Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Chaps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation

I removed my name from the "involved party" list because I was attempting to mediate the dispute, not be a party to it. I was asked to step in to help stop the edit warring, and any uncivil comments or personal attacks that were going on with the case. I tried to get the opposing parties to find a properly sourced, neutrally worded consensus version, and although I did some small amount of research to get a better understanding of the basis of the conflict (who said the word in what way), I wasn't a disputant. I'll be happy to participate in any discussions where the mediator believes I might be of assistance, and I'll be happy to give a timeline of events if needed, to show how we got to the current point in the discussion and article content. I'm also adding User:C0pernicus, due to this earlier request. Dreadstar † 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider Dreadstar to be a party to this dispute, in light of Dreadstar's edits to the article and its talk page prior to and during the dispute, and edits by Dreadstar and Montanabw on one another's user talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar has been attempting to facilitate resolution of this dispute. Dreadstar has been remarkably patient and has attempted to weigh the arguments on their merits. I have appreciated the presence of this administrator in keeping the fighting down to a dull roar. Dreadstar would obviously need to make edits if doing the job of a mediator. In fact, as stated above, Dreadstar was mediating. Dreadstar does not appear to have a personal stake in this particular topic except in assuring NPOV and quality, despite the large amount of time and effort devoted to its conclusion. We are here now in mediation only because administrative mediation has already been rejected...by one.--Getwood (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The administrator locked down the article and thus was the only person who could make an edit, and did so once there appeared to be something of a consensus on the talk page. What's going on here is one person who just will not let this go. Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw asked Dreadstar personally to intervene in Chaps (just as she asked Getwood), and Dreadstar obliged. This repeats a similar episode in February, when Montanabw asked Dreadstar for help in a content dispute over Saddle Bronc and Bareback Riding and Dreadstar protected the article then blocked the other editor. Dreadstar also was involved in a previous content dispute with me concerning Chaps. For these reasons, in my opinion Dreadstar had a significant conflict of interest and should have refrained from involvement in this content dispute in an admin capacity. Nor did Dreadstar mediate. Here I do not accuse Dreadstar of improper user conduct; this forum concerns only mediation of content disputes. --Una Smith (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

Hello. I hope that this mediation will be productive, and the issues at hand can be worked out in a peaceful, satisfactory manner. In that spirit, I would like each of the participants to make a statement expressing their opinion on the matters at hand and what they hope to get out of mediation. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Keilana. Do you want our opening statements here on this page or on the main page? Also, shall the filing party be the first to post an opening statement or can we post in any order? Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer it to be on this page, and you can post in any order. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Una Smith

The article Chaps is primarily about the garment, not about the word chaps. In general, an article (entry) about a word and its history and usage belongs on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. An article about a word (rather than about the thing named by the word) can be appropriate for Wikipedia, but only with adequate sources. Adequate sources then necessarily would be based on scholarly fieldwork. That said, below is an outline of the claims in question, and my POV on them. I have tried to format them so that others can add their own POVs. --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims

[edit] 1a

Claim 1a: that the "shaps" pronunciation is the original and sole authentic pronunciation, and that the "chaps" pronunciation is incorrect.

  • This claim is disputed, so requires verified reliable sources. An unsourced claim by advocates of a POV is no more reliable nor verified in books than in Wikipedia. References supplied in the course of this content dispute are proof that this claim exists. However, proof that a claim exists is not proof that a claim is true. Proof that this claim is true is absent. Claimed: "Shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. Proved: Some people think "shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1b

Claim 1b: that the word chaps, referring to the garment, entered English via the (California) "Vaquero" culture, and hence that the "shaps" pronunciation is correct because it resembles the pronunciation of chaparral ("shaparral") that is prevalent in California.

  • This etymology requires adequate sourcing. I think it is a folk etymology; I have read contradictory claims that chaps entered the English language via Texas, specifically the area now known as southwest Texas and New Mexico, where the word is pronounced "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2

Claim 2: that the two pronunciations can be assigned to speakers by riding style, "chaps" to English riders and "shaps" to Western riders.

  • That is a tidy but inaccurate stereotype. Montanabw knows English riders who say "shaps" and I know Western riders who say "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Montanabw

Please be patient with me, I am traveling out of state this weekend, have limited online time, and thus will probably not have the time to put forth a fully-developed argument until sometime on Monday. Montanabw(talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening statement

[edit] Factual background

Although the issue is not clearly articulated by the filing party, my understanding is that the core dispute in the article chaps surrounds the question of the soft "sh" pronunciation, "shaps," versus the hard "ch" pronunciation. The current paragraph on pronunciation in the History section, as edited by the mediator after there was an apparent consensus on the talk page, currently reads as follows (actual citations omitted for brevity):

"The word chaps has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps) by Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada.[6] This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral.[7] English-style riders, among others, pronounce the word with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/).[8] Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.[9][10]"

This version was acceptable to myself and I believe to some of the other parties to this mediation, though I will not presume to speak for them.

The last stable version of this article, and the original section on pronunciation, prior to the beginning of the current dispute can be viewed here.

My understanding of the situation, subject to correction by other parties, is that the original tone of the section that discussed pronunciation of the word "chaps" was not acceptable to the filing party, who tagged it, apparently taking issue with the hard "ch" pronunciation being described as "inauthentic", "indicative that the speaker is clearly not familiar with cowboy culture of the American west," and " Such pronunciation among cowboys may render the speaker vulnerable to mockery and being labeled a "dude."

As you can see from the above current version, all three of these statements have been removed and the original section has been cut from a long, wordy paragraph with 16 sources to a short, concise paragraph with five sources. However, that does not appear to settle the matter.

Since then we have been attempting to develop a version that is acceptable to all. At one point, the edit warring and reverting within the article over this issue became so intense that, after more than 50 edits to the article over a period of roughly a week, the administrator locked down the article until a consensus could be reached on the Talk:chaps page.

As of today, the debate has gone on for approximately a month. Five people have weighed in, with roughly equal numbers on each side, but the bulk of the discussion (at least in quantity) has been between myself and the filing party.

[edit] Response to filing party's issues

  • "Inclusion/exclusion of ethnographic dictionary as a source"

Statement: This is an extremely vague complaint. I am guessing that this is a discussion of the use of the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE), but that reference is in fact used twice in the history section, though in one spot it still has a "citation needed" tag. The issue was thoroughly discussed on the talk page and the limitations of DARE as a usage guide were considered by the administrator in arriving at the current version. It appears that the input by User:Getwood on the talk page as to the problems with DARE was particularly influential. I will not respond further on this issue until there is further clarification.

  • " In general, an article (entry) about a word and its history and usage belongs on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia..."

Though this concern was not raised in the original request for mediation, thus I suggest it be struck, in case it is not, I shall respond: it is my position that the pronunciation issue, and the reasons for any differences is a usage note that is both informative and encyclopedic, particularly in light of the history of the garment and its roots in the vaquero tradition.

[edit] Montanabw's issues

  • "Does the weight of the evidence support the statement that the "traditional" pronunciation of the word "chaps," when used as a garment in the equestrian field, with a "sh" sound or a "ch" sound?"

Statement: The phrase "has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound," in the current version appears to be the main bone of contention between the filing party, who supports the "ch" pronunciation, and those of us (Getwood and myself) who have lived and worked in the American west, who support the "sh" pronunciation. I believe (though I cannot be certain because filing party hasn't said this in so many words), that filing party does not believe that most western horsemen and women, as well as the working cowboys of the American west, say the word with the "sh" pronunciation, and have done so since at least the 1880s.

Most dictionaries (including the OED, which I don't think was cited in all this, but could be if needed) simply state that the word can be pronounced "sh" or "ch," generally with no further notes on usage. (The OED has some historic usage notes, but no current ethnographic information) The sources on usage I located that support the "sh" pronunciation can each be further analyzed, but in short, in the course of previous edits, I located roughly 16 sources on pronunciation, of which at least 9 sources explained the usage of the "sh" form by most cowboys and western-style riders. Further, upon a truly sincere search, I was unable to locate any sources explaining the "ch" use, other than a few message board discussions (not acceptable as wikipedia sources) that made it clear that a dispute exists and that there is an "east versus west" flavor to it. The administrator who intervened in this case was able to locate a couple of acceptable third-party sources that suggested that the "ch" use has become common amongst English-style riders, a statement that has been incorporated into the current version.

Response to Filing party's statement:

First off, filing party misstates and distorts my issues, which has been an ongoing source of conflict in this whole discussion.

First example: Filing party states: "Claimed: "Shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. Proved: Some people think "shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation."

This is a distorted statement and an emotional holdover from the talk page discussion, it is not the way the current version of the article is worded, hence this is a red herring and an non-issue. The statement "some people think" is an irrelevant and somewhat catty description that "proves" nothing. Personal opinions, in either direction, are not at issue in the mediation.

2."requires verified reliable sources"

per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the assertion that the "sh" pronunciation is an early and traditional use (at least if one considers usage in the 1870s and 1880s to be "traditional" when discussing cowboys and western riding), was supported by several third-party sources written by experts in the field, and several, such as the History Channel reference, the Steven Price sources, and the phonetic "schaps" reference in DARE, were published by entities with a reputation for thorough fact-checking. The five sources cited in the current version may need some tweaking against the other nine to select the very strongest sources, but the filing party only offers vague accusations as to the accuracy of any of these sources.

3. " chaps, referring to the garment, entered English via the (California) "Vaquero" culture...is folk etymology."

This also is not what the current version of the article states, so another non-issue. The garment has roots in Mexico, which once encompassed land from Texas to California. Differences in geography and terrain required different approaches to the handling of cattle. Hence, over time, two main schools of American cowboy culture and western horsemanship developed, often called the "Texas" tradition and the "California" tradition. There has been considerable intermingling of the two traditions, particularly because many Texas ranches drove cattle north and west to the Rockies during the 1870s and 1880s, and cowboys in general traveled all over the west in search of work. Absent an expert or text sources on 19th century Mexican Spanish pronunciation by working cattle hands from Texas to California, what we have is evidence of how words like chaparras, chaparajos and chaparrel were Anglicized by English-speaking cowboys and thus entered American English. What is clear is that by the 1880s, there is plentiful evidence that the garment was pronounced "shaps" and even sometimes spelled phonetically as "shaps" or "schaps." The current version of the article says "traditional," not "original" or "correct". Thus, the weight of the evidence supports that at the height of cowboy culture in the American west, the "sh" pronunciation was widespread and common, and further is a pronunciation that has carried forward to the present day.

Conclusion: The current version of this article has accurate, verifiable, reliable statements.

4. " that the two pronunciations can be assigned to speakers by riding style, "chaps" to English riders and "shaps" to Western riders. That is a tidy but inaccurate stereotype. Montanabw knows English riders who say "shaps" and I know Western riders who say "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I never raised this issue, either, but on this point, I happen to agree with the filing party to the extent that in my experience not all English riders say "ch," given that many people raised in the west use "sh" no matter what the discipline. However, my experience and that of filing party are both less relevant in Wikipedia. The source cited, the Price book, is a reliable third-party source. My suggestion is that, once mediation is settled, that the word "many" be inserted in front of "English riders," as it appears that this is not an absolute in either direction (people who ride western but live back east apparently do use the "ch" pronunciation as well).

