In defense of etymological speculation

[Frank Abate]

John Baker said:

>>
For example, the similarity between "bulldyke" and "bulldog" is so great
that it would take strong evidence to convince me that there is no
connection . . .

        For a different kind of example, the suggestion was made in another
post that "bargaining chip" may derive from "chit."  That seems entirely
plausible, and in fact "bargaining chit" is sometimes seen.  I took a look,
and the "bargaining chit" cites seem to be both few in number and relatively
recent, doubtless influenced by the same logic that led to consideration of
"chit" in the first place.  I would argue that even this kind of negative
information is of value.

        In any case, I fear that the public commitment to a good story will
outweigh any influence we are likely to have.  And this is not, of course, a
call for an abandonment of professional standards - I'm extremely hopeful
that listmembers will not conflate reasonable speculation with discredited
old chestnuts about the origin of "bug" or "hooker."
<<


A couple of points on the above.  There are many very similar yet totally
unrelated (as to origin) words in English, as indeed in any language.  That
does not seem to me a reasonable jumping-off point for speculation on the
like origin of two words.  A plausible connection is very shaky ground to
start from.

As for folk etymology, I fully agree that it should be noted in many cases,
and ideally reported in the etyms that dicts have.  This rarely happens, as
space is at such a premium in dicts that are intended to be books.  But it
is true that folk etymology is part of the social/cultural history of a
word, at least once the story has gotten around and is widely believed, or
at least repeated.  It is also true that folk etyms, once they have taken
hold, are very tenacious.  It's hard to distract attention from them, in the
public eye, however false they may be.  While I don't argue that folk etym
should be ignored, I do think it is best avoided when looking for the
"etymon".

(Brief aside: I use the term "etymological fallacy" in this connection.
What I mean by it is that it is futile, or nearly so, to argue for a
particular word usage, or to insist on the use of a certain form or spelling
of a word, simply on the grounds that the "true" etymology so indicates.
Nobody (well, almost nobody) cares about the etym of a term when it comes to
how they use it or spell it.  Consider performance errors or cases of
misspeaking or misunderstanding a word.  These can get picked up and
repeated, and often a new form catches on (e.g., "jive" used for _jibe_
'fit, match'; "card shark" for _card sharp_ 'crafty card player').  Once
such a thing has happened, getting back to the origin of a term gets more
difficult indeed.  And just try getting people to reform their speech or
writing so that the forms "jive" (in this sense) and "card shark" go away.
Good luck.)

All that said, I choose to dispute fallacious etyms, esp. in a forum like
this.  I also choose to delete or ignore e-discussions of etyms that start
with guesses or coincidences.  There is so much good etym work that can and
needs to be done without spending time on mere speculation.  Sure, that
means missing out on new info when (as happens once in a great while) the
speculation leads to something actually useful.  Fine, that's my choice.

Frank Abate

PS: As for Rich K's sour words of recent posting, I simply read and deleted
those, too, when first posted.  I think he may have misunderstood what I was
saying before, or where I come from in this whole discussion.  One issue --
I am certainly not an academic.  I once, briefly, had a job in academia, but
that was long ago.  For more than 20 years now I have been in commercial
publishing.  Nevertheless, it is important to stick to the facts, and to use
sound research techniques.  Academic or not, when it comes to etymology, it
is important to be a scholar.