Talk:Folk etymology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

lead

See: the entry Folk Etymology in the Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics or the entry for Folk Etymology in R.L. Trask's Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics or the entry (p 142) in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics or Folk Etymology in Winfred Lehmann's Historical linguistics: an Introduction.

As well as the Oxford English Dictionary: folk-etymology, "usually, the popular perversion of the form of words in order to render it apparently significant"

and, from Raimo Anttila, Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Benjamins, 1989) ISBN 90-272-3557-0, pp 92-93:

"Another distinct case of iconic remodeling is folk etymology. The term is quite technical, because it is neither folk nor etymology. It means that unfamiliar shapes are replaced by more familiar ones."

"Loanwords are often subject to this, because they are unanalyzable in the adopting language and have forms unusually long compared with the established morphemes of the language. A word like asparagus is rather long for one morpheme in English and gave way to sparrow grass which more or less retains the number of syllables."

"A native element that has become obscure is equally prone for replacement; thus an expected *samblind 'half blind' (Latin semi- 'half') has given sandblind, where, in some situations, sand can even be semantically justified."

(added by μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Suggested expanded lead:

In linguistics, folk etymology is the historical replacement of an unfamiliar form by a more familiar one. Unanalyzable borrowings from foreign languages, like asparagus, or old compounds such as samblind which have lost their iconic motivation (since one or more of their morphemes has become obscure) are reanalyzed in a more or less semantically plausible way, yielding, in these examples, sparrow grass and sandblind.

The term, a loan translation from the 19th Century academic German Volksetymologie, is a technical one, referring to the change of form in the word itself, not to any actual explicit popular analysis.

μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Good capsule for the linguistic sense, though I think it's a trifle over-detailed for the lead. Here's a proposed opening, per WP:Lead*:

Folk etymology, in its basic sense, refers to popularly held (and often false) beliefs about the origins of specific words and phrases, especially where these originate in "common-sense" assumptions and the construction of ex post facto narratives rather than serious research (compare folk science, folk psychology etc.). The phenomenon leads to distinct but related usages for the phrase in (1)historical linguistics and in (2)folklore.

Jan Harold Brunvand defines the two usages thus: “A process by which people either (1) mispronounce or change pronunciations of foreign or strange-sounding words to make them similar to, or compatible phonologically with, other words in their lexicons, or (2) explain from hearsay evidence how particular words originated.”

To be followed by the paragraph you propose on the linguistic sense, then another on the folkloric meaning:

Folklorists regularly use the term for a sometimes fanciful claim, often in narrative form, about the origins of a given word or phrase.

• “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies[...]”

DavidOaks (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you're pushing the folklore sense over the technical linguistic sense. The original German meaning of the term was clearly a linguistic one and that should be primary. The "folklore" meaning of the term is a misapplication and misinterpretation of the original linguistic meaning. --Taivo (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A folk etymology is an etymology that was generated by folk interpretations, where etymology is in the sense of "the facts relating to the formation or derivation", not in the sense of tracing that derivation. The folk interpretations themselves are not the etymology. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Kwamigami -- if you have a problem with the definitions provided -- three field encyclopedias and really quite a number of juried, peer-reviewed, academic presses -- by all means specify. But the time has come to specify your standards and to submit them to indieepnedent arbitration, admins identified neither with folklore nor with linguistics. DavidOaks (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Taivo -- if you've got a problem with the sources, please bring it forward. I would've thought I've offered enough juried, peer-reviewed, academic press publications to establish the fact that the folkoric sense is of long standing (100 years) and in current use. But if you think there's some standard that hasn't yet been met, you really need now to be quite specific about it, and to submit it to independent arbitaration. If you think that's "pushing," I encourage you to bring in an admin (one who's not a discussant) to reflect on that very specific quesiton. DavidOaks (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion, on what is appropriate for the article, not on the reliability of the sources. It's clear that the linguistic sense of the word is the primary one. IMO, it's worth splitting the article, just as we do for other terms which have precise technical definitions and vaguer non-technical definitions, such as evolution, force, energy, etc. etc. etc. The non-technical (folklore) usage goes by several other names as well, so there's no reason it needs to be here rather than under one of its other names. Thus a hatnote, as I suggested before, is appropriate. Really, how many times do you want me to repeat the same point? Do things become more true if we say them a lot?

Everyone here but you agrees that s.t. along these lines is appropriate. If you feel that your vision for the article would be more encyclopedic, then perhaps you should make a request for comment and bring in other opinions. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with DavidOaks, though I lack his passion in arguing the point. While linguists may have a precise technical usage, the term is so far as I can tell, commonly used in a much broader sense. I think restricting the article to only the technical sense is a disservice to readers. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic usage gives primacy to technical definitions. Even Oaks' Brunvand source does precisely that--the technical definition precedes and has primacy over a general, non-specific usage that is clearly a historical misinterpretation and misuse of the technical term. Oaks' proposed rewrite of the lead, however, does exactly the opposite and puts the general, later, non-specific usage in first position. This article should be split since 1) the linguistic term is primary and older, 2) the linguistic term is very specific in meaning and precisely defined, 3) folk stories about words are not "etymologies", despite the misuse of the term "etymology" here, 4) the folkloric usage, while common, is not a technical term, unlike the linguistic usage, and is not universally used for this specific meaning. The folklore discussion should be had at "folk etymology (folklore)", "false etymology", "folk meaning", "folk interpretation", or some such, with a hatnote here. --Taivo (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Creating a separate article for Folk etymology (linguistics) with a hatnote from this article, which would then be primarily about the folklorc sense, would not be acceptable to you (and I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea too). For precisely the same reason, the suggestion immediately above does not seem to me like a good idea. We have had a single article treating both usages for four years, and that seems to me optimal. Neither sense can make a reasonable case for being the exclusive or primary meaning, and the term is not licensed to any particular discipline. The two separate articles with symmetrical titles have the advantage of symmetry and NPOV, the disadvantage of breaking up what has long been (and in my view truly is) a single subject. If it be determined that we need two articles, then they should carry complementary notices of the other meaning. DavidOaks (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic usage gives primacy to technical definitions. Where is that found in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? I'm not aware of any such primacy. I don't really care that much which goes first, although I don't agree that the article should be split. If it is split, IMO, the common usage should be at this title and the technical jargon should be at some other title. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Then we should move evolution to "evolution (biology)", Ten Commandments to "Ten Commandments (Bible)", energy to "energy (physics)", and star to "star (astronomy)". Let us know when that happens. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives primacy to technical statements by reliable secondary sources. This article is about the phenomenon of Volksetymologie, not the words "folk etymology" in whatever context. The assertion that "X is the common sense" of a term is a claim that requires a citation in support of it, which in this case has never once been given.

On the other hand, the technical sense with which this article deals has been explicitly defined by Oxford and a dozen other reliable sources which all agree on the definition and which all trace it to Volksetymologie. WP most certainly does give priority to authorities like Anttila and other reliable secondary and tertiary sources.

This article is about the phenomenon of Volksetymology, not the words "folk etymology" in whatever context. All else is a colossal waste of time that could be better applied actually writing an article false etymology.μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"This article is about..." Says who? By what authority or warrant? By what wikipolicy? These groundless assertions are very frustrating, and maintain a tone that makes it unpleasant to edit here. For YEARS the article contained the information YOU unilaterally deleted so recently, and now you claim normative status for your truncation? I am going to point out that, by your own logic, this article should be moved either to Volksetymologie, since that logocentric originary-story is your key justification for the exclusivity of the term to linguistics, or to False etymology, since linguists, unlike folklorists, insist that the etymology be factually incorrect. However, I suggest doing neither of these things, because the simple empirical situation before us is that the term is used, and has long been used, and is authoritatively defined, in two distinct but related senses in two distinct buyt related disciplines and this is where users would ordinarily look up either sense. It is hgih time you all dealt with the evidence you yourselves demanded of me, and put me to the work of gathering, before moving the goalposts. DavidOaks (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

comment, I still have to grok the essence of this dispute, but I already sense that this is another example of how Volk and folk are false friends. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to renew discussion

A new voice appeared here, and all that resulted was the re-assertion of the ownership of the article/term by linguistics, and continued refusal to deal with evidence that was demanded and then ignored, along with refusal to answer repeated requests for documentation of claimed wikipolicies (e.g., “technical subjects”). I think the discussion needs a lot more participation. So I looked over a number of folklore mythology articles, and contacted people who had been active recently on those, to see if they’d be willing to drop by here and weigh in. Clearly we are not moving forward with the question of whether the term is properly used only in linguistics. I have tried to conform to standards of appropriateness for WP:Canvassing, including transparency and neutrality. DavidOaks (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We have two different topics here, which commonly go by different names. What exactly is the problem with two different articles?

There is no ownership here. I was initially sympathetic to your viewpoint, but the more you talked, the less sympathetic I became. What I see is rigidity and unwillingness to compromise on your part. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Already answered that. Others have rejected separate articles on Folk etymology (linguistics) and Folk etymology (folklore) I think it's poor policy, because this is where people would look it up, and the terms are in fact related, but justifiable on grounds of symmetry. What's not acceptable is treating the linguistic sense as unmarked/primary. DavidOaks (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I must agree that the attempt to establish that "folk etymology" is somehow parallel to "folk psychology" etc. is misguided. It may be something like a folk etymology of "folk etymology". As the article is aware, folk etymologies can be a productive force and actively change the meaning and association of a term. If something like this has happened, this can be noted, but the observation must be attributed, it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to publish first-hand information on ongoing semantic shifts in the English language. If there is a separate definition of "folk etymology" as used in folklore studies, you should cite that, not primary observation on the term's use in literature. --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [David:] But the linguistic sense *is* unmarked/primary! That's the whole point, and we have provided refs to document it.