  • "Rejection by filing party of over 9 sources, including mulitple reliable sources from within the field, discussing actual pronunciation of a word. "

Statement: This is basically a continuation of the first issue I raised, above. Filing party has failed to address what is wrong with any of the sources that were cited, and mostly objecting when one source was not given wholesale approval over everything else presented.

  • "Filing party's use of source material out of context" This is mostly a redundant complaint about filing party's distorted use of evidence for her position over on the talk page, her use of logical fallacies in reasoning, and her distortions (including those made here) of the positions of others, particularly misstatements of things I have said. This is probably not really a mediable issue, however, and I am willing to let this one go if everyone else is.

In conclusion, while I am not 100% certain of what the filing party's concern actually is, it appears that it is a dispute over the verifiability of the concept that the traditional pronunciation of the word "chaps" with a soft "sh" sound, in spite of numerous colloquial and historical sources that verify that the word was and still is pronounced in this fashion throughout the American west. Montanabw(talk) 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Undue weight on "shaps"?

As I see it, this content dispute boils down to a question of WP:UNDUE. The "shaps" pronunciation has the geographically more limited distribution but is emphasized in the article. Also, within that distribution, "shaps" appears to be a shibboleth. If the article discusses pronunciation of the word chaps, then it should reflect both of these points. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shibboleth

Montanabw's remark about dudes, which she has inserted in the article and repeated on its talk page, demonstrates that "shaps" is a shibboleth in part of the "American west". Multiple comments on Talk:Chaps demonstrate that both the "shaps" pronunciation, and its use as a shibboleth, do not occur in all of the "American west". --Una Smith (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which pronunciation is older?

Proof that the "shaps" pronunciation is old is not proof that it is older than the "chaps" pronunciation. On the contrary, the lack of explanation of the "chaps" pronunciation suggests that "chaps" is the older pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Getwood weighing in

I will try to write a more complete statement soon. I just had to make a few comments. First, the black and white reading of the current statement is baffling to me. It really seems mild and non-judgemental...and true. (We'll add Montanabw's qualifier to allow English riders the pronunciation of their choice as well...)

  • Comment on the lack of evidence=proof theory: Are you serious???? there is also no evidence that the Earth is flat, therefore the Earth is flat.
  • Comment on the geographically limited distribution: the West is a big place, and it is the birthplace of "shaps". :)
  • Comment on the shibboleth: this was removed because it stepped on your toes. What do you want?--Getwood (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on a reference list in my sandbox: User:Getwood/Sandbox/chaps which any are welcome to view. It is still rough-hewn, and it is still growing. There are some good academic dictionaries, lots of usage of the shaps spelling, several semi-academic glossaries, and strict pronunciation guidlines from current organizations like the Professional Bull Riders association. A few of my favorite samples: Barrère, Albert; Leland, CG (1890). A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant. Ballantyne Press, 224. , Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk, pp.xiv,xxiv,54. , New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association (2005). Glossary. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.... I will be tweaking the structure and adding references over the weekend.
I think Taivo has done a nice job below of looking at the evidence, and crafting a nice statement. In terms of Una's arguments: 1a) The "shaps" pronunciation does appear to be the original pronunciation, but the assertion that the statement says that this is the only pronunciation is a stretch. 1b) The word did come from Vaquero culture. 2) English vs. Western: I am happy to drop this one. I think the current statement as Taivo has worded it is accurate and non-judgemental. In terms of age of the words, I think that the Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant above from 1890 is pretty strong. In terms of the French influence, some of the earliest references I have found relate to the Northwest Territories, but Vocabulario Vaquero suggests that the pronunciation was influenced by "Spanish spoken along the border where speakers pronounce the digraph {ch} as[ʃ] or{sh}." In terms of the shibboleth aspect, I think it is best avoided, although there is certainly evidence for it. In terms of the pronunciation being "chaps" in Texas and New Mexico, I'll let Jim Fish state his own case: Fish, Jim (2002). Cowboy, Texian & TexMex Lingo. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
"chaps (shaps), n.; leggin's, leather coverings for the legs. Derived from Spanish word, "chapaderos". Riles me up to no end when I hear folks callin' 'em "chaps" (with the "ch" sound). They're chaps (with an "sh" sound)! Chap is what the sun an' wind does your face or the saddle does your rump. Don't ever forget it - especially if you're a-ridin' for my outfit."
--Getwood (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That blog is a mighty strong evidence of [tʃæps] in Jim Fish's part of Texas. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And shibboleth...--Getwood (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A comment or two. I think you need to stay away from statements such as "original" pronunciation. This is a clip of a BORROWED word, and, as such, the original pronunciation is Spanish, not English. Borrowed words are never adapted to the borrowing language immediately, they are slowly adapted over time and in varying ways. The only accurate thing you can say is what I have written in the compromise wording and what the various references attest to--"by the end of the 19th century...". You cannot attest to the "original" pronunciation, only what was more or less the most common pronunciation within the largest community of users at the end of the 19th century. Second, the statement by Jim Fish is not only evidence that he uses ʃæps, but that other people, perhaps many people, where he lives use tʃæps (he wouldn't make the statement if no one or almost no one said tʃæps. Third, I get riled up when people spell Shoshoni as Shoshone, but that doesn't necessarily make it a shibboleth. (Taivo (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Short (I promise) followup by Montanabw

I think the crux of this matter is whether or not the current version in the article is acceptable. All prior debate, personality clashes, and other spillover spatting is really irrelevant now.

While language shift from sh to ch appears to be occurring over the last 20-30 years now that English riders have discovered chaps, along with the adoption of the garment by the, um, "leather community"; the bottom line is that the garment as it is known today does have a "traditional" American English pronunciation, the "sh" form, that originates in the American west and dates back over 100 years. The Stephen Price books note this shift--the 1977 edition of the Whole Horse Catalogue unequivocally states that chaps is pronounced "shaps," while Price's more recent works indicate there is the (albeit oversimplified) "English riders/Western riders" split.

There is a decent argument that, while Mexican Spanish of the 19th century may have used a hard "ch," and that French pronunciation of "ch" words as "sh" (such as Chevalier, etc...) may have played a role in the word developing an "sh" pronunciation (French influence via Canada being quite strong on the northern plains, Pacific Northwest, and Rockies), the bottom line is the form in which the word became stable in ENGLISH.

What can be verified are a number of sources using the "sh" pronunciation, dating to the "golden age" of the cowboy, the time between the end of the Civil War and the collapse of the open range cattle industry that came with the winter of 1886-87. Hence, the current version stating that the sh pronunciation is "traditional" is sourced and verifiable. To not acknowledge this pronunciation in light of multiple sources (some, admittedly a bit more informal than is ideal in wikipedia) is to be, in fact, unencyclopedic.

A side note: Many Spanish loanwords have changed form when they entered English. Rodeo shifted from a Spanish pronunciation, ro-DAY-oh, to an anglicized form, RO-dee-oh (except for that street in LA); and the Spanish "coyote" is now pronounced "KI-ote" in the Northern plains. The Spanish vaquero became the "Buckaroo" of the Great Basin, and la riata became lariat and lasso (though Cowboys in the north just gave up and call it a "rope.") Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AeronM

My quick two cents: While I was not involved with much of the dispute, I was concerned with one item, which was montanabw's wording which implied that people who pronounced it chaps were wrong or ignorant, and hints that the English riders, many of whom say chaps, were the johnny-come-latelys and therefore somehow less credible (her comment above "now that English riders have discovered chaps" is of the same flavor......). --AeronM (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromising

Hello all! Just to let you know, I have been keeping up with the discussion and statements. I'd like to remind you to keep as civil as possible, this issue can be resolved and I'd like it to be relatively painless. I'd also like you to start thinking about acceptable compromises. I know that not everyone's commented, and that's important, but if anyone thinks of a possibly mutually acceptable compromise, please do put it on the table. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linguists ring in

Check back here for interesting and relevant comments by linguists with no prior involvement with this article. --AeronM (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source material

May take me a couple of days for me to get it all in, but I have actually just spent a bunch of time actually referencing hardcopy on this matter and will provide some additional actual facts that may settle the matter (maybe). Bottom line is that I am, so far, the one who had to do ALL the compromising here, and as far as I can tell, the only thing left is the question of the use of the word "traditional." I really must say that the overwhelming weight of the evidence leans toward "shaps" as a "traditional" use, and just because some people don't like this fact because they say something differently (or because they personally don't like me: I believe that this is actually a personality dispute that has little if anything to do with the actual content of the article) does not change reality. Sources to follow (but I have to manually type this material in verbatim, please be patient.) Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New sources from Montanabw

I suppose if I had done this a month ago, maybe this whole dispute could have been avoided. The evidence is pretty convincing and in line with WP:V and WP:CITE and, I hope, may even satisfy the linguists. My only excuse for delay is that these works consulted were all on the reference section of the library, which is not open at midnight, which is when I am often editing wiki! (LOL) Material is quoted verbatim (though typos are all mine). Sections underlined are my emphasis of those sections I think most relevant to this discussion Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New source #1

Adams, Ramon. Western Words: A Dictionary of the Range, Cow Camp and Trail. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1944, 3rd printing, 1946. (no ISBN in edition consulted), p. 31

chaps An American abbreviation of the Spanish chaparejos (chah-par-ray' hose), meaning leather breeches or overalls. This word was too much of a mouthful for the American cowboy, so he "bit shallow" and said chaps, pronouncing it shaps.
They are skeleton overalls worn primarily as armor to protect a rider's legs from injury when he is thrown or when a horse falls upon him, pushes him against either a fence of another animal, carries him through brush, cacti, or other chaparral, or attempts to bite him; also they are proof against rain or cold. The word occurs in English dictionaries as chaparejos, but the Spanish word is really chapareras (cha-par-rray'rahs).

(there is another paragraph explaining more about when they are used,with no additional discussion of etymology or pronunciation)

[edit] New source #2

Blevins, Win. Dictionary of the American West. Seattle:Sasquatch Books, 2001 ISBN 1-57061-304-4, pp.75-76

Chaps (SHAPS, the a as in corral, traditionally a soft sh, not a hard one as in Chap Stick). Leggings--leather overalls--the cowboy wears to protect his legs whebn he's thrown from a horse or when the horse falls on him, pushes him against a fence or another animal, does its damnedest to bite him, or most particularly bolts him through brush, cactus, or chaparral; also used for warmth or for protection against rain and snow. One of the cowboy's essential pieces of equipment. It's short for chaperreras, which in tern derives from CHAPARRAL, one evil that caps ward off.
It is said that chaps come from the VAQUEROS; a brief glance at early paintings will inform anyone that they also descend from the MOUNTAIN MEN, who copied them from the Plains Indians. No one rode the moutntains, Plains or deserts long without discovering the need for some hide covering on the legs.

(note: Second paragraph verifies some info I know, but could not cite, but would like to add to the history section of this article once we are done fighting over pronunciation .) (Two additional paragraphs go on to describe what they are made from and some styles, with no further discussion of pronunciation)

From the same source, see also:

Chaparral (sha-phu-RAL, the a as in corral)...
Chaparro (shah-PAHR-roh) ...

