Comments on: Debunking Etymological Myths

By: J P Maher

J P Maher — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:49:52 +0000

missed my Q

j p maher

By: J P Maher

J P Maher — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:49:10 +0000

“Never before WW I is there any record of a verb ‘to crap’.” This means “no FINITE VERB”, i.e. verbal forms with subject pronouns and tense mark — present, past. Gerunds and gerundives –non-finite forms in “-ing” — do NOT count since these are as often (and historically earlier) from nouns, as well as from verbs: e.g. “housing, water-boarding,Googling, surfing, “cowling, fairing, railing…”. Here the “-ing” words are first formed form nouns and subsequently the corresponding verb is created.

Oxford English Dictionary and others are deeply flawed in citing “-ing” forms as verbal. In any case a dictionary is not a primary source.

A primary source from the very era in which Thos. Crapper Co. Valveless Waste Preventers were cleaning up was discovered by the world’s supreme Crapper expert, Ken Grabowski of Chicago:

Headline in The Washington Post of July 6, 1894: “BAGGED -A NEST OF CRAPPERS”. The “crappers” here are gamblers, crap-shooters.

No one had yet uttered “went to the Crapper and crapped there”.

Thomas Crapper must be restored to the Pantheon of Eponymy, alongside Bloomer and Blazer. This goes for General Joe Hooker”, too. Copy-cat Mavens, Word Smiths, and Netymologists have not done their homework and should be exposed as wuacks.

By: J. P. Maher

J. P. Maher — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:02:24 +0000

Re “caesarean”: the Latin words are not “caeso & caedare” ‘cut, but “caedo / caedere”, perfect participle “caesus”. The moniker “Pompeis” [sic] should be “Pompeius”.

Re Crapper. Single “inventors” are all inventions, since every “invention” is but a point in a long series of innovations and improvements, most of them anonymous. The plumbing entrepreneur Thomas Crapper of course was not the inventor of the flush toilet. Many “inventors” preceded him, but his Yorkshire surname DID provide the basis for the back formation (pardon) “to crap, crapped”. If a word for defecation “to crap” had been in circulation in Victoria’s England, never would it have been allowed to cast iron water jackets emblazoned “CRAPPER’S Water Waste Preventer…”. The manufacturer’s name “CRAPPER” can be seen on a man (pardon) hole cover at Westminster Abbey. Never before WW I is there any record of a verb “to crap”. The first attestations are in graffiti recorded by Allen Walker Read in the 1930s, hardly a dozen years after Armistice Day, and in WW I veterans’ books.
The 1840s phrase “crapping ken” has been totally misunderstood by the word mavens and wordsmiths. It was not a reference to a WC. After all a “water closet” is an inside job, not an outhouse. This is itself an Americanism; in Britain an “outhouse” is simply an outbuilding, no value added. The “crapping ken” of humorous literature was a facetious circumlocution for a little house (ken) in the garden, to which gentle folk retired to “pluck a rose” (J. Swift) or a handful of user-friendly, biodegradable grass — a CROP (south English) or CRAP (north English and Scotch language. (”Scots” is the Scottish language form.)

By: Julia

Julia — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:02:51 +0000

I had heard that “the whole nine yards” came from the length of trains on wedding dresses–the longer the train, the fancier the person. Royalty would get the full-length train, nine yards in length.

This is late, and I’m sure no one will notice, but I feel like sharing. :)

By: Kathe

Kathe — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:15:02 +0000

Witty Nickname–
There are several possible answers to this question. The one that makes the most sense to me is: Here comes President Bush and former President Bush.
Or: Here comes former President Bush and his son, President Bush.

By: Pantagruelle

Pantagruelle — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:37:31 +0000

I have always heard that “the whole nine yards” goes back to at least the 18th century and corporal punishment on British sailing ships. Sometimes sailors were sent to the gallows, sometimes they were given the cat of nine tails, but sometimes they were punished by being forced to walk across the deck of the ship and be beaten or whipped by their fellow sailors. The other sailors would line up in two parallel rows and the sailor to be punished would have to walk down the middle and take lashes from the others. The length of the row of sailors and the distance the sailor being punished had to walk was nine yards (which is reasonable given the size of the deck of 18th century sailing ships). Hence, going “the whole nine yards” would have originally meant surviving a long and difficult ordeal by getting through the beating while still standing on one’s feet, or at least before passing out from the pain.

(The sailors who were doing the beating, by the way, weren’t allowed to go easy on the offending sailor or they risked being beaten too. “Discipline” in those days was strongly enforced.)

This interpretation has been taken up in popular culture. In one of the early episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Lt. Worf goes through a ritual Klingon ceremony (the Rite of Ascension, I believe) during which he has to walk between a row of other Klingon soldiers who prod him with “pain sticks”. The distance looks to be about nine yards long, and I think there were about 8 or 9 soldiers in each row. By the end, Wolf can barely crawl, but he makes it “the whole nine yards” before collapsing at the end of the ceremony.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:27:42 +0000

The writer mentioned Halliburton’s former mascot. How could that possibly elicit such a reaction from anyone?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:16:06 +0000

Suck it up, Sam.

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:44:17 +0000

“(including Halliburton, by the way)”

Oooh! The evil Halliburton! You couldn’t help but toss that liberal bogeyman in could you. I bet you didn’t even give it a thought while typing it as it is so ingrained in your little liberal head.

This site gets worse and worse with crap like this. Almost makes me wnat to cancel my subscription to the magazine…

By: lala

lala — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:18:50 +0000

JaneM, “irregardless” drives me insane. I know that “regardless” is a word, and I know that “irrespective” is a word, but you cannot convince me that “irregardless” is a word. It’s a freaking one-word double negative! Yet according to my etymological dictionary (yes, I’m a nerd), “irregardless” is now part of the English lexicon purely because people have consistently (albeit incorrectly) used it for so long. It drives me nuts.

Another grammar gaffe that I can’t stand is “small, little” or “little, tiny” or “big, huge,” as in, “I just want a small, little piece of cake,” or “There’s a big, huge dog next door.” Redundant much? Same thing with “ATM machine” and “PIN number.” What do you think the “M” and the “N” stand for?!

So ends my rant for the day.