is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?

two i can remember are :

-- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related

-- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
but today's dictionaries give separate roots.

On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
>
>
> two i can remember are :
>
> -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
>
> -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
> but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
>

How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
found to be without error today?

I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
> >
> >
> > two i can remember are :
> >
> > -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
> >
> > -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
> > but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
> >

> How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
> found to be without error today?
>
> I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.

let me know if you find an interesting passage or entry in the following
book from 1882:
[ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W. W. Skeat ]

https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up

(The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on Ghost-Gas)

This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
the (younger) scholar. ------------ comparable to W.V.Quine or Freud

-------- btw, i use [Sumatra PDF reader] almost every day,
and now i hardly use anything else.

i'm so glad i don't have to use Chrome for PDF viewer any more !!!

On 30/11/2022 6:30 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
>>>
>>>
>>> two i can remember are :
>>>
>>> -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
>>>
>>> -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
>>> but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
>>>
>
>> How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
>> found to be without error today?
>>
>> I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.
>
>
>
> let me know if you find an interesting passage or entry in the following
> book from 1882:
> [ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W. W. Skeat ]
>
>
> https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up
>
> (The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on Ghost-Gas)
>
>
> This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
> the (younger) scholar. ------------ comparable to W.V.Quine or Freud

Older, actually. Wedgewood's Dictionary of English Etymology (1857, 2nd
ed 1872) was earlier than Skeat's (1879-82, rev. ed. 1910). I suppose
when Skeat seemed to be emerging as the authority, Wedgewood was anxious
to point out that he had different opinions.

>
>
>
> -------- btw, i use [Sumatra PDF reader] almost every day,
> and now i hardly use anything else.
>
> i'm so glad i don't have to use Chrome for PDF viewer any more !!!
>

On 11/29/2022 12:53 PM, Ross Clark wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 6:30 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> two i can remember are :
>>>>
>>>> -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
>>>>
>>>> -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
>>>> but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
>>>>
>>
>>> How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
>>> found to be without error today?
>>>
>>> I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.
>>
>>
>>
>> let me know if you find an interesting  passage or entry in the following
>> book from 1882:
>>               [ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W.
>> W. Skeat ]
>>
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up
>>
>>   (The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on
>> Ghost-Gas)
>>
>>
>> This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
>> the (younger) scholar.           ------------  comparable to
>> W.V.Quine  or Freud
>
> Older, actually. Wedgewood's Dictionary of English Etymology (1857, 2nd
> ed 1872) was earlier than Skeat's (1879-82, rev. ed. 1910). I suppose
> when Skeat seemed to be emerging as the authority, Wedgewood was anxious
> to point out that he had different opinions.
Do you mean people could do that before USENET existed?
--
Jeff Barnett

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-5, henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
> > >
> > >
> > > two i can remember are :
> > >
> > > -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
> > > -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
> > > but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
> > >
>
> > How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
> > found to be without error today?
> >
> > I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.
> let me know if you find an interesting passage or entry in the following
> book from 1882:
> [ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W. W. Skeat ]
>
>
> https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up
>
> (The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on Ghost-Gas)

Per Paleo-etymology, ghost might be linked to gas, but initial gh- is closer to ph- than g-, and final -st is less likely than -ts to link with -s, so more data needed to affirm.

Per Paleo-etymology, burn links not directly with brown but with born as xyUAMBUATLAchYA -> (phl)æmber.(n)yo
flame flume plume p.lunge.r (fire-life starter), ember emburn embryo, burn birth bar/bin born (made). Brown bruin enblacken?

Would need to check etymonline/wiki.

>
> This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
> the (younger) scholar. ------------ comparable to W.V.Quine or Freud
>
>
>
> -------- btw, i use [Sumatra PDF reader] almost every day,
> and now i hardly use anything else.
>
> i'm so glad i don't have to use Chrome for PDF viewer any more !!!

