GalacticCactus Forum

Author Topic: The random etymology of the day  (Read 237937 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Porter

  • ruining funny with facts
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,333
  • long time lurker, first time poster
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #700 on: June 02, 2008, 09:29:09 AM »
(In other words, Jonathon is one of those that will judge you for it. ;))
Tomorrow Poster
Sooner or later, this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness.

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #701 on: June 02, 2008, 09:30:00 AM »
Actually, no. I usually use were myself just because of habit, but I don't think less of anyone who uses was.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 09:30:36 AM by Jonathon »
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Primal Curve

  • Super Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,182
    • View Profile
    • http://www.primalcurve.net
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #702 on: June 02, 2008, 09:33:55 AM »
Quote
Do you even HAVE a Facebook, Jake?  :P

On Facebook, you give your status in third person, kinda.

Mine currently says: Tracy wishes she were young enough to play ultimate frisbee!
Tracy wishes she were young enough to play ultimate frisbee! <-- Say in a Queen's English accent.
Tracy wishes she was young enough to play ultimate frisbee! <-- Say in a beer swilling, bass-boat-owning redneck accent.
Oh, and PC? Upcracking over here, just the heck for you. - Tante

Offline Porter

  • ruining funny with facts
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,333
  • long time lurker, first time poster
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #703 on: June 02, 2008, 09:41:31 AM »
I think less of Jonathon for not thinking less of others.

I meta-judge.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 09:41:42 AM by Porteiro »
Tomorrow Poster
Sooner or later, this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness.

Offline goofy

  • Veteran Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #704 on: June 02, 2008, 09:44:04 AM »
True, it's a disputed usage, so some (misinformed) people might think bad of you for using was in counterfactuals.

But I don't think this means the subjunctive is going extinct. We might be losing the past subjunctive as a distinct form, maybe, but we're still expressing the distaff character of counterfactuals when we use was.

1. present possible condition: I wonder if is possible.
2. past possible condition: I wondered if it was possible.
3. present counterfactual condition: If it was/were possible, I would travel back in time.
4. past counterfactual condition: If it had been possible, I would have traveled back in time.

I'm claiming that any confusion caused by using was in sentences like 3 is very rare, if it exists at all. The fact that usage mavens can spot when a clause with was is counterfactual and so "should" be were demonstrates that they understand perfectly what is meant.

In using was, we're simply bringing the verb be in line with every other verb, where we used the simple past tense for present counterfactuals:

5. If I was in Paris, I would visit the Eiffel tower.
6. If I lived in Paris, I would visit the Eiffel tower.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 09:47:06 AM by goofy »

Offline rivka

  • Linguistic Anarchist
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,155
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #705 on: June 02, 2008, 09:50:21 AM »
But "to be" is simply not like every other verb. In English or most (all?) other languages. So why should it follow the same rules?
"Sometimes you need a weirdo to tell you that things have gotten weird. Your normal friends, neighbors, and coworkers won’t tell you."
-Aaron Kunin

Offline goofy

  • Veteran Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #706 on: June 02, 2008, 09:53:12 AM »
Quote
But "to be" is simply not like every other verb. In English or most (all?) other languages. So why should it follow the same rules?
I'm not saying it should follow the same rules. I'm just hypothesizing why, 300 years ago, we started using "if I was" interchangeably with "if I were". It seems to be a case of regularization.

hm... I'm also arguing that there's no need to condemn it: it makes sense, it's unambiguous, and it's standard.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:03:48 AM by goofy »

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #707 on: June 02, 2008, 10:01:11 AM »
goofy: I completely agree with you that using the simple past form causes no confusion. I do think that the subjunctive will eventually disappear entirely, though it might take a few more centuries. I think eventually they're going to be so interchangeable that people will have no intuitive sense of when to use one or the other, and then it's going to be pretty much a lost cause.

