# Etymology and underlying worldviews



## Frank06

*Split from this thread.
*
Hi,

In the thread mentioned above, you stated:


> etymology sometimes reveals links and/or words reflect underlying worldviews



This sounds incredibly vague. Could you please explain in which way etymology reveals which links. And how can the etymology of a word (unknown to most language users apart from a handful of nerds who spend their time with their nose stuck into etymological dictionaries and other EHL resources, like many members here, including _moi_) reflect an underlying  worldview. And if I read your posts, I start to think that you're especially looking for a link to an underlying _modern, contemporary_ worldview. Isn't that anachronistic?

And what's the value/use of those (philosophical rather than linguistic??) ponderings, keeping in mind that a lot of words do not betray any kind of link to a contemporary worldview? (Which modern worldview exactly does the etymology of the modern word 'atom' reveal?).

I am asking, because a link between the etymology of a word and its modern usage seems to be the premise, the starting point of a lot of your posts. Can you please explain that premise?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

_(Thanks for opening this thread, Mr Moderator !)_

I will expand on that premise, but not now as time is lacking. 

But for the time being: you are bound to notice that lots of philosophers (Verhoeven, to mention one) and spiritual writers 'end up' focusing on a word or on language before or while exploring a problem or an issue or a concept... I just think of *offeren in Dutch*: _*sacri-fice*_ reveals a lot about the deeply human, fundamental human attitude/ tendency/... *to let go of something worthwhile --- but only in order to... gain more* (grace, whatever). But most people do not realize that aspect of their sacrifice anymore, whereas it is revealed by the word 'sacrifice'. 

A similar word is *'sanctuary'* in its ambiguity or ambivalence (holy place & a safe place). Next step would be: '*holy' *???

_But come and see tomorrow evening (or so I hope) !_


----------



## palomnik

I don't think that etymology tends to reflect word views in any articulate way, although of course learning a language can arguably tell you a lot about the world view of the society that speaks it.

Words are, after all, just words, and the original meanings of their components tend to get lost to the people who use them as time goes on.  I sometimes wonder why people think that there is some value to examining the roots of words outside of purposes of historical linguistics or just satisfying curiosity.

I _do_ think that the relative frequency of certain words in a language can reveal a lot about the state of a given society, but that's a different subject altogether.


----------



## sokol

There are very rare examples where one really could say that _probably _a worldview _still _is shown [but certainly not necessarily - still - 'shared' by contemporaries, see below] through etymology (that is, a worldview in etymology which still is evident to native speakers, not one where native speakers aren't aware of the etymology any more - a worldview still decipherable, in our modern times).

Croatian 'to marry' is such an example; in Croatia (I think in Serbia too, but Serbian just might be different in this case) it's like this:

- a man says _oženiti se_ = something like probably 'to give oneself wife' = 'to add a wife to oneself' - or probably better and more simple: 'to take a wife'
- a woman says _udati se_ = something like 'to marry below the man' or more literally 'to give oneself to the man/ under the man'
[Both aren't very good attempts at giving the approximate content of the Croatian words in English, probably someone else has better suggestions.]

Or at least it was like that when I went to university; I can't be sure if some political correctness movement probably may have lead to a change here.

(In Slovenian, by the way, the same verb _oženiti se _is used _both _by men and women.)


Anyway, the point is that native speakers today still know that a man, when marrying, 'ads something to himself' while a woman, doing the same, somehow 'gives herself away' and/or is 'submitting herself into the grace of her man' or something like that. It may not be very present in the minds of native speakers, or at least I can imagine that it could be like that, but nevertheless the origin (and the literal meaning) of both verbs is easily decipherable to native speakers.

This is the only example of such completely _obvious _worldviews I know of; I think it is rather safe to say that this reflects a patriarchal society existing when the term was coined - while of course the fact that both these verbs still are used (or still were at least in the 1990ies) certainly does _not_ necessarily say that the society using them still would be patriarchal.


----------



## Outsider

I think there are some words whose etymology can tell us something about the worldview of a society _at the time in which they appeared_. Here's a possible example.

But I think that the etymology of most words is unknown to native speakers, and that the meaning of a word normally drifts over the course of generations in ways that are accidental and unrelated to culture. So, after some time, etymology frequently ends up only very loosely related to meaning.