But also

Chalupa (chuh-LOO-puh), Chamiso (chuh-MEE-soh), and Chaqueta (chah-Kay-tuh)

(These mentioned only to note that both ch and sh pronunciation is used for various items, no universal consistency)

[edit] OED

(Note order pronunciations are listed, "sh" first. "ch" second)

Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (prepared by). Oxford English Dictionary, vol. III (Chan-creeky). Oxford:Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1989, 2000 reprint, pp. 24 and 28. ISBN: 0-19-861215-X (Vol. III only), ISBN 0-19-861186-2 (set).

(p. 28) chaps (ʃæps, tʃ-,) sb. pl. Short for CHAPARRERAS. 1884 E. W. Nye Baled Hay 139 'Chaps" as they are vulgarly called,..are made of leather with the fronts of dogskin with the hair on. 1884 W. Shepherd Prairie Exper. 41 The cow-boys, with their schaps, i.e. leather-leggings. 1930 E. Ferber Cimarron xii. 195 he [sc. the cowboy]] wears chaps, with the hairy side out, to keep his legs warm in the winter and to protect them from being torn by chaparral and cactus thorns in the summer.
(p. 24) chaparreras (ʃæpə'rɛərəs, tʃ-,) sb. pl. U.S. Also chapar(r)eros. [Mexican Sp.] Stout leather trousers worn by cowboys and others to protect the legs esp. while riding through chaparral. Freq. abbrev,. CHAPS. 1861 E.B. Tylor Anahuac 335 Chaparrerios, over trousers of goatskin with the hair on, used in riding. 1909 'O.Henry' Roads of Destiny 95 Lonny is one of them, a knight of stirrup and chaparreras.
chaparejos (ʃæpə'rerhəʊs, tʃ-), sb. pl. U.S. Also chaprarjos, chaperajos. Var. CHAPARRERAS. Hence chapa'redoed a., wearing chaparejos. 1887 Outing (U.S.) X.115/1 We had all discarded our chaparajos, and the horses were lightly blanketed. 1888 ROOSEVELT in Century May. Feb. 505-2 The broad hat, huge blunt spurs and leather chaperajos of the rider. 1903 Forest & Stream 21 Feb 147 A bit farther on we saw some cowpunchers, or what seemed such, for they sat in cow saddles and wore chaparejos.... (and several more, no further comment on prounciation or other spellings).

But for contrast in pronunciation, see also:

chaparral (tʃæpə'ræl).

(Note only "ch" pronunciation, interesting...)

[edit] Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE)

  • Note: Montanabw did some research of reviews of DARE overall, and while still stacked a bit toward interviews taken in the east and the south, seeing the FULL CONTEXT of the entire entry happens to change my views for the better on the validity of this source, though I am, frankly, appalled at how selected passages were taken and used out of context by filing party to promote only her own view and not present a neutral analysis of the entire source.

Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I only)

  • Note: in DARE, š is "sh" and č is "ch" and again, note order in which pronunciation alternatives are presented.
(p. 592) chaps n pl Usu |šæps|, also |čæps| Pronc-spp shaps, schap(p)s [Abbr for chaparreras; see also chaparajos] West Leather leggins resembling trousers without a seat, worn chiefly by cowboys or ranch hands over regular trousers to protect the legs when riding through chaparral or brush. 1884 Shepherd Prairie Exper. 41 WY, The cow-boys, with their sccaps, i.e. leather-leggings and flopping wide-brimmed hats, are trooping off. 1894 DN 1.324 TX, Chaps. 1896 Christian Educ. Jan 7/1 (DAE) a cowboy with spurs, schapps, sombrero and lariat, was a new sight to Miss Selby. 1090 (9=1969) Robins Magnetic North 181, Anybody must needs be a devil of a fellow who went abou t in 'shaps,' as his California cousins called chaparejos. 1926 Branch Cowboy 23, Chaps, woern when there was reiding to be done, were also a part of the cowboy's courtin'-clothes. 1930 James Lone Cowboy 264 MT, some folks wonder why cowboys wear shaps. 1949 PADS 11.5 wTX, Chaps [šæps]...Chaparejos, but the full word would sound affected. Common. 1960 PADS 34.66 CO The wide spread of ..chaps (frequently shaps) in the popular speech..makes [it] fully naturalized. 1967 DARE FW Addit ID, [šæps]; IL [čæps]; ceTX, [čæps], leather leggings to protect horsemen from brush; CO, [šæps].
(p. 590-591) chaparajos n pl |,šæpə're(h)os, ,čæp-| Also sp chap(p)arejos, chaperajos [Prob blend of chaparreras + aparejo] Chiefly West, esp SW =chaps (cites several examples, two the same as OED, none with alternative phonetic spallings)
(p. 591) chaparral n |,šæpəræl| For var spp see quots at A [MexSpan] chiefly SW

(Omitting various examples with alternate spellings)... 1967 DARE Tape TX29, Chaparral [šæpə'tæl]. (Note, this is interesting in light that the OED says the opposite)

(p. 592) chaparreras n pl |,šæpə'rɛrəs,,čæp-| Also sp chapararros, chapareras, chapar(r)eros, shortened form chaparras, chaparro(s) [MexSpan] chiefly SW old-fash =chaps (cites several examples, some same as OED, none with any other alternative spellings)

[edit] A non-participant ?

(NOTE: While I was writing this, the above was written, so I have not read the immediately preceding comment.)

Are non-participants allowed to weigh in here? If not, then I will post at Talk:Chaps instead.

There are separate issues involved here as I see it.

1) What is the older pronunciation? 2) What are the current pronunciations and their distributions?

1) Linguistically, there are two obvious possibilities: 1) ʃæps is older and tʃæps is the result of spelling pronunciation by those who see the word spelled more often than they hear it pronounced. 2) tʃæps is older and ʃæps is the result of analogical assimilation to "chaparral" and possible French influence. Both solutions are EQUALLY possible from the standpoint of linguistic argumentation and naturalness. Indeed, the evidence seems clear from the references cited that the Spanish models were pronounced both with initial tʃ and initial ʃ either regionally or idiolectally. The Spanish models are, indeed, relevant to the discussion since the transition from donor language to borrower language is never radical, but is always gradual, following fairly regular paths until the word is completely assimilated into the lexicon of the borrower language. The parties to this dispute seem to imply that the process was sudden and that the answer is either 1) or 2)--it was not and never is. Indeed, the most likely possibility is 3) both variants are equally old, but cowboys standardized their pronunciation on ʃæps. Montanabw has provided a number of references that by the end of the nineteenth century (at least) the word had been completely assimilated into English as ʃæps among working cowboys. Before this complete assimilation, the tʃæps pronunciation may have been in existence, but there does not seem to be any documentary evidence for it other than the spelling "chaps". This is not surprising since a pronunciation that matches the spelling would not be something worthy of note by an author--only when the spelling does not match the pronunciation do authors make a special effort to note it. So the absence of prior statements that the word was pronounced tʃæps is not really illuminating since that is the most common spelling of the word and the spelling matches pronunciation. The very fact that the word is spelled "chaps" is fairly strong evidence of one of its original pronunciations. However, despite variation in its earlier pronunciations, the evidence seems clear that by the end of the 19th century the word had become somewhat standard in its pronunciation of ʃæps among cowboys in the Western US. There have been no references provided to how non-cowboys pronounced the word at this same time. Since an encyclopedia is descriptive and not prescriptive, the cowboy pronunciation is not the "standard", but one variant if there are other variants. What does Webster's of 1900 have for the pronunciation of the word? And the comments that the ʃæps pronunciation is because Americans couldn't "wrap their tongues around" the longer Spanish words is folk etymology and not accurate linguistically. Americans have no problem with "chaparral", for example. It is common for English speakers to clip long forms for common items--"fender" from "defender", "sub" from "submarine", "gig" from "gigabyte", etc. The comment is also irrelevant for determining whether tʃæps or ʃæps is the older form. BOTH forms are equally well-formed according to English phonotactic rules (compare ʃi:p "sheep", tʃi:p "cheap"). The "wrapping the tongue" comments are only relevant to why "chaps" is a shorter word than the Spanish models.

2) DARE is rock-solid as a source for contemporary American pronunciation. It is cited more commonly than the OED when it comes to American regional usage. It is just as authoritative as the OED among professional linguists. If DARE says that both variants are in use in the Western US, then that should be the end of the matter. Both variants are equally worthy of consideration and citation in an encyclopedic article (which is descriptive, not prescriptive). It can be noted that working cowboys tend to prefer ʃæps, but any other comments about the distribution of either or both forms are unscientific. The comment that "English riders use tʃæps" is overly restrictive (and mildly perjorative) since the usage of that form is much more common than just among English riders. The segregation of the English-speaking world into working Western riders and English riders is not an accurate portrayal of the English-speaking population of the Western US, let alone the entire English-speaking world. "Today, there are two pronunciations of "chaps"--one is more common among working cowboys while the other is more common among the general population." That's the statement that can be documented based on all the references adduced to this point in the discussion and the most accurate statement of linguistic fact.

Thank you for letting me put in my two linguistic cents. (Taivo (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Since Montanabw mentioned the order of ʃ and tʃ in OED, it should be noted here that order of presentation means nothing in the OED. It is simply "sort of" alphabetical in this case. The OED is not prescriptive, in any case. Here is the exact comment from the introduction to the OED:

"Each pronunciation in the revised text is given in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), according to a revised model of Received Pronunciation devised by Dr Clive Upton of the University of Leeds, and the scope of this information has been extended to include a ‘standard’ U.S. pronunciation based on a model devised by Professor William Kretzschmar of the University of Georgia. Words from other varieties of English have been given pronunciations based on (but not identical in all details with) the models used by the principal historical dictionaries of World Englishes (such as the trisyllabic New Zealand term mahoe, originally from Maori, and the disyllabic Caribbean mahoe). The Dictionary does not aim to cover dialectal variation in pronunciation within each variety."

In other words, both pronunciations of "chaps" are cited as "'standard' U.S. pronunciation" with equal weight. There is no citing of "non-standard" pronunciations in OED. (Taivo (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Response to Taivo

I have reconsidered my position on DARE now that I have read several reviews outside wikipedia and, most of all, seen the full entry in its complete context. I am, frankly, very concerned at how the filing party distorted and chose selective excerpts from DARE to promote only her own view and failed to acknowledge the full range of use. (and was completely off base on Colorado pronunciation) Today, it is obvious (though no one can find a true linguistic study, I suspect) that the "shaps" pronunciation has both regional and riding style variations, (English riders in the west usually say "shaps" unless they moved here from the east coast, where they say "chaps") but my point in this, all along, has been that "sh" is listed first in most pronunciations, hence, I presume viewed as the primary form, (and explicitedly designated as such in DARE) and, to the extent that "ch" is used by horse people (as opposed to the general non-horse public, who, reasonably, would have no clue how to pronounce technical language and wouldn't be expected to) has only been mentioned as a pronunciation amongst horse people AT ALL in possibly the last decade or so (comparing the works by the same author, 20 years apart). Other than the OED and DARE, all we really have are various guides to "cowboy lingo" which ALL note "sh" and are quite consistent from 1944 to 2001.