The folkloric sense goes under several different names, such as 'folk explanation' and 'false etymology'. You may have objections to particular phrases, so I won't propose one. But I see no reason why this article shouldn't be about its primary use, with the folkloric sense under one of its other numerous names. — kwami (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrated: 1) linguists use several other terms for the phenomenon; 2) linguists use the term in the folklorist's sense. 3) At least one linguist DEFINES the term in the folklorist's sense in an encyclopedia.

The linguist's sense is definitely primray in linguistics books and references -- no argument. But it's not the most common, even in highly educated usage. Another technically defined usage from WP:RS has singificantly displaced it, and its repute in linguistics is publically questioned in WP:RS for linguistics. Not primary at all, certainly not to a degree that the more common usage, which is a thoroughly technical, academically defined one, becomes a hatnote. DavidOaks (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely not demonstrated that linguists use several terms. Linguists use one term for the reanalysis, reshaping, or respelling of words based on a false analysis of their etymology--that is "folk etymology". There is no other term. Linguists have sometimes misused the term to refer to folk etymology in a folklore sense, but this is not standard, not widely accepted usage, and not common. The "definition" that you quote as a linguist using the folklore definition (in ELL) isn't a very clearcut example and is certainly not the mainstream usage of the term in linguistics. There are two dozen linguistic encyclopedic sources defining "folk etymology" in the linguistic sense only for every one that defines it more broadly. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall repeat the relevant refs from above in streamlined form: Reay, & Sihler each independently refer to it as “popular etymology”; Bauer proposes “morphological re-analysis” on the grounds that “folk etymology” is inaccurate; Coates calls it “grossly misnamed” and proposes “analogical reanalysis.” Hughes explicitly defines the term in the folklorist’s sense in a book on dysphemism. Linguists all, juried academic publications all. And then there are the examples that simply document usage in non peer-reviewed contexts by linguists, for linguists. The case that linguists use a single term for the phenomenon fails. The case that the term means only one thing to linguists fails. The case that most educated people understand the term in the linguist’s sense (a linguist’s and lexicographer’s test)…well, it hasn’t been pursued in a systematic way, but it doesn’t look promising. 7+6=13 observes that consensus is receding as a possibility, and I am reluctantly coming to agree. I am reluctantly ready to create separate and symmetrical articles, Folk etymology (linguistics) and Folk etymology (folklore) and to collaboratively draft a NPOV paragraph that will essentially serve as an extended disambiguation page, to occupy this space. As I’ve said all along, I think it’s suboptimal, but it appears to be the only practical solution. Perhaps less intensely invested people down the road will propose a merge. DavidOaks (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your assertions about linguistic usage are just citing people who are not writing the encyclopedias and dictionaries of linguistics. If they had any influence in the field, then you would see their terminology gaining ground, but it is not. All the linguistic encyclopedias, dictionaries, and introductions to historical linguistics use "folk etymology" and "folk etymology" alone in a very precise specific meaning, just as the term has been used and defined for over a century. A very small number of rebels does not change the meaning of clearly-defined terminology. You're grasping at straws when the building is sound. Minimal marginal quibbling does not change the monolith. --Taivo (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) 7+6=13 put out a concrete suggestion. I'm currently working on it. DavidOaks (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Gee, thanks, David, for dropping the outrage and the personal attacks and accusations of canvassing (outside barrooms) and the obsession over the name as opposed to the subject itself and the tactic of endless new rambling "discussion" and the assertions that only you are capable of reason and instead providing all those new proper cites showing explicit definitions in the literature. This really is a breath of fresh air. Meanwhile, what existed "for years" still exists: false etymology.μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And you could move the linguistic material there, since linguistics insists that folk etymologies are false, while folklore does not (I have explained this too before). But you do not think that would be a good idea, and neither do I. DavidOaks (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep falsely claiming, David, that separate articles "were rejected". Rejected by whom? Certainly not any of the active participants here. We have suggested several times that you take the folklore usage to another article. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, we HAD this conversation. You reject separate, symmetrically titled articles. DavidOaks (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep slipping and sliding around, David. You said separate articles were rejected--they were not and I pointed that out. Then you change your tune and say that only symmetrically titled articles were rejected. That is correct. I try to WP:AGF with your overstatements and exaggerations, but when you are not accurately stating the positions, that is hard to do. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I received David Oaks request to give input. (Parenthetically, I note that it was simply a balanced plea for 'an intervention', and not WP:Canvassing.) Frankly, I have not had sufficient time to weigh all the pros and cons, and won't presently take a position on the merits.

That being said, I think that you all have locked yourselves into an Endianness controversy (like, "whatever") that has resulted in stagnation like the War in the Middle East. This article(s) needs to progress, not waste away in deadlock.

I would suggest a middle ground. Three articles, with one being an island/transshipment point, with bridges to the other two. The other two would be "pure" to your respective viewpoints, and would coexist. You would (of course) have to work on the base article. I suggest that someone put forth language for the base (recognizing the need for brevity and compromise) and coalescing/juxtaposing the disagreement, and that each of you work on your own articles in the meantime.

This is a Modest proposal. Come, let us reason together. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

(uninvolved admin speaking; at least, I don't recall being involved.) "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar." That being said, I have not seen support for the assertion that the strict linguistic definition (or term) is primary, even among linguists. There is no support for the assertion that the most precise definition of a term is the one that gets a Wikipedia article. I could go with 7&6=thirteen, or with a single article with both terms. There is some support for the folklorist term to be primary, with the linguistic term moved to a disambiguated article, but that might point existing Wikilinks to the wrong article, so I don't think it's a good idea without a clear consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, there is no support other than David Oaks for this being a folklore article with the linguistic article elsewhere. There is more support (myself, Kwami, Medeis, etc.) for this article being the linguistic, technical article with a hatlink to another article for the folklore generality. I'm not sure where you were reading to get the opposite impression. The reason the linguistic meaning should be primary is threefold: 1) it is the only definition of the two that is technical and specific, 2) it is the older meaning of the German term that gave rise to this discussion and the older meaning of the English term calqued from the German, 3) it is the primary (and often only) meaning found in the OED and elsewhere and is always the first meaning where both are found. To claim that this article should be the folklore meaning flies in the face of the evidence otherwise. The folklore meaning is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the older precise linguistic meaning. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify some very simple facts about my position that have come to be distorted -- I do not, never did want, the linguistic article moved "elsewhere" -- that was what I have been repeatedly told is the only acceptable thing to do with the folkloristic sense. I think, and have thought right along, that it would be optimal to have one article on the two senses. I have said this repeatedly. I note that Taivo thinks two separate articles subtitled for llinguistic and folkloric senses is a bad idea, as do I, though for different reasons. I have said this repeatedly. I can see the logic, and would consider it an NPOV compromise. The article has combined the two senses since 2006, and that longstanding consensus was unilaterally undone quite recently; I reverted that mass deletion per WP:BRD. I do not think, and never said, that the folkloric sense should be offered as the primary meaning (that term would require some specification). It certainly is the more common one outside of linguistics, as demonstrated by a tour of the 1700 usages at Wikipedia itself (a fact whose significance linguists should grasp, though I do not offer it as a datum for inclusion in the article). The folkloristic sense is thoroughly documented in numerous WP:RS for a century; the linguistic sense is thoroughly documented by WP:RS for even longer (though not much outside of lingustics references). BTW, I highly respect linguistics, having taught it at a state university and published in it for a quarter century; my teachers were among the titans, their teachers among the gods of the field. I have no degrees in folklore. This is about the encyclopedia, not turf. Linguistics does not own the term or the article, and the discussants here (I absolutely and explicitly include myself) do not own linguistics. 14:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you don't see any such argument in the sources, except for here on this talk page coming from DavidOaks no such argument that the folkloristic usage is primary exists. Even DavidOaks best source, Bruvard's Encyclopedia, gives the linguistic usage priority, and then defines the folkloristic use as applying to explanations given to justify just such changes as are called folk etymology in the first sense after they occur. In other words, Bruvard disproves DavidOaks' position. As for primacy, let DavidOaks provide the quotes from cited sources - he has never yet done so. Here are some relevant sources he cannot gainsay:

• Oxford English Dictionary (on line) "usually, the popular perversion of the form of words in order to render it apparently significant"
• Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, David Crystal, Ed., 1997, p 427: "altering an unfamiliar word to make it more familiar"
• Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, p 415, "Process of word formation based on reinterpretation of meaning"
• Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics, R. L. Trask, p. 124, "an arbitrary change in a word of opaque formation which serves to make that word more transparent in form" or
• Historical and Comparative Linguistics Raimo Anttila, (Benjamins, 1989) ISBN 90-272-3557-0, p. 92: "Another distinct case of iconic remodeling is folk etymology. The term is quite technical, because it is neither folk nor etymology. It means that unfamiliar shapes are replaced by more familiar ones."

μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To deal with your (Taivo's) 3 points.

1. it is the only definition of the two that is technical and specific
   • Not relevant to Wikipedia. Please see discussions on WP:TITLE
2. it is the older meaning of the German term that gave rise to this discussion and the older meaning of the English term calqued from the German,
   • We are not bound by the Principle of Priority.
3. it is the primary (and often only) meaning found in the OED and elsewhere and is always the first meaning where both are found.
   • That's of some use, but it's not conclusive. David provided some anecdotal evidence that linguists don't agree, and there appears to be at least one paper where the folkloric definition was used by linguists in a linguistic journal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As for μηδείς, It appears to me that the first three (linguistic) definitions are incompatible, except as for a highly technical definition involving redefinition of the words used in the definitions, and the third seems to support an expanded _linguistic_ definition not presently covered in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, Arthur, anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on ;) And one case of the misuse of the term by a linguist does not make a strong argument. As for Medeis' evidence, the quotes he's provided are very consistent--"folk etymology" is the changing of a word that isn't recognizable into something that is recognizable. I can add many other references to Medeis' list to demonstrate the specific and technical nature of the meaning of "folk etymology". I don't see anything "incompatible" about them at all--they all say precisely the same thing, that folk etymology is the process whereby an unfamiliar word is reformed, respelled, or reanalyzed to make it into something more recognizable and familiar. --Taivo (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Until DavidOaks provides one single accurately cited quote from a reliable source in favor of his POV all we have is assertion not worth discussion. I repeat that Bruvard, the best source he has provided, actually gives the linguistic definition as the primary sense, and uses the second sense in reference to after-the-fact explanations of actual instances of folk etymology in the first sense.