Most of all, I believe that every new generation reinvents a language to some extent, so etymology is the origin, but not the "true meaning" of a word. In the end, the meaning of a word is whatever the speakers make of it.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> Croatian 'to marry' is such an example; in Croatia (I think in Serbia too, but Serbian just might be different in this case) it's like this:
> 
> - a man says _oženiti se_ = something like probably 'to give oneself wife' = 'to add a wife to oneself' - or probably better and more simple: 'to take a wife'
> - a woman says _udati se_ = something like 'to marry below the man' or more literally 'to give oneself to the man/ under the man'
> [Both aren't very good attempts at giving the approximate content of the Croatian words in English, probably someone else has better suggestions.]



Your description is correct, except for this "below"/"under" bit. _Dati se _means "to give oneself [to someone]", and the prefix _u_ has no meaning in this case except to give this particular marriage-related meaning to this very general verb. It certainly has no connotations of a "below"/"under" relationship. I can't vouch that it never had, but a modern native speaker certainly perceives no such meaning. 

Generally, the precise etymology of BCS words that include the preposition/verbal prefix _u_ are often murky because of Shtokavian sound changes that turned the preposition _v_ into _u_ at some point, which created total chaos because _v_ and _u_ used to be two different prepositions with different meanings (as is still the case in other Slavic languages). This created many amusing Slavic false friends, e.g. BCS _ući_ "to come in" vs. Russian _уйти_ "to go away". 




> Or at least it was like that when I went to university; I can't be sure if some political correctness movement probably may have lead to a change here.


Yes, these words are still used. In fact, they are pretty much the only words for marrying that are used in everyday language (there are other words and expressions too, but they sound formal or poetic). Proposing to change them in the name of PC attitudes would be met with universal derision. 



> Anyway, the point is that native speakers today still know that a man, when marrying, 'ads something to himself' while a woman, doing the same, somehow 'gives herself away' and/or is 'submitting herself into the grace of her man' or something like that. It may not be very present in the minds of native speakers, or at least I can imagine that it could be like that, but nevertheless the origin (and the literal meaning) of both verbs is easily decipherable to native speakers.


I'd say that your analysis is exaggerated. 

First, the origin and etymology of such verbs isn't that transparent to native speakers. Sure, if you sit and think about them, you'll probably get some ideas, but I'd say that most people use these verbs their whole life without ever stopping to think about this. (How many German speakers ever consciously analyze the possible origin of various German prefixed verbs?) 

Second, as I've explained above, you're incorrectly reading the element of submission into the verb _udati se_. Even if it did exist at one point (which I doubt), it certainly has been gone for a very long time. 

Having said that, your basic point is probably correct. These verbs definitely reflect the asymmetric roles of man and woman in a traditional marriage relationship. However, I'd say that you are jumping to conclusion that they reflect extreme patriarchy and submission of woman. For example, the etymology of _udati se_ does suggest that the woman is "giving herself" to the man, but notice that the assumption is that _she_ is giving _herself_ voluntarily, rather than being transferred as chattel. 


On a related note, here's another interesting example from Croatian: the verb _oženiti_, in its transitive, non-reflexive form, normally means approximately "to arrange for someone to get married" (it's not used that much in this form). However, in modern Croatian slang, the same verb means "to scam" (in fact, it suggests that one was scammed in a way that makes one look particularly stupid).


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> I can't vouch that it never had, but a modern native speaker certainly perceives no such meaning.


Thank you very much for clarification!



Athaulf said:


> I'd say that your analysis is exaggerated.


Well yes, it most likely is - you're the expert here for one thing, and then of course these two words for marrying look much more strange to a foreigner being confronted with it than for a native speaker using it every day without even thinking about their meaning.

So point taken, and as for that one:
(How many German speakers ever consciously analyze the possible origin of various German prefixed verbs?) 
 I would say that the answer is: none, except linguists like me.



Athaulf said:


> However, I'd say that you are jumping to conclusion that they reflect extreme patriarchy and submission of woman.


Here I think there's a slight misunderstanding: I only wanted to express that it is likely for this use of phrases (two different words for marrying as described) suggests a patriarchal society when these expressions were coined - some time in the middle ages, we don't know exactly.

It isn't much of a 'jumping to conclusions' if we go back some time here: the middle ages _were _patriarchal societies in many European countries.

There are claims, I know, that Slavic tribes were rather matriarchal for quite some time, but at least the feudal era of Europe (of which Croatia also was part of) put an end to it.

