Talk:Humbug

message: I was astonished to find Humbug in the english wikipedia, as that word is also used in Germany, at least where I live (Western Germany, around 10 kilometers away of the Netherlands' border), also with the meaning of Nonsense.
Maybe this has to do with the brithish/american troops who have been stationed here-around after WWII (actually, many words here root in those troops). Unfortunately, I don't know more about that word, so I just post to this Discussion.
Usage: Someone tells something, maybe in anger, maybe in naiveness, however. Then the other person says "Humbug!" or "Das ist [doch] Humbug!". 
The pronounciation is german, like "Hoom-Book" ('hoom' spoken fast, the oo nearly 'eaten up')
--Phresnel (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humbug in Germany 

message: It says
"Charles Godfrey Leland postulates that the word could be derived from the Norse word hum"
but the book referred to actually doesn't postulate it, but in fact denies it:
"It has not, that I am aware, ever been conjectured that the word Humbug is derived from the Norse hum"
I don't understand why Leland would write about what it's not, but it couldn't really be a typo either, as it is followed by the word 'ever'. However, the theory has merits, as in Swedish there is the word 'hymla', which means to decieve, and is a verb formed from the archaic Norse noun 'hum', meaning shadows/darkness (not night). ie pulling the wool over ones eyes. I will rewrite it into a new chapter and include other theories of the origin.
--Dbjorck (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement 

message: On the top of the page it says
</blockquote>
"*Humbug is an architect term" - should this read "archaic"? or is it really architectural in origin?*"
</blockquote>
I don't agree it is archaic, which the article text now says. Archaic means that it is no longer used, such as Latin being an archaic language because no one speaks it anymore. I've heard plenty of people using the word. If the intent was to say it was old as in "archeology", it seems to be rather new in comparison as it's earliest written evidence is 1751. Most words in any language are far older than that. Similarly it is not ancient if that was the word intended originally. It may however be drawn from archaic languages such as Norse, but most words are that as etymology shows - and that doesn't make all words archaic.
--Dbjorck (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not archaic 

message: I also do not agree with that it is profanity:
"It is known, however, that it was used as profanity centuries ago, in places such as Great Britain."
There is no reference supplied to this statement. The term is not a curse word, disrespectful of religion, or vulgar in any way in todays language, and I don't see how it could have been then. Profanity is expressions like 'f**k you', at the time it would have been 'Jesus Christ!', and this is neither. I'm thinking that the statement confuses Scrooge's use of it as a derogative interjection. That is not a profanity anymore than exclaiming 'Bah!' or 'Oh no!'. I'm thinking that the linking of it to Great Britain merely has to do with the same novel. That is fiction and should not be used as a reference for fact if that is indeed the implied source of this statement. In any event, once the misuse of the word 'profanity' is taken out, the statement is superfluous since the previous sentence already states it has been in use in England since at least 1751.
--Dbjorck (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Patrick O'Brian's book The_Surgeon%27s_Mate during the Napoleonic wars, Captain Aubrey was offended when told that a ship was named Humbug, and considered punishing a seaman for saying the word, until he was told that the ship on the horizon was actually named HMS Humbug.  Since O'Brian is such a stickler for 19th century accuracy, I would guess that it may have been considered profanity once to gentlemen of Great Britain.  If true, it should probably be identified as such.
Petermarcus (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profanity? 

message: Used to refer to the wizard of oz when he has been found to be a fraud in the book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.26.135 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizard of Oz 

message: I know Google have changed the way they interpret searches, but if you do an advanced search for all articles that contain "humbug ebenezer scrooge", you get more than half a million results. Do the same search on "humbug john collins warren", and you get less than five thousand. Does anyone else have an information on exactly how "famous" this use by John Collins Warren actually is? I had to google it because I had never heard of it before... Heywoodg talk 08:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous? 

message: I sliced out a hefty chunk of OR from this article. I don't think this will be controversial, but here's the diff in case anyone wants to review it. Manning (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR|OR]] removed 

message: American author and lawyer Richard Henry Dana, Jr. in his classic Two Years Before the Mast (1840), Chapter XII, refers to "humbugged" as a nautical phrase (three years before Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol was published).
"When there is danger or necessity, or when he is well used, no one can work faster than he; but the instant he feels that he is kept at work for nothing, or, as the nautical phrase is, 'humbugged,' no sloth could make less headway."
And again, in Chapter XXXIV, Dana writes, "For several days we lay 'humbugging about' in the horse latitudes, ..."
Jeffsmack (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautical term 

message: I have heard the word "humbug" being used by old people referring to the English Horse-fly.
The Humbug (sweet) is considered to have got both its name and its distinct yellow/black striped appearance also from this particular humbug.
Verification in written form that can be referenced is needed!
Johan Hanson (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you help to narrow this down in terms of the region, class and ethnicity of the speakers? Ibadibam (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse fly 

message: The sentence "We don’t know who Miller was" in the third paragraph seems completely out of place. I'm tempted to remove it - but it's been in the article quite a while without anyone else catching it.  Does anyone know what's going on with this sentence?  Riordanmr (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , inserted only this past spring. It looks like the paragraph needs to be cleaned up and moved to the "Etymology" list. Ibadibam (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

text: A contemporary citation indicates this source was originally published in Fraser's Magazine and subsequently republished in a volume titled Free Thoughts on Many Subjects. Ibadibam (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We don’t know who Miller was 

message: See Oxford Etymologist
Rune Kock (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberman's etymology is worth reading