According to howard zinn, this word was invented in the 19th century only, to refer to young women. How did this get applied to old ladies?

CV

Chevalier_Violet - 12 September 2007 01:42 PM

According to howard zinn, this word was invented in the 19th century only, to refer to young women. How did this get applied to old ladies?

CV

etymonline has

1362, “female spinner of thread,” from M.E. spinnen (see spin) + -stere, feminine suffix. Spinning commonly done by unmarried women, hence the word came to denote “an unmarried woman” in legal documents from 1600s to early 1900s, and by 1719 was being used generically for “woman still unmarried and beyond the usual age for it.”

“Spinster, a terme, or an addition in our Common Law, onely added in Obligations, Euidences, and Writings, vnto maids vnmarried.” [John Minsheu, “Ductor in Linguas,” 1617]

On the age issue, we discussed this back in 2005.

Do not take Howard Zinn as your guide in matters linguistic.

Interestingly enough, the suffix -ster in Old English was originally a feminine nominal agentive one. When Norman was introduced to the English, later on, the -er part of it was reanalyzed as a masculine nominal agentive suffix, and -stress was coined tacking on the VL -issa suffix. You still see this suffix in family names like Baxter ‘baker’, webster ‘weaver’, Brewster ‘brewer’, etc. Words like seamstress replaced the older ones, etc.

and -stress was coined tacking on the VL -issa suffix.

I hate to ask, but, VL?  Venetian Latin?

Anyway, jheem, your contributions are extraordinary.  They come from worlds I know nothing about.  THanks.

You’ll slap your forehead in a minute. Think St. Jerome.

I second your comments about jheem.

Dr. Techie - 12 September 2007 06:15 PM

You’ll slap your forehead in a minute. Think St. Jerome.

I second your comments about jheem.

Damn.  And I’m a person of such vulgar persuasions.  I should have gotten that right away.

The punch-line has been breached: id est, Vulgar Latin. Thanks you two.

Were you actually setting up a joke, jheem?  I hate to have my punchlines stepped on and hate to step on anyone else’s, but I sure didn’t see it.

Were you actually setting up a joke

No, not intentionally, Dr Techie. I’m sorry if it seemed that way.

jheem - 12 September 2007 05:39 PM

Interestingly enough, the suffix -ster in Old English was originally a feminine nominal agentive one. When Norman was introduced to the English, later on, the -er part of it was reanalyzed as a masculine nominal agentive suffix, and -stress was coined tacking on the VL -issa suffix. You still see this suffix in family names like Baxter ‘baker’, webster ‘weaver’, Brewster ‘brewer’, etc. Words like seamstress replaced the older ones, etc.

Are the family names as quoted likely to derive from before or after the masculinization of the ending “-ster”? (I’d guess after, but it would be interesting if there were some that predated the conquest).

Probably after the Conquest, but it’s just a gut feeling. Maybe Languagehat knows.

The English mostly started using surnames during the 13th and 14th centuries. Only a few noble families were using them any earlier than that.

Interesting stuff.

I can vouch for the fact that they still use the -ster ending in Dutch for women’s occupations etc (was going to say ‘feminine nouns’ but bit ambiguous!) e.g. ‘sportster’ (female athlete or player).

The -er is still used for male occupations or jobs.

And so it would still be in English if it weren’t for those pesky Normans!
Scoobie-doo!

(ps just occurred to me the Dutch also have ‘-eres’ alongside ‘-ster’ as a female suffix. They got their French version a lot later though, only in Napoleonic times.)

For the sake of completeness, more from the OED (excuse the length of the citation):

… -ster represents a WGer. type -strjn-, forming feminine agent-nouns, prob. a derivative of the OTeut. -stro- forming nouns of action ...
In OE. -estre was freely used to form fem. agent-nouns, in exactly the same manner in which -ere (-ER1) was used to form masc. agent-nouns…
In a few instances fem. agent-nouns were formed by the substitution of -estre for the masc. suffix -a ... as in bigengestre fem. of bigenga cultivator, worshipper, webestre (WEBSTER) beside webbe as fem. of webba weaver…
In OE. the suffix may be said to have retained its original function, for the few instances in which it is used as a masculine are renderings of Latin designations of men exercising functions which among the English were peculiar to women, as byrdistræ embroiderer (gl. blaciarius, primicularius), bæcestre baker (gl. pistor), séamestre tailor (gl. sartor), wæscestre washer (gl. fullo).
In northern ME., however, perh. owing to the frequent adoption by men of trades like weaving, baking, tailoring, etc., the suffix came very early to be used, indiscriminately with -ER1, as an agential ending irrespective of gender…
It is probable that -ster was often preferred to -er as more unambiguously referring to the holder of a professional function, as distinguished from the doer of an occasional act. In Scotland, baxter and webster survived as masculines down to the 19th c. The only word of this formation that in Scotland has remained exclusively feminine is SEWSTER…
In the south the suffix continued to be predominantly feminine throughout the ME. period. The OE. formations, baxter, seamster, tapster, were in southern English usually feminine before 1500...also spinster, which alone of the group has survived (though with change of sense) solely as a feminine…
In the modern English period the suffix has been very productive, but it is doubtful whether any of the new formations are really derived from verbs; in every instance in which this would be formally possible there is a n. of the same form as the vb., and the derivative is (in present feeling at least) associated rather with the n. than the vb. so in gamester…
The formation here imitates that of trade designations; hence the disparaging sense, e.g. in rhymester, jokester, as compared with rhymer, joker. An anomalous use is that in rubster (17th c.) something used to rub with…
In the 16th c. two formations on adjs. occur: youngster (after which oldster was formed later) and lewdster.

The first citation for spinster in the OED is 1362, and to answer the original question (a bit of a long-winded answer, I know, but) the first citation for the old maid sense of spinster is 1719.