Monthly Archives: September 2010

BMW, Mercedes

All words vary in flavour from person to person, just as all aesthetic preference is variable and each person brings different history and proclivity to perception. Brand names can give particularly salient examples of this, especially among brands that trade strongly on buyer self-image. BMW, for instance, provokes a strong positive response in some people who like a car with excellent control and solid design and build, and a strong negative response in others who observe that many BMW drivers seem to be status-conscious money-hungry people who drive rudely and aggressively. But those who dislike the BMW brand may very much like the Mercedes brand, equally a status symbol and equally a sharp and well-built German car but seen as appealing to a somehow less obnoxious set of owners.

In fact, I have a friend who once expounded to me his observations on car drivers. Beyond BMW and Mercedes, certain types of people tend (in his observation) to drive other cars. You seldom have to worry about a Volvo driver; they’re likely to be fairly enlightened types, not insane, fairly liberal too (professor types). On the other hand, SAAB drivers, who you might think would be similar, are in his observation generally pricks (probably failed architects or similar).

Beyond that, of course, we know that a person with a Jaguar has more than enough money, a person with a Bentley as very much more than enough money, and a person with a Rolls-Royce has frankly far too much money, and probably followers too. And we know the old saws about sports car drivers compensating for some deficiency in their manhood. It’s hard not to think so when you hear a Lamborghini revving nearby – a beautiful car utterly unsuited for city streets or in fact for any use most of their drivers will ever put them to, other than impressing people… but not necessarily in the right way. Many guys would like to own a Lamborghini but would not like to be thought of as the kind of guy who owns a Lamborghini.

Certainly the flavours of all these names – BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, SAAB, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini – are strongly conditioned by perceptions of quality and price and of the sorts of people who own and drive them. (The effect is more highly distilled, if less socially conditioned, for those familiar with less well-known very high-end names such as Bugatti and Maybach.) The question remains of the extent to which the aesthetics of the words and other impinging factors affect the brand identity.

Consider BMW. This is a muscular set of letters; the nickname Beemer, reminiscent of boomer, reinforces the brutishness. (The BM may have an excremental input.) It also has the authority of the initialism. Consider what effect initialisms have had on other brand identities: JVC – ahh, technical, high-end (would you feel the same about Japanese Victor Company?); LG – solid, well-made, technically adept (not flimsy, cheap, and hopeful like Lucky GoldStar). And even if you don’t know that BMW stands for Bayerische Motoren Werke, you know it’s German. And there’s that German reputation for well-made mechanical things.

Of course, you also know that Mercedes is a German company – Mercedes-Benz is the longer name. Some people may even know that Mercedes was actually the name of the daughter of the car’s designer: Mercédès Jellinek. Her father, Emil Jellinek, worked for Daimler (which later merged with Benz). There is a story going around that she died in a car crash; this is not true – she died at age 39 of bone cancer (after having two scandalous marriages). And actually her birth certificate didn’t say Mercédès, either; she was christened Adriana Manuela Ramona Jellinek. Mercédès was a term of endearment. Spanish speakers will recognize it as a Spanish name, taken from a name for the Virgin Mary: “Our Lady of Mercy”. (But Mercédès Jellinek was of purely Austrian lineage.)

Now, that history won’t affect most people who see the Mercedes brand, because they don’t know it. But the silvery sound of Mercedes (with that central /s/ played by the shiny c) and its liquid lyricism, with one stressed syllable flanked by two unstressed ones that nonetheless have no schwas (an opening murmur and a finishing ease), is a clear counterpoise to the punchy rhythm of BMW, which is like a drum flourish. And the single capital with a line of lower-case is less self-important than three big capitals. It may also have a more female-oriented flavour, with a rhyme of ladies and a sound of Sadie.

Apply the same kind of analysis to the other brands. What does Volvo taste like to you? What words does it make you think of? Does it make a difference if you know it’s from Latin for “I roll”? How about SAAB? Could its sound like sob and a spelling pronunciation of S.O.B. affect perception? Does it really seem Swedish, or more Dutch or Arabic? Does it matter that it comes from an acronym for Swedish for “Swedish Airplane Limited”? The animal flavour of Jaguar no doubt affects it, and probably the Jag-ed edge; will it taste different to Canadians (who say “jag-wahr”) than to Brits (who say “jag you are”)? Does Bentley sound like the name of a butler? (Would you feel different about it if you knew Bentley made the engine in the Sopwith Camel biplane?) Does Rolls-Royce have a different flavour for airplane buffs, who will immediately think of jet engines made by the company, than for the average person? And what is the difference between Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Bugatti, all three Italian surnames (though Bugatti is a German brand) – does one word feel faster, does another feel more technical, another feel more or less expensive, more or less exotic, more or less intriguing?