But, truly, at the end of the day, what we have are people saying, "me and all my friends say 'ch'" against multiple sources that overwhelmingly place the "sh" pronunciation as primary and "ch" secondary, plus a number of usage guides (now numbering at least a dozen), both print and online, explaining the technical language (whether a term of art or a shibboleth) has traditionally been "sh." It has become obvious to me that while wikipedia cannot change an apparent language shift on the east coast (and amongst those riders elsewhere who imitate fads on the east coast) that has somehow adopted the "ch" pronunciation, but to downplay the historic roots of "sh" and blatent evidence for its continued use in at least half the country (geographically, given that no one will back funding to poll every horse person in America) would be, in fact, unencyclopedic and inaccurate. (Now going offline, please be patient if I am offline up to 48 hours again, Spring is a busy time) Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole notion that "chaps" is a technical term is invalid. Whether a person is a working cowboy or not, or even a rider, native Westerners can name the obvious distinctive parts of a cowboy's clothing and rig--hat, chaps, lariat, boots, saddle, etc. The names of the parts of a saddle are technical terms since most people don't know them outside the profession. But "chaps" does not fall into this category. You cannot discount the pronunciation of nonriders outright. To do so is equivalent to saying that a Yankee's pronunciation of "opossum" and "victuals" is irrelevant. To divide the pronunciation of "chaps" up into Western riders and Eastern riders is inaccurate. Try telling that person in Central Texas who said tʃæps in the DARE survey that they are an "Eastern rider". (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Some compromise wording

From the point of view of the presented evidence, the most accurate statement would seem to be: "The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]." There really isn't a need to talk about the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation at all in this article. Every attempt so far to delineate the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation has been inaccurate, unsourced, and, to varying extents, perjorative. This proposed wording also gets out of the "standard" or prescriptive mode. The detailed linguistic transition from Spanish to English is also rather extraneous to this particular article since the details are not really enlightening to an understanding what "chaps" are. If the alternate pronunciation absolutely must be mentioned, it should be done so noncommittally: "The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders." Without looking up new sources, there are adequate references already presented for both of these statements--DARE, OED, the best of Montanabw's refs. (Taivo (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I think that is progress. I offer a small addition, because Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Taivo's offering:
"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."
My offering:
"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in North America north of Mexico working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."
--Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's simplify the wording to "The word chaps......Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western U.S. and Canada, working riders have tended to...." (Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Prove "primary" pronunciation

What makes the [ʃæps] pronunciation primary? Most common usage? Earliest usage? First define it, then prove it.

By the way, This online dictionary dates chaps to 1810-1820, yet according to Montanabw above, [ʃæps] appears 120+ years later, in "cowboy lingo" books from 1944 onward. Well, I can attest that not all cowboys say [ʃæps]. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • 1922, Phillip Ashton Rollins, The Cowboy: His Characteristics, His Equipment, and His Part in the Development of the West, Charles Scribner's Sons, 353 pages, page 116: Not more specialized than the spurs but more conspicuous were the "chaparejos," universally called "chaps".--Una Smith (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why my compromise wording "since at least the end of the 19th century" is important. I think that Montanabw has shown that at the end of the 19th century, ʃæps was the most common pronunciation among working Western riders. Before that is left up to the vagaries of the borrowing process (see my above comments about the complexity of the process of borrowing words from one language to another). Montanabw's references are not just from the 1940s, but date back into the 1890s. I would actually be skeptical of any reference to "chaps" in English in the first two decades of the 19th century. The western frontier was still east of the Mississippi at that time and the Western, Spanish-based, cowboy culture was not even in its infancy. Remember that the first American settlers in Mexican Tejas were after Stephen Austin's arrangements in 1821. (Taivo (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
That 1810-1820 reference appears even more mistaken now. The source is apparently the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (not a primary source, but a secondary one). It says that it is an Americanism derived from chaparajos. But when you look at the entry for chaparajos, the date is 1860 to 1865! You can't have a word derived in 1810-1820 from a word that was not in the language until 1860-1865. This source is not based on primary information anyway. If you read the introductory materials for the Random House Dictionary (I don't have a copy) you will probably find a statement that says "all etymologies are based on the OED" or "all etymologies are from X's Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". In my own linguistic work, I have found this online etymological dictionary to be far more reliable than anything on dictionary.com and its date of usage is far more likely to be accurate (1844). And, of course, the ultimate in reliability is the OED, which lists the first reference to "chaps" as 1884 (so the online etymological dictionary's entry may, itself, be a typo for 1884, since the online dictionary relies heavily on the OED). All sources are not created equal. The 1810-1820 date appears to be a mistake or just plain wrong. (Taivo (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
And to address your doubts about the primacy of ʃæps among cowboys at the end of the 19th century, you need only look at the complete DARE listing provided by Montanabw above. The references from the end of the 19th century are virtually unanimous in spelling the word "schapps" or "shaps" or such, indicating a general pronunciation tendency. The spelling "chaps" may reflect 1) pronunciation (which it probably does in some cases), 2) an anti-German bias during the first half of the 20th century which would preclude the spelling "sch...", 3) French influence on pronunciation, or 4) influence from the Spanish spelling. The most likely reasons for the spelling "chaps" from a linguistic standpoint are a combination of 1) and 4) with a sprinkling of 2). I don't think this reflects any French influence at all since the Western cowboy culture is solidly Spanish.
The keys to my compromise wording are 1) it accurately reflects the linguistic situation at the end of the 19th century--that Western cowboys tended to use ʃæps; 2) it removes the anti-tʃæps bias by leaving the distribution of the pronunciation tʃæps unspecified; 3) it removes the absolutes of standard prescriptivism by using "tended" and "also common".
So, with the corrections noted above, the compromise wording stands at:
The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, working riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders. (Taivo (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
Thanks, Taivo, for putting such a lot of effort into this discussion. The compromise wording here looks almost right to me; the problem is it still conveys the disparity of status that has dogged the versions contributed by those arguing for the primacy (synchronically and diachronically) of the /ʃ/ form. The forms of words here (also common outside the community of working Western riders) carries the unjustified implication that working Western riders are somehow more entitled to determine the normative pronunciation of the word. This is bogus: the only normative authority is usage across the English-speaking world, regardless even of whether the speakers in question have ever sat on a horse. If those outside the community of working Western riders have the /tʃ/ form, then that form is an equally valid element in the documentation of contemporary English pronunciation. And if the origin of this form (who knows?) is in spelling pronunciation, well so what? That's the nature of language change.
So (to get to the point) I think we need to get away from the concessive note in The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common. Can I suggest The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread? C0pernicus (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion here so far, I think the shibboleth cannot be avoided.

The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos or chaparreras. From its earliest recorded use to today, two pronunciations have been in use: [ʃæps] and [tʃæps]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, speakers have tended to use the pronunciation [ʃæps] but both pronunciations occur there to the extent that [ʃæps] has become a shibboleth. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread.

Does this work for you? --Una Smith (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Montanabw needs to weigh in the compromise wording as well. She's out for a couple of days (see above). But the problem with the "from the beginning" comment is that Montanabw's evidence is stronger for ʃæps at the end of the 19th century than yours is for tʃæps. Your only evidence is the spelling and the spelling is most likely a reflection of the Spanish spelling (whatever the pronunciation). Montanabw's evidence is an alternate spelling that is different than the Spanish model. Your evidence is circumstantial at this point and Montanabw's is "eyewitness". Go to a college library and find a copy of a Webster's dictionary from about 1900 or another dictionary from the late 1800s and see how that dictionary marks the phonetics of the word. That will be much more substantial evidence of the existence of both pronunciations in the late 19th century. I don't doubt that both pronunciations have been in existence throughout the history of the word, but there is a difference in the quality of the evidence that you and Montanabw have produced. Your evidential problem is that the spelling alone is not enough evidence of the pronunciation since it is just a reflection of the Spanish spelling.
I agree that the compromise wording still has a bit of the "standard" versus "nonstandard" tinge to it, but I'm a bit reluctant to categorically state that tʃæps is more widespread. There just isn't enough hard evidence to suggest that either form is more common than the other. DARE, at best, suggests an East versus West divide at about the Rocky Mountain front, but the evidence cited above by Montanabw is miniscule (just four data points). I'm in Ukraine right now and can't consult a hard copy of DARE. If someone has access to the hard copy they should look to see if there is a map accompanying the entry for "chaps". Sometimes the maps have more data points than just those cited in the text. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
Let's not personalize this, please. ʃæps is sometimes identifiable by virtue of its spelling alone; tʃæps is not. This is a bias in the evidence itself. I agree that consulting old dictionaries would be useful here. I have a photocopy of the relevant pages in DARE; it includes no map for "chaps" but perhaps the editors would provide one. I will ask! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.135.31 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 April 2008 UTC
Back during my grad student days at KANSAS (!) one of my profs was one of the main guys putting together DARE. Even in the early 80s, when everything was still on magnetic tape, they could run queries of the data base and build whatever map they pleased. I wonder if they're still willing to do such things? I would hope so, but I've lost contact with the process. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] One more complication

The word "chaps" has been borrowed into Australian English from the United States: "chaps, 'tʃæps, n., abbreviated form of chaparejos." The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t157.e9406> Note that the form is tʃæps in Australia. So we can't really say that ʃæps is a shibboleth among working cowboys because no one would doubt that Australian cowboys are "working". Don't know exactly how to fit this into the current compromise wording, but based on this, the discussion of pronunciation must be broader than just the United States and Canada. (Taivo (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Indeed. I have done a lot of web and Google Book searches now on "chaps", "shaps", and "schaps", and as far as I can tell the usual pronunciation is tʃæps in England. (Chaps are widely worn in the eastern US and in the UK for schooling horses.) In Canada I find a mixture of tʃæps and ʃæps, ʃæps primarily in interior British Columbia.
Reference to "working cowboys" can be qualified, if necessary, to limit it to (some) cowboys working in western North America. --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the "some" is not supported by the references. I think that the references are pretty clear that "working cowboys in western North America tend to...". Neither is an absolute, but the references seem to indicate that more cowboys use ʃæps, but, of course, not all cowboys. The cowboys' pronunciation seems to be losing ground to tʃæps, but within the community, ʃæps seems to be more common. And the New Zealand reference seems to indicate that New Zealand cowboys have followed the ʃæps pronunciation rather than the tʃæps pronunciation which Australian cowboys seem to have followed. That's not too surprising given New Zealand's well-known propensity of trying NOT to be "Little Australia". (Taivo (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] And non-equestrian is more than motorcycles and S&M

Note here the usage of chaps for chain saw safety: Northern Tool chaps (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Safety chaps are the first use mentioned in the non-equestrian use section. --66.167.135.31 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes the bifocals aren't as focused as they should be :p (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] DARE

DARE employs quantitative data gathering but the entries do not necessarily contain all data. Here is a description of what kinds of data may be included in an entry. Because of their criteria for data to include in an entry, spellings other than "chaps" may be over-represented. --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it would be useful to get a "data dump" from the DARE database on either a map or as a text file. (Taivo (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm amused. The filing party was the first to promote DARE as the be-all and end all source, and I believe it is the "ethnographic dictionary" she referred to when initially taking this to mediation. But now that I looked at the hardcopy and found out that it actually offers more support for my view, all of a sudden, it isn't any good. Sigh... you know, this isn't about winning, losing, or "proving" anything. It is about the weight of the evidence. Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have exchanged several e-mails with Luanne von Schneidemesser, Senior Editor, Dictionary of American Regional English. She told me that "chaps" was not a word on the DARE questionnaire, so DARE has no quantitative data on its pronunciation. The citations in DARE are from its Main File, a collection of other reliable dictionaries, newspaper clippings, etc., and the "usu" in the lead merely summarizes the citations. She also mentioned that she remembers writing the "chaps" entry and being surprised by the [ʃæps] pronunciation; a Kansas native, she knew only [tʃæps]. Does Kansas count as western? --Una Smith (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the comment re "usu" is my own. --Una Smith (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Wording Again

I'm going to go out on a limb again and represent some compromise wording. It has several features: 1) it recognizes the complex origins of the word, 2) it recognizes the widespread acceptance of one pronunciation at the end of the 19th century among one group of professionals, 3) it recognizes the widespread use of the other form of the word in today's English-speaking world. I think that these are the three things that the references prove.

