Who cares about the history? I mean, unless it's explained in such a way that the connection or evolution of the words is clear. Often it isn't. The part I'm concerned with is understanding why these words seem to mean often contradictory things, or at least very different things. Plus it gives me a chance to exercise the brain a bit. That's what makes it fun, though it can also be fun discovering it, if the articles bother to make the connections. But I usually save the 'check the dictionary' part till after I've at least tried to reason things through. It's the puzzle-solving I enjoy.
Everyone who cares about etymology should care about the history of a word -- care enough, at least, to read the history. The word "history" comes from the Middle English historie, from Latin historia, from Greek historía -- “learning or knowing by inquiry, history”; derivative of hístōr “one who knows or sees”. The word "story" comes from the Middle English stori(e) or store, meaning “(written or oral) narrative or history,” from Anglo-French (e)storie (Old French estoire), also from Latin historia. So the two words are linked, and share the same linguistic root. The history of a word is the same as the story of a word -- how a word came to be. If only more history teachers and writers remembered this, it would make history teaching more enjoyable and fun. The job of a history teacher and writer isn't just to show facts - places, names and dates. It is to make history come alive -- to make people care. The best way to do that is to tell stories -- and I don't mean fictional ones. The truth usually is stranger than fiction. Everyone knows (or should know), for instance, about the Battle of Long Island in 1776. Washington's 9,000 troops were outnumbered two-to-one, and lost the battle badly. One fifth of Washington's troops fell in battle or were captured. That night, they were pinned down against the East River. But the rain that night slowed the British advance, and gave Washington time to plan an escape. He kept the camp fires lit all night, to keep the British watchmen up and watchful for possible surprise attacks. Meanwhile, he began -- very quietly -- to send his troops across the river. The oars were muffled with cloth, to avoid sound. Still, time was working against Washington. The spring sun was rising early that day, at 5:20am. There were still dozens of men on the wrong side of the river, including Washington himself, who stayed behind until all his men were across. Sooner or later, the sun would reveal to the British that they had been tricked -- and then, Washington and his troops would be surrounded and forced to surrender. A dispirited Continental Congress would be disbanded. The Colonies would return to Great Britain. Dozens of men were still waiting to leave, including Washington, when a fog -- later called "providential", or "miraculous" -- rolled in. It was so thick, one soldier reported, that you couldn’t see more than 20 feet away. That was all the Americans needed to evacuate the rest of their troops. Washington was the last one to board a boat to safety, and he and his army were free to fight another day. If that fog hadn't occurred, there would be no America. Washington was skilled and competent, and had great command instincts; but he was also very lucky, an indispensable quality for a general.
You both missed the important part of what I said: When I look up the etymology of a word, I don't care what year it came into existence, what the country of origin is, or anything else, aside from why that word has come to mean what it means. If you look up the same word on several different etymology sites or books, the articles can be very different. Some will give actually relevant information, and some don't. If that relevant info isn't there, then the article is useless. I'm not there to learn shallow pointless factoids about a word, but something meaningful. I've said this before, but my interest in entymology is because sometimes a word seems to have two or more different (sometimes seemingly opposite) meanings, and I've become interested in the puzzle of how that came to be. One I solved recently was about the word intelligence. It seems to mean one thing when talking about the human mind, and something else (though somehow related) in a military context. I riddled through it myself, and here's what I came up with: They both actually mean the same thing—the gathering, organization, and proper use of information relevant to whatever project you're undertaking. I don't know if this definition is given in any dictionary or etymology article, and it doesn't matter—this is the one that explains the common link between both uses of the word. Quite likely it isn't given in any dictionary or etymology article, though some of the clues may be there. But you'd still need to do some reasoning to figure it all out.
One of my earliest ones, probably the one that launched my interest in etymology, was about the word Medium. It's the size between small and large "The medium is the message"—it's television, radio, movies, books etc There are spiritual mediums It's also a liquid painters use to dilute their paint so it becomes more fluid and sticks better to the canvas or paper At first I couldn't comprehend any connection between all of these seemingly totally diverse ideas, though I could. tell they were somehow all similar. But I kept working away at it and gradually it became clear. They all mean the same thing if you define it this way— A medium (plural media) is a go-between, a mediator between two other things, that allows communication between them or connects them. A spiritual medium is the connection point between our world and the spiritual world, allowing communication between the living and the spirits. The liquid used by painters allows for better paint handling against the canvas, and also allows the paint to stick better to the canvas. It affects the interface between paint and painting surface. And of course mass media stands between advertisers or broadcasters and their audience, allowing the message to be conveyed from one to the other. Once again, I doubt you'd be able to find a definition anywhere that explains all these uses coherently. A dictionary might include all the uses, but it probably doesn't explain how they're related—that part is left up to the reader to figure out if they care to.
