cipher

I know this word only in numerical and cryptographic contexts. Apparently there are others!

Definition of word:
“n.
1. (Arith.) A character [0] which, standing by itself, expresses nothing, but when placed at the right hand of a whole number, increases its value tenfold.
2. One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.
Here he was a mere cipher. --W. Irving.
3. A character in general, as a figure or letter. [Obs.]
This wisdom began to be written in ciphers and characters and letters bearing the forms of creatures. --Sir W. Raleigh.
4. A combination or interweaving of letters, as the initials of a name; a device; a monogram; as, a painter's cipher, an engraver's cipher, etc. The cut represents the initials N. W.
5. A private alphabet, system of characters, or other mode of writing, contrived for the safe transmission of secrets; also, a writing in such characters.
His father . . . engaged him when he was very young to write all his letters to England in cipher. --Bp. Burnet.

Cipher key, a key to assist in reading writings in cipher.” (dictionary.com, Webster’s).

Where I ran across it:
11/29/08 Washington Post review, “Faust Sells Itself Short at the Multiplex” by Anne Midgette, about the Met’s production and HD broadcast of Berlioz’ “La Damnation de Faust.”

“…As for John Relyea, he offered, in the house, a variant on the tried-and-true devil shtick that opera-goers have seen countless times before, in a voice that is competent enough, but expressively a cipher; the camera allowed it to appear as if something special was going on.…”

My two cents:
Recently I enjoyed the Met’s HD broadcast of “La Damnation de Faust” at my local theater. I read, with interest, the Washington Post critic’s review which runs both hot and cold, as does my opinion of her review. She makes some points with which I agree, and some I don’t. When she likens the baritone to a cipher, however, I’m curious.

I first learned the word “cipher” as a kid ordering secret de-coder rings from cereal boxes. I’ve always understood ciphering to be about numbers and words. But reading the word today in a different context altogether sent me directly to the dictionary. And now I discover that there’s this: “One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.” Now I’m really curious. (And how did I miss this all my life?)

A cipher is basically a big fat zero, and quite the versatile chameleon. It expresses nothing (ergo, the critic's baritone slap). It has no value in and of itself. When added to another number it adds no value. But when placed to the right of a number, its companion’s value is increased ten-fold! Unselfish Hero! But if you multiply a number by it, it reduces the number to zero. Devilish Scamp! But also, it means one or that which has no weight or influence. Ineffectual Fop!

What an odd Triune, a triple paradox. How can something which has no value or influence, but simply by virtue of its proximity to something else, exert an influence on the very magnitude of said something else ten-fold?! How, then, can that be considered a non-influential entity?

I’m feeling fairly stoopid over this. And all this consternation’s giving me a headache. Time for something mindless. Facebook, anyone?

portmanteau

Should know this. Don’t.

Definition of portmanteau:
“n.
1. A word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words, as chortle, from chuckle and snort.

2. A word concocted by fusing two different words together into one: a common example is brunch, from ‘breakfast’ and ‘lunch’. The term was coined by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking‐Glass (1871), where he invents the word slithy from ‘lithe’ and ‘slimy’; the portmanteau referred to is a kind of suitcase composed of two halves. The most extended literary use of portmanteau words is found in James Joyce's novel Finnegans Wake (1939).” (answers.com).

Where I ran across it:
There I was, looking up “Bollywood” on answers.com, and in the definition was this wonderful word, portmanteau…

“…The name is a portmanteau of Bombay (the former name for Mumbai) and Hollywood, the center of the American film industry…”

My two cents:
Hi, I’m Susie and I have a problem.

Hi, Susie.

I am a linkoholic. There, I said it. I can’t stop clicking on hyperlinks.

I suffer from the dreaded Ooh, Look, A Bunny Syndrome. Yes, OLABS is my curse. There is no cure. The disease can only be managed. I am powerless under the spell of the bunnies, er hyperlinks. One is too many, and a thousand never enough. Damn those bunnies. Damn those hyperlinks. Damn this disease. Here's my story:

It all started out so innocently. I was curious about “Bollywood” and wanted to know more. Just one little research session I told myself. Off to answers.com I went, where those siren bunnies / hyperlinks lay in wait...

Then it happened: Ooh, look, there’s a cool word that I don’t know, portmanteau. Ooh, look, a bunny / hyperlink. Click. Ooh, look at all the hyperlinks in the definition! Click, read, ooh, click, scroll, read more, ooh, ooh, click, read, scroll, click, ooh, click, click…

Friends, before I knew it I had spent hours clicking hyperlinks and chasing bunnies from answers.com to Wikipedia; from Bollywood to Hollywood to the slithy toves and mimsy borogoves in Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky, to Humpty Dumpty’s lexical selection in Through the Looking-Glass, to James Joyce’s prodigious use of portmanteaus in Finnegans Wake, to linguistic blends and function words, to… oh never mind. Suffice it to say that there were many, many more bunnies.

Were it not for my right-click / “open link in new tab” coping skills, I’d have been completely and irretrievably lost. Oh the shame. Oh the humanity.

The first step is admitting the problem...

I guess that’s it. Thanks for listening.