Discussion:
Shark
(too old to reply)
Trond Engen
2011-06-28 21:23:11 UTC
Permalink
[Here's a post I've had in writing for a week, but I don't seem to find
the time to finish my research. So I'll just throw it out as is and see
what turns up.]

My son recently asked me if Norwegian <sjark> "small vessel mainly used
for trolling" is the same word as English <shark>. I said the Norwegian
word looked like a loan, but I didn't think it could be the same word,
since it's not a good fit semantically, and according to OERD the origin
of the English word is unknown anyway.

However, in my Norwegian dictionary <sjark> is explained as "Originally
pejorative. Same word as Eng. 'shark' "hai, svindler""

So: If the English word is inherited, sh- would be from sk-, and then it
might be related to Norwegian <skurk> "bandit", which looks like a LG loan.

Looking up Norsk Ordbok 2014
(<http://www.edd.uio.no/perl/search/search.cgi?tabid=993&appid=59>) I find:

| skurk m. I. = skoppetroll (Roms). Jfr. gullskurk. Å. I avljodshøve
| til skark? Jfr. næste ord (@ skurk II). T.
|
| skurk m. II.
| l. beingrind (Ma, VTel), R.
| 2. gamalt og utslite menneske (Ry), R. I avljodshøve til skark.
| Sml. jysk skurk, forfrose menneske, stakkar. T.
|
| ( skurk ) m. III. skarv, fark, HFo. Dsk. Skurk, av t. Schurke (eldre
| Schurk), FT.

I. "woodlouse". Related by ablaut to <skark>?
II. 1. "skeleton" 2. "old, weary person", related by ablaut to <skark>.
Compare Jysk <skurk>, "frozen or poor person".
III. "scoundrel". From Ge. <Schurk(e)>.

Meaning III is the German loan. The two others seem to be native.

I didn't know <skark> (I see that it's mainly sothwestern):

| skark m. skral og forkomen skapning eller ting, soleis:
| a) skrint og krukse dyr, serl. hest (Har, Dal, Li, Rbg, Tel);
| b) vesalt menneske, krusling òg um eit moralsk forkome menneske (Har
| o.fl.);
| c) gamal, mager fisk (Rbg, Dal), jfr. åskark;
| d) forfallen reidskap, t.d. ein ledlaus kjelke (Har o.fl.);
| e) hanglesjukt, maktlaust menneske (Ndm, Tr);
| f) tungt, dauvt og tvert menneske; tverrdrivar (Dal). R. Jfr. skarka.

a) "miserable animal", esp. horse.
b) "miserable person", also for moral misery.
c) "Old, poor fish", cf. <åskark> [= "river skark", a local fishname]
d) "lousy or worn-out tool, e.g. a rickety sledge"
e) essentially same as b)
f) "inert, cross and sullen person"

I think it's pretty clear that English <shark> is an English reflex (or
an ON loan) of a Germanic word meaning "miserable thing", acquiring its
current meaning through "bad fish".

It would seem to be closely related to <skarv> n. "cormorant; crook" and
<skarve> adj. "lousy".

Norwegian 'sjark' still looks like a loan, with an original meaning
close to d) above. But I think there's another possibility, related to
the Eng. meaning "swindler". There's a parallel in the Norwegian word
'jukse' "1. cheat; 2. troll; tool for trolling". Since it's a maritime
word, the origin may be LG or Dutch, but I haven't looked into that.

The ablaut suggests a deverbal origin, but I'm not sure how to derive
any of this from verbal roots.
--
Trond Engen
Nathan Sanders
2011-06-29 00:00:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <iudgmt$tc7$***@dont-email.me>,
Trond Engen <***@engen.priv.no> wrote:

[snip discussion of etymology of "shark"]

Interesting. Tom Jones (who AFAICT is not a linguist) argues that
"shark" comes from Yucatec Maya "xoc":

http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT07/Xoc.pdf

There's a summary of Jones's argument on LanguageHat:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002843.php

The evidence seems slim either way.

Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
pauljk
2011-06-29 03:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Sanders
[snip discussion of etymology of "shark"]
Interesting. Tom Jones (who AFAICT is not a linguist) argues that
http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT07/Xoc.pdf
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002843.php
The evidence seems slim either way.
Nathan
My CED says "shark" (fish) 16C, origins unknown.
16C is late enough. Wouldn't sharks be known in Europe before 1492.
Wouldn't there be an older Romance or Germanic word for shark?

The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from German
"Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).

pjk
Trond Engen
2011-06-29 07:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by pauljk
Post by Nathan Sanders
[snip discussion of etymology of "shark"]
Interesting. Tom Jones (who AFAICT is not a linguist) argues that
http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT07/Xoc.pdf
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002843.php
The evidence seems slim either way.
Nathan
My CED says "shark" (fish) 16C, origins unknown.
16C is late enough. Wouldn't sharks be known in Europe before 1492.
Wouldn't there be an older Romance or Germanic word for shark?
There's a native Scandinavian word No. <hå> "dogfish, small shark",
these days mainly in compound names of species. This word was borrowed
by the Dutch, who turned it into <haai> before giving it back as <hai>
"shark". Now we'll say that 'pigghåen er en liten hai' "the spiny
dogfish is a small shark".
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
--
Trond Engen
Odysseus
2011-07-01 21:53:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <iuekn0$v9r$***@dont-email.me>,
Trond Engen <***@engen.priv.no> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of "lousy" is not very
idiomatic: applied to an animal (as opposed to its temperament) it's too
easily read literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects. Or
is that just me?
--
Odysseus
Trond Engen
2011-07-01 22:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of "lousy" is not very
Not at all. I make up my English as I go, trusting that if it's too odd,
someone will tell.
Post by Odysseus
applied to an animal (as opposed to its temperament) it's too easily
read literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.Or is that
just me?
--
Trond Engen
Brian M. Scott
2011-07-02 07:16:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.

Brian
Odysseus
2011-07-02 23:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.
It wasn't just there; I barely noticed it the first time, but repetition
made it more salient. Now I admit one might say "That lousy dog barks
continually whenever its owner is out," but not likely "My neighbour's
dog is lousy." Applied to a vehicle or similar object, e.g. "My
neighbour has a lousy car," I would understand it to mean shoddy, badly
made, a somewhat different sense.
--
Odysseus
Brian M. Scott
2011-07-03 04:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:48:06 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C,
probably from German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also
influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal,
character, vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.
It wasn't just there; I barely noticed it the first time,
but repetition made it more salient. Now I admit one
might say "That lousy dog barks continually whenever its
owner is out," but not likely "My neighbour's dog is
lousy." Applied to a vehicle or similar object, e.g. "My
neighbour has a lousy car," I would understand it to mean
shoddy, badly made, a somewhat different sense.
That's my default interpretation in all cases; only clear
context switches it to 'lice-infested'. 'My neighbor has a
lousy dog' sounds a little odd and registers as ambiguous,
but I still lean towards the figurative sense in the absence
of any larger context.

Brian
Peter T. Daniels
2011-07-03 05:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:48:06 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C,
probably from German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also
influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal,
character,  vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very  idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too  easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or  is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.
It wasn't just there; I barely noticed it the first time,
but repetition  made it more salient. Now I admit one
might say "That lousy dog barks  continually whenever its
owner is out," but not likely "My neighbour's dog is
lousy." Applied to a vehicle or similar object, e.g. "My
neighbour has a lousy car," I would understand it to mean
shoddy, badly  made, a somewhat different sense.
That's my default interpretation in all cases; only clear
context switches it to 'lice-infested'.  'My neighbor has a
lousy dog' sounds a little odd and registers as ambiguous,
but I still lean towards the figurative sense in the absence
of any larger context.
"Lousy" has all but no connection with 'lice-ridden'. Only in a
technical context (medical, exterminatory) would it have its
etymological sense. Call it a dead metaphor.
António Marques
2011-07-03 23:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odysseus
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.
It wasn't just there; I barely noticed it the first time, but repetition
made it more salient. Now I admit one might say "That lousy dog barks
continually whenever its owner is out," but not likely "My neighbour's
dog is lousy." Applied to a vehicle or similar object, e.g. "My
neighbour has a lousy car," I would understand it to mean shoddy, badly
made, a somewhat different sense.
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.

