Related words which point to social relationships
June 3, 2017 8:38 PM Subscribe
"Infant" and "infantry" seem like they point to a pretty obvious social relationship between a man on a horse and a man on the ground - the guy on the horse, who is deadlier and probably richer and more powerful to boot, is free to call the foot soldier a baby. Are there other closely-related word pairs which (probably/possibly) also give clues to social relationships?
seal and Seal. Regular seals, and Navy Seals, the relationship being the warriors are as agile as seals in the water.
shell-shell, a seashell, covers and is a protective cover for a mollusk, and other types of sea life. A shell, as shell corporation, also protects, but more conceals the activities and ownership of a business entity.
shaft-the dowel form that holds an arrowhead on one end, and flight feathers on the other, or the handle of a spear, shaft-to cheat someone, or do them wrong.
posted by Oyéah at 9:16 PM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
shell-shell, a seashell, covers and is a protective cover for a mollusk, and other types of sea life. A shell, as shell corporation, also protects, but more conceals the activities and ownership of a business entity.
shaft-the dowel form that holds an arrowhead on one end, and flight feathers on the other, or the handle of a spear, shaft-to cheat someone, or do them wrong.
posted by Oyéah at 9:16 PM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Your take on the relationship between infantry and infant seems a little odd.
Here is a more extensive discussion of the etymology. I'll admit that I'm applying my own experience of testosterone-fueled environments in an imaginative way, but based on those experiences I find it hard to imagine that using a name applied to boys and servants would not be a crude way to remind everyone about status.
But I digress, as do you... :-)
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 PM on June 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
Here is a more extensive discussion of the etymology. I'll admit that I'm applying my own experience of testosterone-fueled environments in an imaginative way, but based on those experiences I find it hard to imagine that using a name applied to boys and servants would not be a crude way to remind everyone about status.
But I digress, as do you... :-)
posted by clawsoon at 9:47 PM on June 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Grandfather Clause
Originally, involved actual grandfathers.
posted by yohko at 9:48 PM on June 3, 2017
Originally, involved actual grandfathers.
posted by yohko at 9:48 PM on June 3, 2017
You might find some of the lexicons of Proto-Indo-European roots interesting if the etymology is what interests you. I'm having trouble coming up with great examples that also include a social context, but it might be a helpful place to start looking.
plate / plane / flat - all "flat things"
(from latin): puer (boy) / puella (girl) / pupa (doll) - all tiny versions of people
The form "deik" shows up in lots of contexts as "teaching" or declaring something from a place of authority: "dictate", "judicial", "dedicate", "theodicy".
One useful resource: https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
plate / plane / flat - all "flat things"
(from latin): puer (boy) / puella (girl) / pupa (doll) - all tiny versions of people
The form "deik" shows up in lots of contexts as "teaching" or declaring something from a place of authority: "dictate", "judicial", "dedicate", "theodicy".
One useful resource: https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
Actually, my second example works in English too - a "pupa" is growing version of a bug, and "puberty" probably comes from the Latin "puberis", "having grown".
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 10:03 PM on June 3, 2017
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 10:03 PM on June 3, 2017
Best answer: My first thought was husband/husbandry.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:33 AM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by kevinbelt at 5:33 AM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
The premise is shaky (the "obvious social relationship" has nothing to do with the words you cite), and you are likely to get (in fact, are getting) a bunch of equally shaky ideas in response. Both semantics and etymology are tricky things, and amateurs are virtually certain to get them wrong. Not saying you shouldn't be interested in the connection, but I don't think you're likely to get useful answers from AskMe.
> Here is a more extensive discussion of the etymology
John Horne Tooke was a notorious kook when it came to etymology. If you want etymologies, stick to dictionaries and ignore random web discussions.
posted by languagehat at 6:39 AM on June 4, 2017 [20 favorites]
> Here is a more extensive discussion of the etymology
John Horne Tooke was a notorious kook when it came to etymology. If you want etymologies, stick to dictionaries and ignore random web discussions.
posted by languagehat at 6:39 AM on June 4, 2017 [20 favorites]
I had a teacher who was really into etymology who pointed out the cow/beef, pig/pork, chicken/poultry, sheep/mutton dichotomy (there are others).
