A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.
Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with Etymologies for the Engineer. For many what is found under the bonnet of the car, hidden inside the casing of the white goods in your kitchen, inside the radio, television, DVD player, laptop, tablet, phone or computer is a mystery. Yet we have all heard the terminology, even if we have no notion of what these are for or of what they do, these are names of which we are at the very least vaguely familiar. Here the talk reverse engineers each and every technology, not to recreate how the inventions were designed but how and, more importantly, why they were named. Learn the surprising beginnings of 'gasket', 'wire', 'oil', 'engine' and many, many others. These insights enable everyone to understand how technologies developed to give a very different look at history.
History can be viewed in any number of ways: the archaeologist looks at artefacts, the archivist at documents, and the etymologist at words. All these and indeed others have one thing in common, history means looking backwards – and with so much history to examine it is often difficult to realise just how much history there is. For example the use of a word today may be quite different from the traditional understanding. Perhaps the word ‘cool’ is a good example – only since 1940 has it been used as a term of approval, yet to mean ‘lacking warmth’ it has the same origins as ‘cold’ and that, rather ironically, has its origins as far back as the end of the last Ice Age. Thus while ‘machine’ may be seen as simply something which does work, a device or contrivance, originally this had a rather different meaning. Tracing the word back to the Greek makhos or ‘means, contrivance’, and earlier to the Proto-Indo-European maghana ‘that which enables’ and from the root magh ‘to be able’, we find the modern use only from the late 17th century. Prior to this any man-made device could be referred to as a ‘machine’. Interestingly 19th century slang used ‘machine’ to describe human sex organs, indeed it is virtually unique in referring to both the male and female parts. Why? Because this is a slang term retaining its original age-old usage in ‘that which enables’.
Look up ‘engine’ in the dictionary and it is defined as ‘a device that converts energy into mechanical power’. Thus there were no engines before the eighteenth century and the birth of industry. Yet there are records of by 1300 and used to refer to ‘a mechanical device’ and particularly one used for warfare. We also find the term used at least a century earlier. These earlier references use these in a variety of senses, including ‘skill’, ‘craft’, ‘innate ability’, and also ‘deceitfulness’ or ‘trickery’. The earlier references are the original usages, all derived from Old French engin meaning ‘skill, wit, cleverness’ in some instances and yet more often as ‘trick, deceit, stratagem’. Further back we find Late Latin ingenium ‘war machine’ and earlier still ‘inborn qualities, talent’. It is the earlier use of ingenium which most interests us as this has also resulted in the word ‘ingenuity’. When we hear both words the link is clearer than seeing it in writing. And I know of no engineer who will not be delighted to learn his job title is, at least etymologically speaking, akin to that of a genius .
The word ‘bolt’ is used in several senses: ‘make a quick start’, ‘leave suddenly’, ‘eat quickly’ and ‘crossbow arrow’ among them. Each of these came into general usage at different times – the diner unknown until the 19th century; sprint start and escape both of the early 13th century. This leaves the short arrow, itself from the Proto-Germanic bultas with the same meaning. Tracing the clues back further we get to Proto-Indo-European bheld which had the same meaning as Lithuanian beldu meaning ‘I knock’ or as beldas ‘pole for striking’. Thus the original ‘bolt’ should be seen more as a nail or peg, one struck to pin two or more pieces together – just the same function as a modern forged fastener with a rolled thread. Later the crossbow weapon would be named as such as it resembled the fastener, then ‘bolt’ became associated with speed, giving the other two uses. In an engineering sense the ‘bolt’ has come full circle, first a simple peg, today an item engineered to fine tolerances and exacting specifications but essentially the same thing.
Having looked at the story behind the bolt recently, it seemed remiss of me not to look at the nut which invariably accompanies same. It will come as absolutely no surprise to discover that initially the engineering nut was compared to the hard seed and its shell. Thus the term comes from the Proto-Germanic hnut and earlier from Proto-Indo-European kneu, the latter also the origin of the Latin nux which has come to us as 'nucleus' and thus ultimately 'nuclear'! As the mating part for the bolt the earliest record dates from 1610. Yet the term had been used for any small mechanical part for at least two centuries and thus the earliest 'nut' could have been any of the items heard today being described as a 'widget'.
If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.
Showing posts with label bolt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bolt. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 August 2026
Sunday, 15 February 2026
The Fastener Industry
A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.
Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with The Fastener Industry, this an engineer's non-technical look at nuts, bolts, screws and washers. Not simply an engineering lesson but an examination of just how early these technologies were first created and named, how they developed, and why successive improvements were made and by whom. There is a PowerPoint presentation to accompany this talk if required.
The first mention of a ‘screw’ has nothing to do with fastenings. This was the Archimedes screw, a means of raising water, with the water trapped in gaps in the screw thread and raised as the screw was turned endlessly (never tightening as it had no mating part) by an oxen or other draught animal. It is almost certain the screw had nothing to do with Archimedes, nor did it resemble a screw as we would understand it today but appears more like an enlarged corkscrew in a tube. And if you want to see one in action, get yourself a chocolate fountain, it’s the same thing.
The whitworth thread, possibly still the best known thread form, named after Joseph Whitworth who defined the world’s first standard for threads in 1841 and remained popular until the metric system took over in the late 1970s.
