L. J. Kramer is on the whole unconvinced by the relevance of etymology. Elsewhere, I have found that it sometimes works. A querier was asking about the logicality of using "for" in the very English expression,
"to be responsible for"
It seems in all the Romance languages, it is "responsible" OF.
I thought about this, and came up with the idea that the 'for' answers the 'answerability' of 'responsibility'. Etymologically, it seems, to be resonsible is to be held answerable. And you answer _FOR_ something. Hence you are similarly responsible _for_ something. Never mind the Romancers!
JL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I don't think etymology is always irrelevant, just subordinate to established usage. I had a professor in college who pronounced "England" as "Angland," it being the land of the Angles and all. Such slavishness to etymology struck me as unwarranted. IMHO, Etymology sheds light on usage; it does not invalidate it.
ReplyDeleteYes, the umlaut.
ReplyDeleteIt reminded of Dummett while in the USA -- Appalachians, I think.
"So, where are you from?" (He does look like from Mars)
"I'm from England"
"And what language do you speak there?"
----
Indeed, Angulars, are what they are.
Apparently, "Angeln", in modern Schleswig, was so called because it does look 'angular'. It's on the Baltic sea.
When those slaves were taken to Rome, they looked so charmingly white, that the Pope, Gregory, who had an ear for a good pun when he could make it,
said, on being told they were "Angles".
"Nay, not 'Angels' (Anglii), but Angels (Angeli)"
---
What bothers me about "Engla-land", as I pronounce it, is that common usage EATS one syllable too many:
It's Angla (Old English genitive -- of the Angles)
land
-- Angla - land.
That's how you should have told your prof to pronounce the thing!
JL