My impression stuck, however; I got the idea that english speakers are
less likely to associate related words than speakers of some other
languages, even when the relation is one of currently productive
derivation, owing to the large number of related words without a
current semantic association.
Nathan Sanders
2011-07-03 23:42:31 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by António Marques
Post by Odysseus
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:53:44 -0600, Odysseus
Post by Odysseus
<snip>
Post by Trond Engen
Post by pauljk
The CED also says "shark" (thief, trickster) 18C, probably from
German "Schurke" (rogue), perhaps also influenced by "shark" (fish).
Yeah, but it's simpler if the meaning "lousy (animal, character,
vehicle)" is inherited.
I hope you don't mind my observing that your use of
"lousy" is not very idiomatic: applied to an animal (as
opposed to its temperament) it's too easily read
literally, conjuring up the image of parasitic insects.
Or is that just me?
Well, it's not me: the list 'animal, character, vehicle'
pretty well excludes that interpretation.
It wasn't just there; I barely noticed it the first time, but repetition
made it more salient. Now I admit one might say "That lousy dog barks
continually whenever its owner is out," but not likely "My neighbour's
dog is lousy." Applied to a vehicle or similar object, e.g. "My
neighbour has a lousy car," I would understand it to mean shoddy, badly
made, a somewhat different sense.
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.

In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.

Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Peter T. Daniels
2011-07-04 03:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by António Marques
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
(I just said it again, if it was me. If it wasn't me, I just said it.)
Post by Nathan Sanders
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.
In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.
I've never encountered [s] for the etymological sense.

Which do you have in <greasy>?
Nathan Sanders
2011-07-04 03:33:28 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by António Marques
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
(I just said it again, if it was me. If it wasn't me, I just said it.)
Post by Nathan Sanders
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.
In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.
I've never encountered [s] for the etymological sense.
I can't say that I've ever encountered the etymological sense at all
("lice-infested" yes, but not "lousy"). If I were to hear "lou[s]y",
I would interpret it as "lice-infested" (or perhaps, "louse-like").
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which do you have in <greasy>?
After I posted, I thought that I might should have noted that. I have
"grea[s]y", despite being raised in the South; I don't think I ever
had "grea[z]y", but I know many people in my region did.

Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Peter T. Daniels
2011-07-04 12:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by António Marques
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
(I just said it again, if it was me. If it wasn't me, I just said it.)
Post by Nathan Sanders
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.
In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.
I've never encountered [s] for the etymological sense.
I can't say that I've ever encountered the etymological sense at all
Maybe only jocularly.
Post by Nathan Sanders
("lice-infested" yes, but not "lousy").  If I were to hear "lou[s]y",
I would interpret it as "lice-infested" (or perhaps, "louse-like").
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which do you have in <greasy>?
After I posted, I thought that I might should have noted that.  I have
"grea[s]y", despite being raised in the South; I don't think I ever
had "grea[z]y", but I know many people in my region did.
Suggesting that the grease/greasy connection is salient and the louse/
lousy one isn't.
a***@hotmail.com
2011-07-04 12:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by António Marques
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
(I just said it again, if it was me. If it wasn't me, I just said it.)
Post by Nathan Sanders
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.
In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.
I've never encountered [s] for the etymological sense.
I can't say that I've ever encountered the etymological sense at all
("lice-infested" yes, but not "lousy").  If I were to hear "lou[s]y",
I would interpret it as "lice-infested" (or perhaps, "louse-like").
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which do you have in <greasy>?
After I posted, I thought that I might should have noted that.  I have
"grea[s]y", despite being raised in the South; I don't think I ever
had "grea[z]y", but I know many people in my region did.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Is whether <s> or <se> at the end of English words pronouced as [s] or
[z] random or are there rules?

