====== Etymological fallacy ====== A [[index|fallacy of ambiguity]], whereby the //original// (or //etymologically// derived) meaning of a word is considered authoritative, regardless of the specific context in which it is used. Example: > A: That really was a //lousy// idea. > B: An //idea// can’t have //lice//, so that statement makes no sense. The term "lousy" did indeed originally refer to a garment, mattress or similar item infested with [[wp>Louse|lice]]. However, the meaning has changed over time, and today it can be used as a derogatory or intensifying adjective to describe almost anything that falls short of expectations; this includes ideas that, in hindsight, have turned out not to be so good after all. ===== Other names ===== * (Argumentum) ad dictionarium ===== Description ===== The "etymological fallacy" is based on a unique form of [[ambiguity:index|ambiguity]] that results from the fact that language and its usage change, and that the meanings of words and terms are therefore not static. Which meaning is implied in each case therefore often depends on the //time// at which the term is used. This means that a //historical// text may use the //original// meaning, whilst a //contemporary// source is more likely to refer to the //modern// meaning. The fallacy underlying this is that language is viewed as a static construct that does not change. In fact, every actively used language evolves, and as a result, the meanings of words and terms are constantly changing. Here are a few examples of English terms that have undergone a significant shift in meaning over time: * **decimate**: originally "to reduce by a tenth" (from Lat. „dĕcem “ = ten), today, generally "to reduce" or sometimes even "to destroy". * **deer**: originally referring to any kind of //wild animal// ; today, it specifically refers to an animal of the Cervidae family. * **gay**: originally "happy", "joyful", "bright", "colourful", etc. -- now generally referring to homosexuality. ==== Non-verbal symbols ==== Such shifts in meaning do not only affect words. Other symbols and signifiers can also change their meaning. For example, the [[wp>Christian cross|Christian cross]] symbol originally referred to an instrument of torture and execution ([[wp>Crucifixion|Crucifixion]]), but is today generally no longer understood as such. Similarly, one possible origin of the //wedding ring// is a symbolic "chain link", intended to symbolise the wife’s "bond" to her husband (although this etymology is disputed). However, this does not mean that today it is still understood in this way. If only because, nowadays, //both// spouses receive a ring (which, interestingly, was not always the case). ==== Reverse etymological fallacy ==== While the //etymological fallacy// involves reducing a word’s meanings to its oldest form, the reverse can also occur: a modern meaning may be considered the only correct one, with older meanings being dismissed. This is often seen with terms used in [[wp>Youth slang|youth slang]], which, of course, may still have a long history. Young people are usually only familiar with the //modern// usage and are surprised by the older meaning, which they consider to be "wrong". To give just a few examples: Words like "sick", "dope" or "wicked", as used in the context of youth language today, only bear a distant relationship to their original meanings. But even outside of //youth slang//, we find many examples of the //reverse etymological fallacy:// One perfect example concerns the word "gay" which was already mentioned above. Expressions such as "[[wp>Gay Nineties|The Gay Nineties]]" (referring to the 1890s) and references to the Scottish "[[wp>Gay Gordons (dance)|Gay Gordons]]" dance, clearly retain the word’s original meaning of “joyful” or "happy". The "reverse etymological fallacy" is the assumption that, because of the modern meaning of the word, it must actually refer to //homosexuality//. ===== Classification ===== The "etymological fallacy" is categorised here as a "[[ambiguity:index|fallacy of ambiguity]]", as it fundamentally concerns the equivocation of different meanings of a term. Alternatively, one could also emphasise the fact that this is a case of "false knowledge" regarding the meaning of a word – namely, the mistaken assumption that a word’s current meaning can consistently be derived from its //etymology//. In this case, classifying it as a [[knowledge:index|fallacy of knowledge]] would be more accurate.