Jazz from Teas
gcohen at UMR.EDU
Tue Sep 18 01:30:40 UTC 2007
The musical term "jazz" can be traced back to San Francisco baseball use
(1913; first = hot air, baloney, then three days later: = pep, vim, vigor,
fighting spirit). From there (if Scoop Gleeson's story is credited) it goes
back to a crap game, in which "jazz" was used as an incantation to lady
luck. Gleeson reports that William ("Spike") Slattery (then sports editor
of The Call) 'spoke of something being the "jazz," or the old "gin-iker
'"Spike" had picked up the expression in a crap game.
'Whenever one of the players rolled the dice he would shout. "Come on, the
------------------So, the application of Irish "teas" (= heat) would have to
have been applied not to the hot water of Boyes Springs but to lady luck in
"Come on, the old jazz."
And how would "heat" be relevant here?
P.S. The October/November 2005 issue of my series of working papers Comments
on Etymology contains "Jazz Revisited: On The Origin Of The Term--Draft
#3."--140 pp. and includes due credit to everyone (esp. ads-l members) who
contributed to the discussion. I didn't bother to include Daniel Cassidy's
treatment to date (in the ads-l messages) because it was in preliminary form
and seemed embarrassingly weak. But since he has now put it in a book and
aggressively trumpeted it on the Internet as "Fact," I'll have to address it
in a coming issue. Meanwhile, I do not see it having any credibility at
all. Btw, don't forget 1915 "Jaz-m" (= pep) in the 18 Feb. 1916 The Daily
Californian" (pointed out by Barry Popik). That's the same as the shortened
version "jazz" (= pep, vim, vigor) used so frequently 1913ff. in the San
Francisco Bulletin and seems to support the more plausible view that "jazz"
derives from the well attested (19C.) "jasm" (= energy, force).
On 9/16/07 3:57 PM, "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM> wrote:
> Could someone provide a summary of the reasons why Daniel Cassidy's proposed
> derivation of jazz from the Irish word teas should not be credited? People
> keep adding this to the Wikipedia article, and I would like to be able to
> articulate succinctly why linguists do not take his theory seriously.
> John Baker
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l