What about an "etymological section" on ELU?

Question

Whenever I post a question on the origin of a common expression or on the etymology of a word (something I often do, sorry for that) I regularly receive a fair amount of criticism about their "unproductiveness".

For some reason, most users don't like this sort of question and are just happy with the information offered by Etymonline.

Actually, digging deeper, it is sometime possible to shed more light on issues which are not yet available on common online references.

So, what about creating a separate section where etymological questions don't interfere with other language activities and users are not annoyed by their presence?

Answer 1

Looking at your profile, it seems to me that the majority of your questions tagged with "etymology" have been received well votes-wise. I also did not find any that were closed. So I'll assume you're talking about comments.

It's unfortunate that some people don't see the value of these questions, but it looks like most people have found them useful and on-topic. So you shouldn't be reluctant to ask more of them on this site. As long as you tag them "etymology," users who hate etymology can put that tag on their "ignore list", which can be configured to either gray out questions with the tag, or hide them entirely. I really don't think we need a new, separate section of the site beyond that.

Answer 2

I love questions about etymology (in the sense of the origin and evolution of words and phrases) because, often, researching them yields such surprising and rewarding results. In my experience, a well-researched answer to an etymology question on English Language & Usage is likely to be considerably richer and deeper than the more narrowly focused answers that Etymology Online provides. This isn't a knock on Etymonline; it's an acknowledgment that space restrictions require that resource to take a narrow view of what identifying the etymology of a word or phrase means.

In contrast, EL&U can accommodate multiple instances of early occurrences of a word or phrase, along with discussions of the context of these occurrences, and coverage of evolving meanings (if any). Taken together, these components of an answer can help make it a legitimate original contribution to popular understanding of the origin of a word or phrase.

The problem is that some linguists and language enthusiasts seem to think that etymology is properly limited to identifying the root words of—or the progression through other languages of the antecedents of—the word or phrase in question. For them, Etymonline's coverage resolves the question of etymology insofar as etymology is on-topic at EL&U. Hence the frequent comment made to posters of etymology questions, "Did you check at Etymonline? What did you find?"—as though that site's coverage were conclusive and exhaustive.

I take a different and much broader view of what "etymology" encompasses. Since we don't have tags at EL&U for "word origin" and "phrase origin," questions that inquire more broadly into the circumstances surrounding the emergence of a word or phrase into its modern sense in English tend to use the "etymology" tag, though they may seek information about early occurrences and early meanings of the word or phrase, in addition to its etymological derivation, narrowly understood. In effect, they are requesting the kind of early usage coverage that the full OED provides in its historical citations for a word—and today, happily, inquiries into such examples often turn up earlier occurrences than the print OED has recorded because they can take advantage of searches of digital libraries.

For inquiries of this type, Etymonline is merely a starting point. I would welcome any question about etymology (in the broad sense) that began by saying, "Etymology Online reports that word [or phrase] X comes from bar-bar-bar-bar. What (if any) significant information about the etymology [or origin or emergence into mainstream English] of this word [or phrase] does Etymonline's account omit?"

I do not favor trying to sequester questions of this type in a special reserved area of EL&U. To the contrary, I think that such questions should remain integrated in the core of EL&U, not least because I think that they produce some of the most useful contributions that EL&U makes toward broadening public knowledge of matters of English language and usage. What I would urge is that site participants who currently take a narrow view of the proper scope of "etymology" consider adopting (or at least accepting as legitimate) a broader notion of what that term etymology encompasses on this site, and try to take a more welcoming (or at least tolerant) attitude toward questions and answers premised on that broader interpretation.

Answer 3

I am reminded that exasperation recently led me to the same thought, to wit, that the controversy over phrase etymology questions might be best resolved by a special section of ELU, or a new area (as suggested by Mitch in the answers here). My exasperation was inspired by the comments on, and inconsistent treatment of, two questions:

1. Etymology of the “half your age, plus seven” phrase? (Feb. 16, 2016)

2. What's the story behind “read my lips”? (Feb. 18, 2016)

I won't color the controversy with the details of my trivial outrage, other than to say (as I mentioned in the comments on question 1) that such questions, if well-formed and adequately researched, should not be close-voted as off-topic. The whole of the controversy seems to be embedded in the comments on question 1, which was closed, reopened and closed again, and which now has 1 delete vote. Yet question 2, which is not notably dissimilar, has no close votes.