If the sources supporting DavidOaks positions exist, they should be quoted explicitly here with proper verifiable citations, not mere allusions.μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur is trying to achieve some consensus here, and I would like to see the article or articles with both scholarly verifiability and NPOV. It seems to be there are two acceptable, NPOV solutions to this. One is to specify in the opening sentence of a "Folk etymology" article that the term means one thing in linguistics and another in folkloristics, and then discuss both. The other solution is to have two articles, as is done for morphology: one called Folk etymology (linguistics) and the other Folk etymology (folkloristics), and to have at the top of each a disambiguation statement that directs readers interested in the other meaning to the other article to the other (e.g. "This article concerns the linguistic sense of the term. For a discussion of the concept of an etymology believed to be true but not substantiated, see folk etymology (folkloristics)). To have the linguistic definition exist under the general title "folk etymology" is POV, because it privileges one field's validity as the standard over another's. Similarly, to call one "folk etymology" and the other "false etymology" is also POV, an unacceptable academic bias against both folklore and folkloristics. The debate in favor of the linguistic use of the term here is filled with a lot of POV, while we are striving to produce an encyclopedia that is NPOV, fair to all disciplines and respectful of scholars in each and every one. Bruxism (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly suggested that a new article be created (with a hatnote here) to cover the folkloristic concept if adequate reliable sources can be found for it. Not one has been quoted. There is no debate in favor of the linguistic definition here - just referenced sources applied to the article.

Complaints of academic bias against folklore and folkloristics are out of line. Provide quotes from properly cited sources. If they refere to some concept other than linguistic change then put them in some relevant article.μηδείς (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "Not one has been quoted?" Three field encyclopedias for the barewire definition, then numerous juried, peer-reviewed articles to demonstrate a century of consistent and widespread usage, including other disciplines, including linguistics. Please explain how none of these qualifies as WP:RS. And if they meet the test, it will be ok for me to start another article? Rather than simply restoring the material you deleted, after four years, from this one? Consider how your position would respond to the complementary offer, and it will come clear why this does not present itself in the light either of a compromise or as an improvement to the encyclopedia. DavidOaks (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Bruxism, that POV is entirely appropriate. The linguistic sense is the original and still the primary sense of the word. Just as we don't need to move evolution to "evolution (biology)" or Ten Commandments to "Ten Commandments (Bible)", there is no need to move this article. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no wikipolicy granting priority to loan-translations, nor to “technical subjects” nor to first usages, nor to loan-translations. Wikipedia is meant to make information accessible. “Folk etymology” is well-established and in wide usage in more than one quite well-defined and academically-established sense. This is where people will look for it.DavidOaks (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlepersons,

At the risk of repeating the obvious, have a short page that is essentially a disambiguation page. Describe in two short paragraphs the controversy and a thumbnail of the respective positions. Link to the other articles for a more full exposition by two differing viewpoints. At that point you can write whatever the hell you want, without regard to waht the other side is saying. Or you could actually have a separate section in your own article that rebuts (counterpoint) the other viewpoint.

You idiots (and I mean that in the nicest and most collegial fashion, with the idea being that you are being idiothetic) are seeking consensus where there is (and will be) none. You are arguing about this as though you are going to resolve the dispute. We are all seeking a full exposition, which my proposed methodology would achieve. The test is not WP:Truth, but WP:Verifiability.

Give each other some space. Let each of you develop your exposition of your theorem and viewpoint. Do that without interference from the other. Let the readers decide.

Stalemate is counterproductive. It prevents you from expanding on the article and highlighting your own view to the benefit of the innocent readers.

Get over it, and recognize that you can triumph in your own article. And the readers will benefit from the opposing kleig lights, and the penumbras that are created and contours revealed. Then they can decide.

In the real world, I handle adversary situations where I have to decide the case and write an opinion that deals with similar (and more serious) disputes. It can be done.

Or you can just debate and arbitrate this till the cows come home.

This is not about prevailing, and it is recognizing that you can all respectfully 'agree to disagree.' This does not require anyone to decide (except for themelves) the truth or weight of your respective positions.

I have given you a way out. It is now up to you to show some initiative and walk through the exit. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Unfortunately what you (pl.) have not provided is adequate verifiable reliable sources. This holier than thou lecturing and complaining of anti-folkloristic bias is a tedious violation of WP:AGF. Please simply find the sources and post them here. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear μηδείς,

You have again proved that neither you nor Mr. Oaks will agree on the outcome of the article, the truth of your positions, or the reliability and appropriateness of sources. That is your right. It is to be expected.

I resent and deny your statement that this was "holier than thou lecturing and complaining of anti-folkloristic bias is a tedious violation of WP:AGF." If that was aimed at me, you are making an unwarranted attack on the writer, which is not in conformity with either fact or the recod.

I am painstakingly not taking a position on the merits of thius controversy or the reliabiltiy of the sources. I am not taking a poisotn on the outcome or worthiness of either position.

Frankly, I believe that each of you has made a plausible argument that deserves to be fully expostulated in its own article. I am not quesitioning your sincerity, your sources, your competence, or your good faith. Indeed, all of those are assumed by me to be of merit and impeccable. I hae acted with, and in fact believe in, the applicability of WP:AGF. You should internalize it, and give me the same courtesy.

I do not have a dog in this fight. I have acted dispassionately and in a style that becomes my perceived role to conciliate a timely resolution that will work for the encyclopedia and all of the concerned editors.

But what you have done here is staked out a position that you require exclusive possession of a particularly 'piece or real estate' in an electronic world that is Wikipedia. Since there is room for both of your opinions, your conclusions, and your sources, there is no compelling logic supporting it.

In short, I again respectfully urge you to take up the 'olive branch' that has been tendered.

We can all argue about who is WP:Edit warring and try to fix the blame. I prefer to fix the problem, and I think you will too.

I've said what I have to say. I am abandoning further viewing of this page, and leave you all to your own devices.

Happy editing and may Wikipedia benefit from your actions. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

ANI Canvassing and Edit Warring

I have filed a complaint against DavidOaks for, among other things, canvassing and edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_edit_warring_by_User:DavidOaks_at_Folk_etymology

See my response there. I absolutely cop to WP:Canvass. When done with neutrality and transparency, and without selecting people for their opinions, it is approriate behavior after having pursued other channels (WP:RFC, WP:ANI. I felt the discussion needed fresh perspective. None of these editors are my friends, and I have had zero to minimal individual interaction with any. If my behavior is determined to be inappropriate, I'll certainly take the slap. Edit warring? Interested parties can study the history of this page and come to their own conclusions; life's too short and the needs of the project more important than determining which way the balance of uncordial behavior tips, but I have no anxieities about how it'll come out, if anybody really wants to do the whole forensic thing. DavidOaks (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bến Tre. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

As I said there, even after I looked at this page in response to DavidOaks' invitation, I couldn't tell what he might've expected me to say — that is, in no way did I feel I was being called on to offer a predictable response. Any talk page of this length, where the discussion takes place among a limited number of recurring interlocutors, can benefit from fresh air. My advice, however, is that somebody who's a relative non-combatant (this is unlikely to be μηδείς, DavidOaks, Taivo, or kwami) should start a new section outlining as neutrally as possible the central point(s) of contention. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

proposing text for an article which will branch off into Folk etymology (linguistics) and Folk etymology (folklore)

per suggestion, steps towards a compromise (DavidOaks (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Folk etymology, in its basic sense, refers to popularly held (and often false) beliefs about the origins of specific words and phrases, especially where these originate in "common-sense" assumptions and the construction of ex post facto narratives rather than serious research (compare folk science, folk psychology etc.).

The phenomenon leads to distinct but related usages for the phrase in historical linguistics and in folklore.

Jan Harold Brunvand defines the two usages thus:

“A process by which people either

• (1) mispronounce or change pronunciations of foreign or strange-sounding words to make them similar to, or compatible phonologically with, other words in their lexicons,

or

• (2) explain from hearsay evidence how particular words originated.”

In its linguistic sense the phrase designates the historical replacement of an unfamiliar form by a more familiar one. Unanalyzable borrowings from foreign languages, like asparagus, or old compounds such as samblind which have lost their iconic motivation (since one or more of their morphemes has become obscure) are reanalyzed in a more or less semantically plausible way, yielding, in these examples, sparrow grass and sandblind.

In its folkloric sense the term refers to the [[sometimes fanciful urban legends) constructed ex post facto to account for the current form of words and phrases. Some etymologies are part of urban legends, and seem to respond to a general taste for the surprising, counterintuitive and even scandalous. One common example has to do with the phrase rule of thumb, meaning a rough measurement. An urban legend has it that the phrase refers to an old English law under which a man could legally beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb (though no such law ever existed).

Uh, sources? Blogs like Quinion's are not appropriate sources. After all this, is this the best you have? Bruvard gives priority to the linguistic concept, and then applies the term in his second sense to explanations of folk etymology in the first, linguistic one. Besides Bruvard you have not provided a single properly cited reference from any scholarly source.

