FW: "Bargaining Chip": Antedating & Mystery

[Frank Abate]

Replying to what Rick K says (cc'd below):

I disagree that there is a close parallel between: 1) speculation in
etymology and 2) conjecture or theorizing in the sciences, whatever the
training/background of the folks doing these things.

Science operates on the hypothesis-tested-vs.-evidence approach.  Etymology
does not.  For etymology, at least to be productive, one must get mired in
the evidence, going back as far as written records can take you.  It is best
that the etymologist come equipped with a fair sense for language in general
(what some call _Sprachgefühl_), a knowledge of the history of English, plus
knowledge of several foreign languages to some decent level of competence
(esp. French, Latin, Greek, German, Spanish, Dutch, others), or at least the
ability to use dictionaries of those languages, either bilingual with
English, or preferably that and the monolingual dicts of those languages.
The monolingual historical dicts are the most useful, that is, the ones like
OED for those other languages.  This sort of "languagy" bent and skill set
is not absolutely essential for doing etymology, but it saves a lot of time
if you have all this.

On the other hand, conjecture in etymology generates false leads most of the
time, and hence ends up being distracting and time-wasting in trying to
determine "the etymon"; this could be shown by myriad examples.  Some of
these conjectures survive as folk etymologies (I gotta refer to Larry Horn's
"etymythology" here).  There is nothing wrong in that, as long as the
conjecturing is seen to be an amusement.  It can be and often is fun.  But
it is not scholarship, and tends not to help anyone get to sound answers on
the etymon. To get to an etymon, one must do a lot of patient digging.  For
that, there is no substitute.

Speculation on word origins can get people interested and excited, and may
inspire someone to do the scholarship necessary to find an etymon.  But in
and of itself, the speculation is not a part of the etymological search.  It
is more akin to a parlor game.

Etymology does not have a distinction as does physics, between theoretical
and practical.  Etymology is about evidence, hard work, and diligence.

Frank Abate


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
Of Rick H Kennerly
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:13 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: "Bargaining Chip": Antedating & Mystery


|o| I don't want to get too snobbish -- I myself have no formal training or
|o| academic credentials in the field of linguistics -- but I have
|o| to ask, why
|o| is it that with regard to a subject like physics it's widely
|o| accepted that
|o| people without "credentials" are unlikely to contribute
|o| anything advancing
|o| the field, but with regard to etymology it's "snobbish" to disparage the
|o| assertions of those who operate purely on conjecture?
|o|

The answer is pretty obvious.  The day of unschooled gentleman scientists &
casual experimenters contributing to basic science (vs. applied science) via
direct observation passed around WWII, about the time quantum theory became
pure math & molecular biology went subatomic.  OTOH, any observant reader
can trip up on an antecedent and one only needs a bit of knowledge of almost
any foreign language to turn in a gem, making etymology the 21st century
equivalent of 18-9th century physical sciences for the common man.

In fact, it's painful to ponder the number of useful antecedents passed over
in university classes, reading rooms, genealogy rooms, and bathrooms just
because no one knows that a person on this list is looking for it.  Think of
the power of putting hundreds of thousands of readers to work doing the
spade work of etymology--a kind of SETI project for the bookish.

One may be right to disparage conjecture, if conjecture is all that it ends
as.  However, conjecture is the key to many discoveries, even if the end
product is to prove the conjecture wrong, which is useful knowledge in
itself.  Of course, my view of the bargaining chip question is that neither
side possesses deadly convincing arguments and that the matter is open to
discovery that may fall equally to either an etymology professional or a
lucky, observant reader.

You may take comfort from the history of science, where this exact debate
between the professionals and amateurs raged for over a century.