rivka: I don't know about most languages, but I do know that it's very common for core verbs like be, go, and do to be highly irregular. But that doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't follow the same rules as other verbs. On the one hand, speakers of a language have an urge to regularize things. It just makes things easier. On the other hand, frequently used words have a lot of inertia to overcome, so they're very slow to change. But goofy isn't saying that it should or shouldn't change—just that it is changing, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Tante Shvester

  • Souper Member
  • Super Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,868
    • View Profile
    • About Tante
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #708 on: June 02, 2008, 10:41:27 AM »
"Kugel" actually is etymologically related to "cudgel".  They're both from the Middle German word for "ball".  The kugel is a pudding that was cooked in a round basin, and the cudgel is a weapon with a rounded nasty end.

And, even in modern times, there are those who would wield a heavy, potentially damaging potato kugel.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:41:52 AM by Tante Shvester »
Fighting thread drift with guilt, reverse psychology, and chicken soup.
Sweet! Law of Moses loopholes! -- Anneke
I love Bones.  -- Sweet Clementine
She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef. -- anonymous

Offline rivka

  • Linguistic Anarchist
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,155
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #709 on: June 02, 2008, 10:42:36 AM »
*mutters about descriptivists*
"Sometimes you need a weirdo to tell you that things have gotten weird. Your normal friends, neighbors, and coworkers won’t tell you."
-Aaron Kunin

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #710 on: June 02, 2008, 10:44:01 AM »
Yeah, because pointing out facts without decrying them is such a bad thing. ;)  
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline goofy

  • Veteran Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #711 on: June 02, 2008, 11:22:04 AM »
Quote
"Kugel" actually is etymologically related to "cudgel".
And also according to Pokorny, to cove, cub, cud, cog, and chicken.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 11:22:21 AM by goofy »

Offline Porter

  • ruining funny with facts
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,333
  • long time lurker, first time poster
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #712 on: June 02, 2008, 11:23:02 AM »
Quote
Yeah, because pointing out facts without decrying them is such a bad thing. ;)
That's horrible!
Tomorrow Poster
Sooner or later, this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness.

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #713 on: June 02, 2008, 11:25:09 AM »
Quote
Quote
"Kugel" actually is etymologically related to "cudgel".
And also according to Pokorny, to cove, cub, cud, cog, and chicken.
Man, I really need to learn German.
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #714 on: June 02, 2008, 11:25:30 AM »
Quote
Quote
Yeah, because pointing out facts without decrying them is such a bad thing. ;)
That's horrible!
<—is a horrible person
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Tante Shvester

  • Souper Member
  • Super Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,868
    • View Profile
    • About Tante
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #715 on: June 02, 2008, 11:29:21 AM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
"Kugel" actually is etymologically related to "cudgel".
And also according to Pokorny, to cove, cub, cud, cog, and chicken.
Man, I really need to learn German.
Partway down, it gets kind of dirty.  I don't read German, either, but I know a dirty word when I see one.
Fighting thread drift with guilt, reverse psychology, and chicken soup.
Sweet! Law of Moses loopholes! -- Anneke
I love Bones.  -- Sweet Clementine
She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef. -- anonymous

Offline Porter

  • ruining funny with facts
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,333
  • long time lurker, first time poster
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #716 on: June 02, 2008, 11:29:45 AM »
Jonathon -- which definition of ruminate came first -- to think about something, or to digest cellulose?
Tomorrow Poster
Sooner or later, this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness.

Offline goofy

  • Veteran Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #717 on: June 02, 2008, 11:38:24 AM »
Quote

Partway down, it gets kind of dirty.  I don't read German, either, but I know a dirty word when I see one.
... and that word.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 11:39:07 AM by goofy »

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #718 on: June 02, 2008, 11:42:08 AM »
Quote
Jonathon -- which definition of ruminate came first -- to think about something, or to digest cellulose?
Etymonline.com and the OED don't make it very clear—it looks like both senses came into English around the same time, and Etymonline.com says that the Latin verb ruminare meant "to chew the cud, turn over in the mind." So it seems that both senses go back to Latin. But ruminare comes from rumen, which means "throat" or "gullet." So I'd guess that the chewing/digesting sense came first in Latin.
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Porter

  • ruining funny with facts
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,333
  • long time lurker, first time poster
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #719 on: June 02, 2008, 11:48:48 AM »
Thanks!
Tomorrow Poster
Sooner or later, this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness.

