Author Topic: Linguistic peculiarity  (Read 2646 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Linguistic peculiarity
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2013, 05:57:19 AM »
This occured to me yesterday in traffic when I noticed a armored van carrying coins.
Money in French is argent (which is also French for silver ... the stuff argent was usually made of, I suppose)
However, money is damn near a homophone of monnaie but monnaie (and now we're back at the armored truck) translates to "small change" or "coins".

Funny how that worked out, right?
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6608
  • Darwins +522/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Linguistic peculiarity
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2013, 08:22:22 PM »
Not really: OED:

"money, n.
Etymology:  < Anglo-Norman monai, moné, monee, moneie, monoie, munee, munei and Old French, Middle French monoie, monnoie, moneie, monee , monae , monaye coin, mint (late 12th cent.; compare French monnaie change) < classical Latin mon?ta , originally the name of a goddess (in classical times regarded as identical with Juno) in whose temple at Rome money was coined, hence, a mint, money; further etymology uncertain, perhaps a foreign loanword, but associated (from ancient times) by popular etymology with mon?re to warn, remind (see moneo n.). Compare Old Occitan moneda (c1145), Spanish moneda (1169), Catalan moneda (c1250), Portuguese moeda (1211), Italian moneta (1213 or earlier). "
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Linguistic peculiarity
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2013, 01:10:01 PM »
Not really: OED:

"money, n.
Etymology:  < Anglo-Norman monai, moné, monee, moneie, monoie, munee, munei and Old French, Middle French monoie, monnoie, moneie, monee , monae , monaye coin, mint (late 12th cent.; compare French monnaie change) < classical Latin mon?ta , originally the name of a goddess (in classical times regarded as identical with Juno) in whose temple at Rome money was coined, hence, a mint, money; further etymology uncertain, perhaps a foreign loanword, but associated (from ancient times) by popular etymology with mon?re to warn, remind (see moneo n.). Compare Old Occitan moneda (c1145), Spanish moneda (1169), Catalan moneda (c1250), Portuguese moeda (1211), Italian moneta (1213 or earlier). "

I don't get the "not really" here. It's funny (odd, strange, peculiar...etc) how monnaie means change or coins, and argent means money.

I could have guessed the etemology here, it's so obvious, but that does not make it "not peculiar" that argent means money and monnaie means change or coins.

Am I missing something?
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6608
  • Darwins +522/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Linguistic peculiarity
« Reply #61 on: August 23, 2013, 05:17:52 AM »

Funny how that worked out, right?

Not really: OED:


I could have guessed the etymology here, it's so obvious, but that does not make it "not peculiar"

Am I missing something?

(i)   It is obvious
(ii)   It is not ‘not peculiar’ -> it is peculiar.
(iii)   Therefore it is both obvious and peculiar[1].

Probably a better definition of “funny” in this context would be “strange” rather than ‘peculiar’, which has other meanings and can confuse.

However, if it is obvious, can it also be strange? Or, as you suggest, the connection between argent and money is not strange: It is quite logical and straightforward[2].
 1. 
Quote
peculiar adjective
1. strange; queer; odd: peculiar happenings.
2. uncommon; unusual: the peculiar hobby of stuffing and mounting bats.
3. distinctive in nature or character from others.
4. belonging characteristically (usually followed by to  ): an expression peculiar to Canadians.
5. belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing: the peculiar properties of a drug.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peculiar?s=t
 2. although the etymology of money, trivially, is peculiar to money as per definition 4.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Linguistic peculiarity
« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2013, 09:11:03 AM »
(i)   It is obvious
(ii)   It is not ‘not peculiar’ -> it is peculiar.
(iii)   Therefore it is both obvious and peculiar[1].

Probably a better definition of “funny” in this context would be “strange” rather than ‘peculiar’, which has other meanings and can confuse.

However, if it is obvious, can it also be strange? Or, as you suggest, the connection between argent and money is not strange: It is quite logical and straightforward[2].
 1. 
Quote
peculiar adjective
1. strange; queer; odd: peculiar happenings.
2. uncommon; unusual: the peculiar hobby of stuffing and mounting bats.
3. distinctive in nature or character from others.
4. belonging characteristically (usually followed by to  ): an expression peculiar to Canadians.
5. belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing: the peculiar properties of a drug.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peculiar?s=t
 2. although the etymology of money, trivially, is peculiar to money as per definition 4.

Yes. I am saying it is obvious to me as a speaker of both languages, but also peculiar as with how most language evolves.

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.