(Big) Apple as disguised from Irish words

[Gerald Cohen]

    Daniel Cassidy's proposed Irish derivation needs to be fully
aired.  A new wrinkle in the discussion is that he sent me a private
message with a request that it not be shared.  So I'm not sure how
I'm supposed to publicly probe evidence/material which I'm requested
to keep confidential.

    So let me proceed as best I can:

1) Setting aside the controversial 1909 attestation, the first
attestations of "the big apple" (in lower-case letters; 1921) refer
to the New York City racetracks,  not to NYC as a whole.  And as
Barry Popik has clearly shown,
the turf writer who introduced "the big apple" (= NYC racetracks) to
popular consciousness (1921) picked up the term from two
African-American stable-hands in New Orleans a year earlier.

2) Apples have always been regarded as a special fruit, and the big
red delicious apples, developed in Iowa in the 1870s, were regarded
as something extra special. Therefore, "big apple" came to mean a big
shot (i.e., someone who thinks he's very important), pretty much as
"the big cheese" did. Cf. _Underworld Lingo_ by Hyman Goldin et al.:
"_Big apple_. A big shot: one who has, or creates the illusion of
having, influence, money, etc.  'There ain't no big apples in this
stir (prison).  You pull a tough bit (serve a harsh term) here.'
_Apple.  A big shot: a personage of real or pretended distinction in
th underworld.  'Mike's got to be an apple in the alky (alcohol)
racket now.'"

It was precisely this sense of "(overweening) big shot" that I
suppose appears in the 1909 attestation: "It [the Midwest] inclines
to think that the big apple gets a disproportionate share of the
national sap."  The reference here is to NYC, but as I mentioned
previously, "the big apple" was no more NYC's nickname in 1909 than
"The Big Enchilada" is Washington D.C.'s nickname now, even though I
might refer to our nation's capital as "the big enchilada" in a
discussion of political power.  This use of "the big apple" in
reference to NYC is totally isolated; no other source prior to 1921
has it. (For more information on this topic see my monograph _Origin
of New York City's Nickname The Big Apple_, Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 1991. pp.6ff.; but for a full treatment of "the big apple" this
monograph must be supplemented by the material that Barry Popik later
discovered)

3)  So we now have "the big apple" back to an African-American
context.  And at this point I've engaged in some theorizing of my own
based on the statement of the 1920 stablehand: "This ain't no bull
ring stable. We's goin' to the big apple." For jockeys and trainers
active in the bushes (county fairs in Idaho, etc.), the NYC
racetracks with their excitement and big purses represented the big
time, an extra-special treat symbolized by the big apple (apples were
sometimes even given as Xmas gifts). New Yorkers tend to take their
city for granted; it's the non-New Yorkers looking to make the big
time in show-business, racing, etc. who look with great excitement to
the possibility of getting there.

4) Now, Dr. Daniel Cassidy has proposed that "Big Apple" derives from Irish
Big Áth Béal  (pronounced Ahh Beeul)  and means:  Big Crossing at the Mouth.
Okay, where's the evidence?  Well, there is none.  Maybe some
African-Americans spoke with some Irish (not an impossibility).
Maybe the Irish referred to NYC as the Big Crossing at the Mouth
(nowhere actually attested), and so maybe the African-Americans
acquired "Big Áth Béal" and misinterpreted its sounds to be "Big
Apple."

    That's three maybes without a shred of evidence.  Coming up with a
revolutionary interpretation is fine, but the next stage in
scholarship is to see if any evidence supports it. Dr. Cassidy has
not only failed to provide any at all but has proceeded to the next
stage of deriding the one in which a big apple really is an apple.

     The ball is in his court on this one.  If he can find any
evidence to support his theory, we shall listen with great interest,
and no doubt a good discussion will ensue.  In the meantime, the work
which Barry Popik and I did (with an assist from several other
scholars) should be considered as still valid.

Gerald Cohen