For example, <loose> seems to have [s] and <lose> [z].
Peter T. Daniels
2011-07-04 13:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Nathan Sanders
In article
Post by António Marques
Some years ago I asked whether there was any association nowadays
between lousy and louse and I think Peter(?) replied there wasn't and
nobody contradicted him; but that could have been only for unambiguous
context.
(I just said it again, if it was me. If it wasn't me, I just said it.)
Post by Nathan Sanders
For me, in speech, "lou[z]y" doesn't trigger immediate associations
with "louse", but "lou[s]y" does.
In fact, I'd probably have to say that for me, "lou[z]y" is only ever
metaphorical, and "lou[s]y" is only ever literal.
I've never encountered [s] for the etymological sense.
I can't say that I've ever encountered the etymological sense at all
("lice-infested" yes, but not "lousy").  If I were to hear "lou[s]y",
I would interpret it as "lice-infested" (or perhaps, "louse-like").
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which do you have in <greasy>?
After I posted, I thought that I might should have noted that.  I have
"grea[s]y", despite being raised in the South; I don't think I ever
had "grea[z]y", but I know many people in my region did.
Is whether <s> or <se> at the end of English words pronouced as [s] or
[z] random or are there rules?
For example, <loose> seems to have [s] and <lose> [z].-
There's no "seems" about it.

There are "rules," and there are exceptions.

The relevant literature includes volumes by Carney, Chomsky & Halle,
Cummings, and Venezky.
Ruud Harmsen
2011-07-04 13:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Is whether <s> or <se> at the end of English words pronouced as [s] or
[z] random or are there rules?
For example, <loose> seems to have [s] and <lose> [z].
In part, the same rules apply as for /T/ vs. /D/:
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm

Example: close as an adjective (with /s/) and close as a verb (with
/z/). OTOH, cease is also a verb but has /s/, other than seize with
/z/.
--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new
a***@hotmail.com
2011-07-04 14:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Is whether <s> or <se> at the end of English words pronouced as [s] or
[z] random or are there rules?
For example, <loose> seems to have [s] and <lose> [z].
In part, the same rules apply as for /T/ vs. /D/:http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm
Example: close as an adjective (with /s/) and close as a verb (with
/z/). OTOH, cease is also a verb but has /s/, other than seize with
/z/.
--
Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com/new
Thanks - a wealth of information about [T] versus [D].

There is probably a deeper regularity buried among the individual
rules.

Since English doesn't have dental [t/d] would they (when used by non-
natives) be heard as interdental [T/D] by natives?

Trond Engen
2011-06-29 07:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Sanders
[snip discussion of etymology of "shark"]
Interesting. Tom Jones (who AFAICT is not a linguist) argues that
http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT07/Xoc.pdf
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002843.php
Thanks. I remember seeing that etymology. I have looked at 'shark' a
couple of times before, but for some reason I haven't started looking
from the Norwegian side (or if I have, I have forgot about it).
Post by Nathan Sanders
The evidence seems slim either way.
Granted. But I do think mine is the shortest shot.

I have no problem seeing why etymologists are reluctant to connect it to
German <Schurk> alone, but Norwegian <skark> comes with the right
phonological form and the plausible semantic point of departure of
"lousy fish". It's really strange that etymologists of English seem to
have missed it -- especially since there are Norwegian lexicographers
who haven't. I suppose there's a linguistic argument somewhere, but it's
not immediately obvious -- to me, anyway.
--
Trond Engen
Brian M. Scott
2011-06-29 09:04:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:15 +0200, Trond Engen
<***@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:iuek0t$rns$***@dont-email.me> in sci.lang:

[...]
Post by Trond Engen
I have no problem seeing why etymologists are reluctant to
connect [<shark>] to German <Schurk> alone, but
Norwegian <skark> comes with the right phonological form
and the plausible semantic point of departure of "lousy
fish". It's really strange that etymologists of English
seem to have missed it --
Not so strange, if one considers that the word has been
thought to have appeared simultaneously with the first
specimen to reach London (1565); see
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shark>.

