Start
Start is a versatile word in the English language, functioning primarily as a verb meaning to move suddenly, to begin or initiate an activity, or to set something in motion, and as a noun referring to a sudden involuntary movement, the beginning or outset of an action, or the point from which something commences.[1][2] Its core senses derive from notions of abrupt motion, with the modern emphasis on "beginning" emerging later in usage history.[3] Etymologically, "start" traces to Middle English sterten, akin to Old English styrtan ("to leap up" or "move suddenly"), from Proto-West Germanic *stertian, ultimately rooted in Proto-Indo-European *ster-₂ ("to stiffen" or "stiffen oneself"), reflecting an original connotation of leaping or starting in surprise rather than deliberate inception.[4][1] The term's first recorded uses as a verb appear in Old English texts, with noun forms attested from around 1300, and it has since expanded into idiomatic expressions across contexts like sports, mechanics, and narrative origins, underscoring its foundational role in describing transitions from rest to action.[5][6]Etymology and general usage
Linguistic origins
The English verb start originates from Old English styrtan (or Kentish variants steortian/stiertan), denoting "to leap up" or "to move suddenly," as in a brisk or stiff motion akin to jumping.[4] This term traces to Proto-Germanic *stert-, which conveyed abrupt or swift movement, with cognates in Old Frisian sterta ("to leap"), Middle Dutch sterten ("to rush"), and Old High German sturzen ("to fall headlong").[4] The root ultimately derives from Proto-Indo-European *ster-(1), meaning "stiff," reflecting the rigid, propulsive quality of such actions, as evidenced in related Germanic words for tail (steort) and sudden starts in animals.[4][7] In Middle English, around the 13th–14th centuries, start retained its core sense of involuntary or excited leaping, as in sudden awakenings or physical jerks, appearing in texts like Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales (c. 1387–1400), where it describes abrupt dismounting or springing actions without yet fully abstracting to non-physical initiation.[4][7] The noun form emerged by the late 14th century for "sudden jump or twitch," but semantic broadening to "beginning" or "initiation of a process" developed gradually; the noun sense of "act of setting out or commencing" is attested by the 1560s, while the verb's transitive use for "to set in motion" or "cause to begin" solidified in the 1670s, decoupling from connotations of physical suddenness by the 19th century (e.g., "begin moving" in 1821).[4] This shift reflects empirical patterns in historical corpora, where concrete motion metaphors extended to abstract origins, supported by usage in early modern English for journeys or endeavors without implying velocity.[7]Core meanings as verb and noun
As a verb, "start" primarily denotes the initiation of an action, process, or operation, often involving the setting in motion of something previously inactive. This includes causing a mechanism to function, such as starting an engine, or commencing an activity like starting a business or work shift.[8][2] In contemporary usage, it frequently applies to concrete, operational beginnings, as in "start the car" where operation requires activation, distinguishing it from more abstract commencements.[1] The noun form of "start" refers to the point or moment of commencement, serving as the origin of an event, journey, or process. Examples include "the start of the race" as the initial position or signal for movement, or "a good start" indicating an advantageous initial phase of an endeavor.[9][2] This usage emphasizes the tangible onset, often linked to an impulse or departure from rest, as in competitive contexts where a "head start" provides an early positional advantage.[1] Linguistically, "start" differs from synonyms like "begin" in implying a more dynamic or mechanical onset, suitable for physical or energetic initiations, whereas "begin" aligns with formal or gradual processes.[10] This nuance arises from usage patterns where "start" pairs readily with objects denoting operable entities (e.g., machines, vehicles), reflecting a causal emphasis on applied effort to overcome inertia, as observed in empirical analyses of verb complements in corpora.[11] In physical applications, such as kinematics, "starting velocity" denotes the initial speed imparted to an object, underscoring "start"'s connotation of forceful commencement over mere temporal onset.[1]Science and biology
Start codon
