Do you ever hear a word and wonder where it came from, and why we use it? That's etymology, my dude.

Wtf is etymology?

​
Good question. Basically, etymology is the science of investigating how words came to be and how words have developed over time. Rachel Barney has a pretty spicy explanation in the Oxford Studies of Ancient Philosophy:
​

As practiced by Socrates in the Cratylus, etymology involves a claim about the underlying semantic content of the name, what it really means or indicates. This content is taken to have been put there by the ancient name-givers: giving an etymology is thus a matter of unwrapping or decoding a name to find the message the name-givers have placed inside.

​
https://preview.redd.it/k6sdciwoz5051.jpg?width=222&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=087baf2678e83a65f0e716ad988add21161cfbbb

What the hell does this have to do with drugs?

Kind of nothing, kind of everything. These days, there's a lot of debate over the words we use. For instance,
​

• Social justice issues, like how to describe gay people, how to talk about disabilities, and how to eradicate sexist language from the workplace.
• Environmental issues, like whether we should say "global warming" or "climate change", and when exactly it goes from "climate change" to "climate crisis".
• Art and cultural expression issues, like whether or not violent song lyrics contribute to juvenile delinquency or how to define art itself.
• Government and political issues, like protecting First Amendment rights and what exactly you're allowed to scream at police officers before you get arrested.

​
No matter your stance on any given topic, we can all at least somewhat agree that words have weight and significance. Dan Jurafsky, a Humanities professor from Stanford, explains it like this:
​

Understanding why and how languages differ tells about the range of what is human, discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of our humanity.

​
All of this made me wonder about drugs and the people who use them. Drug users have unique slang, syntax, and structure that develops independently of the traditional language. Not only that, but drug users deal with incredible amounts of stigma from the community; stigma which begets even more convoluted terms to describe and label users and their habits. If language can have such a powerful effect on our attitudes, beliefs, mental processes, values, and feelings, I figured it would be worth it to look into a few of the terms we typically pepper into our speech. Maybe understanding the words themselves will help us better understand the community and its relationship to the rest of the world. So...yeah. Check out the history of some American drug slang, if you wish.

The Etymologies of Tweak-Speak:

​
​

• Junkie: Someone who is addicted to any narcotic, originally used in the context of morphine addiction.

We'll dive right in with one of the most confusing words on the list. We know that junkie and junkhead both appeared as a way to describe drug users around 1910-1920. The root of the word is junk, and that's where we get stuck. No one seems to know where exactly junk came from, since it's been popping up randomly for the past 800 years or so, with centuries of lost record in between.
The Javanese are an ethnic group native to Java island and the surrounding area, in what is modern-day Indonesia. From as early as 1200 AD, the Javanese were experts at building boats, which they called djons. At this time, seafaring trade was expanding across the world, and China wanted a slice of the action. The only problem was that they really didn't know how to make boats sturdy enough to go all the way to the Indo-European regions where most of the trade was happening. So they copied the djons, which became junks.
Fast forward to the mid-14th century, and the junk ships were a huge part of international trade. The Portugese were so impressed with the junk ships, they created the word junco to describe them. From there, it became a maritime word that sailors used. This is the first time we see junk in English - which meant "old cable/rope used for caulking ships".
Basically, if your boat got a hole in the side, you could use some old rope (junk) to patch the hole. The English use may have been influenced by Old French as well, where junc was a type of native reed (the reeds were fiberous enough to possibly be made into ropes and other things). In sailor terms, junk was used to describe a lot. Salt junk became a popular term for the meat that sailors ate while away at sea. The preserved meat they ate was like beef jerky, and salt junk described how tough it was, just like the junk ropes they used to repair their ships. It's the first time we see junk used in a negative way. The sailors would rather eat a sirloin steak, of course, but if they were at sea they were stuck eating the salt junk.
By the early-1800's, the American settlers were using junk not just to describe old rope, but anything that was old/needed to be thrown out. In a journal entry, one man describes "junking" lumber, stripping it down for firewood and getting rid of the excess.
​
https://preview.redd.it/4wav685sw5051.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0848c605d40a7e3f71ddd12c25a02d59cf00de32
Fast forward to the Prohibition Era. American gangsters had enormous power in the smuggling/trafficking of drugs and alcohol since people couldn't purchase them legally. It's unclear exactly how junk came to describe opiates, but the term was popularized with morphine and heroin users.
From there, junkie emerged shortly after. There's a theory that junkie is because addicts were stealing scrap metal (junk) to fund their habit, but there isn't a lot of evidence this was the case. In fact, we had a lot less scrap metal in the Prohibition Era than we do today, since it was reused in future building projects. The stereotype of drug addicts selling copper wire or other scrap materials probably came about later.
It's also interesting to note that the "-ie" ending in junkie is what we call a "diminutive possessive". Big words, but it basically means if you have an object, adding -ie or -y is a Dutch ending that describes the person who has a relationship to/owns the object. It's used it to show affection, like a familial relationship. For instance, a babe became a baby, a pup became a puppy, and a mama became a mommy.
So while junkhead or junker meant someone who literally "used junk", the word we use (junkie) seems to indicate someone who literally "loves junk". I love junk, how about you guys?
It's also important to understand that junk really means something different from trash. For instance, we have junk sales (or "rummage sales") in the United States, but we don't have trash sales. Trash and garbage are words used to describe things that are rotten, expired, absolutely no good anymore. Junk, on the other hand, is something that is just in disuse, but the idea is that it can be repurposed and reused again. So maybe junkies aren't trash after all, but people who can be repurposed into something even better someday. Just a thought.
​