Ultimately, this is and always will be an exercise for the individual – though of course, as generally with aesthetics, there are likely to be correspondences between different people’s perceptions, at least to some extent. But also strong differences.

Leica

The taste of this word – a brand name – has varied noticeably for me through my life as my attitude towards, and awareness of, its object has changed. As with any word, there is an education and experience effect.

The basic aesthetics of the word Leica, of course, are there regardless: a lightness that is helped by the echo of light, as well as by the liquid /l/ and the use of c rather than k for the /k/ sound. It has a femininity about it for anyone familiar with a language where -a is a common feminine ending. And, of course, it can’t help but be like likeable – or at least like like a, as in like a virgin. Those who know the red script logo will also think of its classic simplicity.

But consider the case of someone whose first camera, when he was a little kid, was a rangefinder (a Ricoh, as it happens) – a camera where you look through a window on the side of the camera that has frame lines in it and use a little yellow area with a double image to focus – and who saw his father using a Nikon F2 – a bigger camera, a single-lens reflex (SLR, meaning that there is a mirror that lets you see exactly what the lens sees), seeming more substantial, and with the ability to change lenses and all that. I naturally absorbed the idea that an SLR was a real camera (and that Nikon was the top of the heap, better than Canon, Pentax, Olympus, or Minolta), and a rangefinder camera was just a sort of toy or nonserious camera.

And when I discovered medium format (which uses larger film and takes consequently better pictures), it was by a first encounter with a twin-lens reflex (a Yashica, as it happens) and becoming aware of medium-format SLRs made by Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Bronica. These cameras make quite the noise when you fire the shutter, because the mirror has to flip up, then the shutter itself fires, and then the mirror flips back down (well, on the medium-format ones it doesn’t; you flip it back down when you wind the film and cock the shutter). When I saw something like the Plaubel Makina, which was a medium-format rangefinder with a fold-out lens, I assumed it had to be an inferior camera, and I couldn’t understand the enthusiasm I saw one camera store customer display for it.

In all of this, I was barely aware of the Leica brand. It was not significant. Any rangefinder camera looked like a toy to me. When I saw pictures of someone like Henri Cartier-Bresson taking pictures with a Leica, I assumed that his pictures were great in spite of, certainly not because of, his camera, and he probably used that cheap-looking thing for financial reasons.

In the late ’90s, I had a roommate who bought a new Contax rangefinder setup. Why would he buy a rangefinder camera, I wondered? And what’s with all the different lenses? He explained that the lack of a mirror box allowed the lens to get closer to the film – allowing better designs, especially on short lenses – and the lack of a mirror also meant less motion and a quieter shutter. So I absorbed the idea that rangefinders could be good.

And, while I had bought myself a Canon AE-1 setup (not because it was better than Nikon but because it was almost as good and quite inexpensive), after a bit of time I started pulling out and using that Yashica as well (which I had souvenired from my father). And when my wife’s uncle saw it (by this time I was married), he pulled out an old Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta, a folding medium-format viewfinder camera (not even rangefinder: you have the viewfinder but have to focus by dead reckoning or with a separate rangefinder). Naturally I had to give it a try. And I found it took beautiful pictures. I was also becoming aware of the Mamiya 7, lauded by many as the best camera that took the sharpest pictures ever – a medium-format rangefinder camera (and a kind of ugly one, too, but who cares when it takes such pictures).

But I still wasn’t very much in tune with Leica. I had the sense that it was a classic camera, and I wasn’t sure if anyone still used one. I didn’t see it as a status symbol. Certainly when I read that Leica was introducing a digital rangefinder camera, I thought they were possibly nuts, though it did tell me they were still around. And I had largely stopped doing much photography because it cost so much in film and processing, and I just used a little Casio for vacation pictures.