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparral and aparejos 'apparel'. They are also sometimes called chaparerras. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in Australia, the eastern United States and Canada, and the United Kingdom.

That's a real mouthful, I know, but I think it accurately reflects the referenced facts that have been presented. Fix my Spanish derivation if I'm mistaken. I don't like using the term "shibboleth" since there is always a judgement involved. Yes, there are cases where it is used as a shibboleth, but I seriously doubt than most employers (if any at all) would determine whether or not a man works by pointing to a pair of chaps and asking, "How do you say that?" Men are not expelled from the PRCA if they say tʃæps. That's the definition of a shibboleth. I see it more along the lines of "y'all" in the South. You know whether the person is a Yankee faking it by how they use "y'all", but service is not refused on that basis. (Taivo (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Take two

I like the above. Some edits, though: chaparerras → chaparreras; specify English-speaking cowboys (important in this context). --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparral and aparejos 'apparel'. They are also sometimes called chaparreras. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in Australia, the eastern United States and Canada, and the United Kingdom.

I'd like sourcing re the etymology from "aparejos"; in the southwest US, in both English and Spanish, "aparejos" refers to a pack saddle consisting of a pair of leather sacks (sometimes just one double size sack) stuffed with straw, wool, or hair. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I found it: Random House Unabridged on dictionary.com. It looks like I misread and it's not "apparel", but "gear" and "chaparral" should actually be Spanish "chaparro" (based on the etymologies in other dictionaries). I think that it's a very likely etymology based on linguistic considerations. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the origin of "chaparejos". "Chaparral gear" sounds like an extremely likely origin. But that's just my linguistic opinion on the various etymologies presented (or, actually, the one etymology in the absence of other possibilities). (Taivo (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
I like this version. It seems to be accurate, without implying right/wrong. Una's modifications are appropriate.
As far as the Spanish derivation goes, I think there is no question about at least an indirect link with chaparral. A derivation of chaps supporting the chaparro root is described in Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk, p.54. : "chaps: (''chaparreras''|tʃaparéras] <''chaparro'' [see above] plus Spanish suffix ''-era'' 'utensil'; the preferred pronunciation in English is (ʃæps); this pronunciation was probably influenced by the Spanish spoken along the border where speakers pronounce the digraph {ch} as[ʃ] or{sh})." I don't know if this distinction is important, but it seems that chaparral and chaps both come from chaparro, which was also in use in Texas, and was likely derived from the Basque txapar(ra). (Voc. Vaquero pp. 52-53).--Getwood (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so with the corrections and clarifications, we're at:

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and aparejos 'gear'. They are also sometimes called chaparreras, from Spanish chaparro and the suffix -era 'utensil'. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

(Taivo (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Once we get this wording right and properly sourced, we should probably remove the pronunciation comments under non-equestrian uses since the sourcing for those comments is not as good as we are putting together for this statement. It also seems that those comments are more prescriptive in nature. This should be our one and only statement on pronunciation, as accurate as the sources allow and properly referenced. Una already made this proposal on the Talk:Chaps page. (Taivo (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree--Getwood (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take 3

Derived from Taivo's most recent version above. --Una Smith (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The word chaps is a clip of any of several loanwords from Mexican Spanish, for this kind of garment. They include chaparejos, chaparajos, and chaparreras, all of which still are used in English, especially in catalogs of Western wear. The Spanish pronunciation of the initial "ch" varies between [tʃ] and [ʃ]. In the western United States and Canada, since at least the end of the 19th century English speakers have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]. There, this pronunciation is used especially among professional cowboys. It is used also among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread. It occurs in some of the western United States, the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

[edit] Montanabw back

First off, I would like to thank everyone for their patience while I was offline. My thoughts to date:

  • I really like some variation of Tavio's "... working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word..." language, as opposed to "cowboys." I believe that "working western" reflects the widespread use of the term by horse show people, rodeo people, reiners, cutters, etc...its use is by no means limited to cowboys only. "Working western" is a nice broad term that, speaking as a person who is not a cowboy but a working western rider (though I also ride English, depends on what the horses I have at any given time do best at), I find that particular wording to be a very acceptable compromise.
  • I am also OK with the wording, "...since at least the end of the 19th century..." again, that is verifiable by just about every source provided that discusses history at all.
  • I am also OK with some statement, with source, to the effect that in the UK and Australia, "ch" is used, but in NZ "sh" is used. That said, I have noticed a tendency for some parties to take things out of context and use only the parts that they agree with, conveniently omitting that which doesn't support their views...all I ask is that we be careful on that count.
  • For the sake of peace in our "family," though my suggested language notes an east-west distribution, I would also be comfortable with those who say we probably need to not mention east-west distribution at all. (by the way, the east-west split actually may occur, not at the Rockies, but farther east, at about the 96th meridian, which is the climatic line that divides the west and east...with evidence from the 1944 cowboy dictionary, published by U of Oklahoma press, from DARE suggesting a language sift in east Texas and a clear shift by the time you get to Illinois, plus some anecdotal evidence in the form of "someone I talked to" says that in the Fort Worth, TX area (at 97 degrees west longitude), the distribution is about 50-50. And I can speak firsthand to hearing "sh" in Minnesota. (Not that this is a source, just a comment)
  • I think it critical not to take the "chaps" spelling in any book as proof in either direction as to pronunciation, as "chaps" is, since at least 1940 or so, acknowledged as the "correct" spelling (however you want to pronounce it), given that we have pretty clear evidence that many words with a "ch" spelling may have an "sh" pronunciation outside of this particular dispute.
  • Which way it was said "first" is probably irrelevant, as per WP:NOR any attempt to solve that question would be, at least, original synthesis. And, furthermore, does anyone here, even fluent Spanish speakers, have any clue as to the pronunciation of Spanish by the cattle-working and largely illiterate population of Old Mexico circa 1840-1870?
  • I am vehemently opposed to any type of wording that says that the "ch" form is "more popular" or "more prevalent." For the purposes of peace in the family, I suggest that we say nothing on that matter one way or the other. However, I do want to share my reasoning for this:
    • The first is lack of any kind of polling data. We all here have no clue whatsoever as to which way it goes beyond "me and my friends all say it this way." If we take DARE and combine it with the multiple slang and usage dictionaries that have been produced, the examples actually suggest more examples of "sh," given what they have, which, per WP:V is really all we have. But, as I said, I think a compromise is to say nothing at all as to popularity.
    • My second reason is an analogy that I used earlier on the chaps talk page; that is, widespread use does not really imply correctness or lack of correctness. The example I provided at the time, is from psychology. In popular use, the term "split personality" is often called "schitzophrenia," but in fact that is incorrect; the popular term "split personlity" is more accurately multiple personality disorder (or for those who really care, dissociative identity disorder). Nonetheless, in spite of a near-overwhelming use of "schitzophrenia," that doesn't change that it is not an accurate term.
    • The third example is from nautical terminology. Living well over 1,000 miles from an ocean, this kid growing up on a ranch read books about sea voyages that contained words like "boatswain" or "quay." Imagine my surprise to learn these words were pronounced "bosun" and "kee." To carry the "most popular" argument forward, it could be argued that, because lots of people live inland than on an ocean, it is perfectly OK to say "boat- swain" and "kway." Personally, I would not ever make that argument, should I mispronounce a nautical term (because I have no freaking clue about boats and oceans), I would graciously accept the "correct" prounuciation and do my very best to say it "right."
  • As for the Spanish and French thing, be careful about discussing Spanish pronunciation. I would be more comfortable saying that the pronunciation is simply an Anglicazation of the word--Keep in mind that while much of the vaquero tradition is Spanish, there IS some French influence on many loan words via the fur trade and assorted other cultural exchanges in the west. I need only point out Cheyenne, WY (pronounced "Shy-Ann") and Choteau, Montana (part-time home of David Letterman, and pronounced "Show-toe") to note just two examples. Also, Sacajawea's husband, Touissant Charbonneau, (even Lewis and Clark sometimes spelled his name "Sharbono") and other "ch" words have the "sh" pronounciation, wherever they came from. Further, chaps themselves as a garment may have multicultural influences beyond the Spanish; I noted that in one of my sources, there was a comment that "leggings" that gave rise to the shotgun style of chaps may in fact have been influenced by the leggings worn by fur trappers, who in turn borrowed the idea from Native Americans. (we can skip the discussion of American Indian leggings, but just a note).
  • As for root word, if we add up the various references, the stronger sources suggest that chaparreras (however spelled, there seem to be at least four or five ways to spell it) may have been original, and chaparajos some sort of intermediate form on the way to chaps. I don't know and don't really want to waste a lot of time on the question, but I suggest both forms be noted. We have only one source for aparajos, I think. That one was new to me, I would be careful that we don't sythesize a new form here (again, per WP:NOR). We also have armas as was noted in the history section (sourced to Western Horseman, which is a pretty authoritative source on western equestrian culture)

I guess that's all I have. Below is my suggestion for phrasing (We can use sources noted here and may also want to bring in some sources from the article as well -- particularly the Canadian cowboy slang dictionary and maybe some standard dictionaries -- (and Tavio, we once had the online etymology dictionary in there as a source too, I think it got deleted in the admin's compromise, but see the talk page...)