Ever wondered why a ‘washer’ when it clearly has nothing in common with ‘washing’? For the engineer it has three practical applications: to prevent damage to a surface from a nut or bolt, as a spacer, and as a locking device. A simple item and a versatile one but nothing compared to the etymology of this six-letter noun. It is easy to find this coming to English from the Old French vis. However, this was not used to mean ‘washer’ but either ‘vice’ or ‘screw’. Both of these should be seen in the sense of ‘tighten’ or ‘wind up’ and related to the root of ‘winch’. Hence this terminology is all interlinked, with the whole assembly speaking about ‘tightening’ both as a whole and individually. Even more intriguing is where the trail leads if we trace this further back through linguistic generations. Ultimately this has the same root as Latin vinis or ‘vine’, itself from viere meaning ‘to bind, twist’. Thus, the climbing vine, which had evolved to wind itself around and climb, eventually gave its name to the fastenings used today to hold the framework up which modern vines are trained.
If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.
Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with The Fastener Industry, this an engineer's non-technical look at nuts, bolts, screws and washers. Not simply an engineering lesson but an examination of just how early these technologies were first created and named, how they developed, and why successive improvements were made and by whom. There is a PowerPoint presentation to accompany this talk if required.
The first mention of a ‘screw’ has nothing to do with fastenings. This was the Archimedes screw, a means of raising water, with the water trapped in gaps in the screw thread and raised as the screw was turned endlessly (never tightening as it had no mating part) by an oxen or other draught animal. It is almost certain the screw had nothing to do with Archimedes, nor did it resemble a screw as we would understand it today but appears more like an enlarged corkscrew in a tube. And if you want to see one in action, get yourself a chocolate fountain, it’s the same thing.
The whitworth thread, possibly still the best known thread form, named after Joseph Whitworth who defined the world’s first standard for threads in 1841 and remained popular until the metric system took over in the late 1970s.
Ever wondered why a ‘washer’ when it clearly has nothing in common with ‘washing’? For the engineer it has three practical applications: to prevent damage to a surface from a nut or bolt, as a spacer, and as a locking device. A simple item and a versatile one but nothing compared to the etymology of this six-letter noun. It is easy to find this coming to English from the Old French vis. However, this was not used to mean ‘washer’ but either ‘vice’ or ‘screw’. Both of these should be seen in the sense of ‘tighten’ or ‘wind up’ and related to the root of ‘winch’. Hence this terminology is all interlinked, with the whole assembly speaking about ‘tightening’ both as a whole and individually. Even more intriguing is where the trail leads if we trace this further back through linguistic generations. Ultimately this has the same root as Latin vinis or ‘vine’, itself from viere meaning ‘to bind, twist’. Thus, the climbing vine, which had evolved to wind itself around and climb, eventually gave its name to the fastenings used today to hold the framework up which modern vines are trained.
If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.
Sunday, 30 January 2022
Trees
Normally I post observations on words and language, etymology being my fascination. Yet occasionally I add something a little different, invariably these snippets are uncovered while researching - many will tell you how often you find more interesting stuff when looking for something specific than you ever find for the subject in hand - and one example came when I was looking through old copies of the Derby Mercury. One copy of the Mercury from October 1837, claimed that beech trees are never struck by lightning and how Native Americans have always known this.
It nagged at me and so I chose to find out whether this was factual or not. I discovered the tree most likely to be hit by lightning is the oak. But this is not saying that oak trees will attract lightning more than any other, we also have to take into consideration the vast number of oaks and that oaks are likely the tallest of trees and contain more moisture than surrounding trees.
And the beech? Another sizable tree, but one which has a higher fat content than most woods, and therefore is a better conductor of electricity. This means the bolt of lightning is more likely to run to the ground. But does this make it safer? Absolutely not, leaning against any tree as it is hit by lightning is likely to mean you get a rather nasty shock (at best).
If any tree could be said to be less likely to be hit than any other, that might just be the birch. It has a high oil content and is a poor conductor of electricity. But any discussion regarding conductivity of the wood and its content is largely pointless, for lightning and thunder is invariably associated with something else - RAIN. Water is an excellent conductor, hence why you should not mix electrical appliances and the bath. If the tree is wet during the storm, any electrical discharge is likely going to run through the moisture rather than the wood. Furthermore, the person underneath the tree is likely wet through, too. Immaterial of the tree you're under, the likelihood of being hit is the same.
It nagged at me and so I chose to find out whether this was factual or not. I discovered the tree most likely to be hit by lightning is the oak. But this is not saying that oak trees will attract lightning more than any other, we also have to take into consideration the vast number of oaks and that oaks are likely the tallest of trees and contain more moisture than surrounding trees.
And the beech? Another sizable tree, but one which has a higher fat content than most woods, and therefore is a better conductor of electricity. This means the bolt of lightning is more likely to run to the ground. But does this make it safer? Absolutely not, leaning against any tree as it is hit by lightning is likely to mean you get a rather nasty shock (at best).
If any tree could be said to be less likely to be hit than any other, that might just be the birch. It has a high oil content and is a poor conductor of electricity. But any discussion regarding conductivity of the wood and its content is largely pointless, for lightning and thunder is invariably associated with something else - RAIN. Water is an excellent conductor, hence why you should not mix electrical appliances and the bath. If the tree is wet during the storm, any electrical discharge is likely going to run through the moisture rather than the wood. Furthermore, the person underneath the tree is likely wet through, too. Immaterial of the tree you're under, the likelihood of being hit is the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