But the next time I started looking for a new and better digital camera, I knew I didn’t want one of those bloated digital SLR systems that all the poseurs use and that scream “Me camera!” – and are a real bother to carry around. I had acquired a liking for the straightforwardness of folding medium-format rangefinders (I acquired a couple), and had learned that while a big item like a Bronica is nice, you don’t take it too many places. And that’s when I learned that the perfect camera for my needs is a nice, compact rangefinder-style camera that takes interchangeable lenses but is unobtrusive. And has nice styling, and outstanding optics, and a full-frame sensor (meaning as big as a 35 mm negative – most digital sensors are much smaller), and considerable cachet. But it also takes considerable cash, eh! A Leica M9 is several thousand dollars above my budget. So I remain a Leica virgin. (The camera I settled on is an Olympus, which I have learned is not so inferior as I thought when I was a kid; it approaches but does not reach the qualities I’d like in a Leica. See some results at www.flickr.com/photos/sesquiotic/.) But I am now aware, through reading, that Leica is a brand name with adoring fanatics, and that many people seem to hope a Leica will make them take pictures as good as Cartier-Bresson did.

This journey, which may seem to have a lot to do with cameras and not so much to do with words, shows clearly the education and acculturation effects on perception of brand names and similar. It also shows some different trends in camera brand names:

Some have ca on the end: Leica, Yashica, Bronica, Konica. This is in fact from camera: Leica from Leitz camera, Bronica – originally Zenza Bronica – from Zenzaburo Brownie camera (Zenzaburo being the first name of its inventor), Yashica on the same model from Yashima, and Konica from Konishi and that ca again.

Some lack the c but have the a: Mamiya (a Japanese surname) and Minolta (based on Japanese for “ripening rice fields”, or so I’ve read), for instance.

Others have on on the end: Zeiss-Ikon (from a surname and a Greek word for “image”), Nikon (from Nippon Kogaku and on the model of Ikon), Canon (which has a schwa in the last syllable and so sounds different; it’s from Kannon, a.k.a. Kuan Yin, a Buddhist goddess of compassion); also some lenses have on, as in Tamron and the Bronica brand Zenzanon. There’s a sort of caon competition, we can see, with some makers going with the light ca (even if, as with Bronica, the cameras can be heavy – anyway, the Bron in Bronica certainly adds some brawn), and others going with the scientific-sounding on (as in electron, xenon, neon, nylon, and many others).

A couple have ax: Contax (an invented name chosen by a poll among the employees of the Zeiss company, which created the Contax brand in the 1930s to make cameras like Leicas but better) and Pentax (from pentaprism – thereby declaring themselves SLR makers, as SLRs are the cameras that use prisms – and Contax).

There’s also an ar/tar thread, mostly seen in films (Ektar) and lenses (Sonnar) but also on Vivitar (which makes a variety of photo equipment, the least distinguished of which is their cameras).

And then there are the odd ones: Olympus, Hasselblad, Ricoh, Plaubel, and some others. Somehow they stayed outside of the camera naming stream. And now Panasonic and Sony are also big names in cameras. The camera name threads might seem to be becoming unravelled.

Except that there are still film camera enthusiasts and anoraks. And there are still several on brands in the market (Canon and Nikon are top dogs in DSLRs). And then there’s Leica. Which, as it happens, is – for those who know and love it – the ne plus ultra of real classy cameras for real photo lovers. And for the sorts of people who want to spend a lot of money on a classic piece of fine equipment.

hysteresis

“Spare me the history, sis!”

Daryl’s coffee time was being disrupted by a conversation on his iPhone (it was unusual to see him using it to talk to someone). His sister was evidently having an attack of the fantods.

“OK,” he said, “I understand… OK… OK OK OK…” He held the phone away from his head for a moment, his hand over the microphone. “She’s in hysterics,” he explained. “I’m trying to get to the bottom of it.” He winced as he returned it to his ear.

Jess and I exchanged glances, rolled our eyes, and sipped our coffees.

“So wait,” he said. “You wouldn’t have been there if she hadn’t gone to the wrong place. OK. And she went to the wrong place because she saw you at that store that you were at only because she had previously said to go to the other one, and she said to you to go to the other one because you were talking to Millie, which only happened because… wait, why?”

Pause. Pause pause pause.

“So you’re upset now precisely because you were happy before and then you thought it changed, and you were happy before because you had really needed that dress, and you really needed that dress because you had been told that you were going, but you were told you were going only because you were at… wait, I’m getting dizzy.”

Jess’s eyebrows were arching higher and higher.

“OK,” said Daryl, “so everything’s fine right now, right? So it turned out OK? …Well… Well, so why are you so upset?” Pause. He pulled a face of disbelief. “Oh, for heaven’s sake. Count your blessings and let me drink my coffee. …Goodbye.” He thumbed his phone off rather pointedly and turned to us. “She’s upset because of what she previously thought was the case, even though it wasn’t the case and everything’s fine. And she only thought that because before that she had…”

“Spare us,” Jess said. “Your sister clearly has a case of hysteresis.”

