This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Margherita
in reply to a message by Bear
Here is where we get problems by using present tense when discussing etymology. "Pearl" is what the Greek word that Margaret is based on meant in ancient times. The Greek word wasn't exactly "Margaret", it was "margarites". The meaning of "pearl" is really all in terms of historical derivation; "margaret" is not the word for "pearl" in any present language that I am aware of. On the other hand, "marguerite" is the word for "daisy" in modern French (probably being derived somehow from the given name, just as the English flower name "marigold" was derived from the given name Mary), and "margherita" means "daisy" in modern Italian. So really the present tense is appropriate for Marguerite and Margherita "meaning" daisy, though of course it's not true for Margaret. I worry sometimes that when we use the present tense "means" instead of the past tense "meant" that we make it too easy for people to try to turn etymology into a form of astrology or numerology, where they assume that the original "meaning" of name is really going to affect the sort of person their child turns out to be. I certainly have read some articles by people who seem to believe that. Oh well, off my soapbox. :) Language is a complex thing, and the term "meaning" itself obviously can mean several different things!
vote up1vote down

Replies

it's the same in DutchMargriet is actually the modern word for "daisy", there are people who name their child with the flower in mind and also those who see it as a form of Margaret. So I suppose it means both.

This message was edited 11/20/2006, 3:37 AM

vote up1vote down
I agree. Two names very much in line with what you say are Catherine and Beatrice ... modern parents concerned with giving their daughters 'meaningful' names are very likely to select 'purity' or 'making happy' rather than some or other meaning that hasn't been current for a millennium or three, and it seems churlish to burst their balloons. Give them the scholarly information, certainly, but also mention the history of the names and how they acquired their present-day meanings, which by now surely have some status of their own.We don't, after all, mean that someone is blessed when we say they're silly, or lacking in wax when we say they're sincere. Why should names retain their original meanings when non-name words don't?
vote up1vote down
The "without wax" meaning for "sincere" is a complete myth. I don't know where the myth came from - probably a clever "reverse etymology" that someone invented for fun - but its current popularity is no doubt due to its use (and presentation as a "fact") in a Dan Brown novel. It has no basis in fact.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sincere
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sincerity
~Chrisell~ Proudly Australian www.archaeochrisell.blogspot.com
vote up1vote down
What fun! Ain't read no Dan Brown - got half-way down the first page of the Code and fell asleep - but someone I'd always believed to be a totally reliable high-school English teacher is now revealed to have had feet, or maybe a toe, of clay; either that or she had a hitherto unsuspected sense of humour, all those years ago. Thanks!
vote up1vote down