Also, to my defense, I want to add that - when I was at university - a female fellow student, and a feminist at that (I took Slovenian, but she took Croatian) told me about the 'macho' words for marriage in Croatian as she called them: my post above certainly was written with that in mind. 



Athaulf said:


> On a related note, here's another interesting example from Croatian: the verb _oženiti_, in its transitive, non-reflexive form, normally means approximately "to arrange for someone to get married" (it's not used that much in this form). However, in modern Croatian slang, the same verb means "to scam" (in fact, it suggests that one was scammed in a way that makes one look particularly stupid).


Nice one, yes.


----------



## ThomasK

By the way (before answering decently later on) I think *language works very 'subliminally'.*

I mean: there is a lot of meaning involved and coming along (con-notation, having collateral effect - damage and other) working in everything we say (a word is much more than just a 1-1-sign (one sign, one meaning), a sentence conveys much more than the words seem to express, ... - as is shown in pragmatics). There are things that no dictionary will ever be able to describe, at a personal and at a cultural level... So that is why etymology can be interesting, next to pragmatics, psycholinguistics.


----------



## ThomasK

I might try to expand a little to make my point clearer, after pointing out that 
subliminal aspect of words above. 

Let us take the marrying. It is clear that some words will be changed if they are clearly (felt to be) in conflict with standards or views being held at a particular time. Take the 'he'-reference for 'neutral' words like patient, doctor, ... At some time people have come to think that 'he' is too exclusive, and have suggested writing 's//he' every time. That is some basic form of etymology as well: this 'general' pronoun is analysed and refuted 'ideologically' as not representative enough. 

I think of the word _solution/ oplossing_ (of a problem). To us that means that we deal with a problem by making it disappear for good so to speak, but George Lakoff pointed out that an Iranian (I believe) student got quite disappointed because he had been thinking solutions implied that problems only disappeared for some time, that every solution was only temporary. So we seem to hold the view that solve means to make disappear. That is one aspect of worldview, though no illustration of the relevance of etymology. 

My _sacrifice_ example is perfect though, I think. Maybe _obey_ constitutes another good example: we consider obeying letting go of one's free will, but in spiritual texts it is often linked with listening (_ob-audire_), which make people look at obeying in a different way. 

But indeed, etymology can be helpful, is not a prime source of information. But the verbs we use with truth show a lot about how we conceive of truth: _discover_ implies that it is hidden, not easily seen; _extract_ implies that you can force it to come up, force someone to produce it, almost that it requires a technical procedure. In fact, what I am trying here is applying Lakoff's insights (but in a very imperfect way). 

Still, it shows what my point is, I hope. I mainly contend that etymology can be useful, not that it is the only, the prime, the best source. Or: at least it often betrays more than we think...


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> It isn't much of a 'jumping to conclusions' if we go back some time here: the middle ages _were _patriarchal societies in many European countries.
> 
> There are claims, I know, that Slavic tribes were rather matriarchal for quite some time, but at least the feudal era of Europe (of which Croatia also was part of) put an end to it.



No argument there; in fact, I'd say that all these theories about prehistorical matriarchal societies are highly dubious at best. It's just that your interpretation sounded a bit too extreme, even though I agree that there is some truth to it. 

Also, using "patriarchal" as a blanket term for the whole Middle Ages is very imprecise, for two reasons. First, "patriarchy" is nowadays usually used as a very dirty, emotionally charged term of abuse (just like, say, "fascism"), and conjures the worst possible images in the heads of most readers, which, in my opinion, paints a very unfair picture of our ancestors. Second, the centuries that we call Middle Ages have seen many social changes going back and forth in various directions, with ever changing social and sexual mores, so for any but the most loose definition of "patriarchy", it makes no sense to use this term as uniformly applicable to this whole period. 



> Also, to my defense, I want to add that - when I was at university - a female fellow student, and a feminist at that (I took Slovenian, but she took Croatian) told me about the 'macho' words for marriage in Croatian as she called them: my post above certainly was written with that in mind.


Well, I wouldn't like to open this nasty ideological can of worms (even though I think it would be on topic in this thread), but I still can't resist pointing out that feminist interpretations of linguistic facts are often far too zealous and amateurish, and can't stand to real linguistic and historical scrutiny. Of course, there is no shortage of macho attitudes among Croats and other South Slavs, both in their best and worst manifestations, but I think your feminist friend probably drew some exaggerated conclusions in this case.