Once you have a few reliable sources that actually support these notions, feel free to begin your proposed article on linguistic urban legends. There is no need for some sort of metaphysical victory here first.μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "proposed general article"

First, I don't accept that this article should be anything more or less that what it is right now--the primary technical linguistic definition of the term. Second, your first sentence of your proposed "neutral" text is totally unacceptable since it is simply the folklore definition without any linguistic input whatsoever, even though the few sources which include both definitions always include the linguistic definition first and foremost and the folkloric definition second. Unacceptable. Brunvard is not a primary source for this issue. The primary sources that need to be cited are the linguistic encyclopedias, dictionaries, and intros to historical linguistics, which uniformly cite the linguistic definition as the only definition of the term. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation article branching off into separate treatments does not represent a victory for either party, but a way to move the project forward. Compromise is like that. If you have improvements to offer, by all means do so. I don't quite grasp your critique of the first sentence anyhow, but then of course I am not looking at it wih your specific concerns. I would certainly welcome a reformulation of the sentence that identifies the semantic intersection of the two usages and permits a going-forward to their separate development. If you have a WP:RS that brings forward both senses as succinctly as Brunvand, by all means bring it forward. It seems to me clear and NPOV. Can you specify your objection? DavidOaks (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are both beginning a dialogue that is very constructive and proactive.

I suggest that each 'committee' could each write your onw single paragraph. You could agree on format and size. We might need an introductory paragraph (perhaps highlighting the disagreement), which would lead to the other two, but I suggest you confer on that after you lay out the very basic paragraphs. Youd could flip a coin to see whose paragraph goes first. See Flipism.

we need to capitalize on this opportunity and build on it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

7+6=13, there is no agreement here that what you are suggesting is either possible or preferable. You assume that we have agreed to make this a common article or a disambiguation article. No such agreement has been reached. This article should be the primary original meaning, which is linguistic. Mr. Oaks can write another article on the folklore definition if he wants, but this article is perfectly fine as it stands now. I was simply pointing out that even when Mr. Oaks is trying to be neutral, he is unable to be neutral by writing a sentence that does not include the linguistic definition of "folk etymology" in any form and is 100% folkloric folklore. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't conflate articles simply because the same word might be used for two different concepts.μηδείς (talk)

There is one very large pink elephant conspicuous by its absence here. Where is the folklore article? I am reminded of the scene from the Monty Python movie The Life of Brian about Stan, who wants to be known as Loretta, and who wants to have his "right to have a baby" officially recognized. Who, exactly, is stopping him? As Taivo points out, Mr. Oaks can write another article on the folklore definition if he wants.μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)We HAD an article that included the folklore material, for several years; now, we need to develop a separate one. Eines auf einmal. Yep, the folklore article would be a stub at this point, but as you will observe from the numerous juried articles provided, that's only a matter of finding the leisure. I do thank you for your concern for the proper treatment of the subject. and will be glad for your cooperation in its development. As of now, there is no consensus for maintaining this article space in the exclusively linguistic sense. I don't think the outcome's the best for users of the encyclpedia, but am willing to compromise in order to move forward. I repeat my invitation for you to offer amendments to the first sentence and another WP:RS that offers definitions of both senses. If Brunvand is not an adequate source, you need to say how, specifically with reference to policy at WP:RS; I do think this conversation has suffered from a lack of reference to policies, and you need to bring forward a better source that brings together both definitions. DavidOaks (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is turning into a joke. David has not tried writing anything that would either be merged here or stand as a separate article, nor has he provided the sources which have been repeatedly requested. Meanwhile we have a huge expenditure of verbiage without anything to show for it. I'm done here, apart from policing the article to watch that no non-consensual changes are made. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't written the article yet. I was busy trying to improve the one that existed, and the prospect of creating a new one emerged quite recently. Now, you really didn't see all those sources? It would be WP:Pointy for me to paste them in again, as well as cumbersome, so I hope you won't mind if I just give a diff [1] for you to look over and flag those that you think are not WP:RS. I'd be grateful to have those that I misidentified as juried, peer-reviewed articles and books from academic presses properly categorized; certainly we wouldn't want to use those, though there will more than enough left over. And am I to understand that your chief concern is that there is not enough material to sustain an article on the folkloric sense? I have confidence that it'll come out ok. Might take time. High season in my line of work. BTW, please clarify what you mean by "nonconsensual changes" -- someone here has the role of "consent"? That sounds to me like "veto," Thst would be another wikipolicy that's unfamiliar to me. but perhaps I'm not aware of that one, or maybe just not properly understanding you, for which, apologies in advance of your clarification. At this point, consensus seems to me not to favor maintaining this namespace as exclusively the linguistic sense. DavidOaks (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You speak of this lamented article which used to exist. Well, I have resurrected it for you, all material regarding false etymology retained from the original text: False etymology. It has the original sources, which are insufficient. You may want to fix that before it gets speedily deleted.μηδείς (talk)

Mr. Oaks, you are dreaming when you say "consensus seems to me not to favor maintaining this namespace as exclusively the linguistic sense". There is no consensus for making it anything other than what it currently is--the linguistic sense. There is zero consensus for adding folklore here, just as there is zero consensus for moving it to somewhere else. It is what it is right now. What Kwami means is that no changes will be made to this article unless a consensus is built to make that change. --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

can you please take a step back and realize that this entire "dispute" has served no purpose other than messing up a perfectly good article? Please just restore the status quo ante. Then seek consensus before making any changes.

The comparison of the terms "folk etymology" and "folklore" is misguided, if the comparison is simply based on the observation that both begin in "folk-". As far as I can see, DavidOaks hasn't really got past that naive stage.

This doesn't mean that "folklore" has a priori nothing to do with the topic. But instead of folklore, say mythology. First because we are talking about traditional tales, not dances, cuisine or clothing. Secondly, because it will become clear that folk etymology and mythology actively power one another. Yes, there is secondary literature on that. This aspect is addressed at Etiology#Mythology.

So please, by all means discuss the relation of aitiological myths and folk etymology, but please stop this naive nonsense about "folklore". --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to trace the term in English. The earliest attestation I could find so far is 1882, by Abram Smythe Palmer. The first attestation of German Volks-Etymologie I could find dates to 1821. Perhaps slightly earlier attestations can be found, but the timeline is reasonable, the first half of the 19th century is the "golden age of philology" in German scholarship, and British scholarship only begins to catch up in the second half of the century. The Germans had been using the term for half a century before it was calqued into English.

Note how with the term folklore, it's just the other way round. This term was coined in English the 1840s (William Thoms), and later loaned (not calqued, that would have been Volkslehre) into German, as Folklore. The Germans did have earlier terms for various aspects of "folklore", such as Brauchtum, Volkslied, Volkstanz, Volksgeist, etc., but the overarching concept of "folklore" was apparently seen as sufficiently useful to loan the word.

Even more interestingly, Thoms coined the term, but was inspired by German compounds in Volk-, which in English would be translated as "popular". Probably Volksüberlieferung, which has the straightforward translation "popular tradition", but if you want to sound more archaic or Teutonic, you replace "popular" with folk and "tradition" with lore. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't clear in my sentence "there is zero consensus for adding folklore here". My underlying meaning was "there is zero consensus for adding the folkloric definition of 'folk etymology' here". Sorry for not being clear in my statement. The problem with restoring the "status quo ante" is 1) it gives priority to the folkloric definition of the term, even though that term is not consistently used within the field itself, 2) it relegates the precisely-defined and original linguistic definition to second place, and 3) it does a poor job of defining the linguistic term when it finally gets around to mentioning the earlier and more accurate definition of "folk etymology". The status quo ante is unacceptable from the standpoint of the linguistic definition, which always comes first in every source where both are listed and is most often the only definition used in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and introductions to historical linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

By "ante" I mean somewhere around here. But you are right that the article never has been in great shape, and we need to improve it. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion

I saw no indication of any interest in compromise, so I went ahead and followed the suggestion to create separate articles. I renew my invitation to reshape the main space here as a short article that will direct readers to more developed treatments of each sense. DavidOaks (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks, it isn't at all clear what you are even talking about. Separate articles separating what? If we cannot agree that a line can be drawn between two distinct topics, it is hardly possible to "separate" anything from anything.

If "false etymology" is have any meaning beyond the bare composition of "false" and "etymology", "an etymology that is false", that meaning is exactly synonymous with "folk etymology". The term "folk etymology" is sometimes avoided, e.g. if a false etymology isn't due to the "folk" but to learned medieval scholars. It sounds jarring to say that the Etymologicum Magnum is full of "folk etymologies", because it isn't a work of folklore. So "folk" is replaced by "false" in instances like this. This doesn't mean that there are two topics which can be "separated".

You are also inviting administrative sanctions, as you are simply continuing an edit-war stopped short by article protection by re-posting your version of the article under a disambiguated title. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Oaks, what is the title of the article that you have created? Dbachmann, Mr. Oaks has understood the difference between the linguistic and the folkloric definition of "folk etymology" throughout this discussion, so I don't doubt his ability to create a proper article. The difference is in the end result. The original meaning of Volketimologie (I may not have spelled that correctly) is the linguistic definition--a word that has been reshaped, reanalyzed, or respelled due to a misunderstanding of its origin, such as "shame-faced" from "shamfast". The folkloric usage is a fanciful explanation of the meaning of a word. --Taivo (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DavidOaks created folk etymology (linguistics) (which I reverted as circumvention of article protection), and folk etymology (folklore) (which I tagged but left standing). What DavidOaks seems to be trying to do is discuss the two items given in the Jan Harold Brunvand definition as entirely separate notions.