However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
Post by Trond Engen
especially since there are Norwegian lexicographers who
haven't. I suppose there's a linguistic argument
somewhere, but it's not immediately obvious -- to me,
anyway.
Norw. <skark> 'miserable animal; miserable person' must be
from ON <skarkr> 'magerer Mensch; mageres Tier'. According
to de Vries, Holthausen suggested that this was the source
of ME <scorrcnen> 'schrumpfen'; however, the MED glosses
<scorcnen> 'to become singed or scorched; to make (sth.)
dry, parch', which is a bit different from 'schrumpfen',
though it compares it with ON <skorpna> 'to shrivel up' and
Swed. dial. <skorpna>, <skorkn>. The MED citations are from
~1460 for the first sense and from the Ormulum for the
second (as the past part. <scorrcnedd>).

Brian
Trond Engen
2011-06-29 11:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:15 +0200, Trond Engen
[...]
Post by Trond Engen
I have no problem seeing why etymologists are reluctant to
connect [<shark>] to German <Schurk> alone, but
Norwegian <skark> comes with the right phonological form
and the plausible semantic point of departure of "lousy
fish". It's really strange that etymologists of English
seem to have missed it --
Not so strange, if one considers that the word has been
thought to have appeared simultaneously with the first
specimen to reach London (1565); see
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shark>.
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
Thank you! That's the sort of thing I hoped would turn up. It doesn't
establish a Germanic origin, but it does put it firmly into a context of
pre-discovery maritime terminology -- and also sweeps a new world origin
completely off the table.
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by Trond Engen
especially since there are Norwegian lexicographers who
haven't. I suppose there's a linguistic argument
somewhere, but it's not immediately obvious -- to me,
anyway.
Norw. <skark> 'miserable animal; miserable person' must be
from ON <skarkr> 'magerer Mensch; mageres Tier'. According
to de Vries, Holthausen suggested that this was the source
of ME <scorrcnen> 'schrumpfen'; however, the MED glosses
<scorcnen> 'to become singed or scorched; to make (sth.)
dry, parch', which is a bit different from 'schrumpfen',
though it compares it with ON <skorpna> 'to shrivel up' and
Swed. dial. <skorpna>, <skorkn>. The MED citations are from
~1460 for the first sense and from the Ormulum for the
second (as the past part. <scorrcnedd>).
There's a really messy group of words here. Some or all of Eng. <scar>,
<scorch>, <scorn>, <scurvy>, Scand. <skarn>, <skarv>, <skjør>, <skorpe>
are either derived from or contaminated by what seems to be phonetically
close or homonymous roots. Not too far away are <shrivel>, <shrimp>,
<skral>, <skræling>, <skrap>, <skrot>.
--
Trond Engen
Trond Engen
2011-06-29 21:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trond Engen
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:15 +0200, Trond Engen
[...]
Post by Trond Engen
I have no problem seeing why etymologists are reluctant to
connect [<shark>] to German <Schurk> alone, but
Norwegian <skark> comes with the right phonological form
and the plausible semantic point of departure of "lousy
fish". It's really strange that etymologists of English
seem to have missed it --
Not so strange, if one considers that the word has been
thought to have appeared simultaneously with the first
specimen to reach London (1565); see
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shark>.
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
Thank you! That's the sort of thing I hoped would turn up. It doesn't
establish a Germanic origin, but it does put it firmly into a context
of pre-discovery maritime terminology -- and also sweeps a new world
origin completely off the table.
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by Trond Engen
especially since there are Norwegian lexicographers who
haven't. I suppose there's a linguistic argument
somewhere, but it's not immediately obvious -- to me,
anyway.
Norw. <skark> 'miserable animal; miserable person' must be
from ON <skarkr> 'magerer Mensch; mageres Tier'. According
to de Vries, Holthausen suggested that this was the source
of ME <scorrcnen> 'schrumpfen'; however, the MED glosses
<scorcnen> 'to become singed or scorched; to make (sth.)
dry, parch', which is a bit different from 'schrumpfen',
though it compares it with ON <skorpna> 'to shrivel up' and
Swed. dial. <skorpna>, <skorkn>. The MED citations are from
~1460 for the first sense and from the Ormulum for the
second (as the past part. <scorrcnedd>).
There's a really messy group of words here. Some or all of Eng.
<scar>, <scorch>, <scorn>, <scurvy>, Scand. <skarn>, <skarv>,
<skjør>, <skorpe> are either derived from or contaminated by what
seems to be phonetically close or homonymous roots. Not too far away
are <shrivel>, <shrimp>, <skral>, <skræling>, <skrap>, <skrot>.
And then there's a group of seemingly related words wirhout s-: No.
<herk> "rubbish", <hork> f. 3. "sickly, miserable person; old or shabby
woman" (acc. to Norsk Ordbok 2014 from *herk "scrape, shrink, be
rough"), <hork> m. "ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) (a small fish)".