• Addiction: The physical or psychological inability to stop consuming a substance despite negative consequences

Addiction in terms of drug use came about in the early 1900's. Again, it was first used in the context of morphine. Not long after, an addict came to mean someone who was addicted to a certain drug or behavior. The word itself is very old and has an extremely confusing history. Richard J Rosenthal investigated the whole thing to an amazing extent in his piece for the Journal of Addiction Research & Theory in 2018. He's way headier than I am, so I'll just let him tell you about it.
​

Addictio, the abstract noun derived from the verb, was the technical Latin term for the judicial act by which a debtor was made the slave of his creditor.
The sentence was pronounced, or spoken, by the judge, or praetor, according to the ancient law of the Twelve Tables. Where exactly did this leave the addictus, which in the passive form referred to the hapless individual who was physically handed over to his creditor by the praetor’s authority and physically led off in chains, to be held for sixty days or until the debt was paid? Failure to pay the debt after the lapse of the statutory sixty days rendered the debtor his creditor’s permanent property. He could then, at the creditor’s discretion, be kept, killed or sold as a common slave.
For the Romans, enslavement became increasingly associated with the passive forms of addicere, which of necessity would take on a very different connotation from the active form. To understand this, one must appreciate the distinction Romans made between active and passive forms of the verb, and in fact between active and passive in all forms of behavior. To be the recipient, to be acted upon, was to be less than. A passive human subject was a defeated individual, the object of someone else’s power. Being sentenced to be another person’s slave would be particularly humiliating. It would mean not only the loss of one’s citizenship but of one’s personhood.
The theme continued to be developed well into the imperial period. The most striking aspect of the use of addicere in each of these instances is the idea of bondage or enslavement. However, the object of that enslavement had evolved over the course of six centuries. What started as literal, the fate of the debt bondsman (addictus) under the ancient Law of the Twelve Tables, became metaphorical. One could become enslaved by vice (e.g., gambling, drinking, gluttony). A behavior like gambling, which previously might have led to one’s being sentenced into slavery, now was the enslavement.
The English verb ‘addict’ found particular resonance among the early church reformers. It’s earliest known appearance in English was in a tract by the Protestant reformer John Frith. It involves the act of choosing between two or more things. He apparently understood it as ‘preference’ or ‘choice,’ meaning (in a Christian context) the individual’s preference for a particular doctrine or interpretation of the Bible. [The Church] emphasized the dangers associated with a mistaken choice (Catholicism, the Pope, icons and idols). Most prominent was the danger of grievously offending God or of being led down the wrong path away from God. The Reformers extended their concerns to the physical realm, where one could be addicted to physical pleasures like gluttony and drunkenness.
Such ‘choices’ need not be actively chosen, however. The most influential of the Protestant Reformers next to Luther, John Calvin, [believed] man was so corrupted and enslaved by sin that he was incapable of choosing correctly. It was only through God’s grace that one was turned away from depravity and bad choices. An accomplished Latinist and writing in Latin, Calvin drew upon the legal, rather than the augural, usage of the Latin verb addicere to indicate that it is something done to or for one; it is not voluntary or within one’s control. This would be in line with the early legal meaning of addictio in Latin, where one did not act freely but was acted upon by the law [and] made the slave of one’s creditor.
[Writers from the 16th century on] were using medical metaphors to convey the seriousness of the problem, and we can't help noting that the language of disease was used both for the individual and for society. Furthermore, it was not addiction itself that was the disease, it was drunkenness or gambling, and when they referred to addiction, it was to convey ‘attachment’ or ‘preference.’
When the word addiction was deliberately omitted from four consecutive editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, it was because it was considered pejorative, stigmatizing, and too difficult to define. There were simply ‘too many meanings’ the term lacked any ‘universally agreed upon definition’: the result of using it was ‘conceptual chaos’.
Inclusion in DSM-5 represents behavioral addiction’s first official recognition as a diagnostic entity. It is therefore especially notable that, in addition to the lack of a definition, there are neither criteria nor guidelines for the assessment of potential disorders.