1. changes to the form of a word "in order to render it apparently significant"
2. aitiologies invented to explain the origin of a word

Yes, these are two aspects of the phenomenon of folk etymology. No, they cannot be treated as separate phenomena. Pegasus was associated with the Greek word for "spring" even though the original name was completely unrelated, loaned from Luwian. Hesoid then reports the myth that Pegasus could strike his hoof anywhere and a spring would burst forth. This is a single process. The foreign word was adapted to Greek pronunciation to sound like the word for "spring"; and a story came up explaining why a winged horse should be named after springs. Of course all of this should be discussed within the "folk etymology" article. I still see no indication of how you can argue that there are two separate topics in there, or two distinct meanings depending on the field of scholarship under consideration. I would definitely dispute that the "hoofs make springs burst forth" is a "folkloric" sense of the term "folk etymology" while "name became associated with pege 'spring'" is the "linguistic" sense. One is the folk etymology and the other is the aitiology associated with the folk etymology. --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But my point is, an admin steps in and protects folk etymology because people are fighting over it, and *wham* people go and create false etymology, folk etymology (linguistics) and folk etymology (folklore) on top of the protected folk etymology, so we now have four broken articles instead of one. However the problem is going to be resolved, this is most certainly not the way things are done. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the creation of the other articles except for "folk etymology (folklore)". That is the only article that there was a consensus for Mr. Oaks to create. "False etymology" should not have been created by Medeis because we were allowing Mr. Oaks freedom to create a folklore-based article for his material. And Mr. Oaks did not have any consensus for creating "folk etymology (linguistics)". Both Medeis and Mr. Oaks operated outside their mandates based on consensus here. --Taivo (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann. These turf battles are detrimental to the usefulness of WP. I have no view on the relative merits of the two sides here, and can only second Monsieur dab, but before DavidO gets singled out, I've seen other instances where Taivo and kwami team up against non-specialist approaches to topics on which linguistics comes to bear. This is not a fair fight, since one is an admin. In my experience, they are, though honorable and well-informed souls, not always the most genial editors for seeing other perspectives and aiming articles at the general reader. Nothing personal, guys, as I respect your knowledge. But if I see your names on a talk page or clustered in an edit history, I tend to stay away unless I have oceans of time to fritter away watching angels dancing on heads of pins. This is not conducive to the collaborative spirit. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I came in rather sympathetic to David, but feel he's failed to support his POV. I'm not actually opposed to incorporating the loose def in this article, as long as it's relegated to a parenthetical role per WP:WEIGHT. Since there may not be enough material for a full article, that may be the way to go.

BTW, Taivo & I have had our own sometimes vociferous disputes. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you, Dbachmann, for handling the new pages. Mr. Oaks had no consensus to create "folk etymology (linguistics)", but he had been encouraged to create "folk etymology (folklore)". There is a very clear boundary between the two--if the borrowed word is changed in a physical way to reflect a false etymology, that is the linguistic sense and is almost never combined with the folkloric sense in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and intros to historical linguistics. There may be folkloric descriptions of why the word physically changed to accompany that, but the change of the word is the critical component that makes it conform to the linguistic definition of "folk etymology". Fanciful stories about other words are just folklore, not linguistics. The folkloric elaboration of these false etymologies can become more and more complex. I heard some very complex false etymologies of words when I was doing my linguistic fieldwork on a Native American language--one of which started with a particular native word, with a perfectly good native structure and etymology, that occurs in a particular story at a particular place in a seasonal story cycle and linked it with the name "Jehovah", which happens to be very close to one of the normal ways to pronounce the native word. That's all folklore, not linguistics. Unlike the clean, precise linguistic definition of "folk etymology", there is no limit to how complicated a false etymology can be in the folklore sense. Brunvard is the only source that combines the two definitions that has been found or cited and it's not a linguistic reference. There are two questions that I would ask about "pegasus"--1) was there a phonetic change from the Luwian source to Greek based on required grammatical/phonological adjustments to make it a Greek word, and 2) was there a phonetic change from the borrowed Greek word (after the shifts required in 1) to make it more like pege "spring"? If 1 is true, but not 2, then it isn't folk etymology, but folkloric explanation. If both 1 and 2 are true, then it is "folk etymology" in a linguistic sense. From your description above, it seems like 1 is true, but not 2, but I don't have a Greek etymological dictionary here to refer to and check. --Taivo (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was consensus for the split I apologize to DavidOaks for blaming him personally. But I certainly do not consent with this so there is at best near-consensus. I mostly agree with your elaboration with the "folkloric" aspect, Taivo, and I agree this is how it should be put, more or less, but I would insist that it should be put like that on a single page, "folk etymology", perhaps in a separate section on "urban legend" or "aitiological narratives arising from folk etymologies". I would agree with Brunvand's enumeration of (1) and (2), this is a reference we can use, but it will not escape you that Brunvand manages to discuss his points on a single page, under a single heading, so I don't see how this can be used for a rationale as to why Wikipedia needs two pages. I disagree with the clean line Taivo attempts to draw between folklore and linguistics. When discussing historical linguistics, the main difference is one of the resolution of the available information. We do not have field researchers who left an account on how exactly Greek names like Pegasus arose, so it's all "linguistics". If we did have field researchers visiting the Iron Age, we would very likely see the same "folkloristic" complexity in the processes that eventually result in "purely linguistic" folk etymologies in Greek. I submit that Luwian Pihasassas was to Pegasus exactly what Jehovah was to your native American word. The process is the same, we just have a different granularity of information available. --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that there is room for compromise and consensus-building here, but I don't think that Mr. Oaks is the person to do it. Every attempt that he has made at combining the two articles has resulted in a highlighting of the folkloric content and a misstatement or marginalization of the linguistic definition. This is the problem that the "status quo ante" also suffered from. The linguistic definition is the older usage and is very precisely defined and exemplified in the literature. The folkloric usage is uneven and not precisely defined throughout the field. While there are sufficient prose descriptions and examples in the folkloric literature, they do not consistently use the term "folk etymology" to describe the phenomena. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

this is the discussion page copied from the deleted page Folk etymology (folklore) for future reference

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the deleted page Folk etymology (folklore). Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The page was deleted at the creator's request and the discussion has become moot.μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page started

Started page as a result of suggestion from discussion at Folk etymology: a dispute about whether material relating to the way the word is used in folklore could be included there or whether the term and article were reserved strictly for linguistics did not seem likely to resolve; there was the suggestion to divide that content into two symmetrically titled articles Folk etymology (linguistics) and Folk etymology (folklore) and leave the original namespace as a kind of elaborate disambuiguation page. Neither side really liked this, but it seems like the only way forward. Certainly the folklore material was the less-developed portion; for the further development of this page, I paste in a list of sources from the Folk etymology talkpage relating to the folkloric sense. DavidOaks (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1) We have (thus far, using only what was available online) three field encyclopedias explicitly defining the term as a belief about an etymology (frequently expressed in narrative). None of them specifies that the narrative is always false (which is why the suggestion of making this term a subset of “false etymology” won’t work). For the sake of completeness, I gather them here:

+

+ A) Brunvand, Jan Harold. “A process by which people either (1) mispronounce or change pronunciations of foreign or strange-sounding words to make them similar to, or compatible phonologically with, other words in their lexicons, or (2) explain from hearsay evidence how particular words originated.”American Folklore: An Encyclopedia. NY: Garland Reference Library of the Humanities

+

+ B)"Folk etymologies are stories, often quite brief, that purport to explain the origin of a word through reference to the linguistic form of the word itself. […] (South Asian folklore: an encyclopedia. Peter J. Claus, Sarah Diamond, Margare t Ann Mills. Taylor & Francis 2003. Deborah Winslow sv “Folk Etymologies” 204-5

+

+ C)“[…]Folk etymology is the phenomenon whereby plausible but factually inaccurate explanations develop, often accompanied by a corroborating tall story.” An encyclopedia of swearing: the social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world. Geoffrey Hughes. sv “Folk etymology;” pp 177-78

+

+ (2) Previously, I offered numerous examples of informal usage. I am simply going to state that observation of actual usage is the normal means by which non-prescriptive linguists determine the meaning of a term. I did not and do not offer those instances as WP:RS for a definition, merely talk-page illustration of the fact that the term is in wide circulation in the sense claimed. Below, I offer exclusively juried, refereed, peer-reviewed publications from scholarly journals and presses, establishing that the term has been in this disciplinary usage for a century at least. I have demonstrated that it is also in widespread current use. I have demonstrated that it was used in the standard introductory textbook in the field more than forty years ago. By no means have I exhausted the supply. I have not read each article thoroughly – ars longa – quibble with one, there’s always another. I don’t think the point can be denied.

+

+ I have added some citations as well from the allied field of anthropology; I have left out numerous references from peer-reviewed publications in political science, history, even astronomy. Suffice it to say that the term is in wide scholarly circulation in its folkoric sense. I would be very curious if we could find many instances of its linguistic sense outside of linguistics. It wouldn’t tell us much, but the whole question has piqued my interest.

+

+ In many cases, the title makes it clear enough; where not, I have given an internal reference.

+

+ Some Practical Aspects of the Study of Myths JR Swanton - Journal of American Folklore, 1910

+ “... The first of these is that process which gives rise to many folk-etymologies, explanations of names and things which have nothing to do with their real origin…”

+

+ The Ghost of Criticism Past DKE Crawford - Folklore, 1996

+ “... Folk etymologies appear in the discussions of the names for Glastonbury…”

+

+ The gomer: a figure of American hospital folk speech

+ V George… - Journal of American Folklore,

+ “Several folk etymologies have been proposed for ‘gomer.’”

+

+ Rewriting initialisms: folk derivations and linguistic riddles

+ N Howe - Journal of American Folklore, 1989

+ “Before discussing folk etymologies for initialisms that circulate as riddles…”

+

+ Etiological Legends Based on Folk Etymologies of Manding Surnames

+ JW Johnson - Folklore Forum, 1976 - scholarworks.iu.edu

+

+ Mummers and Momoeri: A Response C Fees - Folklore, 1989

+ “... Most folk etymologies are 'too close to be coincidence', but this doesn't make them true, and even if true it doesn't tell us ...”

