This is a great question, and a good topic for a Tuesday afternoon thread about etymology. Buckle up! /1
All else being equal, we generally expect words to be similar between related languages. However, there are always times when words shift in meaning, perhaps becoming more or less specialised than they used to be. /2
An example is the word for "dog" in German _Hund_, Dutch _hond_, Danish _hund_, and other Germanic languages. The English cognate of this word is _hound_, which has a more specialised meaning: specifically, a hound is a dog used for work or hunting, not a pet. /3
Another example is English _deer_, which is cognate with German _Tier_, Dutch _dier_, Danish _dyr_, all of which mean "animal". So _deer_ in English underwent specialisation in its meaning, and we use the Latin-derived word _animal_ to refer to the general category. /4
So, on to butterflies. Modern English _butterfly_ originates as Old English _buterflēoge_. We see similar words in Old Dutch & Old High German, and indeed you might see _botervlieg_ or _Butterfliege_ in older Dutch or German texts. These words all literally mean "butter fly". /5
Of course, Modern German uses _Schmetterling_, which is a beautiful word. It is likely derived from Middle German _Schmetten_ "cream" plus _ling_, which is an association suffix. A rough translation could be "creamling" or "little creamy". /6
There appears to be a fairly widespread association between butterflies and dairy products in Western Germanic cultures. Don't ask me why. We can see this further in dialects of German which call them the _Molkendieb_ "whey thief" or _Botterlicker_ "butter licker". /7
The Dutch, always the odd ones out, took a different approach, and you can find _boterschijte_, "butter shitter" in some dialects. Thanks, guys. /8
The more common word in Modern Dutch is actually _vlinder_. Here's our first word which doesn't have anything to do with dairy products! /9
Dutch _vlinder_ also appears to be cognate with Swedish _fjäril_ - our first connection outside of the Western Germanic subfamily! It's likely that this word goes back to proto-Germanic. /10
While we're in Scandinavia, it's worth noting that Danish and Norwegian prefer _sommerfugl_, literally "summer bird". /11
Over in the Romance languages, the picture is less clear. French _papillon_ comes from Latin _papilio_ "butterfly, moth". But in other Romance languages we see different words: Spanish _mariposa_, Italian _farfalla_, Portuguese _borboleta_, Romanian _fluture_. /12
One account of _mariposa_ is that it's a contraction of _¡María, posate!_ "Maria, land!". Apparently this was a common way of addressing butterflies in children's rhymes and stories. I'm sceptical although it's one of the more widely-accepted accounts. /13
There's a similar account of _mariquita_ "ladybird" too, asking María the ladybird to leave, however the use of _quitar_ as an intransitive verb seems odd to me. (I'm not an expert in Spanish, though, and I'm happy to be corrected on this point.) /14
Aside from _mariposa_, I don't know that any of these Romance words have well-understood origins. Etymology is not an experimental science and we're not able to run experiments to easily test hypotheses. For many words we just have educated guesses or wild speculation. /15
(Generally speaking, however, the more fantastical-sounding an etymology is, the less likely it is to be true. Sorry!) /16
Circling back, though, we can ask: why does this common insect keep having its name changed? You'd think that names would be relatively stable, except for a little semantic shift wiggling here and there. /17
And indeed, we do see a little semantic wiggle room between languages - for example, Danish _somerfugl_ can refer to both butterflies and moths (with the terms _dagsomerfugl_ "day summer bird" and _natsomerfugl_ "night summer bird" used to disambiguate when necessary). /18
To answer the question, though: I think that butterflies have so many names because butterflies are both appealing and unimportant. /19
Appealing in that they're visually striking, both in their colouration and their movement. They're quite charming little insects, really. This lends itself well to poetic names and allusions that we might want to call them by, just for the sheer verbal joy of it. /20
Unimportant in that they are not central to a trade, a craft, or form a major component of human activity. They're not something we talk about a lot, and the talk is not serious business talk. We don't need standardised terms or unambiguous names. /21
(Unless of course you're an entomologist (reading a thread about etymology!), in which case you might talk about them a lot! But there weren't many of your kind in the early Old English period.) /22
Butterflies are fun and trivial, which makes tracking down their word history difficult. Thanks for reading! /fin
Addendum: If you're the nit-picking type (this is Twitter, after all...), you're probably thinking that my example of "dog" earlier disproves this thesis. English, for whatever perverse reasons, disregarded the wonderful word _hound_ and adopted the word of unknown origins _dog_.