[edit] My suggestion for phrasing

Following the history section's discussion of the origins of the garment itself (which does not appear to be in dispute), though maybe with some tweaks for flow, then add (in place of the administrator's interim language) I put in [cite] each place where we probably need a reference and any other parenthetical remarks are also inside visible [brackets]:

Add to earlier history paragraph:

The word chaps is an Anglicized [(or whatever term you want, I just don't like "clip")] form of chaparreras or chaparejos,[cite] which may also have roots in the 19th-century Mexican Spanish terms chaparro (chaparral) and aparejos (gear).[cite]

Replace interim language at end of section with:

Since at least the end of the 19th century, particularly in the western United States and Canada, working western riders have widely pronounced the word with an "sh" sound [ʃæps].[cite] This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand.[cite] The pronunciation "ch" [tʃæps] is often used in the eastern United States and Canada [cite DARE I guess and the Price book Dreadstar found], Australia, and the United Kingdom.[cite]

Before we make any version final, I also encourage everyone to review the article to see how what we do here flows into what's already there (and, I think, not disputed). In particular look at the introduction to the article (where a description of the garment is given) and the History section where, among other things, an earlier form of protective wear is noted, with source from an extensive Western Horseman article on the history and styles of chaps. Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "not disputed", please review Talk:Chaps for several unresolved issues. --Una Smith (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds like we're real close

Sorry, Montanabw, but "clip" and "blend" are the precise technical terms used in linguistics for this derivational process. It sounds like you object to the extensive discussion of Spanish etymology. It is all referenced in various places, I just haven't added the references into the wording here yet to keep the clutter at a minimum. Some of the others like the etymological information, especially the inclusion of the relationship between "chaps" and "chaparral" (via Spanish chaparro). The variation in pronunciation in Spanish is also referenced in sources. Personally, being a professional linguist, I like the etymological information. And "anglicization" as a technical linguistic process is actually not very evident in this particular word. Chaparejos and chaparajos are not anglicized at all, they have just been borrowed wholesale from Mexican Spanish. Chaps is a clip of these words, but clipping is not an anglicization process per se. The only true anglicization that has occurred in the word is probably the preference in the use of the tʃæps pronunciation outside the West. Dictionaries love to throw around words like "anglicization", but anglicization is not an accurate portrayal of the history of these words. "Anglicization" is one component of a chain of things that happen when a word is borrowed, but not the only component. These are borrowed words, but they have not really been anglicized yet. Indeed, since both tʃæps and ʃæps are phonotactically well-formed words in English, anglicization is not necessary. Anglicization does not equal borrowing, anglicization is an adaptation of the pronunciation of a word that does not fit English phonotactic constraints to fit within English phonotactic constraints or adaptation of a word to fit English morphological structure. Even the original Spanish words all fit within English phonotactic constraints and English morphological structure, so anglicization is not relevant as a technical process here. We also don't want to lose the note that chaparejos and chaparajos are still in use. So, that being said, I'm going to leave the etymology here for now, but change the wording at the end to replace "cowboy". Since the wording already says "in western US and Canada", "western riders" is repetitive.

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear.[cite] Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and aparejos 'gear'.[cite] They are also sometimes called chaparreras, from Spanish chaparro and the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite] Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional riders have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps].[cite] This pronunciation is also used among professional riders in New Zealand.[cite] The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.[cite]

The etymology section is still long, but at least one other discussant liked it. Montanabw's version is shorter, but loses some descriptiveness. I haven't lived with the article as a whole as you all have, so I may be putting stuff in here that is already said elsewhere more subtlely. (Taivo (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Just had to look it up... The older technical term that "clip" replaced is ellipsis and the particular kind of clip here--losing one or more syllables in the middle, is syncope (unless you count the final -s as a suffix, then the process is apocope). We don't want to go there in this etymology. Linguists like clip and blend because they can be used both as nouns and verbs ("chaparejos was clipped" rather than "chaparejos underwent syncope"). I haven't used anything other than clip and blend in over 20 years of teaching the history of English (I really did have to look them up for this comment). (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Ah, there's one other place where "anglicization" could be considered here--the interpretation of the final -s as a plural suffix. But even then, the final -s in the Spanish forms is also a plural suffix, so anglicization wasn't part of the process even in this detail. (Taivo (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Would "The word chaps is a clipped form of..." be both accurate linguistically and acceptable to all? I'm guessing that the term anglicization would fit more with words like "buckaroo" and "hackamore." I like having the etymological stuff in there, but if it seems to be too much, it at least needs to go on the chaps wiktionary page, which needs help. As a compromise, can we combine the etymology sentences:
The word chaps is a clipped form of chaparejos (also chaparajos) or chaparreras, words blended from Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and either aparejos 'gear' or the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite]--Getwood (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's good wording. And, yes, "anglicization" is better applied to hackamore and buckaroo. There has been minor anglicization in the history of chaps because the vowel has been changed from [a] to [æ], but that's pretty minor stuff and nearly every borrowing in English has experienced vowel modification. It's literally true that nearly every borrowed word has been "anglicized" by reworking the vowels, but if we say that for every word, then the technical term "anglicization" loses its usefulness. (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Just a technical quibble. Chaparejos is a blend because it combines pieces of two words. Chaparreras is a derived noun since it involves suffixation. Apples and oranges. How about:
The word chaps is a clipped form of chaparejos (also spelled chaparajos) or chaparreras, words based on Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and either blended with aparejos 'gear' or derived with the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation of these words varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite] (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
I think "clip" needs to be wikified. Chaparro refers to a kind of oak; on Spanish Wikipedia es:Chaparro redirects to an article corresponding to Cork oak. On both English and Spanish Wikipedia, Chaparral is narrowly defined as scrub oak forest, broadly defined as any dense scrub forest (thickets). I think the reason chaparral is mentioned in the article is because in California the word chaparral is widely pronounced with an initial [ʃ]; in this respect its use in Chaps seems to me to give undue weight. In New Mexico, where "mesquital" (mesquite scrub, thicket, or forest) is far more common than oak scrub, I have not heard oak scrub called chaparral except by forest ecologists, a profession well acquainted with California chaparral. (By the way, New Mexico has its own pronunciation test equivalent to "chaps": Chamisa. Locals say [tʃ] (albeit rather softly) but some visitors say [ʃ] with a distinctly sibilant sound.) I would not refer to chaparral in Chaps for the simple reason that it seems "chaparral" originated in California and "chaps" originated in that other Mexican-Anglo contact zone, the region today known as west Texas and New Mexico. --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We can translate chaparro as 'scrub oak' (or whatever is most accurate), but chaparro needs to be mentioned since it is one of the components of the blend chaparejos and the derived noun chaparreras. To me, "chaparral" is scrub oak country, but if you think there's an important difference, I'm not wedded to translating chaparro that way. So what is best for chaparro? 'Scrub oak'? 'Cork oak' is not appropriate (it's probably Castilian and not Mexican). We'll wikify both "clip" and "blend" since they're both technical terms. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Chaparro is fairly broadly defined in Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk on pages 52-54 under chaparral, chaparro, and chaps. There is also reference to the usage of this word in Texas in 1892, not to mention the fact that there has been no conclusive reference showing Texas/New Mexico as the birthplace of chaps. I can't see how avoiding the use of chaparro or chaparral would benefit. (ps. if anyone is interested, there is a very rough, but growing reference list at User:Getwood/Sandbox/chaps.--Getwood (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the evidence for a Texas origin for "chaps" in English is mostly circumstantial--Anglos were ranching in Texas at least 20 years before they were ranching in California. But that's not evidence, so we don't need to mention which end of the border "chaps" comes from. Does "...chaparro 'scrub oak'..." sound like the best gloss? (Taivo (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Why not say chaps is derived from "chaparejos", "chaparreras", etc., all Spanish words for this garment, and stop there? Ie, do not explain the etymology of those other words, unless we add them also to the lead. (Listing them in the lead may be appropriate, actually, as they were and to an extent still are borrowed words in English.) The geography of where early accounts of "chaps" occur is evidence in favor of the TX/NM origin rather than a CA origin, because prior to completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 east-west travel from east of the Rockies to California was very slow and difficult, hence limited. --Una Smith (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your objections to the etymologies. I personally think they are very enlightening because they show the origins of the name in its use: "scrub oak gear". If the etymologies of the Spanish terms led back to something like "yellow pants without a seat" that would not be too interesting, but in this case, the etymologies of the Spanish terms are very relevant and interesting. Please elaborate. I agree that chaparejos, chaparajos, and, maybe, chaparreras should be part of the lead. You find these words in English. Indeed, "chaps" was not a clip of the Spanish words, but of the ENGLISH words after they were borrowed. (Taivo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
My objection boils down to this: absent a reliable source, the "scrub oak" story may be a folk etymology. I used to accept it but not anymore. Chaparro (cork oak) was used for hundreds of years in life jackets. Perhaps chaparreras etc. refer to personal protective gear (life jacket, leggings) rather than one vegetation type (among several) where such gear is needed? Also, it has been my experience riding in scrub oak thickets that my upper body is at greater risk than my legs. Chaps are ample protection against cactus, though. --Una Smith (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's evidence that chaparejos is an English word and that chaps is currently still perceived as an abbreviated form of it: Western wear catalogue. A lot of the references previously cited also show this. (Taivo (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
So maybe the first line of the whole article should be Chaps, sometimes referred to as chaparejos, .... (Taivo (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
Yes, something like that. --Una Smith (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Main & Winchester was in operation making saddles in San Francisco in 1849. By 1881, they were doing ~$2,000,000 in business with ~1000 employees. Try to name a significant Texas saddler who started before the civil war. There was a well-established business in cattle in California early on. Yes, before the trains. Yes, I know that everyone thinks cowboys originated in Texas and moved North. But there's a lot more to the story. Any evidence for Texas origins is circumstantial at best. Chaparro explains why chaps exist. Let's leave it in, and move on.--Getwood (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I know there was a Spanish Colonial cattle culture in California, which is why back when Chaps implied the pronunciation of chaps was derived somehow from the pronunciation of chaparral, I figured the evidence would show the word chaps in some manner originating in California. But I have now looked at many sources and I find no evidence of that. I'd like to see a reliable source that explains how "chaps" is (supposedly) derived from "chaparral", rather than from one of the many Spanish loan words for chaps. --Una Smith (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"Chaps" is not derived from 'chaparral', no one has said that. "Chaps" is derived from chaparejos/chaparreras which are derived from chaparro 'scrub oak'. "Chaparral" has a separate history coming from chaparro as well. Like cousins, the two share a grandfather, that is all. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Checking in

I've been keeping a close eye on things here lately, and you all are doing a good job hammering out a compromise version. I'm quite pleased with your progress. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 08:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BW's assorted replies

Yes, we're close. And in the interest of sticking to the issue in mediation, maybe we should go light on too many changes to the lead for now, focusing just on the word origin and etymology stuff here. My thoughts on recent comments.