​
...like...wtf. For sure.
​
https://preview.redd.it/y6bd7ty4x5051.jpg?width=355&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9bfdf0cdf570f580511f87254a4ddecf8178d9eb
Can we all just take a minute to remember that this song existed though? God, 2008 was a simpler time. (If you wanna get hit over the head with a brick from the past, I encourage you to listen to Paralyzer or Disturbia again, just sayin)
Then we end the root with -er, which is for "connected with, pertaining to; the man engaged in". That comes from the old Latin -arius and -arium, which is the same reason an aria is an opera solo. So I mean, referring to tweakers in general as tweakarium and a tweaker as a tweakarius is valid (probably not, but it sounds cool).
​

• Tweak (also tweaking/tweaked/twacked/tweaker): Under the influence of methamphetamine

We can trace tweak through history fairly well. It starts with the Proto-Indo-European word \dwoh,* meaning "two".
[Side note: We currently can't trace words farther back than Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or any "Proto" language. There's no written record of PIE, and we really can't prove it was a language at all. Linguists compare words from newer languages that are alike in sound and meaning, and from there, group them into the "families" of Proto languages. PIE may have originated as early as 3300 BCE, which is old as shit (like before people were using wheels and domesticating horses). PIE is the most influential Proto language and has been studied the most, since English, Portugese, Russian, Italian, Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali, German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, and many others have all originated from PIE]
From there, \dwoh* was found in Old Armenian with կից, meaning "a cross-road" and in Old English as tweo, meaning "two".
Both of these words created the Old English tweag later on, meaning "trouble, doubt, distress". It makes sense when you consider how someone at a "cross-roads" is faced with a tough decision, because they could go in one of two directions. In Old English, tweo became tweonleoht, which is where we get "twilight" from. It literally means "two-light", as in the part of the day when it's night and day at the same time.
Tweag became twikken, which has multiple meanings: trouble/doubt, plucking/pulling something, and twitch. All of these definitions are loosely connected to tweag with the idea that there is some type of problem (distress) that needs to be fixed. If you had a thorn in your foot, you might be distressed and pluck/pull it out. If you had an illness or were fearful (distress), you might twitch, and so on.
​
https://preview.redd.it/xwjbqcist5051.png?width=266&format=png&auto=webp&s=459a3cb975620c6611aefdfe424aa08b887fe7f0
This was the definition until the 1980's, when tweak came to mean "a fine adjustment". For example, resetting a spring inside a clock would be a "tweak", but completely renovating your house would not, since it's a big project/adjustment. From there, we got tweaker, which is an interesting phrase because it only applies to methamphetamine (and rarely other stimulants), instead of all drugs. This meaning traces itself back to twitch, and a tweaker is someone who is constantly twitching/super high/sporadic and uncoordinated because of using meth. Nervousness/paranoia are also described with this definition.
The -er root, again, gives the word a literal meaning of "someone who twitches".
Personally, I like the "minor adjustments" definition. Like, "Nah bro I'm not tweaking, just making minor adjustments to my neurochemicals, thank you".
​