After the Norman invasion of England, the animals themselves kept their Anglo Saxon names since the serfs were the ones tending the animals while the words for the meats are derived from the French since they were the ones eating them.
posted by scrute at 6:55 AM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
After the Norman invasion of England, the animals themselves kept their Anglo Saxon names since the serfs were the ones tending the animals while the words for the meats are derived from the French since they were the ones eating them.
posted by scrute at 6:55 AM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Are there other closely-related word pairs which (probably/possibly) also give clues to social relationships?
For the most part, that's not how etymology works. You might be interested in the history of English podcast, or Michael Quinion's world wide words. But basically, etymology tends to be a lot like evolution --- quite often, two words that have similar roots share a common ancestor. But their meanings change as they're adapted to different environments. It doesn't mean that all the connotations of one word also apply to the other. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor; your grandpa is not a monkey. It's never safe to assume that similarity of sound between two words is a clue to a social relationship. That way lies bullshit folk etymology.
posted by Diablevert at 8:23 AM on June 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
For the most part, that's not how etymology works. You might be interested in the history of English podcast, or Michael Quinion's world wide words. But basically, etymology tends to be a lot like evolution --- quite often, two words that have similar roots share a common ancestor. But their meanings change as they're adapted to different environments. It doesn't mean that all the connotations of one word also apply to the other. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor; your grandpa is not a monkey. It's never safe to assume that similarity of sound between two words is a clue to a social relationship. That way lies bullshit folk etymology.
posted by Diablevert at 8:23 AM on June 4, 2017 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: languagehat: The premise is shaky
I put the "seem like" weasel words in there for precisely that reason. :-)
(the "obvious social relationship" has nothing to do with the words you cite)
Are you saying that because there's specific evidence against the relationship I suggested, or because there's little credible evidence to support it? I've thought of a couple of recent examples for which we do have credible evidence: "Man" and "mansplain", "cuckold" and "cuckservative". If either one had been coined verbally a few centuries ago, they'd fit the second category: No specific evidence against the relationship (and corresponding social relationships), but little or no credible evidence for it, either.
posted by clawsoon at 11:09 AM on June 4, 2017
I put the "seem like" weasel words in there for precisely that reason. :-)
(the "obvious social relationship" has nothing to do with the words you cite)
Are you saying that because there's specific evidence against the relationship I suggested, or because there's little credible evidence to support it? I've thought of a couple of recent examples for which we do have credible evidence: "Man" and "mansplain", "cuckold" and "cuckservative". If either one had been coined verbally a few centuries ago, they'd fit the second category: No specific evidence against the relationship (and corresponding social relationships), but little or no credible evidence for it, either.
posted by clawsoon at 11:09 AM on June 4, 2017
> Are you saying that because there's specific evidence against the relationship I suggested, or because there's little credible evidence to support it?
I'm saying you basically made up the relationship. Infantry is from Italian infanteria, from infante ‘youth, infantryman’; in other words, foot soldiers were called infante because they tended to be young. This has nothing to do with "the guy on the horse, who is deadlier and probably richer and more powerful to boot," except that they both exist in the same army. The guys on horses are called "cavalry" from the Vulgar Latin word for 'horse,' caballus; is that a dig at the foot soldiers because they don't have horses? No, it's just a word. You're free, of course, to look at words and ideas and put them together and strike sparks off them, but that's poetry, not etymology—and in fact all the early, unscientific etymologists, from Plato through Isidore of Seville to the hapless John Horne Tooke, were basically practicing poetry under the guise of etymology, much as early astronomers looked at the stars and saw pictures (which we call constellations) having nothing to do with the actual universe out there and everything to do with human psychology. That's great, but just realize that you're describing relationships cooked up in your own head, not found out there in nature.
> I've thought of a couple of recent examples for which we do have credible evidence: "Man" and "mansplain", "cuckold" and "cuckservative".
But those are straightforward derivatives: to "mansplain" is to explain like a man, and a "cuckservative" is a cuckold-conservative. I don't see how they give clues to social relationships, but perhaps I'm not understanding what you're after.