On 30/11/2022 8:53 a.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 6:30 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> two i can remember are :
>>>>
>>>> -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
>>>>
>>>> -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
>>>> but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
>>>>
>>
>>> How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
>>> found to be without error today?
>>>
>>> I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.
>>
>>
>>
>> let me know if you find an interesting  passage or entry in the following
>> book from 1882:
>>               [ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W.
>> W. Skeat ]
>>
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up
>>
>>   (The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on
>> Ghost-Gas)
>>
>>
>> This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
>> the (younger) scholar.           ------------  comparable to
>> W.V.Quine  or Freud
>
> Older, actually. Wedgewood's Dictionary of English Etymology (1857, 2nd
> ed 1872) was earlier than Skeat's (1879-82, rev. ed. 1910). I suppose
> when Skeat seemed to be emerging as the authority, Wedgewood was anxious
> to point out that he had different opinions.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>       --------   btw, i use  [Sumatra PDF reader]  almost every day,
>>                               and now i hardly use anything else.
>>
>>            i'm so glad i don't have to use  Chrome     for  PDF
>> viewer   any more !!!
>>
>

Skeat really was _the_ authority for a long time. Yakov Malkiel's book
on Etymology recognizes Skeat's achievement in bringing the new
comparative linguistics to bear on English etymology. He mentions no
predecessors, and only one successor, Ernest Weekley (1920s?), whom he
considers more a popularizer than any advance on Skeat. Skeat's
dictionary (at least in the one-volume concise edition) continued to be
reprinted well into the 20th century. I remember acquiring a paperback
reprint in the early 1960s, with some excitement. I particularly enjoyed
the appendix "Distribution of Words According to the Languages from
which they are Derived".

Why did Skeat have no successors? Not because he got everything right.
Individual etymologies continued to be contested and revised in the
scholarly journals. But also, good etymological information began to be
included in general-purpose dictionaries, reducing the demand for an
exclusively etymological reference book. There were some later attempts,
such as the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by CT Onions
and other OED people, and the heroic one-man labour of Rabbi Ernest
Klein (A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language
(1966–1967)). But none of them have become the kind of authority that
Skeat once was.

On the two items you mention:

"Brown". Skeat (I'm looking at the 1884 concise edition) has a kind of
cross-reference saying that it's "from the same root as BURN", though
they are separate headwords. (S's headwords often include several
different English words believed to be from the same root.)
Other authorities do not seem to share this view. Watkins has "brown"
from IE *bher, a colour term, while "burn" is from *gwher 'to heat, warm'.

"Gas" is interesting because we know who invented the word (Jan Baptist
van Helmont of Brussels (1580-1644)), but there has been some
uncertainty about where his idea came from.
Skeat says "He [Helmont] seems to have been thinking of Du.gheest,
spirit, volatile fluid..."
However, OED quotes the actual passage in the posthumous work Hortus
Medicinae (1648) where the word first appears:

halitum illum Gas vocavi, non longe a Chao veterum secretum’ (‘I have
called this vapour gas, not far removed from the Chaos of the ancients’)

Thus the source in Latin < Greek _chaos_ seems indisputable. Perhaps
Skeat never read this passage. But he was not alone in suggesting the
connection with gheest. OED further notes:"There is probably no
foundation in the idea (found from the 18th cent. onwards, e.g. in J.
Priestley On Air (1774) Introd. 3) that van Helmont modelled gas on
Dutch geest spirit, or any of its cognates..."