I think what I want to suggest is a suffixed form *(s)ker-k- of the root
*(s)ker- "cut (off)", which early acquired a figurative meaning as seen
in <skarn> "faeces; outcast". I see that the -k-suffix by some is
supposed to be frequentative, thus *(s)ker-k- might have meant both
"rub, scrape, saw" and "routinely get rid of", essentially "throw out as
rubbish". The variously ablauted verbal nouns would then have basic
meanings like "fit to be thrown out" and "thrown out", or (from the
literal meaning) "sawdust", all easily coming to mean "rubbish".
Derivations from *(s)ker- have been made over and over again, giving an
endless number of forms with similar meanings.
--
Trond Engen
Trond Engen
2011-06-30 07:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trond Engen
I think what I want to suggest is a suffixed form *(s)ker-k- of the
root *(s)ker- "cut (off)", which early acquired a figurative meaning as
seen in <skarn> "faeces; outcast". I see that the -k-suffix by some is
supposed to be frequentative, thus *(s)ker-k- might have meant both
"rub, scrape, saw" and "routinely get rid of", essentially "throw out
as rubbish". The variously ablauted verbal nouns would then have basic
meanings like "fit to be thrown out" and "thrown out", or (from the
literal meaning) "sawdust", all easily coming to mean "rubbish".
Derivations from *(s)ker- have been made over and over again, giving an
endless number of forms with similar meanings.
This, of course, is unexciting. I hoped that a deeper pattern would
emerge across the different forms.

But I do think I've made a case that <shark> is native.
--
Trond Engen
Adam Funk
2011-06-29 11:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
I assume MED = Middle English Dictionary. If not, please ignore the
following. ;-)

If so, why does it have a citation that's almost entirely in Latin ---
is that the only thing they have for "le Shark" (which doesn't look so
English written that way)?

The OED's first citation is from 1569 --- is the OED pickier than the
MED about having a word in a context that's mostly in English?
--
When you look at a photograph of the earth you don't see any
borders. That realization is where our hope as a planet lies.
[Graham Nash]
Matthew Bladen
2011-06-29 18:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Brian M. Scott
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
I assume MED = Middle English Dictionary. If not, please ignore the
following. ;-)
If so, why does it have a citation that's almost entirely in Latin ---
is that the only thing they have for "le Shark" (which doesn't look so
English written that way)?
The OED's first citation is from 1569 --- is the OED pickier than the
MED about having a word in a context that's mostly in English?
It's probably the case that the MED post-dates the work carried out on
the OED entry in this instance, since that section of OED hasn't yet
been revised. The majority of OED 2nd edition material goes back to the
first edition, so the entry for shark n. is around a hundred years old.
When the ongoing OED 3rd edition gets to S, it will take account of MED
and the many other resources that are now available.
--
Matthew
Adam Funk
2011-06-29 19:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Bladen
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Brian M. Scott
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
I assume MED = Middle English Dictionary. If not, please ignore the
following. ;-)
If so, why does it have a citation that's almost entirely in Latin ---
is that the only thing they have for "le Shark" (which doesn't look so
English written that way)?
The OED's first citation is from 1569 --- is the OED pickier than the
MED about having a word in a context that's mostly in English?
It's probably the case that the MED post-dates the work carried out on
the OED entry in this instance, since that section of OED hasn't yet
been revised. The majority of OED 2nd edition material goes back to the
first edition, so the entry for shark n. is around a hundred years old.
When the ongoing OED 3rd edition gets to S, it will take account of MED
and the many other resources that are now available.
Ah right, I see (on checking the OED again) that the entry for "shark
n1" is described as "Second edition, 1989; online version June 2011".
I'm not really familiar withe MED --- when was it done?
--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.
Brian M. Scott
2011-06-29 20:31:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:42:13 +0100, Adam Funk
<***@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:***@news.ducksburg.com> in sci.lang:

[...]
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not really familiar withe MED --- when was it done?
The print MED was completed in 2001; it was started about 75
years earlier. It's been freely available in searchable
form at <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/> since 2007.