• Crank: crystal methamphetamine

At least where I live, crank is quickly becoming an outdated/obsolete term. I don't know of anyone personally who refers to meth as crank - my guess is that in the next couple of decades it will fall out of use in this context unless a particular area or community hangs onto it. That being said, it has been widely used as a way to describe meth for 50 years, and it started in an interesting way.
​
https://preview.redd.it/38kbht71z5051.jpg?width=1694&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4007f4639938d77bdd0e5649d39b5a0b3c7d4cf
In the Proto-Germanic language, \krank* was "to bend or curl up". This is also the origin of cringe, experiencing something so uncomfortable that you physically curl away. \krank* became crincan, "to bend or yield". This turned into cranc, which was used in Old-Middle Engilsh as crincan "to weave", crencestre "a spinster (woman who weaves)", and crankstaef, "a weaver's instrument (a loom)".
In the 16th century, the definition was generalized and used in other things, always meaning "to twist or bend" in some way. In the 1590's, we see records of crank meaning "the twists and turns of speech" (imagine how the stereotypical politician never gives a straight answer, "talking around" the question to avoid saying something that might sound bad). In 1848, crank was used to describe "an unreasonable act" (something that would be done by a person with twisted judgement. Even today, if we see a person behaving in a particularly cruel or cold manner, we might say that they have a "twisted mind").
By 1834, crank had become a tool. This hearkens back to the days of weaving, since a crankstaef was a piece of the loom that helped the wheel spin. By 1908, the rate of automobile manufacture was increasing. Building cars required the use of a crank, and it was around this time that crank also described the action of "turning a crank". In this way, it's quite possible to crank a crank, but you can also crank a dial, crank a lever, etc.
​
​
https://i.redd.it/r8y9s5amt5051.gif
It's a little unclear how crank came to be used as a word for meth, but the most probable theory comes from the Hell's Angels and similar motorcycle gangs that have been active in the U.S since the 1940's. In the 1970's, the U.S outlawed methamphetamine due to the increase of people abusing the drugs. It was around this time that the motorcycle gangs controlled a majority of production and distribution, usually to rural areas. Bikers used their bikes, of course, to transport and distribute the drug, sometimes concealing it in the crankshafts of their motorcycles. The theory is that this method of crankshaft transport lent meth the street name crank.
The only thing I question is how much meth you could realistically fit in the crankshaft of a motorcycle. If you've ever seen the crankshaft of a bike, they're really not that big. Plus, they get pretty hot, which would be a little problematic. That being said, motorcycle gangs were known for customizing and adding to their bikes for a variety of different reasons. They were usually expert mechanics who could customize their bikes to be faster, more durable, and go longer distances. So I suppose there's a hundred ways, in theory, that you could increase the available space in your crankshaft and keep it from getting too hot.
​

• Gacked: Extremely high on a stimulant (mostly used in the context of meth), usually to the point of being incapacitated or uncomfortable. Stupid high.

Gacked is one of those expressions that has varied use depending on the community. When I lived on the West Coast, gacked was used quite often, then I moved to the Midwest and hardly encountered the phrase at all. Just my experience, not sure if it holds any water.
Anyways, gacked is a product of geeked, "to be filled with excitement or enthusiasm". You can be geeked over a new video game or makeup palette. Geeked for Christmas, geeked for the weekend, geeked to get your dick sucked. Whatever.
​
https://preview.redd.it/60d9eiply5051.jpg?width=448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33b2bb684983dbd311f22135ef2d98383cde4213
We usually use geek to describe someone who's very enthusiastic about a particular subject. While being a nerd requires extensive knowledge on a subject, being a geek requires only enthusiasm. We find geck in Scandinavian and Germanic languages in the 15th century. Geck was "to croak, cackle, or mock". By the early 16th century, geck was used to describe a person, "a fool or simpleton".
Fast-forward to the 1940's, when traveling circuses and freak shows were a big deal. The freak show performers came to be known as geeks - the public saw them as eccentric simpletons, entertaining but not smart enough to cope for themselves or be considered legitimate members of society.
​
​
https://preview.redd.it/u9rs1rb4w5051.jpg?width=265&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44f0087519018f5714c8cd0af0bfffa2be886c72
​
In the 1980's, college kids began to use geek to describe their fellow classmates who were socially inept and obsessed with the computers and technology that were rapidly developing. By the 90's, we could say that someone was geeking out or geeked out if they were ignoring opportunities to socialize/have sex/etc. in favor of obsessing over tech gadgets.This explains how geeked became connected with stimulants. When you're geeked, you might show signs of social ineptness, like talking way too much, not being able to hold a normal conversation, displaying odd and erratic behaviors, or expressing ideas that seem strange and inexplicable.
I think the connection to hyper-focusing is interesting as well. In the 80's, a geek was obsessed with computers to the point where they took notice of nothing else (other people/other responsibilities /other hobbies etc.) Stim users, of course, can show this same intense and unwavering obsession, which may have strengthen the linguistic connection between geeks and meth users.
Gacked may have been a natural evolution to distinguish "meth geeked" from "geeked about other stuff", but some people believe gacked evolved from geeked because of the way you can throw up/get nauseous if you overdose on stimulants. If you were insanely high, you might vomit (or gack), and would be gacked as a result.
​
-- K imma end it there for right now because I'm tired of looking at this etymology dictionary. You learned something today, bitch! Yayyyy. Proud of u. Go forth with your new and probably-useless knowledge, tweakarius.