+

+ Regionalization: A Rhetorical Strategy S Jones - Journal of the Folklore Institute, 1976

+ “... In many cases they are legends constructed after the fact, and there are many instances where folk etymologies disagree about the origin of the same ...”

+

+ Mormon: An Example of Folk Etymology SA Gallacher - Western Folklore, 1949

+

+ A Nineteenth-Century Incantation of Bulgarian Refugees in Romania E Vrabie - Journal of American Folklore, 1978. “With the enormous increase in the use of acronyms,

+ acronymic folk etymologies seem bound to ...”

+

+ Hoodlums and Folk Etymology P Tamony - Western Folklore, 1969

+ (Primarily a linguist, though linguists and folklorists cross-identify; on p. 46 he uses the term in both senses. On 47, only in the folklorist’s sense – twice.)

+

+ Folklore in the Kentucky Novel LS Thompson - Midwest Folklore, 1953

+ “... even in twentieth century Kentucky. ... The frontier novels are full of place name lore, some of it authentic, other based on folk etymologies.”

+

+ Oral exegesis: local interpretations of a bengali folk deity FJ Korom - Western folklore, 1997 “ ... Dharmaraj's formal name in Goalpara is Baharadihi (baha.radihi). Some folk etymologies of this name circulate in the village…”

+

+ Place-name legends: An onomastic mythology WFH Nicolaisen - Folklore, 1976

+ “…has, far too frequently to my mind and with little or no justification, been dismissed by some scholars as mere 'folk-etymology'

+

+ Anthropologists (an umbrella group for folklorists and linguists alike):

+

+ The Mimuna and the Minority Status of Moroccan Jews HE Goldberg - Ethnology, 1978

+ “... It is therefore unlikely that Einhorn's hypothesis contrib- utes to a sociological or synchronicund erstanding of the festival.6 The term mimuna itself is often the starting point for folk etymologies and explanations of the holiday.”

+

+ The Legend, Popular Discourse and Local Community: The Case of Assamese Legends K Bhattacharjee - Folklore as discourse

+ “... said about folk mythologies that myths are reworked, informed and garbled in folk myths; this is true for Indian folk etymologies and legends. ...”

+

+ being “Maasai”; being “people‐of‐cattle”: ethnic shifters in East Africa

+ JG Galaty - American ethnologist, 1982

+ “... To define “Maasai” is as easy as pointing out those who are and those who are not;

+ to describe “Maasai” involves explicating a collective value system understood by all

+ and encoded in various folk etymologies of the origin of the term.”

+

+ Who were the Vai? A Jones - The Journal of African History, 1981 - Cambridge Univ Press

+ “... First, it contains so many folk-etymologies that one must wonder whether it represents anything more than a clever story-teller's ... “ (possibly references a 1926 source; can’t see whole passage)

+

+ (3) Evidence this sense is used by linguists while communicating with other linguists:

+ While the term is established and stable in linguistics, it is easily documented that linguists do use the term to refer to beliefs and narratives as well as to the reanalyzed forms produced in response to those beliefs. Instances were given, above, from professional listservs – where one would think fellow professionals would call one another on sloppy usage, most especially when it is repeated. A linguist would normally find this compelling evidence that the second meaning has indeed penetrated the community of linguists themselves. That’s simply how fieldwork is done (my teacher’s teacher was Kurath). It is also possible to document the usage among linguists even when communicating formally and professionally with other linguists.

+

+ Indeed, one of your own examples, from ELL (in addition to the “Zigeuner” observation, graciously noted) seems to me definitely to be in the folklorist’s rather than the linguist’s sense –

+

+ Sound Symbolism. I E Reay “Folk etymology, sometimes known as popular etymology, occurs when the origin of a word is lost or forgotten and another etymology that seems likely or fitting is substituted in the popular consciousness.”

+

+ It doesn’t refer to change in form or sense, but to an imagined origin (and a definitely false one, which is not a necessary part of the folklorist’s definition).

+

+ I’d note too that “folk etymology” is explicitly said to be synonymous with “popular etymology” by both linguistic sources (yours here from ELL: Bauer, Reay, also Andrew L. Sihler) and folklorists (I didn’t flag examples; will you trust me on it? Jurisprudence holds that admissions against interest are reliable). That suggests a further degree of instability for the term, as do the synonyms “morphological reanalysis” (Bauer, again in your source, proposes on the grounds that “folk etymology” is simply inaccurate – Coates calls it “grossly misnamed”) and “analogical reanalysis” (Coates – speaking for myself, I’m not sure it’s precisely the same thing). The claim that the term has watertight semantic boundaries seems simply untenable. But it definitely has exactly two established and specific and above all related scholarly meanings.

+

+ I bring these forward not so much for their argumentative value; the conventional meaning of the term is entirely secure among linguists, and no one has questioned that at any point in this discussion. Really, I have begun to find the question we are working on here itself an interesting linguistic inquiry; I wish we weren’t all (I include myself) so interested in winning the point that we lose sight of what a fascinating process is unfolding here. The cases which I have tagged as ambiguous are the ones that advance my case least and interest me most. There’s a conference paper here for an ambitious undergrad, guaranteed to get her/him lots of attention.

+

+ The study of the Pennsylvania German dialect

+ O Springer - The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 1943

+ “[such a study calls for a gathering of] popular traditions and folk etymologies of these names…” “traditions” seems to refer to stories rather than morphological re-analyses. And this guy’s a German linguist – undermines the claim that the loan-translation is what anchors the term’s meaning.

+

+ THE GAGAUZ A Menz

+ “... Some of these explanations are obvious folk etymologies, and there is no consensus on any of them.” (2008 afro-turkik conference proceedings, Institutionen för lingvistik och filologi: http://www.lingfil.uu.se/)

+

+ A note on the Navaho word for coyote HJ Landar - International Journal of American Linguistics, 1961 “Native speakers offer no folk etymologies…”

+

+ Some new light on old jamaicanisms FG Cassidy - American Speech, 1967

+ In the section on “John Canoe” the phonetic form is treated as provoking the story, not vice-versa, as the linguistic position has it. But I regard it as somewhat ambiguous. “As is the case with folk etymologies, the phonetic form, whatever its origin, demands semantic rationalization.”

+

+ Another I find interesting; clearly the author is working with the linguist’s term, but he introduces a distinction: first order folk etymologies” (got nothing on that term from google):

+

+ Spitten image: Etymythology and fluid dynamics LR Horn - American Speech, 2004 - Duke Univ Press

+ “... Our suspicions are aroused by the fact that while goose-summer and sparrow-grass are indeed first- order simple folk etymologies, the gooseberry has nothing to do with gorse (deriving instead from

Note that except for Bruvard, who gives priority to the linguistic term even in his supposed folkloristicv sense, the above sources may use but they do not define the term folk etymology. That is what is needed, sources defining the term. A list of sources misusing the term centrifugal force, a very common sloppily misused term, for example, wouldn't be sufficient to create an article about the sense separate from the actual one used in standard physics texts. And even Bruvard's asserted second definition is entirely parasitic on the first, primary, linguistic sense.

We are not, as editors, entitled to draw our own conclusions about meaning from our own research and synthesis of sources. There is no problem finding dictionary entries refering to folk etymology in the original linguistic sense and only in that sense. Please try to such find reliable scholarly sources that explicitly define folk-etymology in the sense of this article.

Merger proposal (This discussion is moot, the page [[Folk etymology (folklore) was deleted at its creator's request. No further comments should be made in this section.)

• OpposeThe article contains a tag proposing that it be merged back into the Folk etymology article. That article's discussion page shows a long and heated dispute over the view by some editors that it be exclusively about it as a technical term used by linguists, somewhat different from the folklore usage, describing people "making up stories to account for the origins of words.[2]" based on fanciful and incorrect histories. Therefore I oppose such a merger. The folklore usage is well referenced, and satisfies both notability and verifiability. Let one article exist on the technical linguistic sense of the term, and another (this) on the folklore use. Edison (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The sole rationale for merger is the suggested homonymy. In so far as the subject of this article might be legitimate, it would be legitimate on its own meaning. But meaning asserted here is also referred to under such terms as false etymology and urban legendry and all sorts of other terms. If this material is to continue to exist what is needed are reliable scholarly sources, not shoehorning into an article on a different phenomenon.μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support The two senses are well-established and related historically, and in regular use by scholarly and professional communities. The folkloric sense is explicitly defined in three encyclopedias, and the additional evidence merely establishes the fact that it has been in use for 100 years. However, the discussion has a history of disagreement which makes consensus unlikely, and it's just not worth the effort. DavidOaks (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying: in principle I'd support a merger eventually, but this article was created as PART of a an attempt at resolving a longstanding dispute, and the disputants seem unlikely to accept the idea. I'm proposing the article for deletion. DavidOaks (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The merger request was mooted by the deletion of the page at its creator's request μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

so much for motion-- tried

The article Folk etymology (folklore) needs to be deleted; it was part of a pair of articles attempting to get us unstuck; I created them in response to an admin’s encouragement. Didn’t move us forward. What we have now is a stub, asymmetrically named, because of a unilateral decision to delete the other half.

This discussion has been long and repetitive. I expect no one to go through and investigate the rights and wrongs. But note: I have had NO response to repeated requests for explanation of the claimed wikipolicies on which decisions were made; my sources are simply stated to be non-reliable with no explanation (despite repeated requests for such explanation). My positions have been repeatedly misrepresented, despite correction, and the misrepresentations have been used as the basis for decisions. I have had NO response to my request for explanation of why I was hit with a 3RR warning (incorrectly) by an admin who was acting simultaneously as disputant and referee. These are not procedural fouls – they are the reasons why the conversation did not make any progress, and the behaviors have been sustained and rewarded. That being the case, I’m checking out of this whole thing. A minor article, just not worth the spiritual wear and tear. And if this is the model for how disputes are handled, it is absolutely clear that I have no business at Wikipedia whatsoever.

