Date:  Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:16:40 -0500
From:  Gregory {Greg} Downing <downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]IS2.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stupid question dept.

>If a flute player is a floutist, why isn't a lute player a loutist?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Peggy Smith
>

I imagine some are louts; many are certainly highly strung, too tightly
wound, and gutless.

Flautist (not attested in English before 1860) is from Ital. flauto, flutist
(attested in English by early 17th cent.) is from French. I imagine
classical music folks prefer flautist since it's more recherche (not related
by simple English morphology to "flute" -- i.e., through addition of -ist)
and thus has "elitist" appeal. From my music days, I recall people saying
they preferred flutist, and thought flautist a bit affected.

Lutenist (OED prefers lutanist actually, for reasons apparent after this
parenthesis closes) is from medieval Latin lutanista (lute in med. Lat. is
"lutana"). Lutist is from lute, which is from French lut(e).

Language as usual reflects the complicated contingencies of cultural history
in toto, and thus isn't neat.

But where's the US issue here?

Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]nyu.edu or downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]is2.nyu.edu