((Other possible classifications include fallacies of [[relevancy:index|relevance]] or [[idealisation:index|idealisation]]. However, both of these refer primarily to //specific// aspects of this type of fallacy.)) ===== More examples ===== ==== “Racism” ==== The term "racism" was originally rooted in the idea that there were different "human races" – a view that is now considered outdated. Meanwhile, the meaning of the term has changed: today, it generally refers to discrimination on the grounds of //ethnic//, //national//, //religious// or //cultural// affiliation. A typical example of the //etymological fallacy// in this context is the claim that the term "racism" is incorrect or meaningless, since the biological concept of human races has been disproved and we all belong to the same race (namely [[wp>Homo sapiens|Homo sapiens]]). Conversely, some argue that discrimination on the grounds of //religion// or //cultural// heritage does not constitute "racism" because these categories do not count as "races". Both positions fail to recognise that the term’s meaning has evolved. Today, it no longer refers to discrimination on the grounds of "race" – just as the word "lousy" is no longer primarily used to describe a garment infested with lice – but rather to discrimination on the basis of various other characteristics. Furthermore, such reasoning overlooks an important function of language: it serves to describe reality. Discrimination based on group affiliation exists regardless of what we call it. Claiming that the term is //incorrect// on the basis of its //etymology// distracts from the fact that the phenomenon it describes is //real//. In this sense, focusing on the origin of the word rather than on the phenomenon itself can be seen as a rhetorical "[[rhetoric:red_herrings:index|red herring]]". ==== “Propaganda” and “Virus” ==== The word "propaganda" is derived from the Latin verb "prŏpāgo ", which means as much as "to propagate" or "to multiply". The term was originally used in the context of [[wp>Horticulture|horticulture]]. In the late Middle Ages, the Catholic Church adopted it in a figurative sense to describe the //spread of the faith//. This was already very similar to the word’s modern meaning, but was clearly still thought of as something positive.((See, for example, the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith"), founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV – now known as the "[[wp>Dicastery for Evangelization|Dicastery for Evangelization]]".)) The term acquired its current //negative// connotations only through its misuse by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. Since then, "propaganda" has primarily come to be associated with //political lies// and //insincere communication.// The word "[[wp>Virus|virus]]", on the other hand, took the opposite path: originally, in Latin, it meant as much as "poison" or "mucus". During the 19th century, it was believed that diseases were caused either by bacteria or by poisons. It was not until the turn of the century that it became apparent that many of the diseases previously attributed to “poisons” were in fact caused by pathogens much smaller than bacteria. It was then that the already-established Latin name for //poison//, i.e. “virus”, was adopted to describe these newly discovered microorganisms. With the proliferation of //computer technology,// the term came to be used more broadly, as malicious programmes that could spread from one computer to another (initially with the user’s assistance) came to be known as "computer viruses". However, the connotations associated with this type of software remained overwhelmingly //negative//. This changed with the advent of early computer networks and, eventually, //social media//. A phenomenon emerged whereby information, jokes and even personalities would sometimes become widely and quickly disseminated. Drawing a parallel with the spread of a viral infection, this phenomenon became known as "going viral". Basically, "viral" now has a similar meaning today to "prŏpāgo " in Roman times: much like plants were //propagated// back then, it is now tweets and posts that reproduce themselves. Whether this propagation is a //positive// (beliefs, information) or a //negative// thing (lies, malware) depends on the context. Both terms are thus susceptible to //etymological fallacies.// Whether one reinterprets "propaganda" as the harmless dissemination of beliefs ([[rhetoric:unfair_discussion_tactics:redefinition|Redefinition]]) or equates "viral" social media posts with "poison", referencing the etymology may seem very clever, but it does not actually clarify the meaning of the words. ==== “Man” ==== In many [[wp>Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] languages, the word for "human" or "humanity" is related in one way or another to the word for "man", in the sense of referring to a male human being. This issue has already been raised elsewhere on this site in connection with terms such as the Latin "homo " or the Ancient Greek "ánthropos " [ἄνθρωπος]. To give just one example: an "[[rhetoric:red_herrings:ad_hominem:index|argumentum ad hominem]] " is an "argument against the person", without any gender being implied (see the linked article for more information). A similar situation exists in English. The modern word "man" originates from the Proto-Germanic root "*mann- ", which originally referred to any //person//. We know of Old English that a //qualifier// was needed to specify the gender: "wer-man " for //male// and "wif-man " for //female//. The latter then evolved into the modern form "woman"((Interestingly, the old form still left a trace in the rather unusual pronunciation of the plural "women".)), while the old word "wer(e) " for a //male human// almost completely disappeared(("Almost", because it is still present in the word "werewolf". However, if someone were to claim that there cannot be //female// werewolves because the word literally means "man-wolf", they would again be committing the //etymological fallacy//.)). Consequently, "man" is now used both as a collective noun for //humans// of any gender as well as a specific term for a //male human.