more seat-of-the-pants etymology for our delectation

[Marc Velasco]

trying to understand this argument in its best light...

its sound patently echoes its meaning
> or essence, which is how I read Shafer at least, is the claim that
> the essence is really shared both by the English [vIm] and the Latin
> [wim] from which it descended?  If so, seems like a rather fuzzy
> essence for a word as "strong" as _vim_ to bear.  Or maybe [wim]
> didn't represent its meaning, but providentially it evolved into
> [vIm], which does?
>

so when the Blountian lexo-sensualists argue for words to more or less
embody (or re-enact) their meanings, how do they try and explain
cross-lingual (or cross-temporal) differences?  Do words like _vim_ have
some 'universal' permanent, essence which crosses cultures and ages, or is
it just some local best fit for different candidate sounds of a language?



On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: more seat-of-the-pants etymology for our delectation
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 1:22 PM -0500 11/17/08, Doug_Harris wrote:
> >I'm curious why you feel that's a 'trap'. If he )Blount perceives
> something
> >sensual in such words, more power to 'em, I say. <smile>
> >I imagine that trap _might_ be if he were to assume others for whom he
> >might be writing will feel the same sensations (or whatever) when they
> >read his, um, turn-on words.
>
> Well, if Blount (and not just Shafer) is really claiming that, say,
> _vim_ came into being *because* its sound patently echoes its meaning
> or essence, which is how I read Shafer at least, is the claim that
> the essence is really shared both by the English [vIm] and the Latin
> [wim] from which it descended?  If so, seems like a rather fuzzy
> essence for a word as "strong" as _vim_ to bear.  Or maybe [wim]
> didn't represent its meaning, but providentially it evolved into
> [vIm], which does?  Seems like just-so etymology to me.
>
> LH
>
> >----------
> >Blount does, however, fall into the trap of thinking that words he's
> >fond of -- "queasy", "rickety", "zest", "sluggish", "vim" -- "somehow
> >sensuously evoke the essence of the word".
> >
> >arnold
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org