The start codon refers to the nucleotide triplet AUG in messenger RNA (mRNA), which serves as the primary signal for initiating protein translation by ribosomes, encoding the amino acid methionine and being recognized by a specialized initiator transfer RNA (tRNA) bearing an anticodon complementary to AUG.[12] This initiator tRNA, charged with N-formylmethionine in prokaryotes or unmodified methionine in eukaryotes, positions the first amino acid at the ribosome's peptidyl (P) site, marking the beginning of the polypeptide chain assembly during the translation initiation phase.[13] The AUG sequence thus establishes the reading frame for subsequent codons, ensuring the ribosome decodes the mRNA from a defined starting point.[14] Empirical studies using ribosomal binding assays demonstrate that the start codon directly influences translation efficiency by facilitating stable ribosome-mRNA interactions; for instance, mRNAs with an intact AUG exhibit stronger in vitro ribosome binding and higher levels of full-length protein production compared to those with mutated initiation sites.[15] In prokaryotes, the 30S ribosomal subunit binds near the AUG via upstream Shine-Dalgarno sequences, while in eukaryotes, the 40S subunit scans from the 5' cap until encountering the first suitable AUG, with assays confirming that disruption of this codon abolishes or severely reduces initiation.[16] These findings, derived from controlled in vitro reconstructions and mutagenesis experiments, underscore the causal role of the start codon in recruiting initiation factors like IF2 in bacteria or eIF2 in eukaryotes to form the preinitiation complex.[17] The AUG start codon exhibits near-universality across cellular organisms, comprising approximately 83% of initiation sites in Escherichia coli genes as documented in genomic analyses of prokaryotic sequences, with data from databases like NCBI revealing consistent prevalence in bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic proteomes.[18] Variations occur, particularly in prokaryotes where GUG and UUG serve as alternative starts in 14% and 3% of cases, respectively, often yielding lower initiation efficiency but enabling adaptive regulation under specific conditions.[18] Eukaryotes show stricter adherence to AUG, with non-AUG usage limited to rare contexts like mitochondrial genes or stress responses, challenging models of absolute universality while highlighting evolutionary conservation driven by selection for reliable translation fidelity.[19] Debates surrounding non-canonical start codons arise from genomic surveys identifying their occasional functionality, such as CUG or AUU in mammals, which can initiate translation at efficiencies up to 50% of AUG in certain contexts, prompting revisions to overly rigid universal paradigms based on sequencing data from diverse organisms.[20] These exceptions, while infrequent, reveal context-dependent advantages, like enhanced metabolic adaptation in bacterial strains using non-AUG starts for faster growth on carbohydrates.[21] In synthetic biology, engineered initiator tRNAs have enabled efficient translation from non-AUG codons like GUC or AAG, facilitating applications such as orthogonal genetic codes for incorporating non-standard amino acids and designing custom protein circuits, as validated in E. coli expression systems.[22]Technology and computing
Start menu and button
The Start menu and button in Microsoft Windows function as a primary graphical user interface element for launching applications, accessing system utilities, and performing searches, accessed via a taskbar button or the Windows key. Introduced with Windows 95 on August 24, 1995, it replaced fragmented menu systems from prior versions like Windows 3.1, centralizing program access in a hierarchical, cascading menu that listed installed software, recent documents, and settings folders.[23][24] This design reduced navigation steps compared to file explorer reliance, fostering quicker task initiation through pinned shortcuts and submenus, which studies on interface familiarity later attributed to sustained user productivity in desktop environments.[25] Subsequent iterations enhanced functionality while preserving core accessibility. Windows Vista, released January 30, 2007, integrated a search box into the Start menu, enabling indexed queries for applications, files, and settings without opening separate dialogs, which streamlined retrieval times for users with large software libraries.[26] Windows 7 refined this with customizable jump lists for recent items, maintaining the left-aligned, compact layout favored for mouse and keyboard efficiency.[25] Windows 8, launched October 26, 2012, controversially removed the Start button and menu in favor of a full-screen "Start screen" optimized for touch interfaces, prioritizing tile-based app launching over traditional hierarchies. This shift elicited widespread backlash from desktop users accustomed to the button's positioning, with reports citing disrupted muscle memory and increased steps for program access, prompting third-party replacements and petitions.[27][28] Microsoft partially reversed course in Windows 8.1 by restoring a non-functional Start button linking to the screen, acknowledging usability friction in non-touch scenarios.