Etymology as Meaning

[Hyena Dandy]

This is something that frequently frustrates me. When I get in a discussion with someone, and it turns into picking apart etymology, and saying that because a word is derived from (X,) that means that the word must mean (X.) This morning I saw someone posting that 'Heretic' meant 'Person who can choose,' and thus is a compliment, because it's derived from 'Hearetikos,' which has that meaning. Which, to start with, no, 'Haereo' means 'To choose,' but 'Haeretikos' means 'Person who twists the truth to their advantage and to cause discord,' like conspiracy theorists or Fox News anchors. But even putting that aside, why should I assume that a word's meaning wouldn't change, and thus base my interpretation on that idea? Heretic means "Person who follows unorthodox beliefs within a religious tradition." It doesn't mean the word it meant 2000 years ago. It means what it means today. If something meant something different even 10 years ago, it now at the very least has a new meaning, if the majority if people within the society are using it.

Otherwise I'd wonder why astronomer Neil Degrasse Tyson can't tell me my future, and astrologer Deb Holding is interested in doing something other than just figuring out what's in the sky*. I'd be totally perplexed about the fact that there are pagans in cities and in the military, and confused about why a geometry class isn't telling me anything about the earth. I'd certainly have no idea how my dad was dying of cancer, since I would assume that crabs at most led to itching, or why Eddie Izzard can call himself a comedian if he doesn't sing on stage.

*I personally find it hilarious that the meanings switched.

[Andara Bledin]

Ugh.

Arguing word usage based on obsolete etymology is the refuge of someone who knows they've lost the argument and is going to move the goalposts in a refusal to admit they were wrong.

[TheHuckster]

I suggest if you encounter one of these people, you just start speaking in Latin. If they want to use the original meanings of, at least Latin-based words, then I say go for it.

[HYHYBT]

How many people know enough Latin to speak it off the top of their head, though?

(Amen to the OP!)

[TheHuckster]

I was mostly being facetious. I would love to see how the conversation would continue after that if one can pull it off, though.

[Andara Bledin]

Not really. It would proceed with the pedant getting all wound up over being spoken to in a foreign language, the speaker then feigning surprise at them not wanting to use the original original meanings, and then the pedant stalking off while muttering dire imprecations against smart asses and smart people in general.



And, apropos of nothing, the word 'imprecation' is awesome, and it doesn't get nearly enough use in everyday speech.

[TheHuckster]

Well, at least it shuts the pedant up in the end.

[Tama]

I'd bet the average person knows lots of Latin. Not enough to not sound like an idiot though.

[Aragarthiel]

I keep coming back to this thread,starting a post, and deleting it for fear of a grammar nazi attack, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it.

If we're not supposed to always use the original, often Latin meanings of words, I really don't think that when English grammar rules get vague or simply don't exist, we should automatically revert to Latin rules. I don't speak Latin, I didn't take a class to learn Latin grammar, I shouldn't have to follow a rule that does not apply to me.

And just nitpicking here, but I say the phrase "should of" and get corrected for it more often than I should. I say it as "should've," and spell it that way. Spelling it "should of" is incorrect, saying it is not.

[Tama]

Oh god I hate that too.

Almost as much as the word "conversate."

[Andara Bledin]

Ugh. Back-formations are a refuge of the ignorant.

And here's an excellent article about why "conversate" doesn't need to exist.

Neal Whitman: Is Conversate a Word?

[Tama]

Unfortunately I recall hearing that it was added to a dictionary...which sucks. Hard.

[Andara Bledin]

There are a lot of redundant and pointless words in the dictionary. We can still champion concise and economical communication over slap-dash words created by people who are too ignorant/uneducated/sheltered/lazy to know any better.

[Rageaholic]

Ugh.

Arguing word usage based on obsolete etymology is the refuge of someone who knows they've lost the argument and is going to move the goalposts in a refusal to admit they were wrong.

That tends to show up a lot in debates on what certain words in the bible mean. It made me come to the conclusion that if God exists, he might need to make an updated Bible to clear the confusion lol.

[Hyena Dandy]

Unfortunately I recall hearing that it was added to a dictionary...which sucks. Hard.

The dictionary isn't a holy grail of usage, it's a thing that explains what words mean, to help the people consulting it understand what is being said. To make it into the dictionary it doesn't need to be a 'good' word, it just needs to be a word. Which means that if there's a good chance someone in your cultural context could use it, then it should be in there. The dictionary isn't a style guide, and if it were to keep out words which were just exceedingly informal, then it would be useless.