calender

Etymology 1

* From French calandre, from Late Latin calendra, altered from Latin cylindrus (“cylinder”), from Ancient Greek κύλινδρος (kúlindros). Doublet of cylinder. * This spelling calender was introduced in the 17th century to differentiate the machine from the chronological senses of calendar.

noun

1. A machine, used for the purpose of giving cloth, paper etc., a smooth, even, and glossy or glazed surface, by cold or hot pressure, or for watering them and giving them a wavy appearance; it consists of two or more cylinders revolving nearly in contact, with the necessary apparatus for moving and regulating.
2. One who pursues the business of calendering.

verb

1. To press between rollers for the purpose of making smooth and glossy, or wavy, as woolen and silk stuffs, linens, paper etc., as in a calender.

Etymology 2

From Classical Persian قلندر (qalandar, “wandering dervish”), from Arabic قَلَنْدَار (qalandār, “wandering dervish”), itself from Early Classical Persian کلندر (kalandar, “uncouth man”), from کلند (kaland, “rough, unshaven”).

noun

1. One of a wandering, mendicant Sufic order of fantastically dressed or painted dervishes, founded in the 13th century by an Arab named Yusuf.

Etymology 3

noun

1. Obsolete form of calendar.
   […]and maruell it is, that for this cauſe he was not ſainted in the Roman Calender. 1594, Rob[ert] Abbot, A Mirrour of Popish Subtilties:[…], London: […]Thomas Creede, for Thomas Woodcocke,[…], page 104
   To theſe the D. of Wittenberge and the Senate of Ulme ioyned their Embaſſadors, who the 4. day of Iune, which according to the Gregorian Calender was the 14. doo ſo arbitrate the matter, that al faults remitted, they after that throghout the whole Citie, ſhould follow the new Calender, which ſhould be kept in policies, and both the Churches of Religion. 1602, Simon Patrike, transl., The Estate of the Church, with the Discourse of Times, from the Apostles vntill This Present:[…], London: […]Thomas Creede, page 648
   The other two we ſearch not by Calculation, but Tables, and this two wayes, viz that we may ſatisfie both the Calenders, as well Julian as Gregorian, which as they do not altogether partake of one forme of year; ſo do they neceſſarily varie in their Indiecs of week dayes, and feaſts. The Tables ſhew how in both the Calenders the Dominicall letters anſwer to the Cycle of the Sun, and the Epacts to the golden number in the old Calender perpetually, but in the new one to the year 1700 excluſive, and in the new Calender to the year 1900 excluſive. Nor will it be difficult, by the help of the Table of anticipation to extend theſe Tables further, if the way how the Calender was corrected be fully known. 1653, Jeremy Shakerley, Tabulæ Britannicæ: The British Tables:[…], London: […]R[obert] and W[illiam] Leybourn, for Robert Boydell,[…], page 21
2. Misspelling of calendar.