# Etymology of Darling



## shaloo

Hello all.. 

I was just trying to find the roots of this very loving word...
Does anyone have an idea??

Thank youu!


----------



## Ayazid

Hello,

Here is the etymology of this word :



> Old English _deorling_, double diminutive of _deor_ "dear." The vowel shift from -e- to -a- (16c.) is usual for -er- followed by a consonant. "I_t is better to be An olde mans derlyng, than a yong mans werlyng_" (1562).



http://www.etymonline.com


----------



## Cagey

The same source takes us back a step to the etymology of "dear", but there we hit a dead end:



> O.E. _deore_ "precious, valuable, costly, loved," from W.Gmc. *_deurjaz,_ ultimate origin unknown.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dear


----------



## robbie_SWE

Cagey said:


> The same source takes us back a step to the etymology of "dear", but there we hit a dead end:
> 
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dear


 
Can it somehow be connected with the Swedish *dyr* ("expensive") and the German *teuer* ("expensive")? 

It kind of makes sense in my head 

 robbie


----------



## sokol

Yes, "dyr" & "teuer" and "darling < dear" are cognates; Kluge (23rd ed.; de Gruyter 1995, Berlin):


> Mhd. tiur(e), ahd. tiuri, as. diuri aus g. *deurja- oder *deuzja-, auch in anord. dýrr, ae. deore, afr. diore, diure (...)


(Length signs I've left out.)
mhd. = Middle German
ahd. = Old German
as. = Old Saxon (the Saxon of Northern Germany)
g. = Germanic
anord. = Old Nordic
ae. = Old English
afr. = Old French


----------



## Mr Punch

robbie_SWE said:


> Can it somehow be connected with the Swedish *dyr* ("expensive") and the German *teuer* ("expensive")?
> 
> It kind of makes sense in my head
> 
> robbie


I've no idea if this is a Midland colloquialism (though I don't think so) but in modern English some people still use 'dear' to mean expensive. My grandma would often say that she didn't want to buy something because it was 'too dear'... so the original use as 'valuable'/'expensive' isn't really so far off.

EDIT: Checked: plenty of examples of this use on dictionary.com.


----------



## berndf

Mr Punch said:


> so the original use as 'valuable'/'expensive' isn't really so far off.


I agree. In the expression "my dear friend" you could easily replace "dear" by "valued".  German uses the same expression: "Mein teurer Freund".


----------



## sound shift

And what about "-ling"? I think it means "thing" and I believe it has cognates in other Germanic languages. No doubt someone will confirm/refute before too long.


----------



## CapnPrep

sound shift said:


> And what about "-ling"? I think it means "thing" and I believe it has cognates in other Germanic languages.


It does kind of mean "(person or) thing". 





			
				OED said:
			
		

> *-ling*, _suffix_
> appended to ns., adjs., vb.-stems, and (rarely) advs., to form ns., a Com[mon] Teut[onic] formative (OE., OS., OHG. _-ling_, ON. _-ling-r_, Goth. _-ligg-s_ in _gadiliggs_)
> […]
> The derivatives from adjs. have the sense ‘a person or thing that has the quality denoted by the adj.’, e.g. _déorling_ darling, _ʒeongling_ youngling; similarly from an adv., _underling_ subordinate.


You find the same suffix, for example, in German _Liebling_ (which I think will get you much farther than _Teuerling_ ).


----------



## ThomasK

Just by the way: _duurbaar_ in Dutch , mostly pronounced _dierbaar_ becomes clear in that way (with _duur_ meaning 'expensive'). 

ON the other hand, I have some reservations with regard to that explanation as '-baar' (often 'ible'/ 'able' in English) implies a verb, which would then be _duren_, i.e., to last...


----------



## Tagarela

Olá,

As for the _expensive/dear_, the word *caro* in Portuguese has both meanings.


Até.:


----------



## trance0

Well, in Slovene a similar word is used for "darling", i.e. "drag" and as an adjective it can also mean expensive. This word seems to have a deeper Protoindoeuropean origin.


----------



## se16teddy

trance0 said:


> This word seems to have a deeper Protoindoeuropean origin.


Or maybe people all over the word use high economic value as a metaphor for high emotional value?


----------



## trance0

Interesting point. Who knows. We should leave this to the linguists to decide.


----------



## ThomasK

Se16Teddy, I guess George Lakoff would confirm your theory. His hypothesis is that we use a lot of (underlying) metaphores and I remember that he concludes that love is often considered as an economic good as there are expressions like 
 - he earns love
 - he invests in love
 - ... (I do not have the book, but there are more !)


----------



## sokol

trance0 said:


> Interesting point. Who knows. We should leave this to the linguists to decide.


The linguist supports teddy, but just the other way round. 
That is, at first there was emotional value, to which then economical value became attributed.

I will try to establish the etymology of Slavic 'drag-' (next time I'm in my favourite library) but I feel it might be a different one than Germanic *deurja- or *deuzja- which should be the root to 'dear' and all those and should go to IE *dhegwh- = to burn, to warm (and other meanings).
(Obviously the idea of 'warming' then turned into affection and from that finally to affection for economic value; so a true fairy tale of ... but well, we won't delve into that. This is about linguistics, right?)


----------



## ThomasK

Don't you think the economic value is just metaphorical, Sokol ?


----------



## sokol

ThomasK said:


> Don't you think the economic value is just metaphorical, Sokol ?


