Got lots of mail regarding Margaret Merchant's anti-Bob polecat chat, enough
to force a response even though I want to drop the subject.
 
If both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries, as well as every modern
etymology book, list cattus as a Late Latin word, and *any* Latin dictionary
is missing cattus, should we assume the use of cattus is wrong?  Margaret
might disagree with me about cattus being a Latin word, but in reality she
is disagreeing with almost every dictionary and etymology text writen (and
all the modern ones), and she should argue with those authorites, not me.
Felis and feles are both correct spellings and take the same meaning, they
are just a different form.  As for Margaret's Follett remark, I never said
polecat came from the Latin, I said the cat part did.  As for cattus (catus)
in Follett, page 58 has this entry: "Catus, -i: m.  male cat, tomcat." As
for the spelling of cattus vs catus, catus is the spelling most commonly
found in the better Latin dictionaries, but cattus is the spelling used by
etymologists.  Same volume, p.  148, has feles AND felis to define cat,
polecat, ferret, feline and marten.  Now, we all know the Latin for ferret
is viverra, so why is feles (felis) also given?  Because felis is a
category, and viverra and catus are proper names.  BTW, in Dauzat's
"Dictionnaire Etymologique," a book on French etymology (as well as 4 other
French Etymology books checked) *all* list Late Latin cattus as the root for
chat.
 
As for Margaret's use of the Norman dictionary, so what?  Does the word
"dog" make hound invalid?  Or bitch?  As I said, top etymologists traced
polecat to a combination of pol/poul- and cat/chat; what's to say a two-word
word.  I also have a Old Northern (= Norman) French dictionary, and not only
does it have putois (and varied spellings) but also lists synonyms,
including "poule-cat." Margaret makes the assumption that because a word can
be found that translates as polecat, it means the English had to use it
rather than some other word or word combination.
 
Margaret objected I was only looking at the root of the word; well, yeah,
what's the point?  I made that clear from the beginning.  Authorities are
universal in their treatment of polecat as two words, with each part defined
separately.  Hell, in many cases, the word itself is hyphenated, which
indicates it was two words, even in antiquity.  In each of the references I
gave, there is a nearly universal agreement that Pole comes from the Old
French and Cat from the Late Latin (one agreed with poule, but didn't source
cat).  Cat and ferret were treated as a single word, and I reported on the
words, not the parts.
 
Another bad assumption to make is, "if it's not in the dictionary, then it
is not a word," and its doppleganger, "if you didn't use it like it is
defined in the dictionary, it is wrong." Dictionaries are limited by space,
both in the volume and on the shelf, and a word's exclusion (or a
definition) is not proof it didn't exist.  Otherwise I am out of a job,
because zooarchaeology is *not* defined in the 1993 edition of
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary (BTW which *DOES* say cat comes from
the Late Latin "cattus", and polecat from the French poul or pol combined
with cat.)
 
There are other problems with Margaret's "single source dictionary"
approach, but I will be merciful and not publically point them out.  I will
say Margaret is taking a linear and extensionalist approach to word origin,
when in fact an ideational approach is required because the path is braided
and convoluted, and can skip areas, become quite commmon, evolve, and even
disappear in a flash.  Remember groovy?  Language is dynamic, rapidly
evolving, and constantly influenced by bordering languages, and borrowing
one word from a foreign language and combining it with one of your own
language is actually quite common, especially regarding names of animals.
 
To quote Oxford (regarding cattus) "CAT: Forms: catte, catt (before 1100),
catt (1200-1700), catte (1400-1600), kat (1300-1700), katte (1600), cat
(before 1100).  The Middle English and Modern English cat corresponds at
once to Old English cat and Old Norman French cat.  The name is common
European of unknown origin: found in Latin and Greek circa 1st-4th
centuries, and in the modern languages, generally, as far back as their
records go.  [Late Latin] Palladius ?  c350 AD has catus, elsewhere catus
(Bob note: place a line over the "a" in the second catus to change the vowel
sound, but the internet doesn't allow those characters through), and
probably in both cases, cattus.  From cattus, catta, came all Romanic forms,
It. gatto, Sp. gato, Pg. gato, Cat. gat, Pr. cat, ONF cat, F. chat."
(and on and on and on.)
 
To quote Oxford (regarding polecats) "Polecat, Pole-cat: Forms: polcat
(1400-1700), polkat (1500), polcatte (1600), pol-cat (1600-1700), polcate,
polcatte, poll-cat (1700), poll cat (1800), Pole cat (1900) pole-cat
(1600), polecat (1700), pulcatt, pulkat (1500), poulcatte (1600), poulcat,
powlcat, powl-cat (1600-1800), poulecat, pow-cat (1900). Middle English
polcat, pulcatt. The element pole, pol- is probably Old French pole,
-poule, (chicken, fowl). This is favored by the forms in pul-, powl-,
poul-..." ( and on and on and on).
 
There are basically two ways to try and convince people that your ideas are
better than anothers'.  One is to show them and explain why they are better,
and let the evidence convince.  The other way is to tear down other people's
ideas in the hope your's will be selected by default, which is particularly
effective if you also insult them.  Margaret made a lot of talk about her
background and her two dictionaries, but she ignored the dozens of
references cited, all properly shelved in the library at MU.  Of course, if
they were checked, then she would have to explain away the things I
reported.  I guess she could claim she was making a joke, I misunderstood, I
don't like her, or she was playing the devil's advocate because it *could*
be something else.  Or she could do what I did regarding her Welsh word.  I
said she was right.
 
As I said before, this subject has been beaten to death, and all I am doing
is repeating what has already been said.  Regardless of what is said after
this post, any defence I would make is here, so I will no longer post on
this topic, nor will I comment on the personal tone of statements made about
me.  Honestly, I recommend you ignore everything I have said and check the
books yourselves.  I've mentioned a pretty good stack, and am willing to
give full bibliographic information, as well as page numbers, to any one who
asks.  Trust your own brain.
 
Bob C and the 21 MO Fert Things.
[Posted in FML issue 2065]