BBQ (1951)

[Joanne M. Despres]

On 28 Oct 2003, at 17:38, Beverly Flanigan wrote:

> The word appears very early in colonial and exploration literature, as a
> Spanish word, I believe.  I can't recall the spelling, but it's something
> like "barbecoa"--a guess from long-ago research on American Indian contacts
> with explorers.  But it's definitely a real word.

Absolutely positively. English "barbecue" has been attested since
1609, and is descended from American Spanish "barbacoa,"
meaning "framework for supporting meat over a fire."  We know that
for certain, but Mr. Bowie's informant did not, and apparently
inferred that BBQ was the original form, rather than an abbreviation
that was formed on the basis of the original "barbecue."  Mr. Bowie
took that as a sort of "folk etymology," though I think what he
meant by that was "a word history inferred by a speaker unaware of
the linguistic facts," rather than what a  lexicographer understands
by folk etymology, which is a sort of respelling or transliteration of
a word whose elements are not semantically transparent to a
speaker into elements that are transparent and familiar but are
totally irrelevant to the etymology of the word as originally formed:
e.g., the cockroach (cock = "a bird," roach = "a fish") for
cucaracha "a bug."  Maybe what Mr. Bowie meant to suggest was
that his informant's reinterpretation of the abbreviation BBQ as a
word effectively transformed it into one, in the same way that a folk
etymology, as traditionally understood, results in the creation of a
"real word" despite the erroneous historical assumptions that led to
its creation.  The difference here, though, is that BBQ had already
existed as an abbreviation rather than having been created from
whole cloth; it's simply been reinterpreted as something other than
what it originally was.  But, more to the point, I'm not sure it can
really be said to constitute a new word if it's being pronounced
exactly like "barbecue."  In my mind, Mr. Bowie's informants are
actually using the word "barbecue" and incorrectly assuming an
identity (rather than a symbolic association) between it and "BBQ."
In other words, they're mentally misspelling the word.

But I suppose product-oriented lexicographers are more inclined to
make black-and-white distinctions than process-oriented linguists
are. It would be interesting to hear how others of you (besides Mr.
Bowie) see this situation.

Joanne

Joanne M. Despres, Senior Editor
Merriam-Webster, Inc.
jdespres at merriam-webster.com
http://www.merriam-webster.com