“Yeah,” said Daryl, “she’s the history sis, alright, and hysteria is her métier.”

“Amusing that neither history nor hysteria is related to hysteresis,” Jess added nonchalantly, and sipped her coffee again.

“Well, how is that possible?” Daryl asked. “Wait, what does it mean again?” He started thumbing things into his iPhone.

“You’ll find, when you look it up,” said Jess, with a little smile, “that it’s from Greek husteros, ‘late’, and refers to time lag or coming in behind. It means the current state of a given thing depends on its previous state or on a previous input. The current state of a thing can lag a bit behind what’s causing its state, so that while cause is on G effect is still on F, and so on, just like your sister’s emotions. The current state can also be dependent on the previous state, just as each step in your sister’s history was contingent on the previous one. The short of it is that for something that exhibits hysteresis, you can’t determine its present state just by looking at its current input; you need to know what happened before.”

“Oh, I see,” Daryl said, looking at the screen on his device. “Here’s a nice page by a dude from Cornell.” (He was looking at www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/hysteresis/WhatIsHysteresis.html.) “It’s an essential property of magnetic memory: it has to be able to remember the state change from its previous input.”

“Yup,” said Jess, “your phone doesn’t just convey hysteresis, it requires it.”

Daryl kept scanning the page. “Right, history is sure relevant, but there’s no etymological connection… Oh, how amusing.”

I looked over. “What?”

He read it out. “‘Many hysteretic systems make screeching noises as they respond to their external load (hence, the natural connection with hysteria).’ Ha. Dry humour.”

“Well,” Jess said, looking at his iPhone, “screeching seems about right.”

“Hissing, too,” Daryl added, hosltering his phone decisively. He picked up his coffee and looked at it. “Damn. The whipped cream has all dissolved.”

Today’s word was requested by Barry Gibbs.

bibelot

Perhaps, on some evening, you might happen to imbibe a lot of bubbly, and your standard might be below usual… You fall prey to the blandishments of some bibulous babbler, who takes you upstairs… But it is not etchings your new lobbyist wishes to display; no, you are in the toils of a zealot of baubles and curios: you are parked in a library of bibelots, a veritable bibelot-theque. Mawkish pawing would even be preferable to dorky discourse on Hummel figurines and faux Fabergé eggs; by the end of the evening you’re blubbering, gibbering, longing for liberation…

Bibelot may greet the eyes as some relation of bible or shallot or something like that; indeed, just as a zealot has zeal, might not a bibelot be a big imbiber? But no, don’t think it; a bibelot is more like a trinket. Oxford defines it as “a small curio or article of virtù.” Merriam-Webster gives this example: “practically every horizontal surface in the Victorian parlor was blanketed with fussy little bibelots.”

And the pronunciation is à la française:* “bib low” or “be below”. It sounds a bit like an old mimeograph or not-so-new photocopier… or perhaps whatever machine it is that makes endless copies of these geegaws and knick-knacks. (Does every bibelot have a double? Indubitably so.)

The reduplication pattern seen in words such as geegaw and knick-knack also appears to play a part in the origins of bibelot, by the way – as befits an object that is diminutive and the focus of endearment or fascination. It would seem that bel (Middle French for “pretty”) was duplicated to make belbel “plaything”, and that took on phonological modification and a diminutive suffix to make beubelet “trinket, jewel” – the source of bibelot and also, it seems, of bauble.

Oh, all those little loveables, with their /b/ sounds and the licking liquid /l/ – they may make a body go gaga like a little bitty baby, but they are also in the same gleaming-bangle world as bling. The silent t at the end may add a taste of acuity (or anyway a cutie), but in the end they are all eye candy for the baby blues to nibble on.

*I am put in mind of the apocryphal story of Dame Margot Asquith meeting Jean Harlow. Harlow, the story goes, asked if the Dame’s name was pronounced “mar-got.” Asquith replied, “No, the t is silent, as in Harlow.”

hurricane

Hurricane season is coming around again: that time of horrible, furious winds in typically torrid areas – the Caribbean version of a typhoon, a large cyclone. The word brings to mind ready images: canes, trees, cars, houses, all blown sideways; storm surges flooding inland areas and bursting levees; houses boarded up, and harried residents hurrying with hurricane lamps to hide under cover.

Indeed, the word sets the tone: not a high-pitch thing like typhoon but a low roar, hurr, with echoes of hurry and horrible and hurtle, followed by the sting of cane – something that can as readily beat as support, and of course a splinterable kind of wood often used in the West Indies. (But that /keIn/ cane is a North American thing – the British reduce the last syllable so that the last two syllables of hurricane are the same as those of American. Go figure.)

