Talk:Pine/Archive 14 Apr 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Name origin dispute

User:Kenneth Alan claims (bold text in dispute): The modern English name pine derives from Latin Pinus by way of French pin, meaning needle. In the past (pre-19th century) they were always known as fir in English, from Old Norse fura, and Old English furh by way of Middle English firre. The Old Norse/Old English name is still used for pines in some modern North European languages: in Danish, fyr, in Nowegian, furu, and in Northern Germany, Föhre. British English speakers refer to it as fir but in American English, "fir" is now restricted to Abies and Pseudotsuga. Other unrelated European names include German Kiefer (the most widely used name in Germany) and Tanne(tannin), Swedish tall(from deal), Dutch den(tannin), Finnish mänty, Russian sosna and Bulgarian and Serbo-Croat bor.

(1) French pin does not mean "needle", it is derived directly from Latin pinus, itself probably derived from Greek pitys (pine; resin). The word "pin" as in pins & needles is derived from Latin pinna, a feather, and is wholly unrelated.

(2) British English speakers refer to Pinus as pine, not fir. This has been the case for at least 250 years. There is no difference between British and American usage.

(3) Deal derives from Old High German dilla (plank, board), and is not related to Swedish tall for pine.

(4) Tannin derives from tannatus, thought to be of Celtic origin, and is not related to Dutch den for pine.

Sources: Oxford English Dictionary; Dallimore & Jackson, Handbook of Coniferae; W J Bean, Trees & shrubs hardy in the British Isles; Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening; P Miller, Gardener's Dictionary (1731, a standard eighteenth century British reference book on plants; uses pine for Pinus).

Etymology is a well-researched science, and the results of this research are widely presented in many dictionaries. The above results of one person's uncorroborated ideas have no place in Wikipedia. - MPF 20:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the OED (2nd edition) mentions "Scotch fir" (Pinus sylvestris) first under the entry for fir(1). (Along with Abies pectinata, Abies balsamea, and Picea excelsa.) So that's at least one Pinus that's commonly referred to as "fir". That's consistant with my recollection of people's (unscientific) usage. -- DrBob 20:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unscientific is the word. The only people who might call a pine a 'fir' are doing so through mis-identification, and would call any conifer a 'fir'. I've heard people call cedars, larches, cypresses and many other conifers 'fir'; it does not mean anything more than the same person calling a goose a 'duck' through lack of awareness of their identification; it does not make 'duck' a valid name for geese. The name 'fir' is not used for any pine in any modern wildlife, gardening, forestry or other text. The OED refers to it as the first recorded historical use there, not the modern usage. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) for example restricts fir to Abies. - MPF 21:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'll note that the OED entry has a quote in that entry for "Scotch fir" from 1846 (from what looks like a journal of agriculture). That's 158 years ago, not 250. No reason the Scots pine article can't mention it is a former and common name. (n.b. The OED 2nd ed. "Pine" entry has "Scotch pine, Pinus sylvestris, commonly called Scotch FIR") -- DrBob 21:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just because "laity" a whole island-wide consider it a fir by spoken word, doesn't make it irrelevant to the article page. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That pitys happens to be a false etymology. Pitys directly means "pitch" and the source for spruce tree classification due to the high pitch usage from the Picea tree named spruce. Pin meaning needle is only natural considering the vast amounts of "pins" all over the tree, causing "pain", connected to the word "pine", as the needles on the trees are quite pointy! Pinna is related to the word "fan" or "vane", which does describe the nature of these needles on the trees!

Cite the published reference, please. - MPF

"pine2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pn)

v. pined, pin*ing, pines v. intr. To feel a lingering, often nostalgic desire. To wither or waste away from longing or grief: pined away and died.

v. tr. Archaic To grieve or mourn for.

n. Archaic Intense longing or grief.

[Middle English pinen, from Old English pnian, to cause to suffer, from *pne, pain, from Vulgar Latin *pna, penalty, variant of Latin poena, from Greek poin. See kwei-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."