Brian
Adam Funk
2011-07-01 13:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:42:13 +0100, Adam Funk
[...]
Post by Adam Funk
I'm not really familiar withe MED --- when was it done?
The print MED was completed in 2001; it was started about 75
years earlier. It's been freely available in searchable
form at <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/> since 2007.
Thanks!
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
Brian M. Scott
2011-06-29 18:59:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:36:15 +0100, Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Brian M. Scott
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
I assume MED = Middle English Dictionary. If not, please
ignore the following. ;-)
If so, why does it have a citation that's almost entirely
in Latin --- is that the only thing they have for "le
Shark" (which doesn't look so English written that way)?
Yes: 'It's the only ME instance of the word in the MED'.
Post by Adam Funk
The OED's first citation is from 1569 --- is the OED
pickier than the MED about having a word in a context
that's mostly in English?
Not to my knowledge, though if I remember correctly it
encloses such quotations in square brackets or some such. I
suspect that the editors simply weren't aware of the 1442
citation; I'd expect it to be taken into account when the
current revision reaches <shark>.

By the way, the citation is from the letters of Thomas
Bekynton, Secretary to Henry VI and Bishop of Bath and
Wells.

Brian
Adam Funk
2011-06-29 19:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:36:15 +0100, Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Brian M. Scott
However, I find in the MED a 1442 citation, <Circiter horam
vijam in sero per æstimationem navem sequebatur piscis
vocatus le Shark, qui quidem piscis percutiebatur bis cum
uno harpingyren et recessit>. It's the only ME instance of
the word in the MED. (Not too surprisingly, this is also
the only instance that it cites of <harping-iren>
'harpoon'.)
I assume MED = Middle English Dictionary. If not, please
ignore the following. ;-)
If so, why does it have a citation that's almost entirely
in Latin --- is that the only thing they have for "le
Shark" (which doesn't look so English written that way)?
Yes: 'It's the only ME instance of the word in the MED'.
Fair response. I guess what I really meant was more like this: hey,
that's cheating --- there's hardly any ME in that citation.
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by Adam Funk
The OED's first citation is from 1569 --- is the OED
pickier than the MED about having a word in a context
that's mostly in English?
Not to my knowledge, though if I remember correctly it
encloses such quotations in square brackets or some such. I
suspect that the editors simply weren't aware of the 1442
citation; I'd expect it to be taken into account when the
current revision reaches <shark>.
Right.
--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001)
Adam Funk
2011-06-29 11:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trond Engen
[Here's a post I've had in writing for a week, but I don't seem to find
the time to finish my research. So I'll just throw it out as is and see
what turns up.]
(Sounds like a good idea to me.)
Post by Trond Engen
I think it's pretty clear that English <shark> is an English reflex (or
an ON loan) of a Germanic word meaning "miserable thing", acquiring its
current meaning through "bad fish".
It would seem to be closely related to <skarv> n. "cormorant; crook" and
<skarve> adj. "lousy".
The OED has for shark n1 (selachian fish...):

Etymology: Of obscure origin.

The word seems to have been introduced by the sailors of Captain
(afterwards Sir John) Hawkins's expedition, who brought home a
specimen which was exhibited in London in 1569. The source from
which they obtained the word has not been ascertained. Compare
German dial. (Austrian) schirk sturgeon: see shirk n.2

The conjecture of Skeat that the name of the fish is derived <
shark v.1 is untenable; the earliest example of the vb. is c1596,
and the passage alludes to the fish.

Shark n2 is a now obsolete form of shirk n1 ("worthless and
impecunious person... parasite..."), cognate with German "schurke".

