First Rate
Language is a funny thing. We often use words and think that we know what we are saying, but others seem to hear something different.
This is especially true when working in a different language where custom and practice, idioms, play such an important role. I am often asked questions like, “What does … mean?”, or “How do you say in English …?”. “Can I say …?, or “What’s another way to say …?”.
I am expected to be a linguistic expert knowing all the intricacies of the English language … just because it happens to be my mother tongue. As it happens, sometimes it’s easy to give an answer, but at others I can find myself swimming a sea of doubt and uncertainty. Apart from the fact that a word or phrase can have several meanings in English, often depending on how it is used, (such as in the case of the word “run”), the language is full of metaphorical phrases where the original reference is lost in the mists of time.
The classic example is “vulgar. Today this means crude, indecent, lacking taste, offensive, ostentatious – such as an excessive display of expenditure. These are relatively modern interpretations of the word which is derived from the Latin, vulgaris, which means “the common people”. It was originally used to refer to something as common, everyday, ordinary. Of course, Roman society was ordered into classes, and the common people were considered the “lower orders” and so the word adopted a meaning akin to “debased”.
Now, everyday, I receive in my email newsletters which include a “word for the day”. Sometimes they just give the definition, usually with examples of how the words are used, but others give a description of the etymology – where the word came from. Now, although it may be interesting, is it necessary to know the origins of the word or phrase to understand it’s meaning? Probably not. At least, not in every case. At other times, however, it can be useful. This seems to be especially true in Russian and I was constantly being told by by Russian teacher to “look for the root”. The word “vodka”, for example, comes from the same root as the word for water, “voda“, and apparently means “little water”, just as whiskey comes from the Gaelic and means “water of life”.
To take another English phrase: “first rate”. It’s seems clear that this is a way of describing something as being of the best, the highest quality or rank. If we are talking about a performance then it signifies some excellence. On the other hand, we can say that someone “isn’t feeling first rate” which implies that they are not on top form, although they are not unwell.
The phrase actually comes from the way of classifying ships of the line in European navies in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, before the advent of steam power which reduced the dependence on the wind in battle.
The standard tactic that had evolved for naval battles was for the opposing fleets to line up against each other, each sailing in the same general direction but drawing closer and closer together in order to be able to direct a salvo of fire, a “broadside”, at their opponents. There were several reasons for the developing this tactic, both offensive and defensive. The “ships of the line”, which were designed specifically for this kind of battle, had long rows of guns set in tiers along the side of its hull. These guns were only really effective, (accurate and able to penetrate the timbers of the opposing ships), at close range, hence the ships drew closer together. Being the first to fire a broadside would, in all likelihood, give one a distinct advantage in the ensuing battle. However, the general trend seems to have been that the more guns that could be brought to bear upon the enemy, the more likely you were to be victorious in battle.
So, over the course of time, there was a tendency to big bigger and bigger ships with greater and greater numbers of canon lining the flanks of a ship. The term “first rate” was used to classify the largest ships. The first ships to be classified as “first rate” in the seventeenth century carried just 60 canon, but by the middle of the century the term was used for ships with between 90 and 100. By the early years of the eighteenth century the standard minimum ordinance for a “first rate” was 100 guns. The largest, a Spanish ship, apparently carried 140 guns.
These ships were large and required a considerable sized crew. They were slow and cumbersome and expensive to run. As a result, regular naval operations would normally be conducted by smaller, faster, ships, (such as frigates – Britain had six different sizes of ships, three of which were considered ships of the line), and these larger ships spent much of their time in dock being commissioned only in time of war.
Now, how much of that do I explain?
Incidentally: At the Battle of Trafalgar, (which took place 206 years ago today on 21st October, 1805), Nelson had under his command some thirty three ships, (twenty seven ships of the line which included just three first rate ships. Opposing him, the combined Franco-Spanish fleet had forty vessels; thirty three were ships of the line and four were considered first class.
Nelson’s battle plan to overcome the natural advantage of the larger opposing fleet was to break with the standard tactic and he split his fleet into two lines which he sailed directly at the opposing line – one force at the centre and the other to the rear. Instead of a prolonged period of broadsides being exchanged, each ship would get a chance of a passing shot at the bows or the stern. However, the plan had the advantage of cutting the enemy line in two, enabling him to circle and engage the rear half of the line, cutting off their line of escape, whilst the front half had to reform.
The tactic proved to be great success. Nelson may have died in the battle, but it proved to be the most decisive naval battle of the war, confirming Britain’s naval supremacy, with the Franco Spanish fleet losing 22 ships without the loss of a single British vessel.
Today, Nelson is considered one of Britain’s greatest war heroes, coming ninth in the BBC poll of “100 Greatest Britons” in 2002.
I think I ought to point to Ilya, (despite what he thinks), that I am not a Nationalist – but I do feel that I probably have to say to all the Brits, (well, English, anyway, … and with apologies to the French and the Spanish), reading this today:
“Happy Trafalgar Day!“
Bishkek