But it also gets its taste from other uses. In New Orleans, it’s a famous cocktail (originally served in hurricane lamps but now served in plastic take-out cups) originally concocted as a way of getting rid of lots of cheap rum that tavern owner Pat O’Brien was forced to buy before he could get to order in the whiskey he wanted. It has surely been the cause of many roaring headaches on mornings after. In World War II, the Hawker Hurricane was a very important fighter jet plane. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter was a boxer wrongfully convicted of murder whose case was featured in a movie starring Denzel Washington (Carter now lives in Toronto). And there are many works of artistic output with hurricane in their names – I’m listing to one of them right now: “Hurricane,” a song by Grace Jones on the CD of the same name (which I bought in Berlin last year, unable to find it in Toronto).

Ah, Hurricane Grace – surely Jones has been called that on occasion (in the song she self-identifies as one). And the collocation is natural, given that hurricanes are named – formerly only after women, but now alternating, so that we have had Hurricane Andrew as well as Hurricane Katrina, and the one that the Atlantic provinces are currently bracing for is Hurricane Earl. There was a real Hurricane Grace, too, in 1991. It covered a fairly small track near Bermuda, only made it to category 2 status, and subsided into tropical storm status – but then it was subsumed into a larger low-pressure system that moved up the coast and became the original “perfect storm,” as described in the book and film The Perfect Storm. (And what was the name of the ship that was the focus of that story? The Andrea Gail – which invites unpleasant puns.)

And where did hurricane come from? Well, where hurricanes come from. The original word was (depending on your source) Taíno or Carib – the two peoples who were original inhabitants of the Antilles. The word was huracan; it was taken by Spanish as huracán and by Portuguese as furacão, there being some cross-traffic between /h/ and /f/ in those languages at that time (witness such alternations as Fernando/Hernando). The word went through a variety of forms in English borrowings starting in the 1500s before finally settling on a form that appears to have been based on the Spanish plural, huracanes, with of course some English-style modification to the spelling. Hurricane was the more or less settled form by 1700.

Ah, and now my Grace Jones CD has finished playing; I am dis-Graced, in a calm like the eye of a hurricane. No more ripping up trees… time to wind down upwind. For those on the coast, a different story still awaits, however…

spear

Five common letters, four phonemes, one basic, short, Anglo-Saxon, but tangy word. It has a projectile feeling to it, almost more like a shot from an air-gun: the short build-up /s/, the launching /p/ (no aspiration, because there’s the /s/ before it), then the flight away, with the high sound receding into a mid-pitch echo, and the tongue in the act retracting like the recoil of an artillery piece.

But who spears these days? Well, aside from Britney, I mean. In fact, we all do from time to time, but not usually with a spear – it’s more an act in eating: with your fork or a cocktail plastic sword or toothpick, spear a pickle, a cherry, a spear of asparagus. And do you shake your spear? Well, I suppose it depends on what it reaps, and whether you have a spare.

Oh, those letters – there are 120 ways to arrange the letters in spear (assuming you use all five – once we start with selections of any four, things really go pear-shaped, and frankly I can’t be arsed), like five bits of food speared on a shish kebab, but when you parse them it pares the options. Still, the selection is not spare.

Neither is the set of uses of spear – the OED lists five nouns spear and three verbs spear, although some are obsolete (for instance the verb meaning “shut” or “confine” – unrelated to the noun we all think of first). Others trace their origins back to spire and seem to have shifted shape under the iconic influence of that similar-shaped thing; a spear of grass or of asparagus, for instance. But the spear that means “staff with a sharp tip” – and has throughout its recorded and recoverable history – gets around enough as it is.

And I don’t just mean Britney (who has the extra s anyway). For me, in fact, this word makes me think first of spearmint (a penetrating aroma but a soft one nonetheless) and of Cape Spear, Canada’s easternmost point. It also makes me think of a postmodernist production of Prometheus Bound I was in at the University of Calgary. One of the actors at one point was tasked with repeating the line “Sharp pointed spears” – and the actor chosen for this had a quite noticeable sibilance on the /s/, somewhat like a lisp, lending a vaguely Pythonesque tinge.

And of course there are various other usages and flavours that can get chucked in as well, ranging from the sporty (spear-fishing) to the theatrical (spear-carrier). But I think you get the point.

Thanks to Laurie Miller for suggesting spear.