For shark v1 (prey upon, victimize, swindle, practise fraud):

Etymology: Of uncertain origin.

It seems likely that two different words have been more or less
confused from the time of the earliest examples; the one (which has
the variants sherk(e, shirk(e: see shirk v.) < shark n.2, and the
other < shark n.1 The senses naturally resulting from these
derivations respectively are so nearly allied, and the use with
mixed notions is so frequent, that the two verbs cannot be
distinguished.

Skeat conjectured that this verb (which he regarded as the source,
not the derivative, of the two ns.) was a north-eastern French
cherquier = French chercher to seek, originally to go about to
find. He refers to the phrase ‘cercher le broust, to hunt after
feasts, to play the parasite or smell-feast’ (Cotgrave), and to the
similar Italian ‘cercare del pane, to shift for how to live’
(Torriano). In view of the senses of this verb and those of shark
n.2 (parasite, one who lives by shifts), the citation of these
phrases gives striking plausibility to Skeat's hypothesis, which
would also account for the divergent forms shark, sherk, shirk. But
the sense in which the French verb is assumed to have been adopted
is merely contextual in the phrase quoted; further, the importation
of the French word in a dialectal form at the end of the 16th
cent. would be surprising, and if (which is unlikely) the adoption
took place early the initial sound would normally be ch, not sh.
--
The internet is quite simply a glorious place. Where else can you find
bootlegged music and films, questionable women, deep seated xenophobia
and amusing cats all together in the same place? [Tom Belshaw]
Trond Engen
2011-06-29 20:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Trond Engen
[Here's a post I've had in writing for a week, but I don't seem to
find the time to finish my research. So I'll just throw it out as is
and see what turns up.]
(Sounds like a good idea to me.)
Yeah, one problem is that there's too much unsorted material around, so
I don't know which loose end to pull.
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Trond Engen
I think it's pretty clear that English <shark> is an English reflex
(or an ON loan)
No. A loan from ON would have had <sk->.
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Trond Engen
of a Germanic word meaning "miserable thing",
acquiring its current meaning through "bad fish".
It would seem to be closely related to <skarv> n. "cormorant; crook"
and <skarve> adj. "lousy".
Etymology: Of obscure origin.
The word seems to have been introduced by the sailors of Captain
(afterwards Sir John) Hawkins's expedition, who brought home a
specimen which was exhibited in London in 1569. The source from
which they obtained the word has not been ascertained. Compare
German dial. (Austrian) schirk sturgeon: see shirk n.2
The conjecture of Skeat that the name of the fish is derived <
shark v.1 is untenable; the earliest example of the vb. is c1596,
and the passage alludes to the fish.
Shark n2 is a now obsolete form of shirk n1 ("worthless and
impecunious person... parasite..."), cognate with German "schurke".
Another instance pointing to ablaut.
Post by Adam Funk
Etymology: Of uncertain origin.
It seems likely that two different words have been more or less
confused from the time of the earliest examples; the one (which
has the variants sherk(e, shirk(e: see shirk v.) < shark n.2, and
the other < shark n.1 The senses naturally resulting from these
derivations respectively are so nearly allied, and the use with
mixed notions is so frequent, that the two verbs cannot be
distinguished.
Skeat conjectured that this verb (which he regarded as the source,
not the derivative, of the two ns.) was a north-eastern French
cherquier = French chercher to seek, originally to go about to
find. He refers to the phrase ‘cercher le broust, to hunt after
feasts, to play the parasite or smell-feast’ (Cotgrave), and to
the similar Italian ‘cercare del pane, to shift for how to live’
(Torriano). In view of the senses of this verb and those of shark
n.2 (parasite, one who lives by shifts), the citation of these
phrases gives striking plausibility to Skeat's hypothesis, which
would also account for the divergent forms shark, sherk, shirk.
But the sense in which the French verb is assumed to have been
adopted is merely contextual in the phrase quoted; further, the
importation of the French word in a dialectal form at the end of
the 16th cent. would be surprising, and if (which is unlikely)
the adoption took place early the initial sound would normally be
ch, not sh.
So out with that, however imaginative.
--
Trond Engen
Loading...