I don't quite see what you mean.
In the beginning there wasn't an economic value attributed to this root. Then an emotional value became attributed (still visible in English 'dear'), and later (it seems, though I haven't solid confirmation for that yet) came the economic value.
In English I'd say economic value is secondary to emotional value, with 'dear'.
In German however emotional value surely is secondary with 'teuer', the primary meaning is the economical one: teuer = expensive.

So what would be your point, please?


----------



## ThomasK

sokol said:


> In the beginning there wasn't an economic value attributed to this root.


 
Quite so. 



sokol said:


> In English I'd say economic value is secondary to emotional value, with 'dear'.


 
My point (I hope it is also Lakoff's) is that the economic value is separate, but serves as a metaphor for illustrating the (high, i.c. emotional) value of love. 

The other point (Lakoff's) is that using that kind of metaphor induces one (not the right verb, i am afraid) to think economically of love (see the examples I have given). 

Is there a conflict with your point of view ?


----------



## jonHolly

sound shift said:
			
		

> And what about "-ling"? I think it means "thing" and I believe it has cognates in other Germanic languages. No doubt someone will confirm/refute before too long.



To more thoroughly answer sound shift...

I'm not really sure, but I don't think the _-ling_ has any specific meaning; I do think, however, it serves a purpose as a diminutive, which really doesn't affect the main root word.  _Liebling_, for example, just means favorite (to my knowledge), and _lieb_ is just something... positive (good, dear, gentle, etc).  The affixation of the _-ling_ diminutive only serves to impart or embellish, I suppose, an implicit twist on the main root.
Given the determined procession of _teuer_, _dear_, _dar-_, we can assume that _-ling_ is of little importance to the main root of -- whatever is it -- _dear_.


----------



## berndf

jonHolly said:


> I'm not really sure, but I don't think the _-ling_ has any specific meaning; I do think, however, it serves a purpose as a diminutive, which really doesn't affect the main root word.


I don't think it is always a diminutive. There are examples where this interpretation does not fit, e.g. German _fiesling_ (a mean person) or _Findling_ (not in the sense of _foundling_ but in the sense of _boulder_). I think the most general interpretation is that _X-ling _is an object or person with property _X_ if _X_ is an adjective (e.g. _dearling_) and if _X_ is a noun it can be a person or object with (1) which is related, accatched, contain or is contained to/in _X_ (e.g. English _Sterling<starling_ (coin with a star), German _Fäustling_ (a glove without fingers, a mitten, literally a "_fistling_", i.e. a glove for the fist and not for the open hand)) or (2) like _X_ (e.g. German _Däumling_ in the sense of a Person small like a thumb).


> _Liebling_, for example, just means favorite...


This is the original 18th century meaning (the Word is quite new in German). In modern German it also means _dearling_.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

The information I gathered about -ling:
- My Dutch source (Van Dale) say that -ling is a suffix mainly used to denote (male) persons (at least, originally). 
- Kluge states that "-ing, zur Bildung von Zugehörigkeitssubstantiven [...] eine erweiterte Form is _-ling_".
- The ODEE states that -ling "in OE, added to substantive to form substantive denoting a person concerned with ...; added to adjectives to form substantive denoting a person having the quality implied".

None of the three sources mentions diminutives...

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## CapnPrep

According to the OED, the rather colorless/neutral suffix used to form _darling_ is no longer productive in English, and for modern speakers _-ling_ is in fact a diminutive ending, but almost always expressing an additional derisive or unfavorable judgment. To continue quoting the OED entry I cited above: 


> In ON. the suffix had a diminutive force, of which there are only slight traces in the other Teut. langs., […] chiefly in words denoting the young of animals [_gosling, duckling_] but also in a few other words […] In the 16th c. and subsequently the suffix has been employed in many new diminutive formations, chiefly contemptuous appellations of persons, as _godling_, _lordling_, _kingling_, _princeling_; in this use it is still a living formative. In the formation of diminutives expressing merely smallness of size, _-ling_ has never been extensively used.


----------



## ThomasK

Could it be linked with the German (regional) diminutive _-lein_ then ? 

In Dutch: _zonderling_ (strange kind of guy, or adj.), _vreemdeling_ (foreigner), _ouderling_ (old person) both seem to have a negative ring, indeed. But in general diminutives have a pos. connotation, don't they ? Strange all in all - to me.


----------



## jonHolly

> I don't think it is always a diminutive. There are examples where this interpretation does not fit, e.g. German fiesling (a mean person) or Findling (not in the sense of foundling but in the sense of boulder). I think the most general interpretation is that X-ling is an object or person with property X if X is an adjective (e.g. dearling) and if X is a noun it can be a person or object with (1) which is related, accatched, contain or is contained to/in X (e.g. English Sterling<starling (coin with a star), German Fäustling (a glove without fingers, a mitten, literally a "fistling", i.e. a glove for the fist and not for the open hand)) or (2) like X (e.g. German Däumling in the sense of a Person small like a thumb).



Oh, I get what you're saying.  And I think we're both right.  In the case of darling, the _-ling_ is just serving as a noun-making suffix to the _dar-_.


----------



## berndf

jonHolly said:


> Oh, I get what you're saying. And I think we're both right. In the case of darling, the _-ling_ is just serving as a noun-making suffix to the _dar-_.


Yes, that was my point. To make this clearer I used the obsolete spelling _dearling_.


----------