UPDATE BELOW
I've been reading a ton of arranged marriage posts here and wanted to start one to address my issue. Hope you all can help. When responding, could you please include whether you've been in an arranged marriage as well, context would be tremendously helpful.
So here's my situation. I'm 25, born and raised in the states, culturally "westernized," no real ties to the homeland (Pakistan). However, my parents are the complete opposite. Immigrated here after marriage at around 25, ties back home, relatives still there, plan to move back once they can afford to retire. Growing up, this always presented challenges. I often felt like I was leading two different lives, one at school/with friends, one at home with family/relatives. There were many instances of cultural clashes.
Now, my parents have arranged for me to get engaged to a girl I've never met and have never spoken to, only saw a few pictures (and I wasn’t impressed). We will meet/speak at the engagement, which is in 2 weeks. We’re all flying to Pakistan, she's from there, born and bred. They never explicitly asked me whether I was okay with this (I'm not, I start grad school soon and didn't want to broach the subject until after, they think I'll be too old at 27). The engagement is now, with the wedding planned for after I finish grad school. This is obviously causing me a lot of mental angst.
Generally speaking, I'd prefer to choose my life partner rather than having my parents choose. With that said, I'm not opposed to someone they suggest, as long as it's a good fit and the ultimate choice is mine. I'm not even necessarily opposed to this girl, I just don't know her so I feel like it's a gamble...what if I don't like her? At a minimum, I think a few conversations should be had between her and me. English is my first language and Urdu is my second. With her, it's probably the opposite as she's grown up in Pakistan (again, not sure because I don’t know her at all). This could cause communication issues, which I'm particularly sensitive about. My parents and I have these issues at times where I struggle to articulate my feelings to them in Urdu and their English is horrible. However, they refuse to let me speak to the girl because they feel ashamed to ask the girl's parents. In their conservative beliefs, both families agree this would be frowned upon. They've assured me her English is fine. But, they've never spoken to her in English and even if they did, they're not exactly the best judge of English language skills.
Contributing to the issue of fit is that my parents and I are vastly different. I'm extremely progressive/liberal. They're very conservative (as in South Asia conservative). Our beliefs and ideals are usually conflicting. I feel like they've found someone who fits their mold and beliefs. Our household isn't one where open discussion is encouraged. Its more "this is right and that is wrong, because I'm older and have life experience so I say so."
So here are the choices I see: 1. I can call the whole thing off now, parents and uncle (who's played a big part in arranging this but really doesn’t know/understand me and we haven't even spoken in months) will be really upset. Maybe they'll shun me for a few years, who knows. I don't want this because I do love them and want a healthy relationship with my parents and family. 2. Go to the engagement, meet her, and if we click then that's fine, but if we don't then call if off somewhere down the line before the wedding. This gives me the leeway of making a decision with more information, however would be even tougher on my family and generally worse. The engagement will be announced to everyone they know, and they are VERY concerned about keeping up appearances within their friends/relatives. Calling it off after the engagement would make them look bad within their peers. Also, it would suck for the girl and her family, don't want to knowingly lead them on only to crush them later. 3. Go through with the whole thing, try to make the best of it, but understand that I've been given a poor draw of the cards.
Ideally, the first choice would be best but here are the risks with it: - I'd be on my own in terms of finding someone. I'm somewhat okay with this, but then again, I've never had a meaningful relationship. I have great friends, a decent social life, and I've been on dates (progressing from there is where it gets a little tricky for me) but the lack of relationship makes me a little nervous about going this route. I chalk it up to circumstances, went to a really small HS (3 girls in graduating class), commuted to college due to mom's health so wasn't on campus much to meet people, then started working. However, maybe I'm disillusioned and it's just me. What if I don't find someone...don't want to take a huge step like this only to prove my parents right and end up alone. - Saying no now would mean my parents would just try to find someone for my younger brother, who is far more open to arranged/blind marriage. Once a younger sibling gets married, it becomes incredibly tough to find someone for the older sibling, should my parents decide in a few years to help find someone and take my requirements into consideration. - I'm generally a risk-averse person, which is the only reason I'm open to option 3. I'm also anti-confrontational and have trouble saying no to my parents when they feel so strongly about something. We’ve had tons of arguments about this engagement already and I saw my dad break down and cry. He’s a very strong person, didn’t even shed tears when his father died. I don’t want to cause him any pain.
Basically, I've got about a week to make a firm decision on this. As of now, everyone is operating as if we'll be going through with this. We leave for the engagement in 2 weeks, so realistically I have a week to make a decision and mentally prepare for it. Any help would be MUCH appreciated. Even writing this all out has been therapeutic. I've tried to be as unbiased as possible. Thanks!
Tl;dr – Parents set up engagement with someone I don’t know, someone who might be culturally different from me, haven’t met her or spoken to her. Not sure if I should go through with it, don’t want to say no to parents either. Saying no means parents = really upset, they won’t try to find someone later down the road and loosen up their definition of “arranged,” and I would probably have to find someone on my own, which may or may not happen. Thoughts?
UPDATE
So I've talked to my parents about at least having a Skype session or something to see if there's some sort of basic plane on which we can communicate. They agreed but the girl was too shy and didn't want to (her dad didn't want it either so maybe she felt pressure). Now, I've got like 3 hours left to decide whether or not to call it off. Her family has already been shopping and making plans in anticipation, as has my family. The wheels continue to be in motion and are rapidly speeding up, despite my open complaints to my parents that I don't feel comfortable with this. Regardless of what ends up happening, I feel this incredibly strong feeling of disgust towards my dad - hate seeing him, hearing his voice. In my mind I mentally pick out flaws while we're having a conversation to peg him down a few notches in my head. It's very unhealthy but I just can't stand him. I live on my own now but 10 miles feels too close, I kind of want to move across country to get away.
Here's what my decision now boils down to. I can accept or reject, and both options have the potential for regret later on down the road, so I'm conflicted about which is the path of least resistance:

• I can go through with this now, keep everyone happy, and maybe be happy myself with this girl (or maybe not, it's a crapshoot), and avoid the regret of branching out on my own and ending up never having found someone on my own and the fear of growing old alone. While I would avoid that potential outcome, I would also be giving up the hope that I did have about moving to grad school and maybe finding someone there.
  
• I can say no and keep the illusion of hope alive. Given that I never went away to college and went to a very small HS, I never had a meaningful relationship so I was curious to find out whether this was due to the circumstances, or whether it was because I'm not cut out for it. But, I'll never know and always wonder. Also, saying no would make me far more relationship-driven and I feel like I'd pursue it rather than just letting it happen when the time was right.
  

Either way, I see a regret filled, "woe is me" future. Advice?
tl;dr - Need to make a decision in the next few hours, everything is already in motion. Because of my glass half-empty nature, the potential negatives of either decision are really weighing on me. I've tried writing out the pros/cons to make a decision but am still as lost as ever

1. Incoming Call @ 7.16 pm. Duration: 32 seconds. Probable location: Same as #21.

Jay claims Adnan talks to someone in Arabic, which is technically untrue as Adnan doesn’t speak Arabic. But his family would speak Urdu if they were from Pakistan, and it’s probable that Jay would have assumed any foreign language Adnan was speaking was Arabic since he is Muslim. Frankly, people make this mistake all the time, and Jay makes some unflattering and inaccurate generalizations about Muslims in the interviews. His colleague Josh at the porn video store also claims the killer whom Adnan aided and abetted was “Middle Eastern,” according to Jay. So it is unlikely Jay is not conversant with geography and indigenous languages regarding Pakistan. He might be ignorant here, but that doesn’t mean it is a conscious lie on his part.
And while Adnan’s family says he doesn’t speak Urdu with “fluency,” that doesn’t mean he wasn’t conversant enough with it to have a brief conversation or that spoken Urdu was unintelligible to him. Plus, Jay says only part of the call was in a foreign language. Perhaps he is speaking with Yaser? Again, pure speculation, but given Yaser’s supposed info and the anonymous tipster, it’s possible. Perhaps what Yaser knows is that Adnan was not at the mosque at this time?

