hallo, thirsters after knowledge! i’m etty Moloji and today’s lecture is about the etymology of the word ‘etymology’. by now most of you have googled it and perhaps you’ve found something like this, which i found here http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=etymology :
etymology (n.)
late 14c., ethimolegia “facts of the origin and development of a word,” from Old French et(h)imologie (14c., Modern French étymologie), from Latin etymologia, from Greek etymologia, properly “study of the true sense (of a word),” from etymon “true sense” (neuter of etymos “true, real, actual,” related to eteos “true”) + -logia “study of, a speaking of” (see -logy).
In classical times, of meanings; later, of histories. Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium. As a branch of linguistic science, from 1640s. Related: Etymological; etymologically.
- etymology (n.)
late 14c., ethimolegia “facts of the origin and development of a word,”
- from Old French et(h)imologie (14c., Modern French étymologie,
FROM????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
all they can honestly say is ‘also occurs in/as’ and the same cautions, chickings, re the date.
- from Latin etymologia
FROM????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
all they can honestly say is ‘similar to Latin…’ no proof exists that any latin text is older than medieval – only those extant during the renaissance have been preserved and dated by unsubstantiated guesswork to accord with biblical fibbery.(see https://hermannewthermeneutics.com/2010/09/27/on-the-non-antiquity-of-the-inflected-languages/). therefore the idea that any one form in any language comes ‘from’ another is GOING HORRRRRRIBLY BEEEYYYYYOOOOOONNNNNDDDDDDDD THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- from Greek etymologia,
again, FROM????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
all they can honestly say is ‘similar to Ancient Greek…’ since no proof exists that any latin text is older than medieval – only those extant during the renaissance have been preserved and dated by unsubstantiated guesswork to accord with biblical fibbery.(see https://hermannewthermeneutics.com/2010/09/27/on-the-non-antiquity-of-the-inflected-languages/). therefore the idea that any one form in any language comes ‘from’ another is GOING HORRRRRRIBLY BEEEYYYYYOOOOOONNNNNDDDDDDDD THE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and it’s a bit of a fib to call it a fact.)
- properly “study of the true sense (of a word),”
darlingses, they mean prolly, not properly. use your head. (still it’s what it means now, so they can prolly get away with a few prollies and not look half as shonky as they really are)
- from etymon “true sense” (neuter of etymos “true, real, actual,” related to eteos “true”) + -logia “study of, a speaking of” (see -logy).
In classical times, of meanings; later, of histories. Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium. As a branch of linguistic science, from 1640s. Related: Etymological; etymologically.
Pingback: The Etymon
Pingback: The Etymon | The Etymon
no, that’s the point i’m trying to get across. the current textbook etymology is seriously flawed. many of the main assumptions are false: academics are using chronologies based on biblical claims which, while possibly relevant to the ecclesiastical mythology church teachings are associated with, are definitely not valid from a strictly academic standpoint. they claim great antiquity for materials and literature for which we have no historical data predating the institution of the gregorian calendar, and are regarding guesses made by renaissance scholars as facts, although there is no reason to do so and good reasons for caution. and they still seem to believe that the inflected languages are remnants of older more perfect languages from which our modern languages have degenerated – which is a bible-derived superstition, implying that adam being near to god spoke god’s own language. i’m aware i’m making a big claim – that the professional experts in the field have got it wrong and i, a feral hermaneut, have it right – but as an independent scholar i’m under no obligation to believe the textbooks, and am not in the stranglehold that ecclesiastic hysteria is keeping the historical linguists in in order to preserve their myth from being observed to be mythic. so i point my child-finger at the naked emperors and say ‘they have got not clothes on’.
Fuck you. Seek counsel
just a bit ad hominem. was i that irrefutable?