2 of 2
2
Gyp/gypsy/gipsy/gippy
Posted: 04 September 2018 05:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4669
Joined  2007-01-29

Not according to the source I quoted.

Are you completely incapable of admitting error?  It’s a nu, which is the /n/ sound; there is no v; the v is a mistake, end of story.  Your source is wrong (as are so many of your sources).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2018 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2013-10-14

Are you completely incapable of admitting error? 

Not at all, but it wasn’t my error. I can’t change what was transcribed in a quote. Furthermore, the discussion isn’t about spelling; it’s about the etymology of gypsy.

Your source is wrong

Is the entirety of my source wrong or are you just denouncing my source based on a spelling mistake, or perhaps just a typographical error?

(as are so many of your sources).

Are they wrong because they’re not aligned with your viewpoint?

I submit a source based on a topic; whether the information is accurate or not can initiate a debate, but sometimes I don’t have the time to vet out the accuracies of all my sources.

But I always appreciate your rather diplomatic edifications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2018 03:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6600
Joined  2007-01-03

Is the entirety of my source wrong or are you just denouncing my source based on a spelling mistake, or perhaps just a typographical error?

There are other problems with this source that I have pointed out on this thread, namely you have a sociologist attempting to do linguistic work. (I did not notice the transcription error because the source does not give the Greek lettering—which is not a problem in and of itself.) Simply googling and repeating what comes up is not a good research strategy. One must examine the quality of the sources. In this case, one of the two sources had no credibility whatsoever—which you seem to indicate you had recognized but went on and used the source anyway without any comment, and the second was a scholar working outside her field, which is always problematic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2018 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2013-10-14

There are other problems with this source that I have pointed out on this thread, namely you have a sociologist attempting to do linguistic work. (I did not notice the transcription error because the source does not give the Greek lettering—which is not a problem in and of itself.)

Actually, the source does give the Greek lettering, as I noted in my second comment on this thread: NB. In the above quote I was only able to transcribe the anglicized versions for Russian and Greek.
Keep in mind, I was not able to copy and paste the quote; therefore, I had to transcribe the information.

Simply googling and repeating what comes up is not a good research strategy. One must examine the quality of the sources


It’s not my practice to google and present what comes up first. Furthermore, if the information is accurate what difference does it make if the source is unreliable. The information I presented seemed fairly consistent and accurate. You can’t expect me to investigate whether it was peer-reviewed.

In this case, one of the two sources had no credibility whatsoever—which you seem to indicate you had recognized but went on and used the source anyway without any comment, and the second was a scholar working outside her field, which is always problematic.

Your claim that one of the sources has no credibility whatsoever, is stated mildly differently in a prior comment. You simply stated that you wouldn’t trust the book. I agreed based on your evaluation of the source, but not on the information it submitted:

The Dutch and German word for “Gypsy” is ‘zigeuner,’ in German the nouns has the first letter capitalized. Both Turkish and Greek are responsible for the word ‘Zigeuner.” From the Greek, it was “cigano” and “zingari,’ meaning ‘untouchable. ‘

The information above is not that inaccurate based on credible and not-so-credible sources, which have only submitted opinions, some more accepted than others.
You also affirmed:  But it is etymologically unrelated to τσιγγάνος, which means untouchable, which was immediately disputed by Kurwamac. Therefore, it seems, there is no conclusive etymology, certainly not on this thread, for the word Gypsy

Below is a link to a source that presents a different hypothesis for the word Gypsy. The author argues that past etymologies are misleading and partially inconsistent. 

https://limbaromana.org/en/etymology-words-tigan-gypsy-rromthe-etymology-words-tigan-gypsy-rrom-romany/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2018 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6600
Joined  2007-01-03

Therefore, it seems, there is no conclusive etymology, certainly not on this thread, for the word Gypsy.

No, gypsy is a clipped form of Egyptian. That is beyond all dispute. Whether or not the Roma had some kind of historical connection with Egypt or what they’re called in other languages has no bearing on the etymology of the English word.

τσιγγάνος is a Greek name for the Roma. It is unrelated to the English word gypsy. You’re mixing up words in different languages. What Kurwamac was disputing was the etymology of τσιγγάνος, not the etymology of gypsy.

Furthermore, if the information is accurate what difference does it make if the source is unreliable.

It makes all the difference. If a source is unreliable, you don’t trust it. You go and find a reliable source.

The information I presented seemed fairly consistent and accurate. You can’t expect me to investigate whether it was peer-reviewed.

First, no one is talking about peer review. Although it’s trivially easy to determine if a source is peer reviewed if you know what to look for. And peer review is not a magic gold standard. Peer review does not guarantee a source is correct. All it does is guarantee that there are no obvious errors, and it has something of interest for the scholarly community that warrants publication.

In this case you presented two sources. One you admit was suspect, yet you presented it anyway. The other was a sociologist writing a sociological study that had a short section on the history of the names of the Roma in different languages. Whenever you see a scholar writing something outside their field of study, you should be suspicious. In this case, I said I could not evaluate the book as a whole myself--not being a sociologist--but that I assumed that since it was from a reliable publisher that it was okay. But the section on linguistics had errors and that section couldn’t be trusted. That was the section you were presenting as authoritative. (The book probably went through a limited peer review--most scholarly monographs do, although not as thoroughly as journal articles. But that peer review would be by sociologists, and they would be unlikely to evaluate the linguistic claims or recognize problems if they did. That’s one of the reasons why you don’t trust it when a scholar writes outside of their field. No one with the proper expertise is checking it.)