1. To Jenn’s Pager @ 8.04 pm. Duration: 32 seconds Probable location: Near the Park and Ride and Edmondson Avenue, where Hae’s car is ditched.

This seems fairly self-explanatory, whether you believe Jay has gone rogue or not or is colluding with Adnan.

1. To Jenn’s Pager @ 8.05 pm. Duration: 13 seconds Probable location: Along Edmondson Avenue, heading west towards Westview Mall.

This agrees with Jay’s maintenance that this was a pick-up notification to Jenn to meet him at Westview Mall. It gels with Jenn saying she arrived at the mall and then Adnan and Jay showed up. It also seems pretty clear to me that Jay had a car at this point, because even though the pages are only a minute apart, he has made considerable headway along I-40 towards Westview Mall between the first and second pages if you trust the tower data. If he was solo, then he would already have possession of a third party’s car back after ditching Hae’s.
The idea floated that he has no car at this point and is relying on someone to drive him back to Adnan’s car which he left at the Park and Ride is absurd and frankly impossible, if you believe that Adnan drove himself to the mosque to deliver dinner and pray. He must have had a ride, and he must have had a third party to help move the cars. Whoever this person is completely unclear. It’s not Jenn, because he is paging and talking to her during the time the third part would have been helping him dispose of the body and shift the cars.
You can see I have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to fathom the idea that Adnan legitimately isn’t with Jay at this point, isn’t aware of what Jay is doing, and Jay is independently masterminding the disposal of the body while not having possession of a car and a very devoted accomplice.
Susan Simpson claims that leaving from Adnan’s house at 7 to go to the Park and Ride, on to Leakin Park, and then onto Edmondson would take about 15 minutes.
Plugging it into Googlemaps, however, it says it would take 20 minutes without traffic—and that’s never a dead cert in Maryland/DC metro area; we have the worst traffic in the nation, and this would coincide with the tail end of rush hour. But, assuming it takes only 20 minutes, that is not accounting for the almost 30 minutes Jay claims it takes to dig the ditch, not counting hauling the body and switching cars. Attach at least 5 minutes to deal with transferring cars, or driving so as to follow one another, at a slow pace, and that’s about an hour, which tallies with the idea that they get to Leakin Park at 7.09 and finish closer to quarter till 8, and then scout for a car-ditch site on Edmondson.
Even though Jenn and Jay dispute who got to Westview first, and whether Jay paged her before arriving at Westview, it seems the call records indicate it was before, and that they were potentially headed for that rendezvous. That said, I have no clue when or where the shovels and clothes were ditched, but it is sometime after 8.05 pm.
I agree with Susan Simpson that it is likely that the double-paging could be a signal to pick him up; but that does not prove that Jay is alone at this time and needs a pick up from Edmondson. It could be a signal to pick him up now that he is done from Westview, as Jay and Jenn originally say.
At some point between 8.10 pm and 9.01, the next call, Jay transfers possession of the phone back to Adnan (that is, if it ever left his ownership in the first place.)
If Adnan is innocent, then Jay needs to go back to the mosque to do so, and all of this somehow happens completely without his awareness and without any guile or suspicion on his part.
If he is guilty, Adnan takes the phone, his car, and gets back to the mosque a little after 8 (around 8.20 or so). You notice that it is possible for Adnan to be involved and get to the mosque during the 8 o’clock hour, as he and his dad claim. It is less likely, however, that he spends an hour between 7 and 8 pm at his home getting food and traveling to the mosque in his car but without his cell phone.