I also did the word Draw. This one was easier, but still took a little riddlin'. You can draw a line, draw a bath, draw the curtains, draw blood etc. Of course it doesn't take long to realize draw just means to pull. You pull the pencil across the paper, pull out a drawer, pull water from a well or from the faucet in the bathtub, etc. It only took a few moments to draw all these conclusions, but I did have to draw on my reasoning abilities to some extent.
Has anyone mentioned that the root words behind "manufatured" mean "hand-made?" I love it when a word shifts subtly over time until it means almost the opposite of what it should mean.
That's awesome, great find. It reminds me of this one (can't take credit for it, I saw it somewhere once)—technically all writing and drawing/painting is digital, since digits are fingers. Try doing any of the above without using your fingers. Unless of course you have your computer set up so you can dictate to it I suppose. Tried that—it's more hassle than it's worth, with the all difficulties of the computer understanding what you say correctly.
I agree that some events would transpire regardless of who was in command. But in Washington's case, it's hard to see who else could have inspired and led the colonist army to the same extent as he did, especially at that early stage of the war. (Remember, the battle of Long Island was only two months after the Declaration of Independence). Horatio Gates was successful, but inflexible, and thought of battles as fighting "by the book". Gates also played a role in the Conway Cabal, which attempted to discredit and replace Washington. Benedict Arnold was a glory hound, and too jealous of his own reputation (especially after the Battle of Saratoga). This led to infighting between the American generals, which the infant Republic could not easily afford. Washington (and also Daniel Morgan, and others) kept their heads in a crisis, and were known for their ability to think beyond the accepted standards of warfare. If I may digress, I don't believe in the "Great Man" theory, but only because luck plays a huge role in the lives of so-called "Great Men". Washington could have been captured or killed many times, but he wasn't. Alexander the Great could've been killed on the banks of the Granicus River. Julius Caesar could easily have been killed during his civil war against Rome, etc. The term "Greatness" can only applied after a general's plan succeeds. If it fails, the general is called a "butcher" instead.
Wanna have some fun? Here are 37 meanings of the word "jigger". Without reading the etymology, work out how they're related. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jigger
Amoung the definitions: a drink of whiskey, a bicycle, the rest for the cue in billiards, and a streetcar drawn by a single horse. So – what does it mean to jig?
What about the various dances that people do when they jig? An Irish jig, a Scottish jig, etc. And what about when people try to pull a fast one? You know -- jiggery-pokery. What about the word "jib"? You know -- "I like the cut of your jib, young man" (as in, one's general appearance or personality). In the 17th century, the shape of the jib sail (a triangular sail, set forward of the foremast of a ship) often identified that ship's nationality, and hence whether it was hostile or friendly. As for saying "Here's a pretty kettle of fish" (i.e. 'a real mess') ... that one's easy. It doesn't look it -- after all, how would you get fish in a kettle, it's nowhere near big enough? Except that in the days of sail, a kettle was a huge cauldron onboard ship, so it would be messy. You could cook anything you wanted. (Well ... almost anything. Not a whole cow). Speaking of nautical expressions, why do they say "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey"? What do brass monkeys have to do with ships? *shrug* I've heard that a "brass monkey" was a kind of container to hold the cannonballs, and when it was very cold, the cannonballs wouldn't come out. But I've also heard that that explanation is a load of codswallop. And while we're at it, where does the word "codswallop" (meaning 'nonsense') come from? Is that what you get when you talk nonsense, and someone wallops you with a cod? Inquiring minds want to know ...
Does anyone have any ideas? To groom/be groomed is to brush and clean horses, or to train for a particular activity. A groom is someone who takes care of horses. So why, at a wedding, is it the bride and the groom?
I think the basic meaning of groom is to train or prepare someone for something, as in to groom someone for success. I don't quite understand how it fits in with the man in a wedding ceremony. Everyone there does a lot of grooming (in the sense of cleaning up and dressing well). Is he being trained, or is he training the wife? And what does bride mean? Any connection to bridle? I think clues might lie in the term animal husbandry. Also marriage, family, and household meant in a way very different things in the distant past than they do to us today. It was a union, more like a company or a team than being about love. The man took care of the family, same as someone does in animal husbandry. A household often included many people not in the family, like bond servants or greenskeepers, herdsmen or flock tenders etc.
^ Some of that is coming from my reading of The Odyssey. Odysseus ran the household, and it included many people and several flocks and herds if I remember right. And it makes me suspect the ideas of marriage, family etc grew alongside animal tending and are very similar.
My suspicion is that the man is being prepared to become the head of the household, to assume his position of responsibility to everyone in it. I have no ideas about what a bride is.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it originates in the idea that the husband is to groom the wife. The wife is, in effect, more chattel.
That's possible, and would explain the relation between bride and bridle. The wife would be the second in command, responsible directly for the children and for the household when he's away. It could mean both at the same time—the man and woman are both being prepared for their new roles. Power and responsibility must go hand in hand, one without the other doesn't work very well. I know that if a man's wife or children caused mischief he was held responsible, not them. It was his responsibility to straighten out the problems with his family. I think it was set up like a kingdom, with him as the king and she his queen.