The OED has a very similar entry under pine, entirely separate from the entry for the tree, and giving its different, unrelated origins. It has as much to do with pine trees, as lead (keeping a dog under control) does with lead (the metal). There are plenty of other examples of words sharing the same spelling, but having completely unrelated meanings, etymology and origins. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your arguements are failing. See your arguement under Talk:Pine where you try to dispute my interpretation of life-form distribution where you only add to my perception rather than countre it. You are only helping my cause here. A pine needle does cause pain(pine). One cannot lead a dog with lead, using either interpretation of lead. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pins cause pain, regardless of whether you believe it carries weight in etymology. Refer to the expression "Pins and Needles". Refer to getting poked by a pine needle the first time, feeling unexpected pain. Use common sense, sources aren't everything when there are gaps and you must connect the dots, especially when the evidence is physically in front of you. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to refer to long-researched, documented evidence, than hearsay. I do not wish to arbitarily dismiss 300 years of expert lexicographal work. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How is what I stated hearsay? Is it not your own immersion of ideas based upon your hearsay of other people's ideas, then, of a time during fascist elite enlightenment(3 centuries prior)? Besides, when a primary source overlooks issues relevant to the subject at hand, then they have questionable credibility as the ultimate source from which you derive astuteness in understanding. Just because antiquity decided the earth was flat, doesn't in itself make it true. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Widely known as an obsolete historical use, not a modern one. And pine wood is not widely used as firewood, because it throws out dangerous sparks. And check your dictionary: fire and fir are unrelated etymologically. - MPF

That doesn't make it irrelevant, but in fact makes it all too important. Check the online dictionary I spoke of, type "fir" in Google and it will reference furhwood. What expression lasts to this very day in extreme relation? Firewood. Pines are useful for setting sparks in kindling and when they are dry, the wood is good. Regardless of what you think about the etymology of fir and pyre, they share a direct relation because viking pyres chiefly used pinewood for their cremations. Pine wood is the holy wood of Freyr, an old revered deity: "Lord of the Forest", literally interpreted meaning "Lord of the Firs". There are many settlements in Sweden and Norway and some in England attesting to this. Refer to the deifinition of the word frith. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It does not mention firewood there, for which it gives an entirely different etymology under its separate entry. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I stated "furhwood". You are obviously trying to tire me with unsubstantiated, unscientific and unoriginal approaches that evade the stated subject in my arguements, while I attend your every dispute in my writing. If you don't have anything to argue with, you sure are showing it by feigning a "stupid" response(possibly to confuse me?). Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deal and tall are related because that is what the tree's wood is called, a difference from the older "fura" now encapsulated in "barr", meaning pine needle. See? Even in Swedish they refer to barr=fir meaning needle, as in pine=pin meaning needle. The Swedish term for Norway spruce is "gran", meaning "grain", reflecting the choice to name the fura "tall" meaning "deal", regarding the names of the wood.

Cite the published reference, please. - MPF

If you knew Swedish this would be no problem. Use common sense as I stated above. There is not always an expert opinion from the past that we can reference from, at least especialy when using the internet because not everything is considered worthy of mentioning online. Perhaps you should consider that some things are so obvious as to not need somebody to write a book or comment about because they assume that people can figure that out themselves. Although you may have difficulty learning when somebody doesn't provide a silver platter of information from which you can breastfeed your knowledge to redistribute, not everybody shares this disability. Unfortunately, most American schools are failing in this regard, therefore, I do not hold you personally responsible for things beyond your training. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The online dictionary used by Google presents Tan as:

"\Tan\, n. [F. tan, perhaps fr. Armor. tann an oak, oak bar; or of Teutonic origin; cf. G. tanne a fir, OHG. tanna a fir, oak, MHG. tan a forest. Cf. Tawny.] 1. The bark of the oak, and some other trees, bruised and broken by a mill, for tanning hides; -- so called both before and after it has been used. Called also tan bark. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc."

MPF, may I remind you that you purported Quercus(oak) as the source of the word fir? Even though I still disagree, and believe the term relative to the fur of mammals(like fire, causing heated insulation-when you stand under a fir/pine in winter snow, you are protected from cold, but less protected under spruces and other conifers, and pine is used for lean-to construction in simple shelters because of this, notably in Scouting, which I directly participated in), it states there that they have a direct relation by the word "tan" as well. Who knows their etymology now? Kenneth Alansson 21:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology or any other standard etymological reference. You will find no cited evidence for the above assertions. - MPF 21:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, you declare that your source must automatically be superior? You have declared me ad hominem in the past on a few occasions, but that doesn't conceal your behaviour in relation to me. Both I and Bob have shown you valid references from more than one source and point of view, but your mind is narrowly fixed as your actions reflect that. Narrowmindedness doesn't contribute well to the diffusion of encylopedic information, and you must yield to more than your own knowledge here at Wikipedia when others have information to contribute. You do not own the articles. Kenneth Alansson 21:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we summarize the discussion with just the first comment? The rest of the page makes no sense now that Kenneth deleted his comments. -- hike395 15:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've restored his text. I'll shortly move the whole section above to an archive. - UtherSRG 15:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)