1. To Nisha @ 9.01 Duration: 1 min, 24 seconds Probable location: The mosque or Adnan’s house

It seems clear that Adnan makes this call. It is possible that he is at the mosque at this point or at his house, and that the story could be corroborated by his father that he did attend prayers that evening (albeit briefly). However, it would mean that Adnan stole away at some point during Ramadan prayers to talk to Nisha and later Krista, since his dad testifies that he was at the mosque from 8-10 pm that night. Honestly, I don’t think that’s nefarious—talking to girlfriends during prayer time—and I believe that he was probably able to absent himself to talk on the phone during that time without undue suspicion, but that also means it is probable that he left during the time his father says he was at the mosque without being noticed (namely after 9 pm). The other alternative is that he is at home or elsewhere in that grid during this call. That would mean he spend no more than 40 minutes at the mosque, and it is not a hard and fast alibi for the burial, since it would be possible for him to get to the mosque in the 8 o’clock hour and also dispose of the body during the nebulous (and frankly, very long) period he is conveying dinner to his father (without witnesses).
I will concede that it is possible Jay had use of Adnan’s phone elsewhere and that he was at the mosque the whole time while Jay disposed of the body. Given the reasons above, though, I find it unlikely. Again, this would mean that Adnan had Jay drop him at his house after the Cathy sojourn at 7, again gave him lease of his his phone for up to the next two hours, and then had Jay rendezvous with him at the mosque again to drop the phone off at a preset time (at least, before 10 pm, when it would be apparent he was without his car). And it seems likely this would have been by 9, since Adnan most likely leaves the mosque then. If that’s the case, why did Adnan allow him to do that?
This is where Dana Chivvis’s words about Adnan’s (damning and unfathomable) “unluckiness” resonate with me. If Adnan isn’t at all involved, we have to assume that he was completely unaware of Jay’s actions during this time which is heavily and might I add incriminatingly interspersed with substantial periods of time where he is hanging out with Jay of his own volition. Admittedly, Jay is acting oddly, too, and needs Adnan’s phone and car when he is not with Adnan or dropping him off/picking him up from track, his house, the mosque, etc. And for a casual acquaintance, this seems extremely companionable and trusting of him. The idea that he wanted to do something nice for Stephanie on her birthday by ensuring Jay purchased her a gift at 10.45 am, especially when they don’t actually ever see Stephanie together that day, is looking pretty threadbare to me.
Most importantly, it also presumes something about Jay: that he is an incredibly cunning, strategic, unflappable, and flexible thinker. Think about it: if Adnan knows nothing, this is a complete crime of opportunity. It involves the opportunistic disposal of a body, requiring on at least two separate occasions Jay’s ability to take Adnan’s car and/or phone and go elsewhere for long bouts of time to move the Hae’s car and her body and later dispose of them both. It’s not a one-man job, either, so he must have been able to pull it together efficiently, garnering considerable outside assistance from friends like Jenn (and Phil and Patrick). He must have trusted that he would have a) the time, b) the resources (phones and multiple cars at his disposal), and c) the manpower to pull it off. That’s a big gamble.
If there is anything I feel I know about Jay from his shifting and often nonsensical testimony it is that he is not a quick thinker or a strategist. That is the opposite of the impression I get from Adnan. Whether you like him or not, pretty much everyone agrees he is clever, he is a thinker, and he considers situations from all angles (see the “Price of Tea” graphs he sent to SK). I just don’t buy the “Jay the Criminal Mastermind” angle.
At this point, Jay’s on his own with Jenn disposing of shovels (maybe) and going to see Cathy and Stephanie (not necessarily in that order). There is no way to corroborate this.

1. To Krista @ 9.05 Duration: 5 min, 28 seconds Probable location: Adnan’s house

If Adnan was at the mosque during the prior call, then he’s not now. He’s left the mosque after or while speaking to Nisha. This means he left an hour before his father claimed. This is the longest phone call so far, so he seems to not be too rushed or anything about it.

1. To Krista @ 9.10 pm. Duration: 8 min, 41 seconds. Probable location: Adnan’s house

Not sure why the call a few minutes later and for so long, but it’s not necessarily evidence of anything untoward.

1. To Nisha @ 9.57 pm Duration: 24 seconds Probable location: Adnan’s house

Same as above.

1. To Yaser @ 10.02 pm Duration: 6 seconds Probable location: Possible the same as before, as Susan Simpson claims, but routed through the tower which (coincidentally?) covers Jay’s house and a corner of Patapsco State Park.

It’s also possible that Adnan is on the move again to see Jay again. It’s a 7 minute drive to Jay’s house one-way.
Side note: I believe that on the Serial map Patapsco is at least partially mislabeled. It seems that Patapsco sprawls into two major parts along the river, and that one of the big green swaths on the map near Adnan’s house and the mosque is Patapsco as well, but it is not labeled as such on the map I see on Susan Simpson’s blog, which I assume comes from the Serial website given the fonts. This isn’t immediately relevant to my case, but it’s noteworthy, I think.
Again, this could just be a re-routed call. I have no firm ideas about it.

1. To Saad @ 10.29 pm Duration: 18 seconds Probable location: Adnan’s house

Probably just chatting.

1. To Ann @ 10.30 pm Duration: 1 min, 44 seconds Probable location: Adnan’s house

Same as #30.
Okay, ready, aim, fire! :)