Havelock and Xform

[jack]

Stupid questions, but where google and wikipedia fail me, my friends generally know.

1. "Xform" as an abbreviation of "transform". That's standard, isn't it? But where does that come from? I'm suddenly unsure. Is that just 'x' being 'an arbitrary operation'?

ETA: Thanks to three people who almost instantly pointed out that X works for 'trans', in the sense 'cross'.

2. "Havelock". I'm really only familiar with it as in "Vetinari", but I have the feeling it's a reference to something or other. There's a few other Havelocks on wikipedia, but nothing that made sense to me.

Comments

[simont]

"x" is more widely used than that as an abbreviation for "trans", the other well known example being "xfer". I would have guessed that it's to do with the semantic similarity between "trans-" and "cross-".

[filecoreinuse.livejournal.com]

The 'X' stands for 'trans'. As a prefix 'trans' means 'across', 'through', 'over', etc to the 'X' diagramatically shows two streams crossing. The '=' sign is sometimes (albeit far less often) used to denote 'cis' or similar prefixes.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Not as in Havelock Ellis, then?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I sort of remember from Latin lessons at school that 'trans' is a Latin or Greek borrowing that means across something - transatlantic, transport, transsexual, etc. so it somehow fits to refer to it with a cross. That would be confusing in materials science and related subjects though, where "cryst" is abbreviated to a cross presumably because it sounds like "christ" - Xallography or (X'g'y if in a real hurry!), Xallite, etc. It looks odd seeing it in print, on notes you write it broad the other way.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

What about X-sync then?

[mair_in_grenderich]

wow. I've never seen xform, or havelock, before.

Cry 'Havelock!' and let slip the dugs of Whooo-Arrr!

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly sure its a reference to Havelock Ellis, author of "Studies in the Psychology of Sex" - a first attempt at the scientific analysis of human sexuality. All human sexual behaviours were researched and documented in an entirely neutral medical tone, the author confining himself to description and explanation without moral commentary. It was, of course, considered an obscene publication and the staff at the British Museum would get very, very precious indeed if you requested any of the seven volumes (and vol V in particular) without documentary evidence that you were a doctor. Owning the book was considered scandalous, even thirty years after the ban on sales to the general public was lifted!

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Is this the one?