My point here is that the prejudice against 'etymology' questions, especially as concerns phrase origins, does undoubtedly exist. It seems, however, to be especially virulent when directed at questions from comparatively low-scoring participants. For that reason, the prejudice is even more annoying than it would be if applied to all phrase origin questions indiscriminately.

Answer 4

A 'separate section'?

There is no feasible tech to do what you want within ELU.

There are alternatives that go in the direction that you want but I fear will not be satisfactory.

• You could try to create an Area51 proposal but I doubt that would be successful; I don't think there's enough market and people wouwld just say 'ask at ELU already.'
• There already exists tags which could suffice, but no one cares. The 'etymology' tag already exists which you could use but nobody uses tags for a 'subsystem' like you ask for.

I suggest behavioral encouragement whenever you see an etymology question: use the tag, edit questions to ask for 'beyond what is in etymonline', 'allow more speculative answers'.

Of course the etymology question has to not be closable. If what is sought is beyond etymonline, then it should be quoted, and then asked for further info.

Answer 5

I started looking through your posts - just yours with the etymology tag - but stopped when I realised the search produced 25 pages (!) of results. After going through maybe 10 questions, I found a single possibly negative comment, and many constructive ones.

Even the negative comments I recall on the subject (not necessarily related to your posts) objected to using etymology to define current usage, not to whether etymology was on-topic for the site.

In any case, etymology is firmly part of ELU, all the way back to its tour page:

English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

I don't see the need to segregate questions about etymology from ELU's core. Labelling them with the etymology tag is sufficient.

Answer 6

This answer is to preserve some comments from a relevant comment-thread discussion from a meta question that was about to be deleted. The thesis is highlighted below (emphasis, mine).

I think that Aynonomus is correct in suggesting that most purely etymological questions asked at this site are closed as general reference/lack of research, with a terse recommendation to consult Etymology Online. We have many question that are tagged as 'etymology' but are in fact permitted to remain open because they ask about when the word or phrase was first recorded in a published work. I find it interesting (and inconsistent) that EL&U now has a tag for 'phrase-origin' but still doesn't have one for 'word-origin'; in effect, we use 'etymology' to characterize the latter type of question. – Sven Yargs

@SvenYargs I'm curious, what do you mean by "purely etymological questions"? (I've always understood "etymology" to refer to the origins and history of words, but I assume there is a more technical definition I don't know.) – 1006a

@1006a: I mean the derivation of English words from other languages, as for example this first paragraph from the entry for etymology at Etymology Online: "late 14c., ethimolegia 'facts of the origin and development of a word,' from Old French etimologie, ethimologie (14c., Modern French étymologie), from Latin etymologia, from Greek etymologia 'analysis of a word to find its true origin,' properly 'study of the true sense (of a word),' with - logia 'study of, a speaking of' (see -logy) + etymon ... – Sven Yargs

... 'true sense, original meaning,' neuter of etymos 'true, real, actual,' related to eteos 'true,' which perhaps is cognate with Sanskrit satyah, Gothic sunjis, Old English soð 'true,' from a PIE *set - 'be stable.' Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium." This entire analysis is concerned with tracing the roots of the current English word etymology from other languages, not with identifying when the word came into English. In a subsequent paragraph, the entry suggests a first occurrence date in published English of "mid-15c," but that is a relatively minor aspect of the entry. – Sven Yargs

...My point is that if someone were to post a question at EL&U that asked "What is the etymology of the word etymology? it would almost certainly be closed as general reference/lack of research; but if someone cited the Etymology Online discussion of the word etymology and then asked "What is the earliest known instance of etymology in English?" the question might very well pass muster. (I would try to keep it open, anyway.) I don't know what the scholarly definition of etymology is, but I'm confident that etymology as a study isn't primarily concerned with first occurrence dates. – Sven Yargs

@SvenYargs Ah, I see the distinction. I think to the extent that the term has stretched to include word origins within English, "first instance" questions do occasionally count as etymology—"covfefe" comes to mind as a word coined (or at least turning up like a bad penny) directly in English. But I agree that questions asking about history prior to importation into English are likely to get the cold shoulder, either as general ref or "not about English" or because the pursuit of a word's "true meaning" based on origin is now often called the etymological fallacy rather than etymology. – 1006a