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 3:15:16 PM UTC-8, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 8:53 a.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> > On 30/11/2022 6:30 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 3:49:57 AM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>> On 2/07/2022 9:18 a.m., henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> is there a list of Skeat's ideas that were contested or refuted later ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> two i can remember are :
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Skeat thought that Ghost and Gas were related
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Skeat thought that Brown was "From the same root as Burn"
> >>>> but today's dictionaries give separate roots.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>> How many of the leading authorities of a century ago in any field are
> >>> found to be without error today?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know of anybody who's thought it worthwhile to make a list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> let me know if you find an interesting passage or entry in the following
> >> book from 1882:
> >> [ Contested etymologies in the dictionary of the Rev. W.
> >> W. Skeat ]
> >>
> >>
> >> https://archive.org/details/contestedetymolo00wedgiala/page/viii/mode/2up
> >>
> >> (The book contains an entry on Brown (Burn, Burnish), but not on
> >> Ghost-Gas)
> >>
> >>
> >> This book shows that Skeat was a Giant --- Goliath to be challenged by
> >> the (younger) scholar. ------------ comparable to
> >> W.V.Quine or Freud
> >
> > Older, actually. Wedgewood's Dictionary of English Etymology (1857, 2nd
> > ed 1872) was earlier than Skeat's (1879-82, rev. ed. 1910). I suppose
> > when Skeat seemed to be emerging as the authority, Wedgewood was anxious
> > to point out that he had different opinions.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- btw, i use [Sumatra PDF reader] almost every day,
> >> and now i hardly use anything else.
> >>
> >> i'm so glad i don't have to use Chrome for PDF
> >> viewer any more !!!
> >>
> >
> Skeat really was _the_ authority for a long time. Yakov Malkiel's book
> on Etymology recognizes Skeat's achievement in bringing the new
> comparative linguistics to bear on English etymology. He mentions no
> predecessors, and only one successor, Ernest Weekley (1920s?), whom he
> considers more a popularizer than any advance on Skeat. Skeat's
> dictionary (at least in the one-volume concise edition) continued to be
> reprinted well into the 20th century. I remember acquiring a paperback
> reprint in the early 1960s, with some excitement. I particularly enjoyed
> the appendix "Distribution of Words According to the Languages from
> which they are Derived".
>
> Why did Skeat have no successors? Not because he got everything right.
> Individual etymologies continued to be contested and revised in the
> scholarly journals. But also, good etymological information began to be
> included in general-purpose dictionaries, reducing the demand for an
> exclusively etymological reference book. There were some later attempts,
> such as the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by CT Onions
> and other OED people, and the heroic one-man labour of Rabbi Ernest
> Klein (A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language
> (1966–1967)). But none of them have become the kind of authority that
> Skeat once was.
>
> On the two items you mention:
>
> "Brown". Skeat (I'm looking at the 1884 concise edition) has a kind of
> cross-reference saying that it's "from the same root as BURN", though
> they are separate headwords. (S's headwords often include several
> different English words believed to be from the same root.)
> Other authorities do not seem to share this view. Watkins has "brown"
> from IE *bher, a colour term, while "burn" is from *gwher 'to heat, warm'..
>
> "Gas" is interesting because we know who invented the word (Jan Baptist
> van Helmont of Brussels (1580-1644)), but there has been some
> uncertainty about where his idea came from.
> Skeat says "He [Helmont] seems to have been thinking of Du.gheest,
> spirit, volatile fluid..."
> However, OED quotes the actual passage in the posthumous work Hortus
> Medicinae (1648) where the word first appears:
>
> halitum illum Gas vocavi, non longe a Chao veterum secretum’ (‘I have
> called this vapour gas, not far removed from the Chaos of the ancients’)
>
> Thus the source in Latin < Greek _chaos_ seems indisputable. Perhaps
> Skeat never read this passage. But he was not alone in suggesting the
> connection with gheest. OED further notes:"There is probably no
> foundation in the idea (found from the 18th cent. onwards, e.g. in J.
> Priestley On Air (1774) Introd. 3) that van Helmont modelled gas on
> Dutch geest spirit, or any of its cognates..."

thanks! maybe i'll have something relevant to say later.

i remember a jump in my interest in Etymology
(about 30 years ago) when a girl i met on an airplane told me that
French has Facile and Difficile
but English only has Difficult.

shortly after, i learned that Facile is not related to Face (as i always assumed) but to Fact

____________________

then i learned about Caulk (glue), calque, recalcitrant, (culture?), inculcate:

>>> Inculcate derives from the past participle of the Latin verb inculcare, meaning "to tread on." In Latin, inculcare possesses both literal and figurative meanings, referring to either the act of walking over something or to that of impressing something upon the mind, often by way of steady repetition.

____________________

then 12 (?) years ago i read this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25476795

"Joyce and Skeat" by Stephen Whittaker
James Joyce Quarterly
Vol. 24, No. 2 (Winter, 1987), pp. 177-192 (16 pages)