Ubiquitous Replication Rejoinders are Tantamount to Figments

In June of last year I used a couple of words in a post and indicated there was no post to explain those words - yet. Today we follow up and can provide that post. The words are ubiquitous and rejoinder.

Ubiquitous means “existing everywhere, especially at the same time.” It came to English fairly recently (in 1837) from Modern Latin. There was an earlier word, ubiquitary, that can still be found in the dictionary, but I haven’t seen it used. It meant the same thing, since the 1580s. But the original form of the word was ubiquity, the noun (ubiquitous is an adjective). Ubiquity is the state of being everywhere at one time. It arrived in the 1570s from Middle French, who took their word ubiquité from the Latin word ubique, which was formed by combining the Latin word for “where” (ubi-) with the Latin word for “ever” (que). The word was originally used in Lutheran theology to describe the omnipresence of Christ.

While ubiquitous has a theological background rejoinder has a legal history. It arrived in English in the mid-1400s, from Middle French. The French noun, rejoindre, was the fourth stage in common law proceedings. It referred to the opportunity for the defendant to reply to the plaintiff’s replication. It retains the meaning of answer to a reply or response. In other words, a response to a response is a rejoinder.

Of course, we have to now look at the word replication. While it primarily means reply, answer, or reply to an answer (here we go again), it originated in the third section of French legal proceedings. In that sense it arrived in English in the late 1300s, which means it took a few years for the rejoinder to join replication. The Anglo-French word was replicacioun, from the French replicacion, from the Latin replicationem, formed from the Latin word for repetition, but literally meaning “to fold back.” It has since developed the meaning of a copy or reproduction, but that did not take place until the 1690s.  

While I’m following up and still have space, a recent post on George Carlin’s book, 3x Carlin, on "figment of" reminded me of the words "tantamount to." I have never heard of anything being tantamount, only “tantamount to.” Because tantamount means equivalent in value, force, or significance, it by its nature has a reference to something else. You could say two things are tantamount, but the prevalent usage of tantamount is not an actual equivalence but effective equivalence, or moral equivalence. It is used when suggesting that one action has the equivalent result of something far more serious or dire. A common alternative phrase is “moral equivalent of…” in place of “tantamount to…” It is not exactly, but has a similar effect as the thing to which it is being compared. Tantamount came ashore in the 1640s as a combining of the two words tant and amount. The phrase tant amount was used in the 1620s, and within 20 years became just the one word. We know what amount means, but what is tant? Tant was an Old French word meaning “as much.”  Now you know as much as I do, which is tantamount.