I'm sorry if I sound grumpy, but I've spent much of my life struggling against popular ideas about language (and by "popular" I mean "not produced by linguists"—I spent a lot of time arguing with a Wittgenstein-waving philosophy-major brother), and it's like fingernails scraping a blackboard.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on June 4, 2017 [15 favorites]
I'm saying you basically made up the relationship. Infantry is from Italian infanteria, from infante ‘youth, infantryman’; in other words, foot soldiers were called infante because they tended to be young. This has nothing to do with "the guy on the horse, who is deadlier and probably richer and more powerful to boot," except that they both exist in the same army. The guys on horses are called "cavalry" from the Vulgar Latin word for 'horse,' caballus; is that a dig at the foot soldiers because they don't have horses? No, it's just a word. You're free, of course, to look at words and ideas and put them together and strike sparks off them, but that's poetry, not etymology—and in fact all the early, unscientific etymologists, from Plato through Isidore of Seville to the hapless John Horne Tooke, were basically practicing poetry under the guise of etymology, much as early astronomers looked at the stars and saw pictures (which we call constellations) having nothing to do with the actual universe out there and everything to do with human psychology. That's great, but just realize that you're describing relationships cooked up in your own head, not found out there in nature.
> I've thought of a couple of recent examples for which we do have credible evidence: "Man" and "mansplain", "cuckold" and "cuckservative".
But those are straightforward derivatives: to "mansplain" is to explain like a man, and a "cuckservative" is a cuckold-conservative. I don't see how they give clues to social relationships, but perhaps I'm not understanding what you're after.
I'm sorry if I sound grumpy, but I've spent much of my life struggling against popular ideas about language (and by "popular" I mean "not produced by linguists"—I spent a lot of time arguing with a Wittgenstein-waving philosophy-major brother), and it's like fingernails scraping a blackboard.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on June 4, 2017 [15 favorites]
Mod note: Ask is not a place for back-and-forth.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:44 PM on June 4, 2017
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:44 PM on June 4, 2017
Response by poster: A better (I hope) clarification of one of my examples, if it helps: In "mansplaining", a man without expertise drones on to a woman who has expertise, without the woman being able to get a word in edgewise, and this happens because of the particulars of power and privilege which surround that social relationship. The word is about a "man" who is "explaining", but it's about much more than that. "Man" is related to "mansplain" not because of simple biology, but because of a particular social context.
I hope that makes my question a better one.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 PM on June 4, 2017
I hope that makes my question a better one.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 PM on June 4, 2017
I love questions about language, and I'm sincerely trying to give this my all, but I'm still not sure what your question is.
At first it looked like the question was 'are there words that sound kinda the same so you could pretend were related in a way that makes some sort of observation about power in society but they're not actually related?' Which is...weird? But I could see it with husband / husbandry, sort of?
But then you 'best answered' 'grandfather clause' which is two words that have nothing to do with each other and don't sound alike and grandfathering says nothing about the social relationship people have with clauses, and although grandfather clause did once deal with important social issues, these are not at all 'closely-related word pairs'.
And now you're using 'mansplain' as an example, but that's one word, and it's a compound of two words that have nothing to do with each other and don't sound alike and don't convey any social information about each other and what social information the compound word does convey is not a 'clue', it's...the whole point of the word?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 10:51 PM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
At first it looked like the question was 'are there words that sound kinda the same so you could pretend were related in a way that makes some sort of observation about power in society but they're not actually related?' Which is...weird? But I could see it with husband / husbandry, sort of?
But then you 'best answered' 'grandfather clause' which is two words that have nothing to do with each other and don't sound alike and grandfathering says nothing about the social relationship people have with clauses, and although grandfather clause did once deal with important social issues, these are not at all 'closely-related word pairs'.
And now you're using 'mansplain' as an example, but that's one word, and it's a compound of two words that have nothing to do with each other and don't sound alike and don't convey any social information about each other and what social information the compound word does convey is not a 'clue', it's...the whole point of the word?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 10:51 PM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: The example is not "mansplain" by itself, but the pair of words "man" and "mansplain". They are related in the same way that I was proposing (probably incorrectly) that "infant" and "infantry" are. Apologies for not making that clearer.
I gave best answers because I had given up on getting any better answers.
posted by clawsoon at 4:56 AM on June 5, 2017
I gave best answers because I had given up on getting any better answers.
posted by clawsoon at 4:56 AM on June 5, 2017
« Older What does it look like to come to love a pet in a... | Help me remember this actor's name Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by JimN2TAW at 8:51 PM on June 3, 2017 [36 favorites]