Talk:Fake etymology

Folk and fake etymology

I think this should be merged and redirected to Folk etymology.--Imran 02:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree. I've at least tried to make the link, but don't have time to do the major surgery. seglea 02:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I read folk etymology and felt it didn't quite represent the same thing as fake etymology, though I suppose once either kind has gained currency, it's hard to distinguish them. Folk etymology appears to be a natural evolution of the language, whereas the fake stuff is a deliberate invention, probably intended primarily for humorous purposes rather than a true attempt at explanation. I think they should remain distinct (otherwise I'd have amended folk etymology in the first place). Graham 03:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since I've tried to clear up the distinctions between folk and fake etymology there's been a couple of conversations on my talk page about the distinction. That's probably not the best place for it to be, so I'm about to summarize what I've said to User:Auto movil and User:Pasquale on Folk etymology's talk page. — mendel ☎ 14:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Some examples

What of the origins of OKay? The Japanese originated it? The Dutch?

I heard that it is derived from an old british jocular spelling of "Orl Korrekt" (All correct), but it is not a water-proof theory.

And Yankee? Or do the fake etymologies only apply for crude terms?

Go for it. Though I know nothing about "Yankee" personally, if it has a fake etymology it is welcome on the page. Graham 11:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

California

If there are no copyright issues, I would like to add California from the UNIX files during my student days. Note also that it is a fake.

Is is OK?...

California from 'Cali', as in 'caliente, calor' -hot in Spanish, calories, etc. and 'fornia' as in fornicate. California used to be called Tierra de la California. The land of HOT SEX !

         Jondel 11:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)~~

Maybe...

This is a classic example of "revisionist history," and possibly should be referred to as such. But then, the very word revisionist has such strong connotations, I understand why it cannot be mentioned (ie, nazi germany). GWC Autumn 59 2004 18.00 EST

Brassiere

The Brassiere / Titzling entry is very ambiguous... what is it intended to mean? With everything else, the person's name gives the name of the word. I understand some sort of "tits" association here, but that isn't conveyed. I don't know how to best fix it, but someone should.

Titzling - Tit-sling... gerrit??? it's a very bad joke - proven by the fact it needs explaining. Graham 22:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Folk Vs. Fake

"While "folk etymology" is occasionally encountered as a synonym for "fake etymology", that usage is rare amongst linguists."

In my experience, folk etymology is NOT occasionally, but rather, is almost always used in a synonymous way with fake etymology by non linguists. Does anyone else agree? This scentence should be changed if so.

I'm only an armchair linguist but I regularly hear/read the term "folk etymology" in linguistics contexts. I have never heard "fake etymology" in any other place than here on Wikipedia. While the distinction between the two concepts is clear and seems to be legitimate, I don't think the name of this article is appropriate. If there is a term in linguistics, we should find it and adopt it. If there is not, then this article should be appended to Folk etymology. There may even be a very slight breach of the "no original work" principle. — Hippietrail 04:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A while back (8th May actually) I discussed this on the talk page of the Folk Etymology article: see Talk:Folk etymology#Merge request revived. Hippietrail confirms my point. Can I ask those of you who have feelings about that to voice them now, because if there are no objections I will make a change, and will take you off my christmas card list if you then object retrospectively. --Doric Loon 19:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hippietrail that this article title has no currency outside of Wikipedia. I don't think the content should be merged with "Folk etymology"; rather, I think it should be moved to a section of Etymology with an introduction like "Invented or false etymologies often gain currency in popular culture as a way of explaining a word whose actual history is obscure or opaque...." AJD 20:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fake eponyms

Here are some terms which I've found listed as eponyms on the Internet, and in dictionaries with non-eponymous etymologies: bigot: Nathaniel Bigot (1575-1660) of England, kiosk: Imre Kiosk (1862-1921) of Hungary. I'm not sure if they're definitely fake, or if there is some uncertainty. — Hippietrail 04:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The word bigot is French in origin and dates to the 15th century. It may come from Norman words for "by God". It was first recorded in English in 1598. [1] [2] --FOo 05:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've heard from several sources that the Sony Walkman was named after a 19th century inventor called Otis P. Walkman. I don't believe it and there's no mention of it in the Walkman article. If someone can confirm that it is a fake etymology, then it might be a good one to add. Also sirloin which is surely one of the most repeated fake etymologies. --80.3.160.6 10:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actual Etymologies?

Would it be exceeding the purpouse of this article to include the actual etymologies for all of the terms where the fake ones are given? I'd guess most people, on seeing this page, would be curious to know. At the very least, there should be some indication of how we know the etymologies given are fake. RoccoM 22:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion or redefining of scope?

Following the discussions above and expecially on Talk:Folk etymology, a consensus was reached to use terminology differently. For that reason, Folk etymology has been modified, and False etymology has been changed from a redirect into a base article. This has consequences for the article Fake etymology too. For the moment I am contenting myself with altering the opening sentence slightly and removing that one sentence about folk etymology which has been repeatedly called into question. However, we now need to decide whether this article should be deleted (the excellent material being kept elsewhere of course) or whether it should be kept with reduced scope. The opening sentence rightly says that "fake etymology" (in so far as that is an established term at all) must refer to an INVENTED etymology, not to a scholarly error or a folk tradition. A fake is something which someone has consciously faked. I am now coming round to thinking that this article should have a future, but should focus on that narrow range; fake etymology, then, is a subset of false etymology. I am taking this slowly so as not to upset anyone, but I do want to point out that the discussion has been going on for many months now, so there IS a consensus behind this. --Doric Loon 13:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added commentary on this at Talk:Folk etymology in the interest of keeping the discussion primarily in one place. Briefly, I don't think the proper response to a term that is used in multiple senses ("folk etymology") is to invent a new term for a non-technical sense. c.f. fruit. --Tabor 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added commentary there too. It is not the job of wikipedia to invent new terms. If no one objects, and I have time, I will replace this article with a redirect to false etymology and move the contents there. False etymology isn't a real term either, but it's handy to have the concept in a single article for easy reference. If someone moved it to a section of folk etymology or etymology, I would not object. Pfalstad 16:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)