  1. If "clip" or "blend" are linguistic terms, then let's DO wikify them or something; that was new terminology to me, it sounded weird to this non-linguist ("WTF is a 'clip'" she asked herself, "some sort of haircut??" (LOL!)). OK to use instead of "anglicization" if the terminology is more correct, no problem, but if we are bringing in technical language from linguistics, we'd better explain that somehow.
  2. Chaparajos vs. chaparraras: For decades, the conventional wording in most books on western riding has been that chaps is derived from chaparajos, which I always just assumed was correct. However, take a good look at the OED and some of the other sources that say Chaps is directly derived from chaparraras, and one of those sources at least hints that chaparajos is some sort of intermediate form between chaparraras and chaps. This isn't a moral issue with me, I guess a long discussion on etymology should in fact go into wiktionary (imagine me saying that!), here, I think just a "derived from" or "a clip of" or whatever, with a reference to both words, chaparraras first, should be plenty. Chaps protect the legs from assorted brush, whether it is scrub oak, chapparel, mesquite, or good old sagebrush (I've also had holes ripped in jeans by catching a pantleg on a Ponderosa Pine tree, by the way). The etymology linking the brush to the word may be helpful, but only if we keep it real short. I was the original editor to put in the bit about "chaparrel," to assist the pronunciation issue, I'm OK with omitting it too. Whatever.
  3. "Catalogues of western wear" -NO. Too narrow. I'd omit that. The wording "chaps" is pretty much universal, usually with an added nod when in written form that its roots are from chaparraras or chaparajos. I honestly do not think I have ever heard a living human being say chaparajos out loud, other than to say something like "chaps comes from the word chaparajos" (grin). In support of this statement, note that "Chaps" is also used in various association rule books (including USEF Equitation division and Western division rules for sure, just checked, and AQHA also I think, will have to check their (larger) pdf tomorrow when I have high-speed access instead of this dialup I'm stuck with at home), most books on western riding, etc.
  4. Geographic origin of chaps as a garment itself: There are both Texas and California origins. Actually, if you go back to the Western Horseman "Cowboy armor" article on the historical origins of chaps, they generally reference Spain and Old Mexico without specificity, and keep in mind that the Texas and California traditions BOTH evolved from the same original Spanish traditions, BOTH were raising cattle for a very long time but with obvious differences that arose in part due to geography and climate, one of the more obvious examples being in the handling of roped cattle (the dally versus "hard and fast" tie off of the rope). Both traditions had need for protective garments to protect the legs. There are also clear sources for some northern plains influence on the final garment, via the Indians and the Mountain Men. The book $10 horse, $40 Saddle, referenced elsewhere in the article, written by a fellow who was a Government Historian for the BLM, notes that the shotgun style of chaps was the earlier variety, batwings came later. Yet the batwing design became more common in Texas (it is cooler) and the shotguns more prevalent in the north (and trust the voice of experience, shotguns can be hotter than $#*@! in the summer!). So as far as "Texas first," some designs, perhaps, but the two traditions are, for all practical purposes, equally historic and each contributed elements to the modern product. (Similarly, hackamore training and the bitting of the reined cow horse also developed slightly different traditions.)
  5. The crux of this whole dispute is pronunciation in English. Thus, I really don't know if we want to get into the Spanish pronunciation of related words at all; I fear that will generate yet a different spat (says the veteran of the "vaquero/buckaroo" debate in the cowboy article). I'd prefer to duck the Spanish pronunciation issue totally, particularly because we have no experts in 19th-century Mexican Spanish on board here, nor, so far, any sources.
  6. I also think that we DO need to have at least a small nod to the "sh" pronunciation, even if we only want to reference DARE's "Usu" note that preceeded the "sh" pronunciation. I looked over Getwood's list and it is really overwhelming as far as the weight of the evidence goes. I really, really, really feel strongly about this. The article language has come a long ways from the original form and it would be a disservice to avoid the question entirely. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internal sandbox for final version?

Below, let's begin to write the final version. With citations. This section can be changed by anyone, but perhaps use strikeout and underlining to show how something was changed. Could get messy, but it's nice to see the earlier versions -- the strikeout and underline method is used by some legislative bodies to allow everyone to see at a glance what changes have been made. For the purposes of this work, I'll paste in the entire history section as it is currently worded in the actual article. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab based on my last version and incorporating comments made since then. I don't have all the refs in place yet. Just a note on style, don't put multiple footnotes after something--incorporate all the sources for a statement in a single note number and separate them by a line break with <*br> (without asterisk) (see the way I did note 12). That's my particular pet peeve. (Taivo (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
My edits below, mostly wordsmithing for now. Montanabw(talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The earliest form of protective leather garment used by mounted riders who herded cattle in Spain and Mexico were called armas, which meant "shield." They were essentially two large pieces of cowhide that were used as a protective apron of sorts. They attached to the horn of the rider's stock saddle, and were spread across both the horse's chest and the rider's legs. From this early and rather cumbersome design came modifications that placed the garment entirely on the rider, and then style variations adapted as vaqueros and later, cowboys moved up from Mexico into the pacific coast and northern Rockies of what today is the United States and Canada. There is also some evidence that certain design features may also descend from the Mountain men, who copied them from Native Americans.<*ref>Blevins, Win. Dictionary of the American West. Seattle:Sasquatch Books, 2001 ISBN 1-57061-304-4, pp.75-76
"Gifts from the Indians," North Carolina Indians, web page accessed April 14, 2008
[http://books.google.com/books?id=DOq4phLykqcC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=chaps+leggings+indians&source=web&ots=Rd7T91AGaz&sig=zZwOoQRp6OZHWI8OVupaAD5lXik&hl=en Ward, Fay E. The Cowboy at Work, Courier Dover Publications, 1958/2003 reprint. ISBN 0486426998 p. 227. Accessed April 14, 2008</ref> Different styles developed to fit the local climate, terrain and hazards.<*ref name="Cowboy Armor">"Cowboy Armor." Western Horseman, July 2007, pp 145-146</ref> Designs were also modified for purely stylistic and decorative purposes. The Mexican or Spanish words for these garments was chaparajos or chaparreras, which in English was shortened to chaps.<*ref>Multiple definitions of "chaps," stating both chaparajos and chaparreras as root words. Web page accessed March 10, 2008</ref> The earliest references to chaps may date as early as 1810-1820.<*ref>"chaps." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. accessed 10 Mar. 2008. (Dictionary.com)</ref> Other sources place chaps as an English language word in 1844.<*ref>"chaps." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. Accessed 10 Mar. 2008. (Dictionary.com)</ref> However, t The time of actual appearance of the garment on American cowboys is uncertain. By the late 1870's, however, most Texas cowboys wore them as the cattle industry moved north.<*ref name="Rickey">Rickey, Don Jr. $10 Horse, $40 Saddle: Cowboy Clothing, Arms, Tools and Horse Gear of the 1880's. The Old Army Press, 1976, LC no. 76-9411. pp.46-47</ref> By 1884, the Dictionary of American Regional English notes use of the word in Wyoming, spelled "schaps."<*ref>Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I)</ref>

The word chaps has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps) by Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada.<*ref>Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215</ref> This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral.<*ref>"Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” thereby mimicking the sound of the original Spanish terms chaparejos or chaparreras." Slatta, Richard W. The Cowboy Encyclopedia. W. W. Norton & Company,1996, p. 64 ISBN-10: 0393314731, ISBN-13: 978-0393314731</ref> English-style riders, among others, pronounce the word with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/).<*ref name='LPEW'>Price, Steven; Jessie Shiers (2007-07-01). The Lyons Press Horseman’s Dictionary. The Lyons Press. ISBN 978-1599210360. </ref> Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.<*ref>Dictionary of American Regional English, Eds. Frederic G. Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Volume I, A-C, 1985, ISBN 0-674-20511-1, page 592</ref><*ref>"Chaps: Pronounced shaps, no matter what you may have heard or what your dictionary says."Parker, Jameson.An Accidental Cowboy Thomas Dunne Books; 1st edition, 2003. p. 271. ISBN-10: 0312310242, ISBN-13: 978-0312310240</ref>

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos) or chaparreras, the Mexican Spanish namesterms for them, both of which are ultimately based on derive from chaparro, 'scrub oak'.<*ref>Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary Web page accessed 14 APR 08
Multiple definitions and etymologies of chaps Web page accessed March 10, 2008</ref> The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professionalworking western riders have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps].<*ref>Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215
Slatta, Richard W. The Cowboy Encyclopedia. W. W. Norton & Company,1996, p. 64 ISBN-10: 0393314731, ISBN-13: 978-0393314731</ref> This pronunciation is also used among professional rodeo riders in New Zealand.<*ref>New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association glossary</ref> The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most a more common pronunciation in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.<*ref>Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I)
The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008</ref>

[edit] Una's offering

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos) or chaparreras,<*ref>Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary Web page accessed 14 APR 08
Multiple definitions and etymologies of chaps Web page accessed March 10, 2008</ref> all Mexican Spanish words referring to this garment. In English, the word has two common pronunciations: [tʃæps] and [ʃæps]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps].<*ref>Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215</ref> This pronunciation is also used among rodeo riders in New Zealand.<*ref>New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association glossary</ref> English-speaking riders in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom have tended to pronounce the word [tʃæps].<*ref>Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I)
The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008</ref>

[edit] Don't think I abandoned the effort

I'm spending the next couple of days in Uzhgorod away from my computer. I'm not abandoning the effort, just taking a break for the real world. (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

We'll wait. No sweat. Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaparro, chaparra

Casells' Spanish Dictionary relates chaparra, not chaparro, to scrub oak. --Una Smith (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And on that particular issue, I have no real opinion, just source it well and in full context. (I still like chaparrel, personally, because it is the better known term, but I also don't care enough to really argue about it.) Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean "chaparral" I'm guessing...
Chaparra would make sense given the likely root being "txapar(ra), a diminutive of saphar(ra) 'thicket' or 'hedge'." Vocabulario Vaquero p. 52-54. But this reference, as well as Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia, the New Encyclopedia Brittanica, Spanglish: The Making of a New American Language, the The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, and The History of Basque all list chaparro. Diccionario de la Lengua Española [2] lists chaparra and chaparro, although chaparro is given as two of the definitions for chaparro...
In the end, it seems that for the etymology of chaps, that chaparro is the root.--Getwood (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm good with it. Though, as the cowboy lingo books speak to chaparral (yes, I'm getting so damn confused by all dem spellin' variations thet I kin barely reed or rite anythin' any moore...) I don't know if we want to fool with that or not. As for the actual plant, well, shucks, we don't have much of that "ch" stuff up here in the Big Sky Country, (for more weird-looking stuff with spines per acre than anywhere, I say Arizona wins) and cactus here is more why ya need boots, pardner, it's pretty little stuff. We still need chaps 'cause we get some pretty tall sagebrush in places, and cattle seem to really like to hide in thickets of brush in the creek bottoms too...but that's a side issue. For now, I say we tap 'er light await Tavio's return, and hope we have consensus, I'm about talked to death and just want to fix the article. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final agreement

I'm back. Montanabw would like Uzhhorod, Ukraine--the Carpathian Mountains remind me a lot of the Rockies in central west Montana--the areas around Missoula and Anaconda especially. OK, now back to work. I think we have something to put in the article. If everyone else likes the current wording, I have no complaints about it. It's accurate and sourced. A note on chaparro versus chaparral. Chaparral is an English word, not a Mexican one, so you can't get Mexican chaparejos or ... from an English word. Chaparral is easier, but chaparro is the word because that's the Mexican word. I say we cut and paste the current sandbox version once all the parties to the mediation have signed off on it. I'm good. (Taivo (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Welcome back Taivo. I am happy with the current sandbox version too.--Getwood (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't, so I have inserted a new version, not very different from the former one that is OK w Getwood. Why mention at all the origin of the Mexican words (and if that is to be mentioned, how about citing a Mexican dictionary?) --Una Smith (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Taivo's version with one caveat: Don't say "professional" riders. Many non-professional western riders say "sh" also. Note my changes above. Una, your alleged interview with a DARE editor is, at best, original research, and even if you really did talk to this person, the "she never heard it" argument is one you have repeatedly bashed others for making. And, Kansas is a state that straddles the 96th meridian, the geographic "east/west" climate line, so basically, half of it is in the west.
I agree about the "professional" riders. --Una Smith (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Madame mediator, would you kindly weigh in on this? Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. In this situation, I would say to take the version that everyone can be satisfied with, the lowest common denominator, if you will. I won't weigh in on the content as I'm meant to be neutral in this, very sorry. However, I would suggest possibly creating a poll for each version (as there are quite a few floating around) and implement whatever is agreed upon. Please do discuss, I'll work with whatever's good for you. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Keilana, is a 3-1 consensus acceptable? Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is the dissenter? If their version is acceptable by the other three, I would suggest that it be implemented as acceptable by all. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, based on the above conversation in this section, I am under the impression that the filing party is still not happy and felt the need to create a new section, but it may be a minor phrasing issue. I can await others weign in. Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That is what I assumed, how about we wait for her to chime in, it may yet work out. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've revised "my" version above. ("My" because someone else labeled it as such.) It omits "professional" and also introduces the two pronunciations rather than jumping right in. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totally unrelated chitchat about Ukraine