// While the older meaning is still present and understood today -- for example, one can find it in the title of [[wp>Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin]]’s book "[[wp>The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|The Descent of Man]]", or in the phrase "No man is an island" -- this usage is already starting to sound //antiquated//. It seems likely that we will eventually lose this meaning altogether and that in the future "man" will only be used to refer to a //male human.// For now, however, the term is //ambiguous.// A widely known – and, in the author’s view, particularly compelling – example of how this ambiguity can lead to confusion is a [[wp>Plot twist|plot twist]] used by the British author [[wp>J. R. R. Tolkien|J. R. R. Tolkien]] in his fantasy novel "[[wp>The Lord of the Rings|The Lord of the Rings]]" (1954/1955):
The backstory (within the Tolkien universe) is that, at the end of the "[[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Battle_of_Fornost|Battle of Fornost]]" (T.A. 1975), the elf [[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Glorfindel|Glorfindel]] urged the human king [[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/E%C3%A4rnur|Eärnur]] not to pursue the fleeing [[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Witch-king|Witch-king of Angmar]] with the words: "Do not pursue him! […] Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."((See: Tolkien, J. R. R.: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Appendix A.)) In this situation, //Glorfindel// was probably just trying to talk his hot-headed ally out of embarking on a reckless and dangerous adventure. Over time, however, this exclamation was reinterpreted as a "prophecy" and came to be taken to mean that the Witch-King was completely //invulnerable// to humans. A legend whose spread was certainly also in the Witch-King’s own interests. This leads to the events that take place more than a thousand years later in "The Return of the King" during the [[wp>Battle of the Pelennor Fields|Battle of the Pelennor Fields]] (T.A. 3019)((Ibid., chapter: "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields".)): When the Witch-King was confronted on the battlefield, he cried out: "No living man may hinder me!", presumably to intimidate the enemy before him by alluding to Glorfindel’s "prophecy". In response, however, his challenger revealed herself to be [[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/%C3%89owyn|Éowyn]], the King’s niece, and replied with a laugh: “But no living man am I! You look upon a woman.” This unexpected twist threw the Witch-King into enough confusion that he failed to notice the hobbit [[https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Meriadoc_Brandybuck|Merry]] creeping up behind him. The latter was then able to critically wound the Witch-King with his weapon, enabling //Éowyn// to quite literally "bring him down" with another blow of her own sword.
The author leaves open the question of whether the "Witch-King" actually possessed any kind of "magical protection" against attacks by "men" (in either sense of the word), or if the legend of his invulnerability was merely part of his own //propaganda//, intended to instil fear. Ultimately, his downfall came about through the collaboration between //Éowyn//, a human woman, and //Merry//, a male hobbit, who thus both represented, each in their own way, the [[glossary:equivocation:homonymy|homonymy]] of the English word "man". In this way, the "Witch King" did indeed fall victim to the e//tymological fallacy// (and presumably also to his own propaganda), in that he assumed the older meaning of the word "man" as fact. Unexpectedly confronted with a situation that challenged his understanding and his carefully nurtured self-image, he was so bewildered and enraged that he failed to notice the real danger – the stealthily approaching hobbit – which ultimately led to his own demise. ===== See also ===== * [[generalization:accident_fallacy|Accident fallacy]] * [[glossary:equivocation:index|Equivocation]] * [[relevancy:index|Fallacies of relevance]] * [[idealisation:index|Idealisation]] * [[knowledge:index|Knowledge fallacies]] ===== More information ===== * [[wp>Etymological fallacy]] on //Wikipedia// * [[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/67/Etymological-Fallacy|Etymological Fallacy]] on //Logically Fallacious//