Why “real”?
Etymonline gives

1448, “relating to things” (esp. property), from O.Fr. reel, from L.L. realis “actual,” from L. res “matter, thing,” of unknown origin. Real estate is first recorded 1666 and retains the oldest Eng. sense of the word;

Real estate, or real property, is in contrast to personal estate or property.  Roughly, real property is land, improvements to land, and various more or less abstract legal interests in these.  Personal property is everything else.

Had I been called upon to guess, I would have speculated that “real” came from “rex”, what with the legal concept that the crown actually owns the land, with various lesser rights to the use of the land held by the crown’s subjects.  But I would have been wrong, with “real” deriving from “res”.  So why is land a thing, while all that other stuff isn’t?  My history of speculation on this subject is not encouraging, but my stab at an answer is that this is a value judgment.  Back in the day, ownership of land was what mattered, and what determined social standing.  A mere tradesman might own lots of stuff, but that doesn’t make him a gentleman.

You often see the two types labeled as real and movable property, as opposed to personal. Use of movable highlights the difference being a connection with a particular plot of land. In the end, it’s the same thing, though.

I’ve wondered about this myself; surely someone has done a monograph about it?  Here are some OED citations that exemplify, but do not explain, the use:

1766 BLACKSTONE Comm. II. iii. 28 A real composition is when an agreement is made between the owner of the lands, and the parson or vicar,.. that such lands shall for the future be discharged from payment of tithes, by reason of some land or other real recompence given to the parson, in lieu.. thereof.
1802-12 BENTHAM Ration. Judic. Evid. I. 53 Real evidence, that which is afforded by a being belonging, not to the class of persons, but to the class of things.
1832 AUSTIN Jurispr. I. 59 Real rights (property in things real or real property) are rights which are inheritable.
1837 tr. Guizot’s Hist. Civiliz. iii. 89 Personal legislation, in contradistinction to real legislation, which is found upon territory.

The answer would seem to be that real, at least in the Latin origin, was at one time connected with both types of property, but in English withered away from the one while staying with the other.

This distinction between categories of things ceased in the Roman Law at the time of Justinian, but was carried forward in the development of English law.

Res Mancipi generally encompassed those properties most valuable to agriculture — land, houses, slaves and four-footed beasts of burden. Under Roman law, the list of Res Mancipi was irrevocably closed. In English law, the distinction was carried forward with the identity of Res Mancipi as “immovables” governed by the laws of “realty” and Res Nec Mancipi as “movables,” chattel or goods, governed by the laws of “personalty.”

Mancipium

That may well explain where our distinction between the two categories of property comes from, but doesn’t appear to explain how the word “real” got applied selectively to one of them.

Hopefully, the OED will update “real” sometime this year…

For his upcoming speech Babbitt scrawls: (3) Shld be called “realtor” & not just real est man

My spellcheck rejects realtor despite his efforts, though I believe it is widespread in the States now.

See if your spellchecker will accept it capitalized.  “Realtor” is a trademark (in the US, at least), and though it’s often used generically (and lower-cased) in common parlance, many spell-checkers insist on the capital.  (I suppose we should be grateful they don’t insist on “Realtor™").

Realtor works! It must have been trademarked before Babbitt was published in 1922 though Babbitt himself uses lower-case. Presumably realtor had more cachet than real estate man (agent in the UK). Would Donald Trump call himself a Realtor? More a Real Estate Developer which sounds more grand. Why Babbitt’s disdain for “real estate”?

As described in this old thread,, the term was coined by a member (officer?) of a professional trade association of real estate agents with the specific intention of restricting its application to members of that association.  The idea was that one would have to meet the organization’s (higher) standards to be a Realtor, not just whatever local or state requirements (if any) had to be met to get a real-estate license.

I tend to doubt that Trump is a member of the NAR, and even more strongly doubt he would refer to himself as a Realtor.  Their primary role is to act as brokers for transactions between others, not buying, developing, and selling properties of their own.

Thanks, Dr T, a sort of trade guild. !916 predates Lewis’ novel, too, and maybe he didn’t know it should have been capitalized. This would explain Babbitt’s insistence on the distinction.
I bet Trump has only ever worn a hard hat (with a suit) in PR exercises. A trump is slang for a fart in parts of Northern England. I like The Apprentice, though, in a schadenfreudian (correct adjective?) kind of way.
Is the buyer (or buyee) a realtee?

venomousbede - 06 May 2008 08:49 AM

and maybe he didn’t know it should have been capitalized

The novel does precede the official trademark (which wasn’t until the 40’s) so perhaps they hadn’t gotten that picky yet.  The NAR actually prefers REALTOR® and REALTORS® in all caps.

venomousbede - 06 May 2008 08:49 AM

schadenfreudian (correct adjective?)

I like it.  And if you don’t see the banana peel in the dark is it a schadenfreudian slip?

The novel does precede the official trademark (which wasn’t until the 40’s) so perhaps they hadn’t gotten that picky yet.

Or perhaps he didn’t feel like kowtowing to the dictates of the industry.  I certainly don’t.

Faldage - 06 May 2008 02:43 PM

venomousbede - 06 May 2008 08:49 AM

schadenfreudian (correct adjective?)

I like it.  And if you don’t see the banana peel in the dark is it a schadenfreudian slip?

No, that’s when the other person doesn’t see the banana peel in the dark and you enjoy the result!