Talk:False etymology

message: Despite the above, a request was entered to merge Fake into Folk etymology.  I have removed the request-- the above reasoning is self-explanatory. Mwanner 21:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I put up said request. I am guess I should have verified the Talk page first. I am still not convinced of the need for two pages. It appears that folk etymology is the result fake etymology, but not all fake etymology will result in folk etymology. And the words are quite commonly mixed up.
:This passage describing popular usage of folk etymology:
::In popular usage, the term has also come to mean an "explanation" of the meaning of a word based on its superficial similarity to other words
:Seems to be exactly the same as a fake etymology.
:While at fake etymology you find:
::While "folk etymology" is occasionally encountered as a synonym for "fake etymology
:This is all very confusing. And if the pages are not merged, a better (and consistent) clarification needs to be placed on both pages.
:--ZayZayEM 08:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request 

message: I have a theory that "eggplant" is derived from a misunderstanding of the Arabic badinjan (aubergine) as meaning bayd-el-jann (egg of the garden), though the word is actually derived from Sanskrit vatinganan (wind-producing).  However, I have seen no support for this: has anyone any evidence for or against? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called an eggplant because it's round and white.  -- Dominus 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Anyone who's ever seen a white eggplant has no trouble understanding the name. For one thing, they're much more egg-shaped than the familiar semi-pear-shaped purple kind. I think I was in my 30s before I first encountered the Real Deal, and it produced an instantaneous spasm: "Oh, THAT's why they're caled eggplant! Of course! How obvious!" Now as for grapefruit...  Alsihler 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because they grow in bunches :) BananaFiend 08:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eggplant

message: Just thought I'd say:)  Hakluyt bean 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: I removed this entry because petty is in fact derived from petit; if this counts as a folk etymology it is a very marginal case.  —Tamfang 20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  petty bourgeois 

message: There really has been no succesful distinction between folk etymology and false etymology -- at most, it's a kind of venn-diagram thing, and going through Pyles and Algeo, Baugh &  Cable, Millward, Partridge, McLaughlin and my own experience (I teach linguistics, but I know that's original research, so I don't put any weight on it) there is NO recognized, systematic distinction between these terms. Therefore, I propose (once again) merging the two topics (I'll cross post at the other). DavidOaks (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding (I don't teach linguistics, but I have two degrees in it) is that folk etymology is a process by which a word's form is reshaped in order to more closely reflect what speakers perceive its meaning/derivation to be, while false etymology is simply any incorrect etymology.  That is, folk etymology doesn't really involve any conscious "etymology" at all -- it's a sound change due to unconscious reanalysis by speakers.  That's quite different from a made-up (i.e. false), explicitly-stated etymology.  This is certainly the way the term "folk etymology" is used in the introductory historical linguistics textbooks I've read (e.g. Trask 1996, Hock & Joseph 1996).  I'm not necessarily taking a position on whether or not the two articles should be merged, but I do feel that there's a clear enough distinction between the terms in the literature -- or, at least, a clear definition of "folk etymology" which definitely does not include the other phenomena listed in the "false etymology" article. WillNL (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge again

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - David has said everything that needs to be said in the section above this one, so redirect to False etymology -- Fullstop (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose per Ham Pastrami, below. So... #1) remove content in this article that confuses the two and #2) merge/redirect 'false etymology' to 'etymology', with a sub-subsection there that summarizes 'folk etymology' and links to here as the main article. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point -- "Folk etymology" gets more google hits than "false etymology" (92k:17k). However, "false etymology" is the larger class -- there are false etymologies which are not folk etymologies, but all folk etymologies are false etymologies, and in makes more sense (to me, anyhow) to fold the more specific into the more general, even if the specific will be the largest class within the general. DavidOaks (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "This error has been perpetuated in the grizzly bear's scientific trinomial name: Ursus arctos horribilis" is a false statement made by an individual who clearly has no background in Latin.
In Latin, "horribilis" itself meanse "grizzled," therefore the trinomial nomenclature does in fact reference the bear's original name. I don't know the veracity of the rest of the reference, but I am positive that this one part is clearly wrong.
71.141.238.3 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, horribilis means "making one's hair stand on end": it has nothing to do with grey hair: I don't know if the grizzly's fur is in fact exceptionally rough and spiky.  The question is not what it meant in Classical Latin, but what it meant in the mind of the person giving the species its scientific name.  --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it's a tough call. I could believe either of the explanations. I reverted the text to the original, and added a Citation Needed template. If it's a true story, there'll hopefully be information available to back it up. Indeterminate (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See now Grizzly bear#Name. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  grizzly bear 

message: This is the same article as False etymology, except for that article's enormous introduction; they even contained the same folk etymology about 'lantern' being derived from 'lanthorn', although I have changed that in Folk etymology. Anyway I suggest either the demolition of one of these articles or a furious differentiation; my preference being the first, since I'm more familiar with the term 'folk etymology'.
ClockwerkMao (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to Do Something 

message: Although the discussion here was unanimously against the move, someone went and moved Folk etymology to False etymology.  You can comment about returning to the status quo ante on the talk page for the article currently called False etymology.μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move False etymology > Folk etymology 

message: I have re-expanded this to article status per the unopposed suggestion of Bkonrad in the requested move which made this title a redirect: .  
The material suffers a lack of reliable sources, and consists of editorial synthesis, and if not rapidly improved, should likely be deleted.μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What a farce.  Is is being argued (Talk:Folk etymology) that there should exist just this very article, with this exact material, perhaps expanded, and maybe to be moved under some different name.  This material fits under the definition given here.  It doesn't fit under the definition given at the other article.  And editors are arguing that they should have the right to create this very article.  But faced with its existence, the response is to delete it? μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: David Oaks created this article at Folk etymology (folklore).  This was a duplicate.  --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  re expansion 

message: Given that it has been suggested at the talk for Volksetymologie that this article be moved to popular etymology, let me express my opposition.  Popular etymologies that happen to be true are simply called etymologies, and there already exists an article for that subject. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: According to WP:RS we need sources to back up challenged claims.  The claim that someone has attributed a false etymology to 'snob' is such a claim, whether or not the etymology itself is false.  Please don't remove tags asking for references. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for references 

message: I don't believe that it is the place of Wikipedia to expand confusion, much less to sow it with assumed authority.
In the end, perhaps all related articles would indeed be better folded into subsections of an overarching article such as pseudo-etymology. Until then, there are certainly steps that can be taken to fight the nonsense.
Confusion is supported from the very beginning(s)—
:Folk etymology… – sometimes called pseudo-etymology, popular etymology…
:A false etymology (popular etymology…, pseudo-etymology…), sometimes called folk etymology
How can a typical WP user NOT be misled by this??
My recommendation: for the sake of initial clarity, push all of this "a.k.a." garbage back as far as possible!! I believe it ought to be well into the main body of the article, but certainly no further forward than the final paragraph of the lede.
And also put MUCH clearer effort into distinguishing "also sometimes called" from "often erroneously referred to as" terminology. Do this early, and at least allude to it three or four times in the article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is STILL so awkward 

message: For details, see:  Gold, David L. 2020. Ghost Meanings Created by Dictionaries: The Case of Dickens’s Use of the Word theatricals. Dickens Quarterly. Vol. 37. No. 3. September. Pp. 226-236.
In all likelihood you can get a free copy at davidlgold.comS. Valkemirer (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A non-existent sense introduced by the OED and adopted by Merriam Webster, which in so doing created an additional non-existent meaning.