It’s not terribly difficult to determine whether a source should be considered reliable. (Whether or not it’s right on any particular point can be very difficult, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.) And if you’re not sure, presenting it as a question, rather than as authoritative, avoids the problem. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “this book says this, but I’m not sure if it’s correct. Does anyone know?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2018 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2013-10-14

It’s not terribly difficult to determine whether a source should be considered reliable. (Whether or not it’s right on any particular point can be very difficult, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.) And if you’re not sure, presenting it as a question, rather than as authoritative, avoids the problem. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “this book says this, but I’m not sure if it’s correct. Does anyone know?”

In my previous comment I submitted a link from a source which I think seems quite reliable. I will present it now as a questionable source. Is it reliable? Does anyone know?

Kurwamac stated: No, it doesn’t. It means gypsy. It may derive from Ἀθίγγανοι, a name of an obscure religious sect, and that name itself may have originally meant ‘untouchable’. But frankly it seems rather unlikely to me.
Furthermore, the word would be transliterated into English as Tsinganoi

Below there is information that seems to dispute this.

https://limbaromana.org/en/etymology-words-tigan-gypsy-rromthe-etymology-words-tigan-gypsy-rrom-romany/

The most widely accepted hypothesis in the 19th and 20th centuries is that the words athinganoi/thinganoi are of Greek origin, being variants of atsiganos/tsinganos, which in turn are said to have derived from the word athingánōs, meaning ‘untouchable, intangible’ (cf. the privative prefix a + vb. thingánō ‘to touch, to hurt’). Therefore, the terms athinganoi/thinganoi had the following possible meanings: ‘untouchable, intangible, pagan, impure’ or ‘someone who should be treated with caution’ – from thingánō ‘to touch, to move’ (in relation to feeling)[10]. According to this hypothesis, the privative prefix a- was subsequently lost and only the word tsigganos was preserved in Greek. However, this idea is contradicted by the fact that both terms still exist in Greek, as well as other languages. Since it overlooks the initial and subsequent mention of the two terms in several languages (Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian etc.) after 1348, their practical equivalence and, implicitly, the optional use of one of them, this approach seems to be an oversimplification.

It has also been said that neither the word țigan (‘Gypsy’), nor any similar forms exist in the Romany language, but were borrowed from other European languages. In my view, this is a questionable statement. In the Gypsy language, the word țigan is used under the form o tsigano (‘the Gypsy’), which is indeed very similar to its equivalent in other European languages: tsiganos/atsiganos (Greek), çiganinu/açiganinu (Slavic), Zigeuner (German), tziganiok (Hungarian), țigan/ațigan (Romanian), cigain (French) etc. Yet the very existence of almost identical versions in all European languages may point to the fact that the word was borrowed by these languages from the Gypsies themselves as they came to Europe. It may have been the term tsigan used in order to distinguish themselves from people outside their communities. In contrast, within the communities the identification occurs via the word rrom (‘Romany’). There is a subtle difference between being a member of the Gypsy community and belonging to the Gypsy ethnic group, since not everyone who is part of the former is necessarily a Gypsy by ethnicity. Someone’s direct identification, their belonging to a Gypsy community is expressed by the phrase san rrom? (‘are you one of us?’). If, on the other hand, the focus is on the person’s membership in the Gypsy ethnic group, the phrase san rrom tsiganiako! (‘you are a true, a genuine gypsy’) is used.

I start from the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gypsies, albeit in a small number[11], were present in Byzantium in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries AD, as the manuscript at Mount Athos and later references confirm, and that their descendants are the ones who appear in Central and East European documents starting from the 13th century, under various names: tsiganos/atsiganos, çiganinu/ açiganinu, tsigan/atsigan or cengari, secani, suyginer.

ABSTRACT
The present paper analyses the etymology of the words țigan ‘Gypsy’ and (r)rom ‘Romany’. Previous approaches trace back the term țigan to the Greek word athingánōs, meaning ‘untouchable, pagan, impure,’ and (r)rom to the homonymous Persian term with the sense ‘man, husband, master of the house.’ I argue that, despite their long-established influence, these etymologies are misleading and partially inconsistent. I postulate instead that the two words are of Sanskrit origin. On this view, țigan goes back to the term at(i)-ingā-nin (‘a person who is on the move, a traveller, a nomad’). In Indian culture, nomadism and lack of purity were understood as two complementary dimensions of intangibility, a characteristic attributed to the so-called pariahs and the lower caste sudra. Due to close commercial and cultural relations between India and Byzantine Greece under the Seleucid dynasty, at(i)-ingā-nin may have entered the Greek language under the form athinganoi, with its original negative connotations enhanced by the local Christian context. As far as the word (r)rom and its variants dom and lom are concerned, a number of phonetically similar Sanskrit terms can be identified, all of which converge towards the meaning ‘lord, master of the house, husband.’ If we also take into account historical information related to the migration of the gypsy population from India, it is plausible to ascribe the term (r)rom a Sanskrit instead of a Persian origin.

Bold emphasis added.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2018 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6600
Joined  2007-01-03

It’s not a peer-reviewed article, but at first glance it appears to be solidly researched. The website looks dubious, though. It may be affiliated with serious academics, but no institutional affiliations for the editors or authors are given. Suspicious, but not damning. Getting articles about etymologies of specific words accepted by peer-reviewed journals is very difficult, if not impossible, especially for languages like Romanian. Most journals are simply not interested in published them. So for such articles to appear in non-peer-reviewed outlets is not necessarily a knock on the article’s quality. This may be a case of seriously underfunded academics doing the best they can.

But the important thing is this article has nothing to do with the etymology of gypsy. It addresses the etymologies of tigan and rom.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ depose      The sound of language ››