[29] Windows 10, released July 29, 2015, reinstated a hybrid Start menu combining the classic list view with resizable live tiles—dynamic, updating icons for apps like weather or news feeds—allowing at-a-glance information without full app launches.[30] Users could pin, resize, and group tiles, though some criticized the space allocation as bloated for minimalists, favoring customization to revert to list-only modes. Windows 11, introduced October 5, 2021, centered the Start button on the taskbar and adopted a streamlined, vertical layout emphasizing pinned apps and recommendations over expansive tiles, with search prominence retained for efficiency.[30] Recent 2025 previews further hybridize it by toggling between categorized apps and alphabetical lists, addressing complaints of obscured access in pinned-heavy setups while preserving search-driven productivity gains over pre-95 fragmented interfaces.[31] Empirical reception data underscores high adoption despite iterative controversies; for instance, Windows 10's menu restoration correlated with 75 million upgrades in its first month, reflecting retained user workflows amid touch-desktop convergence, countering narratives of inherent unfriendliness by linking features like integrated search to reduced launch times in usability benchmarks.[25] Criticisms of bloat persist, often tied to default pinning of Microsoft apps, but native unpinned customization and keyboard shortcuts (e.g., Win + number for taskbar jumps) mitigate this, prioritizing empirical task completion over aesthetic purity.[30]Engine starting mechanisms
Engine starting mechanisms for internal combustion engines (ICE) primarily involve rotating the crankshaft to achieve initial compression and ignition of the air-fuel mixture. Prior to the early 1910s, automobiles relied on manual hand-cranking, where a operator inserted a crank handle into the front of the engine and rotated it directly connected to the crankshaft, often requiring multiple vigorous turns to overcome compression resistance.[32][33] This method posed significant risks, including "kickback" where the engine could suddenly reverse torque and injure the operator's arm.[34] In 1911, inventor Charles Kettering developed the electric self-starter, first demonstrated on a Cadillac engine and commercially introduced on 1912 Cadillac models, with a patent granted in 1915.[35][36] This system uses a compact electric motor, powered by the vehicle's battery, to engage a pinion gear with the engine's flywheel ring gear, rapidly spinning the crankshaft to firing speed before disengaging.[37] The innovation eliminated routine hand-cranking for most passenger vehicles, reducing injury incidents associated with manual methods, though exact quantitative reductions in failure-related accidents are not comprehensively tracked in early records.[34] For smaller ICE applications, such as lawnmowers and chainsaws, manual pull-start mechanisms persist, employing a recoil starter where pulling a cord winds a spring-loaded drum connected to the crankshaft via a ratcheting clutch, imparting rotational momentum to initiate combustion; the spring then rewinds the cord automatically.[38] Electric vehicles (EVs) eschew traditional cranking altogether, as permanent magnet or induction motors draw power directly from the high-voltage traction battery through an inverter, delivering near-instantaneous torque from standstill without a separate starter component.[39] This results in smoother initiation, evidenced by electric motors' flat torque curves that provide peak output at zero RPM, contrasting the ramp-up required in ICE starters. However, EV "starts" depend on the auxiliary 12V battery for control systems, and cold temperatures exacerbate issues by reducing lithium-ion battery capacity and efficiency, leading to greater performance degradation—such as up to 40% range loss and slower response—compared to ICE vehicles, where cold primarily affects cranking torque but not overall energy delivery to the same degree.[40][41] Department of Energy analyses confirm battery electric vehicles exhibit heightened sensitivity to ambient temperature drops in energy consumption during initial operation.[40]Military and diplomacy
START arms control treaties