----------



## ThomasK

The answer to your question, Frank06, might be this, as stated by Cornelis Verhoeven, a Dutch philosopher (he died around 2000, I believe), in 'Een register' (a book where he starts from words, then explores their origin and meaning, their 'pragmatic' use or meaning nowadays, and formulates some often very interesting ideas) - under the lemma 'Etymologie' . 

He first mentions that the word holds the claim that it can disclose the truth (_etymon_), which he considers false and unjustified indeed, but he adds that 

*the interesting part is not so much the oldest form, 'the fossil to be delved up', *
*                 but 'some meaning that still holds life, a metapher that has not been snowed under'.*

That is what seems interesting to me too - and from time to time words betrays a world view... It is not only a matter of etymology. The frequency of words betrays something as well: 'hard' (cash, currencies, ...) for example, turns up much more often than 'soft', I think, because few people now consider 'softness' a quality - or 'losers' for that matter.


----------



## Outsider

How do you plan to tell genuine "metaphors that still hold life" apart from purely subjective interpretations of the etymologist?


----------



## ThomasK

Well, I'd say: 
1. We try to avoid purely subjective interpretations of course. I mean: our wishful thinking does not lead us into our private Garden of Eden or something the like, but starts from what E-books give as information. 
2. That 'factual' information (we assume the E-books provide mainly factual information) may lead us to look at words in a different way and explore aspects of that concept we had not seen before but are reminded of by the E-explanation. 
3. It is then up to the reader to judge whether (a) whether that new interpretation is indeed based on 'factual' E-information, (b)  it makes sense as such, and (c) whether there is a genuine link between the 'root' of the word and the interpretation. 

The dangerous thing is indeed that E is to some extent instrumentalised, used as a tool to explore meanings and uses.


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> Also, using "patriarchal" as a blanket term for the whole Middle Ages is very imprecise (...)


You are right here, of course.
The Middle Ages weren't just a 'one-way-society' which should be painted in dark colours, and I know that - I did stome studies on the Middle Ages when I was a student.
So clearly my reply should have been more 'balanced' because I cannot expect that all the other readers have the same background, concerning this period.
Especially in the region of 'Ex-Yougoslavia' there were extreme opposites of societies existing - the patriarchal 'hill tribes' (with still tribe-like structures existing in some mountainous regions of Montenegro and Albania) on the one hand and the rich and (for the time) modern cities on the coast on the other hand.



Athaulf said:


> Well, I wouldn't like to open this nasty ideological can of worms (...)


- me neither ;-) -


Athaulf said:


> (...) but I still can't resist pointing out that feminist interpretations of linguistic facts are often far too zealous and amateurish, and can't stand to real linguistic and historical scrutiny.


I wouldn't argue against you here. I've always wondered how one could cope with PC terms in Slavic languages - it is rather easy to use neutral (neither feminine nor male, or 'both') markers in English, it is already very annoying in German, but it has to be terrible in any Slavic language (except BG+MK where it wouldn't be so bad).

But I too would not like to discuss the impact of masculine pronouns for 'mixed groups' on one's worldview, I did enough of that during my university years.



Athaulf said:


> Of course, there is no shortage of macho attitudes among Croats and other South Slavs, both in their best and worst manifestations, but I think your feminist friend probably drew some exaggerated conclusions in this case.


Oh, but she did _like _the Croats - as such. (She even had a Croatian boyfriend for some time.)
She only did object against some phrasing which she considered 'machoist', or 'patriarchal'.


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

sokol said:


> (In Slovenian, by the way, the same verb _oženiti se _is used _both _by men and women.)



Sokol, this is wrong.

A man who got married to a woman uses _oženiti se.
_A woman who got married to a man uses_ omožiti se.

_I guess these words clearly show that a woman cannot use the masculine form because she doesn't get herself a wife. (Same sex marriages are not possible here yet.)

Those who don't feel the difference in the meaning should use poročiti se (to get married) which is sex independent.


----------



## sokol

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> A man who got married to a woman uses _oženiti se.
> _A woman who got married to a man uses_ omožiti se._



Sorry for that and thank you for correcting me - I did look up in my dictionary and only found the one, and even though I *really *should have seen the underlying etymology (_žena - woman), _I didn't.
[I can't edit my original post any more.]

