Date:  Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:16:23 -0400
From:  Gregory {Greg} Downing <downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]IS2.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Etymology of _Hoosier_

At 06:55 AM 10/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Why is folk etymology so much more rewarding than the truth?
>
>Dennis R. Preston
>Department of Linguistics and Languages
>Michigan State University
>preston[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]pilot.msu.edu
>

Maybe Horne Tooke is a vampire, is undead, and has been out biting others.
Bram Stoker, call your office. Or maybe the answer is that "man is an
etymologizing animal" (Abram Smythe Palmer, _Folk-Etymology_, 1882). A lot
of folk etymologies become quite influential. Perhaps f-e is okay as long as
people don't think it's anything but an ex post facto construct -- but they
often think f-e is the real reason for the word's origin I think. Poll
people, and I bet you'll find 100 who know "who's here?" led to "hoosier"
for every 1 who knows the published reseached history as posted on this list
last week.

Skeat waxed vehement about the need to stamp out f-e over a century ago. For
example:

"If the question were one of chemistry, botany, or any form of science, the
appeal would lie to the facts; and we should be amazed if any one who
asserted that the chief constituents of water are oxygen and nitrogen were
to take offence at contradiction. The whole matter lies in a nutshell; if
etymology is to be scientific, the appeal lies to the facts; and the facts,
in this case, are accurate quotations, with exact references, from all
available authors." (_A Student's Pastime_, 1895, p. lxxv)

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