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I), signed on July 31, 1991, in Moscow by U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, aimed to reduce deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles and warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia).[42] The treaty entered into force on December 5, 1994, after ratification by the U.S. Senate in October 1992 and the Russian State Duma in 1994, imposing central limits of no more than 1,600 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers, alongside no more than 6,000 accountable warheads on those systems (with sub-limits of 4,900 on ICBMs and SLBMs).[42] These provisions required verifiable dismantlement of excess systems, verified through a regime of on-site inspections, data exchanges, and notifications, which facilitated over 1,000 inspections by each side by the treaty's implementation deadline. By the December 5, 2001, compliance deadline, both parties had achieved approximately an 80% reduction in accountable strategic warheads from pre-treaty levels, with the U.S. deploying around 5,828 warheads and Russia around 5,578, down from totals exceeding 20,000 combined in the late Cold War era.[43] This empirical outcome, tracked via treaty-mandated declarations and inspections, contributed to lowered global nuclear risks, as evidenced by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) assessments showing a decline in operational strategic warheads from over 21,000 in 1990 to under 6,000 by 2002 across both arsenals.[44] START I expired on December 5, 2009, but its framework influenced subsequent agreements like the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) and the 2010 New START Treaty, which built on its verification precedents while imposing lower limits of 1,550 deployed warheads.[45] START II, signed on January 3, 1993, in Moscow by Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, sought deeper cuts to 3,000–3,500 accountable strategic warheads, including a ban on multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) for all ICBMs and requirements to convert MIRVed SLBMs to single-warhead configurations over time.[46] The U.S. Senate ratified it on January 26, 1996, but Russia conditioned its April 2000 Duma ratification on U.S. adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, leading to non-entry into force after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM in 2002; Russia later declared the treaty void in 2002.[46] Proponents argued these measures would prevent post-Cold War arms race escalation by eliminating incentives for MIRV proliferation, though the unratified status limited direct implementation.[47] The treaties' verification mechanisms, including short-notice on-site inspections of declared facilities and telemetry sharing, enabled mutual confidence in compliance for START I, with both sides certifying reductions independently. However, critics from security-focused perspectives, such as those in U.S. government compliance reports, have highlighted potential gaps in verification, alleging Russian non-disclosure of certain warhead attributes or facilities that could mask undeclared stockpiles, though treaty data and inspections confirmed overall aggregate limits were met without evidence of systemic evasion during START I's term.[48] Empirical records indicate reciprocal U.S.-Russian reductions without unilateral concessions, countering narratives of imbalance, as both nations dismantled comparable numbers of delivery systems under monitored conditions.[45]Arts and entertainment
Literature and publications
"Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action" (2009) by Simon Sinek presents a framework for leadership emphasizing the importance of articulating purpose before strategy or tactics, using the "Golden Circle" model where "why" drives inspiration and loyalty.[49] The book draws on examples from figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and companies such as Apple to argue that successful entities prioritize intrinsic motivation over extrinsic incentives, with over 1 million copies sold and sustained presence on bestseller lists.[50] Critics, however, note its reliance on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous data, potentially overlooking structural factors in organizational success beyond motivational rhetoric.[50] "Start Late, Finish Rich: A No-Fail Plan for Achieving Financial Freedom at Any Age" (2005) by David Bach offers practical strategies for late-stage wealth building, including automating savings via "latte factor" reductions in discretionary spending and leveraging compound interest from age 50 onward.[51] Bach claims the approach has aided millions through his "Finish Rich" series, supported by sales exceeding 7 million copies across titles, focusing on personal agency in reversing financial trajectories despite delayed starts.[52] Reception highlights its accessibility for non-experts but critiques superficiality in addressing systemic economic barriers like wage stagnation or market volatility, with some reviewers favoring evidence-based alternatives over motivational anecdotes.[53] "Start Something That Matters" (2012) by Blake Mycoskie recounts the founding of TOMS Shoes, advocating for business models integrating profit with social impact through "one-for-one" donations, illustrated by case studies of purpose-driven enterprises.[54] The work promotes initiation via actionable steps like identifying personal passions and measuring outcomes empirically, achieving cultural resonance in social entrepreneurship circles.[54] While praised for inspiring over 10 million shoe donations by 2012, detractors argue it underemphasizes scalability challenges and dependency risks in aid models, prioritizing narrative appeal over longitudinal data on sustained impact.[54] These publications collectively underscore initiation as an exercise in deliberate agency, where empirical tracking of behaviors—such as consistent small actions yielding compounding results—contrasts with deterministic views of fixed starting conditions, though their self-help orientation invites scrutiny for conflating correlation with causation in success stories.[49][51]Music and songs
"Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones, released August 31, 1981, as the lead single from the album [Tattoo You](/page/Tattoo You), peaked at number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and number 7 on the UK Singles Chart, selling over 2 million copies in the US alone. The track's riff-driven rock structure and lyrics imploring ignition contributed to its enduring radio play, with over 500 million Spotify streams as of 2025. Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire," issued September 27, 1989, from the album Storm Front, topped the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks and won a Grammy for Record of the Year in 1991, cataloging historical events from 1949 to 1989 in rapid-fire verses. Its educational intent, blending pop with factual recitation, has led to classroom uses despite critiques of rhythmic strain over depth, amassing 300 million YouTube views.[55] More recent entries include Laufey's "From the Start," a 2023 jazz-pop track from Bewitched released May 10, 2023, which exceeded 500 million Spotify streams by evoking unrequited romance through bossa nova influences and viral TikTok traction. Tyla's "PUSH 2 START," dropped October 25, 2024, debuted at number 88 on the Billboard Hot 100 and held number 1 on the US Afrobeats Songs chart for 10 weeks, fusing amapiano rhythms with R&B to highlight relational hesitancy.[56] These works illustrate "start" motifs' prevalence in evoking transitions, though some analyses note formulaic reliance on renewal themes risks lyrical predictability in pop contexts.[57]Geography and places
Notable locations named Start
Start Bay is a coastal inlet in south-east Devon, England, forming the eastern portion of Lyme Bay along the English Channel. It stretches approximately 8 miles (13 km) from Start Point in the east to Prawle Point in the west, characterized by a long shingle barrier beach backed by the freshwater Slapton Ley lagoon, a rare coastal feature resulting from post-glacial sediment deposition and sea-level changes.[58] The area's geology features Devonian rocks dating to around 400 million years ago, exposed through erosion and forming hazardous submerged reefs that contribute to strong currents and wave refraction patterns.[59] The bay's name derives from the Old English "steort," meaning tail, referring to the protruding Start Point headland at its eastern extremity, located at coordinates 50°13′17″N 3°38′19″W. This promontory, the southernmost in Devon, hosts a lighthouse constructed in 1836 to mitigate navigational dangers, with its light visible up to 23 nautical miles and aiding over 100 vessels annually in the vicinity through fog signals and radio beacons.[60] Maritime hazards are evidenced by World War I-era incidents, including the torpedoing of the P&O liner SS Medina on 28 April 1917 by German U-boat UB-31 approximately 4 miles offshore, resulting in 6 fatalities from the engine room explosion despite successful evacuation of 411 others.[61] Such events underscore the bay's role in historical shipping risks, with geological barriers amplifying wreck frequency prior to modern aids. Ecologically, Start Bay supports diverse habitats, including shingle ridges hosting rare plants like yellow horned-poppy and the lagoon's reed beds sustaining bird populations such as bitterns, though subject to erosion threats from storm surges that have redistributed over 600,000 tonnes of shingle historically.[62] Tourism contributes modestly to the local economy via coastal paths and beaches, drawing visitors for walking and birdwatching within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, without dominating regional GDP data. No other prominent geographical features named "Start" exhibit comparable historical or ecological documentation in verifiable records.Other uses
Sports and competitions