A nice example of how even obivous etymologies might be overlooked ...
(For those not speaking Slovenian or Slavic languages: the femalie form '_oženiti se_' means 'to give oneself wife' while the male form '_omožiti se_' means 'to give oneself man' - that is: both male and female form are - morphologically - identical, only the element 'wife' and 'man' are changed; so this Slovene form isn't quite identical to the Serbian/Croatian one.)


----------



## ThomasK

I thought of this while talking about donkeys, onomatopeias, ... The interesting thing is learning to look at things from another point of view, by finding new metaphors or new meanings. I think that is refreshing, equally refreshing as finding 'back' a root woord (and root meaning - which often offers an insightful perspective).

I cannot follow the (Croat ?) thread on marriages. Does it offer a different worldview ?


----------



## sokol

ThomasK said:


> I cannot follow the (Croat ?) thread on marriages. Does it offer a different worldview ?



No, that wasn't the point - or was it?

At least what *I *did write about is that etymology (that is, etymology still 'visible' to a 'naive' native speaker - a non-linguist not concerning himself at all with etymology) *does possibly point in the direction of an underlying worldview which however may not be shared any more by the majority* of a society.

That at least is what I thought this is about.
It is quite similar with political correctness concerning e. g. gender - 'neutral' use of pronouns and other word classes if declensed to gender in the language concerned (adjectives, substantives, etc.). Here too feminist theory claims that male forms used for mixed (both male and female) groups would indicate an 'underlying worldview'.

This however is all that I would say about the gender thing; as posted above I am not keen at all to discuss the subject.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> The interesting thing is learning to look at things from another point of view, by finding new metaphors or new meanings. I think that is refreshing, equally refreshing as finding 'back' a root woord (and root meaning - which often offers an insightful perspective).



What does it have to do with linguistics?
As far as I understand it, one can take a word, and with a bit of luck one finds an etymology (or make / mix one up, as we saw in the example of buying/selling) that fits into a philosphical exposé and then claim that the etymology reveals... well, something, whatever the writer wants it to mean at that moment.
But probably I still don't get it .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Well, Frank, I quite understand your suspicion, but read Cornelis Verhoeven - and thou wilt find out ! (Wasn't my own example 'offeren'/ 'sacri-fice' not a very good one ?)

What is true is, linguistics is mainly a starting point, but not meant to fit into, but inspire that exposé - but that you have not invented yourself.


----------



## ThomasK

Just thinking of *the German sicher*, meaning both sure and safe (whereas our Dutch word does not convey this safety meaning): that combination makes me wonder, is inspiring to me, as a starting point. Not just as a source of truth. 

Same thing with *true in English*. Something can be true (refer to the truth), but a person can also be true to someone. Well, at least that is an interesting fact to me. And it does not allow for conclusions, but raises very interesting questions. With me at least. 

You see my point ? There is some underlying world_view_, I think. Or a hint.


----------



## sokol

ThomasK said:


> Just thinking of *the German sicher*, meaning both sure and safe (whereas our Dutch word does not convey this safety meaning): that combination makes me wonder, is inspiring to me, as a starting point. Not just as a source of truth.
> (...)
> You see my point ? There is some underlying world_view_, I think. Or a hint.



Me I don't see the point either - not quite.
Yes, such polysemantic words *may *be used in puns, poems and literature - and certainly they are an interesting phenomenon of their own, but I do not quite see what they've got to do with the worldview of a culture.

I can't see, for example, how the fact that German 'sicher' may mean 'sure' and 'safe' as well, would determine the worldview of speakers with a German mother tongue. On the contrary I am sure that regional and national origin as well as social background is much more important concerning worldviews; take an example from your mother tongue (Flemish vs. Dutch), and I think you just might find quite some differencies in worldview which can't be explained at all through etymology, or polysemantics, or whatever, but rather with regional, national and social background.


----------



## ThomasK

This is the chicken and the egg story, I think. I did not mean to say that the etymology explains, but reflects insights (true or false) or beliefs - through values. 

Polysemantics would not be my word: I am intrigued by (potential) links. 

Take the concept/ idea of 'collateral damage' : this reflects a view on what is worth the while ('holy', values) and what is not. As a matter of fact: the words now combined with 'holy' in everyday speech in Dutch at least betray a lot regarding worldviews !

I 'd be able to give stronger arguments when I translate Verhoeven, but I cannot do that now, need more time for that !


----------

