"Name this dog!"

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:46:41 -0500, Frank Reid
wrote:

The British Isles were populated by stone age nomads long before the
Celts showed up -- maybe dog is one of their words that made it
through the linguistic gauntlet.

And still are!

knew that one was coming . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...
rw wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote:
"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."

Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.

How about the American Heritage Dictionary?

Stupid. Just plain stupid.

From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

Not quite as stupid.......but stupid nevertheless.

Wolfgang

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...
rw wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote:
"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."

Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.

How about the American Heritage Dictionary?

Stupid. Just plain stupid.

From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

Not quite as stupid.......but stupid nevertheless.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote:

"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."


Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.


How about the American Heritage Dictionary?


From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

That's ridiculous. Nobody knows where ANY word comes from. All we can do
is trace a word's history back so far, through various changes in
spellings and meanings, until we arrive at a point where -- POOF! -- the
word (or rather its antecedent) just appears. Some we can trace back
farther than others. The word "dog" isn't especially unusual because we
can only trace it back to the 13th century.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote:

"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."


Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.


How about the American Heritage Dictionary?


From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

That's ridiculous. Nobody knows where ANY word comes from. All we can do
is trace a word's history back so far, through various changes in
spellings and meanings, until we arrive at a point where -- POOF! -- the
word (or rather its antecedent) just appears. Some we can trace back
farther than others. The word "dog" isn't especially unusual because we
can only trace it back to the 13th century.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote:

"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."



Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.



How about the American Heritage Dictionary?



From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

That's ridiculous.
nonsense snipped

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dog

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote:

"Dog" derives from the Old English "dogca," which became the Middle
English "docca."



Google has limitations you will never begin to understand.



How about the American Heritage Dictionary?



From the OED:
[Late OE dogca (once), of unkn. origin.]

Looks like Wolfie is right. If OED doesn't know where dog
came from, nobody does.

That's ridiculous.
nonsense snipped

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dog

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

"Dog" is, as far as I
know, still one of the great etymological mysteries.

I'd bet it spontaneously arose as part of an 18 month-old
baby's vocabulary somewhere....

That's probably as good a guess as any. In the absence of any evidence for
its origin in another language, the only alternative is that it arose
spontaneously in English. One trouble with this theory is, as it has always
been, that the core words in any language are difficult to supplant. We
know that the earliest English speakers had, or were at least familiar with,
domestic dogs, because we know that the Germanic speaking peoples from whom
their language developed had them. "Hund", or it's earlier cognate, came as
a part of the package and, as we know, it still survives in English as
"hound". While "hound" is still used in English it has, for the most part,
been supplanted except in special circumstances by the now familiar and more
inclusive "dog". Some powerful force must have been at work early in the
history of English to force such a change. No one has yet come up with a
good theory to explain why a perfectly good and commonly used word would be
more or less abandoned for something that arose spontaneously and possessed
no obvious advantage.


Wolfgang

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

"Dog" is, as far as I
know, still one of the great etymological mysteries.

I'd bet it spontaneously arose as part of an 18 month-old
baby's vocabulary somewhere....

That's probably as good a guess as any. In the absence of any evidence for
its origin in another language, the only alternative is that it arose
spontaneously in English. One trouble with this theory is, as it has always
been, that the core words in any language are difficult to supplant. We
know that the earliest English speakers had, or were at least familiar with,
domestic dogs, because we know that the Germanic speaking peoples from whom
their language developed had them. "Hund", or it's earlier cognate, came as
a part of the package and, as we know, it still survives in English as
"hound". While "hound" is still used in English it has, for the most part,
been supplanted except in special circumstances by the now familiar and more
inclusive "dog". Some powerful force must have been at work early in the
history of English to force such a change. No one has yet come up with a
good theory to explain why a perfectly good and commonly used word would be
more or less abandoned for something that arose spontaneously and possessed
no obvious advantage.


Wolfgang

On 1/3/05 3:54 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

"Dog" is, as far as I
know, still one of the great etymological mysteries.

I'd bet it spontaneously arose as part of an 18 month-old
baby's vocabulary somewhere....

That's probably as good a guess as any.

Well, I *am* partial to Tim's insightful analysis following the Hans-Elmer
gambit. But Jon's is good too.

Or we can just look to the American Heritage and be done with it. Different
strokes for different folks.

In the absence of any evidence for
its origin in another language, the only alternative is that it arose
spontaneously in English. One trouble with this theory is, as it has always
been, that the core words in any language are difficult to supplant. We
know that the earliest English speakers had, or were at least familiar with,
domestic dogs, because we know that the Germanic speaking peoples from whom
their language developed had them. "Hund", or it's earlier cognate, came as
a part of the package and, as we know, it still survives in English as
"hound". While "hound" is still used in English it has, for the most part,
been supplanted except in special circumstances by the now familiar and more
inclusive "dog". Some powerful force must have been at work early in the
history of English to force such a change. No one has yet come up with a
good theory to explain why a perfectly good and commonly used word would be
more or less abandoned for something that arose spontaneously and possessed
no obvious advantage.

The longer etymology entry in the OED entry for "dog", which expands and
explains the snippet that Ken posted, points out that the early form of
"dog" actually showed up in continental languages, usually accompanied by
the adjective "English", and described a general strong breed of hound which
must have differed enough from what they considered "hund" for them to use
the word "dog." And it also points out that the term must have had its
genesis somewhere in the British Isles. Which certainly supports Jon's
thesis. Sorry Tim.

I'm just glad I'm not at work. Would have spent all afternoon thumbing
through etymological dictionaries and texts looking for explanations.
Bloody waste of a perfectly fine afternoon when there's other.... oh, never
mind....

Or, like I said, we could just look to the American Heritage and think no
further.

Bill
(who wonders if the early cognate of "Svea" means "brass fireball kicked
away from tent"...)