This is despite the fact that dogs are a major part of human activity (hunting, guarding, companionship)! So, Rory is wrong, don't listen to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
My response is that the "dog" case is exceptional, and English is an outlier. All the other Germanic languages (except Scots) use the _hound_-derived word.
For "butterfly", on the other hand, it seems that everyone just wanted to pick and choose a brand new name. There's very little systematicity about it. So, I think my hypothesis still stands.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rory Turnbull

Rory Turnbull Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @_roryturnbull

25 May
I haven't posted about my research in a while (because pandemic, whee), but I'm pleased to share "Graph-theoretic Properties of the Class of Phonological Neighbourhood Networks", to be presented at CMCL: aclweb.org/anthology/2021…
The paper outlines the beginning of a research agenda in the formal properties of phonological neighbourhood networks, which is a representational tool for looking at how lexical structure is organized.
Studies involving phonological neighbourhood networks are on the rise, yet we (as a field) don't know very much about the intrinsic properties of these networks. This could lead to problems, especially if we just blindly apply standard network-theoretic methods.
Read 5 tweets
14 Jul 20
German and English words are usually pretty similar. Maus~mouse, Milch~milk, Wasser~water, sechs~six, Vater~father. But the German word for horse, "Pferd", is nothing like English. What happened? A thread. /1
English and German both share a common ancestor, which linguists refer to as "Proto-Germanic", spoken around 2,000 years ago in the north German plain and modern-day Denmark. Other Germanic languages include Norwegian, Dutch, Gothic, Faroese, and Afrikaans. /2
This proto-language presumably had only a single word for horse. Was it the ancestor of modern "horse" or the ancestor of "Pferd"? Which word is original and which one is an interloper? /3
Read 26 tweets
3 Apr 19
Fun fact: The word "bear" is originally "the brown one" because there was a taboo against saying the bear's true name. Time for a thread about animal name taboos! /1
The Proto-Indo-European word for bear was *h₂ŕ̥tḱos, literally "the destroyer". This is reflected in modern French "ours", Greek "arktos", Sanskrit "ṛ́kṣa", Persian "خرس", and others. The name "Arthur" comes from the Welsh form. /2
Germanic tribes re-dubbed the bear "the brown one" to avoid saying its name. Russians called it "honey eater", and Lithuanians "the licker", possibly in reference to the folk theory that bears are born formless and their mothers lick them into shape. /3
Read 17 tweets
12 Aug 18
Has anyone else noticed how a great many problems in academia and academic publishing today are due to the use of publications as a measure of research productivity? A thread:
Using journal "prestige" (or IF) to assess research quality, rather than the attributes of the research itself, increases their value of established journals and publishers. This leads to those journals playing a gatekeeping role rather than a true peer-review role.
In order to retain their high prestige, the gatekeeping journals must prioritize the publication of exciting novel results. This disincentivizes the publication of replications, null results, and work that isn't deemed "ground-breaking".
Read 11 tweets
15 May 18
Okay, this is a pretty amazing auditory illusion. Here's what I think is going on. In the first syllable, there's only one major spectral peak below 2.5kHz. It has a wide bandwidth, which is consistent with an F1 and F2 very close together: an /ɑ/ (for "Laurel"). /1
The higher spectral prominence dips down about halfway through the word, between the two syllables. If the lower spectral prominence is F1 & F2, then the higher one must be F3. A low F3 = /ɹ/! Given the overall frequencies, the voice sounds male. /2
But what if we treat that higher spectral prominence as an F2, rather than an F3? Then we have a very high F2 in the first syllable, consistent with a front vowel or approximant, e.g. /j/. The F2 stays pretty high and the F1 gradually rises, giving a percept of /jæ/. /3
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(