Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: etymological breadcrumbs …

Expand Messages
  • fernando soto
    Hi, I guess I am the one that now doesn t quite understand. Because this was posted to the LC group list, I thought that anything post 1876 (5?) was not to be
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I guess I am the one that now doesn't quite
      understand.

      Because this was posted to the LC group list, I
      thought that anything post 1876 (5?) was not to be
      considered; otherwise we would likely accept the OED
      definition and trace things back to Carroll.

      As far as I can tell, in my article I covered the
      meanings associated with the words snirt, sniff,
      snark, snork, snort, snur, snurt, snot, snat, snork,
      snark, etc. While these words are not pursued to
      their "original roots," I doubt whether we can dismiss
      their source as not being "etymological". In the
      etymology provided in that web-page, a very similar
      method is employed as the one in my paper: providing
      not only roots/words, but possible meanings that link
      the roots/words to each other. In the Dictionary of
      Early English the author does trace the route some of
      these words took through the centuries. If this is
      accepted, this DEE definition covers most of the
      possible pre-1876 definitions in the webpage by John.
      If the words "snork" and "Snark are interchangeable,
      then all of the grunting and snout definitions seem to
      point to pigs. Moreover, if a snorker is a "young
      pig," it stands to reason that a "snarker" is likely
      one too, though this is not included in the
      definition. However, if by "etymology" we mean only
      the tracing of roots to their "origins," then I agree
      with john that "Snark" and "pig" do not share the same
      root(s). It is "snorker", "snork" and "snark" that
      do. It is in this chain that a snorker/pig is a
      "snark".

      The criticism of Skeat's assumptions are very likely
      right, but they don't seem to have any impact on my
      arguments. In this case it isn't that important what
      the true root of "wight" is, but only what it was
      thought to be previuous to the writing/publishing of
      'The Snark'.. As well, I rely mainly on the "creaure"
      aspect of the definition, so if Skeat is off on "to
      go", that's fine.

      There is no comment on the fact that I seem to be the
      first LC scholar to have dug up the word "snark," a
      word predating Carroll's use. This seems to point
      away from a portmanteau. Similarly, I don't see a
      mention in the web-page to the definition of "snark"
      as "the snuff of a candle", surely an important
      definition for 'The Snark', whose protagonist is
      called "candle ends" and who is snuffed out by the end
      of the poem. No mention is made of the snicker
      meanings, as in Carroll had a hell of a long snicker,
      almost a century and a half, while his readers were
      sent off on this literary Hunting of the Gowk.

      Note should probably be taken of Skeat's "Aryan Roots"
      near the back of his Dictionaries. Here he has the
      "root" Snark", meaning "to twist, entwine, make a
      noose;" and "sna" and "snu" "to bathe, swim, float,
      flow."

      All best,

      Fernando


      --- John Anderson <goofy@...> wrote:

      > I've read Fernando's article in The Carrollian 8
      > (The Consumption of the Snark and the
      > Decline of Nonsense: A Medico-Linguistic Reading of
      > Carroll's 'Fitful Agony'). I wouldn't
      > say that it covers the same ground as my post. While
      > Fernando's article makes many clever
      > connections between the Snark, pigs, and
      > consumption, my post is a purely etymological
      > discussion. I do not think there any etymological
      > connection between the words "snark"
      > and "pig" - which is what I inferred from Fernando's
      > comment below, but perhaps is not
      > what he intended.
      >
      > The article does mention a word I was not aware of:
      > "snarker" meaning "cinder".
      >
      > I must point out an inaccuracy, but this is not
      > Fernando's fault, but rather the fault of Skeat's An
      > Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. The
      > derivation of "wight" from
      > Old English "wegan" is not the correct one, as I
      > understand it. "Wight" is understood to be
      > derived from Proto-Indo-European *wekti- "thing,
      > creature", while OE "wegan" is from
      > Proto-Indo-European *wegh- "to go".
      >
      >
      > > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, fernando soto
      > <ferjsoto42@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi Mahendra,
      > > >
      > > > I found you post, with link, interesting.
      > However, I
      > > > don't know why this person would go over almost
      > > > exactly the same ground my article on 'The
      > Snark'
      > > > covered almost a decade ago. I guess neither
      > you nor
      > > > he have read this long. scholarly paper in The
      > > > Carrollian, #8. Moreover, I uncovered the very
      > word
      > > > Snark - a very ancient word - in my researches.
      > I
      > > > attempt to give internal reasons why some of the
      > > > etymological meanings were likely chosen and why
      > the
      > > > word "Snark", likely not primarily a portmanteau
      > word
      > > > - was chosen by LC. In addition, I think I
      > solidly
      > > > ground the word Snark in the word "pig";
      > therefore, as
      > > > you may already know, I don't at all accept that
      > these
      > > > connections were done at a subconscious level,
      > > > particularly by someone as "ultrarationalist"
      > and
      > > > driven by a "rage for order" as Carroll was.
      > So I am
      > > > glad you find this type of research interesting,
      > but I
      > > > guess I must tell you that "it's been done
      > before".
      > > >
      > > > All best,
      > > >
      > > > Fernando
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • goofy dreaming
      On Feb 1, 2008 1:42 PM, fernando soto wrote: Because this was posted to the LC group list, I thought that anything post 1876 (5?) was
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 1, 2008 1:42 PM, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@...> wrote:
        Because this was posted to the LC group list, I
        thought that anything post 1876 (5?) was not to be
        considered; otherwise we would likely accept the OED
        definition and trace things back to Carroll.


        I'm not sure what you mean. The specific meaning of "Snark" as a mythical beast can be traced to Carroll, but the word has other meanings, which lexicographers have traced to other sources.
         
        However, if by "etymology" we mean only
        the tracing of roots to their "origins," then I agree
        with john that "Snark" and "pig" do not share the same
        root(s).

        That is what "etymological" means. :)

         
        There is no comment on the fact that I seem to be the
        first LC scholar to have dug up the word "snark," a
        word predating Carroll's use.

        That's fine. I'm not an LC scholar. Historical linguists have been aware of the word and its possible connection to Dutch and Low German "snorken" since at least the publication of Pokorny's "Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch" in 1959.

         
         This seems to point
        away from a portmanteau.  Similarly, I don't see a
        mention in the web-page to the definition of "snark"
        as "the snuff of a candle", surely an important
        definition for 'The Snark', whose protagonist is
        called "candle ends" and who is snuffed out by the end
        of the poem.  No mention is made of the snicker
        meanings, as in Carroll had a hell of a long snicker,
        almost a century and a half, while his readers were
        sent off on this literary Hunting of the Gowk.

        Those are good points, and I should add them to my page.
         
        Note should probably be taken of Skeat's "Aryan Roots"
        near the back of his Dictionaries.  Here he has the
        "root" Snark", meaning "to twist, entwine, make a
        noose;" and "sna" and "snu" "to bathe, swim, float,
        flow."

        I'm not aware of any root "snark" meaning "to twist". I am skeptical of this. The "bath" meaning can be found in unrelated Proto-Indo-European word *sneh2- "to swim", found in Latin "nare".

        John
      • goofy dreaming
        ... Hold on... this is not a definition of snark , as far as I can see. It s a definition of snirt . ... This is also not a definition of snark .
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Feb 1, 2008 1:42 PM, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@...> wrote:
          Similarly, I don't see a
          mention in the web-page to the definition of "snark"
          as "the snuff of a candle", surely an important
          definition for 'The Snark', whose protagonist is
          called "candle ends" and who is snuffed out by the end
          of the poem.

          Hold on... this is not a definition of "snark", as far as I can see. It's a definition of "snirt".
           
           No mention is made of the snicker
          meanings

          This is also not a definition of "snark".
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.