Offline Farmgirl

  • Out Standing in Her Field
  • Super Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,598
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #720 on: June 02, 2008, 11:50:07 AM »
Quote

Tracy wishes she was young enough to play ultimate frisbee! <-- Say in a beer swilling, bass-boat-owning redneck accent.
Ah - So that's why it almost sounded right to me!
 
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Being a farmer is not something that you do—it is something that you are.


If I could eat only one fruit, I wouldn't choose the blueberry. It is too small. I'd go with watermelon. There is a lot to eat on a watermelon. - Tante

Offline rivka

  • Linguistic Anarchist
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,155
    • View Profile
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #721 on: June 02, 2008, 05:41:10 PM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Yeah, because pointing out facts without decrying them is such a bad thing. ;)
That's horrible!
<—is a horrible person
Ok,  so there are certain types of decriptivism I can get behind.
"Sometimes you need a weirdo to tell you that things have gotten weird. Your normal friends, neighbors, and coworkers won’t tell you."
-Aaron Kunin

Offline Jonathon

  • Evil T-Rex
  • Administrator
  • Übermember
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,680
  • This is the darkest timeline
    • View Profile
    • GalacticCactus
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #722 on: June 04, 2008, 11:25:20 AM »
Last night Ruth asked about how the various senses of words like organ, organism, and organize are related. It turns out that they go back through French and Latin to a Greek root organon, which also had a variety of meanings; the OED lists "tool, instrument, engine of war, musical instrument, surgical instrument, also bodily organ esp. as instrument of sense or faculty." The original sense in Greek was "that with which one works."

This root, in turn, is an ablaut variant of ergon, meaning "work," which shows up in words like energy and ergonomics. This word is cognate with the English work, and both it and ergon go back to the Proto-Indo-European *werg.

It seems that organize was originally used in the sense of "to give organic structure to" or "to arrange or form into an organ or body" and then generalized into its current sense of arranging or systematizing.  
You underestimate my ability to take things seriously!

Offline Mr. Anderson

  • Super Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,247
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #723 on: June 04, 2008, 12:24:49 PM »
Quote
Yup. Use the subjunctive were when the hypothetical in question is not the case. Use was if you're not sure if it's the case or not. Here's an example of the difference, but using love instead:

1. If he loved you, he wouldn't treat you this way.
2. If he loves you, he's sure subtle about it.
Ah ha.  I had never gotten a clear explanation of how to use was and were and why.  Thanks.
"...it isn't right to be angry with those who speak the truth."

-Glaucon

Offline goofy

  • Veteran Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • http://
The random etymology of the day
« Reply #724 on: June 04, 2008, 01:00:05 PM »
Quote
Yup. Use the subjunctive were when the hypothetical in question is not the case. Use was if you're not sure if it's the case or not. Here's an example of the difference, but using love instead:

1. If he loved you, he wouldn't treat you this way.
2. If he loves you, he's sure subtle about it.

I'm not sure what this example shows. Brinestone seems to be suggesting that we should use was in the same context as loves, and were in the same context as loved. But this doesn't work.

3. If he were in love with you, he wouldn't treat you this way.
4a. *If he was in love with you, he's sure subtle about it.

2 and 4 are present possible conditions and use the present tense:

4b. If he is in love with you, he's sure subtle about it.

We use was/were in present counterfactual conditions like 3, the same context where we use the past tense of other verbs.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 01:08:00 PM by goofy »