empson understood.