And if this is the way linguistics is done – applying Platonic and authoritative definitions in defiance of and while refusing to discuss competing definitions, ignoring and dismissing empirical field data, privileging first usage and etymological roots – well, it’s NOT the way it’s done, and everybody here knows it well. There is no issue of competence here at all. No, that is most certainly not the problem.

I do know that if I should decide to work in wikpedia in the future, if I see certain names in the edit history, I can prepare for certain behaviors for which I was NOT prepared this time. But I think I’ll just leave it to people who think this outcome and process were everything they should have been. Take your victory lap. DavidOaks (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll delete the article for you. — kwami (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Oaks' problem is not that the folk etymology (folklore) remained a stub. That is his fault for not expanding it. He set up his own playground, but then refused to play in it. His problem is that his creation of folk etymology (linguistics) was rejected and the linguistics definition remained here (where it should be). He wasn't really interested in developing his own field. No one ever objected to him creating an article to discuss the various issues and terms used in folklore. He had plenty of sources to develop folk etymology (folklore). He just refused to do it. But he makes it sound like no one supported it. He is mistaken in that assumption. And his title for this section "tried" is disingenuous. He set up the article he wanted, but he didn't try to develop it at all. --Taivo (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely false. The problem is that the two of you refuse to acknowledge that the linguistic article on folk etymology is not the primary use for the term, even among linguists. WP:NAME is clearly being violated. It may be David's fault that he hasn't expanded his article, if the reason it's still a stub is not that you have challenged his sources without reason, but it should be a parallel article to this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

His sources were not challenged in regards to dealing with the issue of folklore and one possible term for the phenomenon in folkloric studies. He had plenty of material to write a wonderful article at folk etymology (folklore). But the problem was that he was treating one of a variety of terms in folklore studies as if it stood on the same level as a single, standardized and clearly-defined term in linguistics. For example, no textbook on historical change in linguistics fails to use and define the term "folk etymology" in a precise way, but there are many books on the folkloric usage that don't use the term, such as an entire book on "fuck" in English, a word with probably more false etymologies than any other word in the language, that doesn't use the phrase "folk etymology" a single, solitary time. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We have many articles on topics which don't have a precise definition, even where there is a body which has a precise, but not-actually-used, definition. That is not quite on point, as we agree that linguists do use the "linguistic definition". The question in regard whether the "folkloric" definition should be discussed (in this article or in a separate article) should be whether the "folkloric" definition is actually used by notable people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the "folkloric definition" is that it is not consistently used, nor really standardized within the field. I have a book at home called The F Word (published by Random House), which has 23 pages of introductory discussion on the history of fuck in English. It surely has more "urban legends", "popular explanations", "false etymologies" or "folk etymologies" associated with it than any other word in English, but in 23 pages the book doesn't use the term "folk etymology" a single time. That is the problem with the term in its "folklore" sense, unlike its linguistic sense--it is not consistently used and there are alternate terms which are probably used just as often. --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another voice

Hey guys. For full disclosure, I'll say right off the bat that DavidOaks invited me to take a look at this dispute. I've come here out of a sense of Wikipedian duty. I'm not at all competent to comment on the technical aspects of the issue, and I don't have the time right now to become acquainted with the relevant literature. However, I will make a few points:

1. I did a quick search for the term "folk etymology" on JSTOR (jstor.org). On the first page of search results, at least half of the articles seemed to come from folklore journals, not linguistic journals. Western Folklore appeared to feature prominently, although I didn't bother to wade through the results. The very first article came from Folklore and was titled "London Folk-Etymology". (I did my search through my university's VPN, which gives me access to JSTOR; I'm not sure whether that affected the order in which the search results appeared.)

2. I'm not really on DavidOaks's "side" here, though, because I think that this article actually should be split (contrary to at least his original wishes). The very existence of such a long edit-war shows this beyond a doubt.

3. I'm not convinced that there's even a point to the big dispute about whether the 2 articles should be Folk etymology (linguistics) vs. Folk etymology (folklore) or Folk etymology vs. Folk etymology (folklore). The term may have a very strict, technical meaning in linguistics, but that alone isn't decisive in privileging the "linguistic" meaning of the term. The actual frequency of the term's usage in other academic fields should also come into play. Consider the Theory article. In the "hard" sciences, "theory" has a very strict meaning: a theory is not just a hypothesis, even a hypothesis supported by strong arguments, but, rather, a hypothesis verified through empirical data. Yet this strict, technical meaning gets, at best, pride of place in the Theory article. (And not even that, if you look at the intro.) Why? Because other academic fields use the term "theory" all the time, and they basically just use it to mean "hypothesis". Again, I haven't read through the entire conversation above, so I can't say with confidence that the "linguistic" side has failed to establish that the "linguistic" usage is the dominant one.

4. Since first reading the expression "folk etymology" (in a class on Greek mythology), I've always understood it to mean a popular misconception about a word, not an actual change to a word based on such a misconception (i.e. the "linguistic" definition). A lot of (non-linguistics) scholars seem to use the term in the first way. Consider the following:

a) "[Hesiod's] explanation of the name Aphrodite [...] is pure folk etymology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=cvSiWE0KQsYC&pg=PA41&dq=%22folk+etymology%22+hesiod&hl=en&ei=QynqTJKOJsP48AaTt729DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22%20hesiod&f=false)

b) "Bilingual Venus knows her Greek name, Aphrodite, and refers to its folk etymology, generally accepted in classical antiquity, as 'foam-born'" (http://books.google.com/books?id=hDPmwbCSSPEC&pg=PA72&dq=%22folk+etymology%22+hesiod&hl=en&ei=QynqTJKOJsP48AaTt729DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22%20hesiod&f=false)

c) "Folk etymology: Popular, unscientific derivation of a word. [...] Thus a chance similarity between the Greek noun aphros ("foam") and the first part of the divine name Aphrodite, which has no obvious meaning in Greek, can suggest that the goddess's name may signify "Foam + (something)" (http://books.google.com/books?id=_s8nSgrD0jkC&pg=PA173&dq=%22folk+etymology%22+greek&hl=en&ei=HC7qTJuaI8O88gaq_rTxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22%20greek&f=false)

Note that these examples do not necessarily support DavidOaks's "folkloric" definition of "folk etymology". As far as these examples are concerned, a folk etymology need not be a full-fledged urban legend explaining how a word originated; a folk etymology can just be a popular misconception about the original meaning of a word.

Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I'll leave you guys to it. I hope that I was of some sort of help. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, McBluff. No one disputes that the term folk linguistics is found in these sources. The problem is that we are not as editors entitled to go from noting that various authors use the term to concluding that the "basic meaning" of the term is such and such. That is what would be called WP:Synthesis on our part. In the case of linguistics, however, we literally have dozens of verifiable reliable sources such as the OED and Meriam Webster and the Cambridge and Routledge encyclopedias and numerous authors not just using, but explicitly defining the term for us. We don't have to draw conclusions, we can cite the sources. This is not primarily about meaning. It is about sources and wikipedia policy.

At least one of my above examples (4c) does explicitly define folk etymology as a "popular, unscientific derivation of a word". Perhaps we could add a brief section to this article that (1) acknowledges this alternative definition and (2) gives whatever examples of this definition DavidOaks (or I, if necessary) can find in the literature. Here are some other examples:

a) "Tucumcari is an excellent example of a process well-known to names scholars whereby people invent, not always consciously, a plausible explanation for a name whose real origin they don't know. The process is called folk-etymology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=p3fMJnT1gx0C&pg=PR22&dq=%22folk+etymology%22&hl=en&ei=bqTqTLiGDISBlAecvN2xCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22&f=false)

b)"Attractive as the story may be, it is only a rather elaborate example of false or folk etymology, expressing people's enthusiasm for making up stories to account for the origins of words" (http://books.google.com/books?id=dqyqialyUyMC&pg=PA27&dq=%22folk+etymology%22&hl=en&ei=bqTqTLiGDISBlAecvN2xCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22&f=false)

c) "Appalachia is an excellent example of a process well-known to names scholars whereby people invent, not always consciously, a plausible explanation for a name whose real origin they don't know. The process is called folk-etymology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=KkKBhQVyid8C&pg=PR12&dq=%22folk+etymology%22&hl=en&ei=bqTqTLiGDISBlAecvN2xCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22&f=false)

d) "To give an etymology of a name of forgotten meaning is the sole object of folk etymology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=orZzUasZmM8C&pg=PA37&dq=%22folk+etymology%22&hl=en&ei=NabqTOy5B4OBlAfd7aW6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%22&f=false)

e) "Folk etymology is also used to identify hypothetical explanations - usually presented in story form - for word derivations" (http://books.google.com/books?id=oJuvqhxFXH8C&pg=PA499&dq=%22folk+etymology+is%22&hl=en&ei=iKfqTKvCAYKClAeOg6GWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22folk%20etymology%20is%22&f=false)