In track and field sprint events, the start initiates competition from crouched positions using adjustable starting blocks, where athletes must remain stationary until the starter's gun signals the race. World Athletics rules define a false start as any reaction time under 0.100 seconds, measured electronically via block sensors, resulting in immediate disqualification to prevent anticipation advantages.[63] This threshold reflects minimal human auditory reaction capabilities, though biomechanical analyses of elite sprinters show average reaction times of 0.120-0.180 seconds, with force development in the first step exceeding 5-6 times body weight for optimal acceleration.[64] Studies question the exact 100ms limit's validity, recommending potential adjustments to 80-85ms based on empirical data from high-level competitions, yet the rule endures to uphold procedural fairness.[65] Starting blocks, mandatory for sprints up to 400m, enable superior horizontal force projection compared to standing or three-point starts, reducing 10m sprint times by optimizing hip and knee angles for explosive push-off.[66] Training innovations, including adjustable pedal spacing and pre-tensioned crouch drills, have incrementally lowered world records; for instance, the men's 100m Olympic mark improved from 10.2 seconds in 1924 (pre-widespread block use) to 9.63 seconds by 2012, partly attributable to refined start mechanics yielding 0.02-0.05 second gains in the initial phase.[67] Elite protocols emphasize rapid rate of force development, with faster sprinters generating greater ground reaction impulses in the block phase, correlating positively with overall race outcomes (r ≈ 0.3-0.5).[68] Physiological sex differences underpin disparities in sprint start efficacy, with males demonstrating 10-15% advantages in neuromuscular power and initial acceleration due to higher fast-twitch fiber density, testosterone-driven muscle hypertrophy, and superior explosive strength.[69] Empirical data from elite cohorts reveal male reaction-force profiles yielding quicker block clearance and higher early velocities (e.g., 4.5-5.0 m/s by 5m versus 4.0-4.5 m/s for females), widening performance gaps to 8-11% over 100m despite similar reaction times.[70] These gaps, rooted in immutable biology rather than training alone, refute claims of interchangeable capabilities across sexes in undifferentiated competitions.[71]Miscellaneous applications
In aviation, the term "start" refers to the initiation of the takeoff phase, during which an aircraft accelerates along the runway from a standstill to achieve the rotational speed necessary for liftoff, typically involving thrust exceeding drag and lift surpassing weight as governed by Newton's laws and aerodynamic principles.[72] The Federal Aviation Administration defines the takeoff roll as the ground phase where the airplane is accelerated to an airspeed allowing the wings to generate sufficient lift, primarily through increased airflow velocity over the airfoil creating a pressure differential per Bernoulli's principle, augmented by the angle of attack.[73] This process demands precise control to minimize runway usage, with empirical data from FAA handbooks emphasizing that ground effect during initial liftoff reduces induced drag by approximately 20-40% compared to free flight, enabling safer departure.[74] In computing, particularly Windows batch scripting, the "start" command serves as a utility to initiate programs, documents, or commands in a new process or window, preventing the parent script from blocking execution.[75] Microsoft documentation specifies its syntax asSTART ["title"] [/D path] [/I] [/MIN] [/MAX] [/SEPARATE | /SHARED] [/LOW | /NORMAL | /HIGH | /REALTIME | /ABOVENORMAL | /BELOWNORMAL] [/NODE <decimalnumber>] [/AFFINITY <hexnumber>] [/WAIT] [/B] [files or commands], allowing options like /B for background execution without a new window, which is useful for automating workflows in system administration or development scripts.[76] This command's empirical utility lies in its ability to handle asynchronous launches, as evidenced by its integration in command-line tools since Windows NT, though overuse can lead to resource fragmentation without corresponding gains in efficiency.[75]
The concept of "starting" a business, or entrepreneurship initiation, highlights high empirical failure probabilities, with Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that only 34.7% of private-sector establishments born in 2013 remained operational by 2023, implying a 65.3% attrition rate over a decade due to factors like insufficient market demand and capital depletion.[77] Broader analyses corroborate that up to 90% of startups ultimately fail across industries, often within the first few years, underscoring causal realities such as mismatched product viability and operational scaling challenges over motivational anecdotes of rapid success.[78] These statistics, derived from longitudinal tracking rather than self-reported surveys, reveal that while initiating a venture requires minimal formal barriers in many jurisdictions, sustained viability demands rigorous validation of assumptions, countering narratives that overemphasize individual grit without addressing structural risks.[79]