Missouri, etc.

[Alan Hartley]

Michael McCafferty wrote:

> MM: I follow Lounsbury’s in dealing with native place names, and nothing
> I read in the earlier descriptions of “Missouri” satisfied Lounsbury’s
> requirements for **historical and linguistic accuracy**.

Those are laudable and necessary guidelines for drawing etymological
conclusions--too often honored in the breach, by me, too, I'm
afraid--but adherence to them shouldn't discourage researchers from
making hypotheses in laying the groundwork. It's been a long time since
Geology 101, but I try to bear in mind Chamberlain's method of multiple
working hypotheses.

Alan H.