This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Etymology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Etymology Task Force. Folklore Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‘For example, the Old French word orenge ("orange tree") comes from Arabic النرنج‎ an nāranj ("the orange tree"), with the initial n of nāranj understood as part of the article.[11] Rebracketing in the opposite direction saw the Middle English a napron become an apron.’ I don’t understand how this is the opposite direction. One example is “an n..” becoming “an ..”, the other example is “a n..” becoming “an ..”. In both cases the n ends up on the left, as part of the article. The difference is not one of direction: in the latter case it has moved from one side to the other, in the other is has been removed from one side but remained on the other. Unless I’m missing something? Mazz0 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we need an example of genuinely going in the opposite direction, how about 'a nick-name', which was originally 'an eke-name', but the n went in the other direction. Scaramouche (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again....

'Welsh rabbit', meaning cheese grilled on toast, was a sneer at the Welsh for being peasants too poor to afford meat. 'Rarebit' was lame Victorian-era humour, a meaningless pun.

cf 'Underground mutton', an expression from Colonial-era Australia. It meant 'rabbit' and it was a sneer at those settlers who could not afford to raise and/or eat sheep. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:BCCE:B5A:C7D6:AA71 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Hamburger' is described here, as well as in the Wiktionary entries of 'reanalysis' and 'rebracketing', as reanalyzed as 'ham + burger'. I find it rather unlikely. Hamburger is so different from ham that no one should think the words are connected. Furthermore, such reanalysis can't explain the emergence of the word 'cheeseburger', which is the first attested word with the component 'burger' (aside from 'hamburger', of course). I think it much more likely to say the phrase 'cheese hamburger' was shortened to 'cheeseburger' without any thought of ham, and from there 'burger' was accepted as a shortening of hamburger, first in compounds and later also by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.9.46 (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a reference for the hamburger claim. If you believe the claim is incorrect, you will have to provide a reliable source saying so. Wikipedia does not host original research. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference:

• Shukla, Shaligram; Connor-Linton, Jeff (2006). "8. Language Change". In R. Fasold and J. Connor-Linton (ed.). An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84768-1.

The relevant text from the reference, the fourth paragraph in the Analogy section on page 296 (bold and italics as in the source):

Sometimes new forms are created or existing forms receive a new interpretation through folk etymology or reanalysis, when speakers of a language misconstrue the morphological constituents of a word. Thus, hamburger (whose true etymology is 'the city of Hamburg' + er 'someone from') has been reanalyzed as ham+burger 'burger made with ham'. It is quite irrelevant that ham is not used in hamburger. Subsequently, on the analogy of this folk etymology, new forms such as cheeseburger, chiliburger, and plain burger have been created.

This has a few issues.

• No cites or references of its own. This appears less as researched lexicography and more as the author's own speculation.
• Self-contradictory. Claims that hamburger was reanalyzed as "burger made with ham", and then claims that ham is irrelevant.
• Disagrees with the history of the terms as recorded in dictionaries. As our anonymous 147 contributor above suggests, Merriam-Webster's hamburger entry records this as first appearing in 1884 with the sense "ground beef". Their cheeseburger entry is dated to 1928. Their burger entry isn't dated until 1937, in the sense of hamburger. The history of the terms is consistent with hamburger → cheese + hamburger → shortening / clipping to cheeseburger → reanalysis of burger to mean just "hamburger". If reanalysis happened first, then burger should appear in the historical record before cheeseburger, but that is not the case -- at least, as documented in references.

Considering the shakiness of the Shukla reference for hamburger, and the presence already in the paragraph of a better example in sparrowgrass, I've been WP:BOLD and removed the clause about hamburger. I've also linked through to Eggcorn, since that article discusses similar examples of such re-interpretation causing changes in words. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late to weigh in on the suggested move, but I thought I should point out a related discussion over at Wiktionary: wikt:Talk:folk_etymology#Archived_from_RFV:_January_2014. Investigation at that time found that most sources used the term "folk etymology" in the sense currently described in the Wikipedia article at False etymology. Here are seven examples from Google Books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

I would posit that the sense of "folk etymology" that refers to the process of word change 1) would benefit from a better lede to clarify that there is another popular sense to the term, and that that sense is covered by our False etymology article, and 2) could use a better title, perhaps Folk etymology (linguistics), to clarify that this article is about folk etymology, in this specific context of linguistics research. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Folk etymology" in the sense of "false etymology" and "reanalysis" as a means of grammaticalization in historical linguistics are two very different things. The current title and lead of the article is confusing. Betty (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The example of the use of "wanita" in Indonesia does not explain what the words in question mean (which can be inferred but is not explicitly stated) and does not elaborate on why this example is relevant to the article. As written, it seems to suggest this is just a word with a problematic etymology, not anything to do with the topic of this article. IRN-Dumas (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]