Talk:Folk etymology

Opposite direction?

‘For example, the Old French word orenge ("orange tree") comes from Arabic النرنج‎ an nāranj ("the orange tree"), with the initial n of nāranj understood as part of the article.[11] Rebracketing in the opposite direction saw the Middle English a napron become an apron.’ I don’t understand how this is the opposite direction. One example is “an n..” becoming “an ..”, the other example is “a n..” becoming “an ..”. In both cases the n ends up on the left, as part of the article. The difference is not one of direction: in the latter case it has moved from one side to the other, in the other is has been removed from one side but remained on the other. Unless I’m missing something? Mazz0 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If we need an example of genuinely going in the opposite direction, how about 'a nick-name', which was originally 'an eke-name', but the n went in the other direction. Scaramouche (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A rare bit of nonsense.

Here we go again....

'Welsh rabbit', meaning cheese grilled on toast, was a sneer at the Welsh for being peasants too poor to afford meat. 'Rarebit' was lame Victorian-era humour, a meaningless pun.

cf 'Underground mutton', an expression from Colonial-era Australia. It meant 'rabbit' and it was a sneer at those settlers who could not afford to raise and/or eat sheep. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:BCCE:B5A:C7D6:AA71 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ENOUGH WITH THE HAMBURGER!

'Hamburger' is described here, as well as in the Wiktionary entries of 'reanalysis' and 'rebracketing', as reanalyzed as 'ham + burger'. I find it rather unlikely. Hamburger is so different from ham that no one should think the words are connected. Furthermore, such reanalysis can't explain the emergence of the word 'cheeseburger', which is the first attested word with the component 'burger' (aside from 'hamburger', of course). I think it much more likely to say the phrase 'cheese hamburger' was shortened to 'cheeseburger' without any thought of ham, and from there 'burger' was accepted as a shortening of hamburger, first in compounds and later also by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.9.46 (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The article cites a reference for the hamburger claim. If you believe the claim is incorrect, you will have to provide a reliable source saying so. Wikipedia does not host original research. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference:

• Shukla, Shaligram; Connor-Linton, Jeff (2006). "8. Language Change". In R. Fasold and J. Connor-Linton (ed.). An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84768-1.

The relevant text from the reference, the fourth paragraph in the Analogy section on page 296 (bold and italics as in the source):

Sometimes new forms are created or existing forms receive a new interpretation through folk etymology or reanalysis, when speakers of a language misconstrue the morphological constituents of a word. Thus, hamburger (whose true etymology is 'the city of Hamburg' + er 'someone from') has been reanalyzed as ham+burger 'burger made with ham'. It is quite irrelevant that ham is not used in hamburger. Subsequently, on the analogy of this folk etymology, new forms such as cheeseburger, chiliburger, and plain burger have been created.

This has a few issues.

• No cites or references of its own. This appears less as researched lexicography and more as the author's own speculation.
• Self-contradictory. Claims that hamburger was reanalyzed as "burger made with ham", and then claims that ham is irrelevant.
• Disagrees with the history of the terms as recorded in dictionaries. As our anonymous 147 contributor above suggests, Merriam-Webster's hamburger entry records this as first appearing in 1884 with the sense "ground beef". Their cheeseburger entry is dated to 1928. Their burger entry isn't dated until 1937, in the sense of hamburger. The history of the terms is consistent with hamburger → cheese + hamburger → shortening / clipping to cheeseburger → reanalysis of burger to mean just "hamburger". If reanalysis happened first, then burger should appear in the historical record before cheeseburger, but that is not the case -- at least, as documented in references.

Considering the shakiness of the Shukla reference for hamburger, and the presence already in the paragraph of a better example in sparrowgrass, I've been WP:BOLD and removed the clause about hamburger. I've also linked through to Eggcorn, since that article discusses similar examples of such re-interpretation causing changes in words. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Folk etymology → Reanalysis
• Reanalysis → Reanalysis (disambiguation)

– The term "folk etymology" is widely used to refer to a false etymology. To prevent confusion, Folk etymology should become a disambiguation page, and this article should be moved to Reanalysis (currently a disambiguation page), or, if the linguistic term isn't the primary topic, to Reanalysis (linguistics) (which currently redirects here). Un assiolo (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Reanalysis titles a dab page with significant content and so is ineligible to be a new, target title in a move request unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support if moving only to Reanalysis (linguistics) In ictu oculi (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Strongly disagree. Moreover, reanalysis (linguistics) shouldn't redirect here, and the lede of this article shouldn't begin "Folk etymology or reanalysis". "Reanalysis" and "folk etymology" aren't synonyms. I guess folk etymology is arguably a type of reanalysis, but so is for example recutting, and so is affix-genesis. AJD (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I guess that for some words, for instance prequel, you could argue that there is reanalysis but no folk etymology. --Jotamar (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, IMHO, "folk etymology" is the proper term for what it descibes.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No indication that Reanalysis is a commonly-used term. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  It is used throughout the article. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To reanalyse is a rather generic term that can be used for many situations.--Berig (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Among other things, reanalysis is what analytical chemists do when they repeat an analysis. There is no WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Some people are opposing the move on the grounds that the linguistic term isn't the primary topic for the word reanalysis. I was interested in moving the article because of the confusion between folk etymology and false etymology; whether the new title is Reanalysis or Reanalysis (linguistics) is secondary. Am I allowed to edit the original nomination now? Since there seems to be a consensus that this is not the primary topic, I'd change it to Folk etymology → Reanalysis (linguistics) and leave Reanalysis as a disambiguation page. Or maybe we should start a fresh discussion, focused solely on this question? --Un assiolo (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The topic of this article is not what the term "reanalysis" in linguistics means. Reanalysis (linguistics) should not be the title of this article. AJD (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • At the moment, the article implies that the terms folk etymology and reanalysis are synonymous. If this is not the case, you should edit the article. --Un assiolo (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. AJD (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails nearly every naming criteria. Google tells me "Reanalysis is a scientific method for developing a comprehensive record of how weather and climate are changing over time." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Furthermore, this page is not a disambiguation page: it is a broad concept article. The {{disambiguation}} tag should be replaced with an appropriate category. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too late to weigh in on the suggested move, but I thought I should point out a related discussion over at Wiktionary: wikt:Talk:folk_etymology#Archived_from_RFV:_January_2014. Investigation at that time found that most sources used the term "folk etymology" in the sense currently described in the Wikipedia article at False etymology. Here are seven examples from Google Books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

I would posit that the sense of "folk etymology" that refers to the process of word change 1) would benefit from a better lede to clarify that there is another popular sense to the term, and that that sense is covered by our False etymology article, and 2) could use a better title, perhaps Folk etymology (linguistics), to clarify that this article is about folk etymology, in this specific context of linguistics research. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Folk etymology" in the sense of "false etymology" and "reanalysis" as a means of grammaticalization in historical linguistics are two very different things. The current title and lead of the article is confusing. Betty (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian example "wanita" should be rewritten or removed

The example of the use of "wanita" in Indonesia does not explain what the words in question mean (which can be inferred but is not explicitly stated) and does not elaborate on why this example is relevant to the article. As written, it seems to suggest this is just a word with a problematic etymology, not anything to do with the topic of this article. IRN-Dumas (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)