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While you might want to cite 4c above if you decide to resurrect the abandoned article, the etymology for Aphrodite is attributed to Hesiod, not to "folk" and the source you quote gives no citations. Unless the actual source of Aphrodite is known, speculations as to whether the proffered one is false are premature. As for the other sources, like the one on American place names, the source gives the spelling Apple-ache-ia as an example of folk etymology, and this change in spelling is yet another paradigm case of Volksetymologie. Your last source, e, directly above, is Bruvard, duplicated. My desire above was to answer you once in good faith, not to engage in repetitious bootless debate. False etymology and Folk etymology (folklore) await editing. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Hesiod's etymology of Aphrodite is neither "folk" nor "false" in any meaningful sense. Ditto Plato in the etymologizing Cratylus. This kind of etymological speculation was the product of an intellectual elite, by definition not "folk"; sometimes their etymologies are in accordance with those of modern scientific linguistics, but often not. They're also not "false," because even if the etymology doesn't represent the actual word origin, it is "true" in terms of allegory and analogy, that is, the etymology is perceived by those who use the word as meaningful, and affects the assumptions they make in philosophical or theological discourse. The following book is fascinating on the subject: Davide Del Bello, Forgotten Paths: Etymology and the Allegorical Mindset (Catholic University of America Press, 2007).[3] But I'm afraid it only roils the waters further here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

interwikis

Hi Medeis. My first language is Portuguese, and I am pretty sure the pt article doesn't deal with both phenomena. Spanish and Italian I'm not good at, so I can't argue on those. In the end, it's your decision to keep or move/remove the links. 208.91.115.10 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish article undoubtedly has many examples of words whose form has changed from what would be etymologically expected, based on reanalysis. The Italian article's example of bizeffe is a borderline case. I had read the Portuguese article as giving the spelling paella (which is based on parentheses) as based on the false etymology, pa' ella but apparently this is just a reference to the Spanish spelling, not an alternative respelling in Portuguese. I am not opposed to removing the link to the pt article, I'll leave that judgment to a native speaker. I am curious if Portuguese academics recognize volksetymologie as such.μηδείς (talk)

Morphological reanalysis

Is the term morphological reanalysis, which redirects here, fully synonymous with the technical term "folk etymology", or can the term "morphological reanalysis" also refer to phenomena such as rebracketing and back-formation? (However, the article "rebracketing" claims that rebracketing is a form of folk etymology, while the article "back-formation" only states that the process of back-formation is similar to folk etymology.) Worse, the disambiguation page reanalysis indicates that even the simple term "reanalysis" can refer to all these things, so perhaps the term should not be bolded here. In any case, if the term "morphological reanalysis" has a wider (or different) meaning than "folk etymology", the title should not redirect here, but to the disambiguation page instead. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Varieties section

My thanks to Cnilep for all the work on this article. That being said, the Varieties section is problematic, since neither rebracketing nor back-formation is a type of folk etymology in the sense of the article.

The (bound) morpheme "-burger" meaning sandwich is indeed a rebracketting, but "hamburger" itself does not get changed because of this. If we saw a form handburger develop from the notion that these are foods eaten with the hand, that would be folk etymology.

Likewise, the backformation of edit from edit has nothing whatsoever to do with folk etymology. The original form editor has not been affected by this backformation in any way.

The section falsely implies that backformation and rebracketting are types of folk etymology, they are not, even though they are etymological processes. The section should be removed as a separate head, and rebracketting can be mentioned where it does occur in specific examples if applicable. The two terms should be moved to the See also section. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Usage may vary. The notion that rebracketing and some cases of back formation are folk etymology is, however, supported by secondary and tertiary sources. See for example this from a linguistics textbook:

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.' [...] Subsequently, on the analogy of this folk etymology, new forms such as cheeseburger, chiliburger, and plain burger have been created. ¶ Another form of reanalysis that can lead to the formation of a new word is the process of back formation. (Shukla and Connor-Linton 2006, p 296. original emphasis).

The example edit may be badly chosen; if so, please replace it. But the fact that editor and hamburger continue to exist in their original forms is not evidence against the reanalyses that led to burger and edit. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC) By the way, if you've never eaten a cheeseburger, I can heartily recommend it. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not arguing that rebracketting and backformation cannot overlap with folk etymology, although I am unaware of any example of backformation being relevant. It is up to you who added the claim to support it, not for me to find a better example. The source you give calling burger a folk etymology is simply wrong; the reanalysis is a false etymology, not a folksetymologie. Neither burger nor hamburger resembles some more familiar term, and neither word has had its spelling or pronunciation changed to resmble am more common word.

The essential problem here is one of hierarchical classification. It would be like having an article bird and then offering flying animals and flightless animals as "varieties" of birds. While some birds fly and some don't, flight and flightlessness are qualities that also apply to insects and elephants.

I suggest that perhaps an "other factors" section might work if you feel retaining these phenomena is important, but you should provide two good examples of actual folk etymology that fall under them, and neither hamburger nor edit fits the bill. Even orange is not an example of folk etymology, because although the misinterpretation of the article is a reanalysis, the resultant term orange is not changed to more closely resemble a familiar form in the way of asparagus > sparrowgrass is. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "The source you give calling burger a folk etymology is simply wrong", my opinion or yours doesn't much matter as much as the content of reliable sources. If you believe Cambridge University Press is unreliable, you may compare books from Edinburgh UP, Walter de Gruyter, or Bloomsbury among others. Cnilep (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"The technical term "folk etymology" refers to a change in the form of a word caused by erroneous popular beliefs about its derivation"

As far as I know, this is not the case. The "fornication under consent of king" is a folk etymology of fuck because it's false but popular, and passed down like a folk tale. But of course, it hasn't changed the spelling. Any evidence to support this? I say evidence, just because one or two people have used it this way doesn't make it generally true. I think, frankly, we've just got it a bit wrong. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Having said that, looking at onelook.com, dictionaries are listing both. But 'technical term' is wrong as inasmuch as they are both technical terms. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

False etymology

Once again the non-technical notion of false etymology has been added to this article on the technical concept Volksetymologie. I have moved that material instead to False etymology. I suggest anyone interested in false etymologies in folklore address their attention to that article, which is in need of citations. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added this because Wikipedia is not prescriptive. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact that "folk etymology" is a popular term for a creative but false etymology. You said "in non-technical, anything means anything" which is about as accurate as saying "nonstandard dialects have no grammar". Any dictionary will list the non-technical meaning of "folk etymology", and if we try and pretend it doesn't exist, we're doing our readers a disservice. I am fine with putting the actual discussion elsewhere, like you've done, but we need a cross-reference (IMO Kwami's hatnote at the top isn't enough), and we can't be making prescriptive claims that such-and-such term "only" means such-and-such a thing.

I also don't think that the non-technical sense of "folk etymology" is actually the same as "false etymology". Wikipedia says a "false etymology" is a "popular but false ..." but I think this is an invention on the part of some WP editor. Search around the Internet and you more commonly find "false etymology" referring simply to any incorrect etymology, whether or not it has a popular character. IMO a better term for a false etymology with a popular character is "popular etymology", and the "false etymology" page should be renamed accordingly. Benwing (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia most certainly is prescriptive, in the sense that it requires verifiable reliable and notable sources. Read the extensive comments above on the sources. Wikipedia also writes articles about things and phenomena. No one argues that the article Mercury needs to be about the god and the element and the planet and the car because that is how people use the word and we are not prescriptive. The article force does not have a section on the use of violence in politics or the supernatural phenomenon ios the Star Wars movies. Instead, there are separate articles and hatnotes. Given your interest in false etymology, and your statement above that you disagree with some of what it says, why not edit it? You might also look in the recent archives of this talk page to find the text that was used in the abortive article Folk etymology (folklore). μηδείς (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia most certainly is prescriptive, in the sense that it requires verifiable reliable and notable sources. That is incorrect: Wikipedia is descriptive because it requires verifiable and notable sources. This strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NPOV, particularly such statements as "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them". I'm not saying μηδείς is wrong about the article itself. But while I see the word "describe" used repeatedly in policy statements, I don't see a prescriptive function. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am not sure why anyone would have trouble with "in the sense that", but in any case we both agree in the need for verifiable and reliable notable sources. This is not a POV dispute. If it were, I would not have recreated the article false etymology and copied the information there - I would have called it evil and deleted it as obviously wrong. I didn't. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that being descriptive doesn't mean perpetuating error. And yes, equating "wrong" and "evil" is perhaps not the best way to establish a neutral attitude. The advice to Benwing seems sound. But even with the qualifying clause, the statement about WP being prescriptive to me was misleading, and so I didn't want to leave it at that. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Once again the non-technical notion of false etymology has been added to this article on the technical concept Volksetymologie." This is not true, false but popular etymology is as technical as the other meaning. Or to put it another way, cite your sources. The two meanings are about equally common in dictionaries, albeit many dictionaries only have one and not the other. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Today I've jumped to this article from an article describes about popular but false etymology in japanese wikipedia through Languages link, and I got confused as to which mean is right word changing this one says or false etymology japanese one says.　After that, I noticed link to "false etymology" and read the article, therewith I understood why they say different things and　"folk etymology" has two means, although I think this twisted situation have to be corrected. Furthermore, I confirmed the　situation is also occurring　with Languages links between the Link from English to Japanese, from English to German and from German to English, and from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English. Maybe all links from/to English are so too. And now I knew this discussion　of "folk etymology". I think at least all of links from/to ENG should be corrected if the article as is, or it's good this article also describes　about false etymology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulatanuki (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

this is STILL so awkward

I don't believe that it is the place of Wikipedia to expand confusion, much less to sow it with assumed authority.

In the end, perhaps all related articles would indeed be better folded into subsections of an overarching article such as pseudo-etymology. Until then, there are certainly steps that can be taken to fight the nonsense.

Confusion is supported from the very beginning(s)—

Folk etymology… – sometimes called pseudo-etymology, popular etymology…

A false etymology (popular etymology…, pseudo-etymology…), sometimes called folk etymology

How can a typical WP user NOT be misled by this??

My recommendation: for the sake of initial clarity, push all of this "a.k.a." garbage back as far as possible!! I believe it ought to be well into the main body of the article, but certainly no further forward than the final paragraph of the lede.

And also put MUCH clearer effort into distinguishing "also sometimes called" from "often erroneously referred to as" terminology. Do this early, and at least allude to it three or four times in the article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)