Tavio, the geographic similarity doesn't surprise me! You may be interested to know that there is a significant population of Montanans living up in the Northeastern part of the state (prairie country) descended from the Volga Deutsch, German-speaking Russian immigrants who lived in the wheat belt of the Ukraine from the time of Catharine the Great until the late 1800s. And of course, there also is Butte, where the surnames that don't begin with "O'" or "Mc" end with "ovich" (smile). Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polling version

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos or chaparreras,[1] which are Mexican Spanish words for this garment, ultimately derived from Spanish chaparro,[2] one sense of which is a low growing thicket--difficult to ride through without damage to clothing. In English, the word has two common pronunciations: [ʃæps] and [tʃæps]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps].[3][4] This pronunciation is also used among rodeo riders in New Zealand.[5] English-speaking riders in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom have tended to pronounce the word [tʃæps].[3][6]

  1. ^ Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (prepared by). Oxford English Dictionary, vol. III (Chan-creeky). Oxford:Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1989, 2000 reprint, pp. 24 and 28. ISBN 0-19-861215-X (Vol. III only), ISBN 0-19-861186-2 (set)
    Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary Web page accessed 14 APR 08
    Multiple definitions and etymologies of chaps Web page accessed March 10, 2008
  2. ^ Vocabulario Vaquero p. 52-54.
    Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia
    New Encyclopedia Brittanica
    Spanglish: The Making of a New American Language
    The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology
    The History of Basque
    Diccionario de la Lengua Española
    [1]
  3. ^ a b Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I)
  4. ^ Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215
  5. ^ New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association glossary
  6. ^ The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008

[edit] Comments on polling version

I made three changes to the wording above (seeing as how we have eliminated the use of strikeout and underline). The first was to add a comma between chaparro and 'scrub oak.' The second was to swap the IPA pronunciation order so that "sh" comes first. (Weight of the evidence and also supported by DARE). The third change was to add DARE as a cite in addition to the Sandilands citation, yes I know using two footnotes in one sentence isn't 100% perfect use but in this case, I think it's acceptable. Oh and a fourth change: DARE is going to be used elsewhere in the article, so making a "ref name" tag for it. Please oh god (on knees, praying to any deity that may choose to listen ) may these changes be acceptable and may we finally close this mediation. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Second comment: What do you think about using the OED as citation #1 instead of )or in addition to) the Merriam-Webster online dictionary? I think it pretty much says the same thing, but is a stronger source. If we use it, here's the cite, if anyone wants to edit it a bit to make it perfect: Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (prepared by). Oxford English Dictionary, vol. III (Chan-creeky). Oxford:Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1989, 2000 reprint, pp. 24 and 28. ISBN: 0-19-861215-X (Vol. III only), ISBN 0-19-861186-2 (set). OED also says chaparreras and chaparejos, which is OK with me to use just those two, I see no real reason to have all the spelling variants. But that is not a huge issue with me. Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I like including all the many variants of chaparajos etc., they illustrate the problem non-Mexican cowboys (many of whom were brand new immigrants to North America and not native speakers of any regional form of American English) must have faced as they discovered the garment and multiple foreign words for it on the range. Rather than (or perhaps after) struggling over which word to use, they clipped all the options down to their common prefix, chaps. Voila. Too bad they didn't opt for "aps", eh? --Una Smith (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see both sides of this, and agree that multiple spellings do help explain the clipping. My problem has been with the or, or, or phrasing, since chaparejos/chaparajos are essentially the same word and chaparreras from a slightly different etymology. This, for me too, is not a major issue. Una, I like your "aps" clip... Definitely would have been easier... :)--Getwood (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but would that be pronounced "ahps" as in "cops" or "aaaaps" as in "naps"? (LOL) I mean, you cahn't pahk your cah in Haahvahd Yahd, after all... (ducking, running, grinning)
As for spelling, when you add in the reality that many cowboys -- of all races and nationalities -- couldn't read or write anyway, and those who did often followed in the footsteps of Lewis and Clark, who were notorious not only for phonetic spelling, but for sometimes spelling the same thing a half dozen different ways throughout their journals (!), this whole spelling question becomes far more amusing. I vote for readability. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaparro dispute

I want to ask why Una does not like the chaparro information. I think it is a very informative piece of information that makes the explanation for the piece of clothing more plain.

So we should poll for two things right now: 1) Do you accept the current wording? 2) Do you prefer the wording without the explanation of chaparro? I cannot vote since I am not technically a party to the dispute. (Taivo (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

I may just be overly tired, but the first sentence doesn't make sense to me.... am I mis-reading it? Does the second phrase/clause/whatever have a verb? --AeronM (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed (Taivo (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Better, only now there are two commas. --AeronM (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There's just no pleasing some people ;) (Taivo (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Una does not like the chaparro information because the situation is more complex than it seems. Eg, the Spanish dictionary that Getwood cited, Diccionario de la Lengua Española [3], gives several meanings of chaparro, only one of which seems relevant. That one, roughly translated to English, is low growing woody vegetation, ie a thicket. Scrub oak is just one of many kinds of thicket. Also, I doubt the reliability of Mexican Spanish etymologies in English language books about "cowboy words"; with regard to the donor language the scholarship is wanting. I'd prefer a high quality Spanish language source. Wouldn't you? Finally, the etymology of words other than "chaps" seems rather tangential to the etymology of the word "chaps" itself. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The gloss 'scrub oak' can easily be changed to 'low growing thicket' or whatever. The interesting part is the fact that the word originates in the name of the stuff it protects from. And, ultimately, this IS the etymology of chaps. Etymology is the science of where the word comes from in its long history. History does not begin with the moment an English speaker adopts a word. And the etymologies from the sources cited by Getwood seem quite adequate to show the origin of chaparejos/chaparreras in chaparro. And it's not uncommon at all for a word to have multiple meanings and to have only one of those meanings relevant in a given complex etymology. "Bear" is used in one meaning in "bearhug", but in another meaning in "load-bearing". This is not unusual. Perhaps the wording can be changed to "chaparro, one meaning of which was 'low growing thicket'". To a linguist, the connection is quite obvious and a 'high quality Spanish language source' is not absolutely necessary in this case. If Wikipedia allowed "original research" I'd just slap the comment in without sourcing because the connection is quite clear. There is nothing wrong with Getwood's sources. Now, if chaparejos came from a Spanish word meaning leather pants that would not be so interesting. Let the others weigh in on whether or not they like the etymological information. If they don't want it either, then it can be removed. But right now it's an adequately referenced (it's better referenced than some of the other information) piece of information. And in the history of our discussions here "adequately referenced" is something to be prized. (Taivo (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
As expected, I like the chaparro sentence. It seems to me that the sources are strong, and 'scrub oak' or 'low growing thicket' make it all clear. The book about "cowboy words" is actually quite well researched, if you take a moment to look at it. It's not just a cowboy writing his idea of etymology, but has a strong reference list, which includes many Spanish etymological books, DARE, DRAE, etc. If I have a quibble, it is more just in the flow of the first sentence. I would suggest :"The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (also chaparajos) or chaparreras, which are Mexican Spanish words for this garment, ultimately derived from the Spanish chaparro 'scrub oak'."--Getwood (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake, I am with Getwood and Taivo. The bottom line is that chaps protect riders from stuff that grows around three to five or six feet high, hence can catch on your legs, rip your pants and scatch you up. I really don't give a flying rip what the hell you call it, the bottom line is that's why the garment was invented and thus it is relevant. Now can we PLEASE end this? Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Montana, I understand you're frustrated, but could you please be more civil in your comments? Hopefully this final wording can sort it out. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry about that. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I take Getwood's point. However, I still have a problem with "the Spanish chaparro 'scrub oak'". Chaparro is an old word with a lot of regional variation in its use. Eg, in tropical Central America it refers to a member of the obscure plant family Malphigiaceae, and in Spain it refers to cork oak which certainly is not scrub. So, how about this? "the Spanish chaparro. Chaparro has many senses and references, including the sense of low growing thicket; this is difficult to ride through without injury." --Una Smith (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Awkward wording and not precise ("injury" is overkill, "damage to skin or clothing" would be more accurate), but if it settles the issue, fine. I have ceased to care about this point. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see Una's point about Chaparro and scrub oak not being 100% synonymous. The wording, to me, just doesn't scan smoothly. How about:"...the Spanish chaparro, one sense of which is a low growing thicket, which is difficult to ride through without damage to clothing." Taivo, I'm almost there... We've spent so long working on this. It seems like we're all converging on real consensus. It feels good.--Getwood (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes work for me. All we need now are votes from Una and Aeron. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

Everyone has given something and everyone has received something. No one has been left in the dust and everyone's comments have been aired. Not everyone will get everything they want in this, but this is a good, well-referenced, interesting statement that is linguistically sound. No one really cares the exact number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin. We've got a good round number here. (Taivo (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I reread the original statements and issues:

Una 1a) objected to the statement that "shaps" was original and "correct"--we've addressed that point, such statements are gone
Una 1b) objected to the statement that since "chaparral" was "sh", then "chaps" should be, too--we've addressed that point, we've made clear that "chaps" comes not from "chaparral" but Spanish words (and not commented on Spanish pronunciation)
Una 2) objected to the characterization of pronunciation based on riding style--we've addressed that point, showing that pronunciation is probably regionally based and not riding-style based
Una compromised on the issue of a "common" pronunciation among Western riders since at least the end of the 19th century. We have also widened our approach to include a more international perspective
Montanabw felt strongly that the original version was accurate and well-sourced. The current version is better sourced since there are sources listed for everything and are better balanced. While Montanabw's sources tended to focus on the issue of "sh"/"ch", further sources have been brought out that reference each point in the discussion. Montanabw compromised on the issue of "sh" being "correct" and a "shibboleth" for Western riders. In exchange we don't actually mention in the statement how non-riders in the West tend to pronounce the word, which was an early bone of contention. ((Actually, I just noticed that the way we've worded it, we don't ever mention how any non-riders pronounce the word. That's probably for the best.))

These were the two most vocal parties to the discussion, although not the only two interested parties. Everyone made important contributions to the current wording and referencing (for example, Getwood's list of references for chaparejos/chaparreras and the international references). (Taivo (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] POLLING

OK, we've tweaked the polling version a good bit (see it above). Please vote on whether this is a good version.

Here are the original parties to the mediation:

  1. Una Smith (talk · contribs), filing party yea --Una Smith (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Montanabw (talk · contribs) YEA, YEA, YEA A THOUSAND TIMES YEA
  3. Getwood (talk · contribs) yea--Getwood (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. AeronM (talk · contribs)
  5. C0pernicus (talk · contribs) yea C0pernicus (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make this simple and just vote "yea" or "nay" beside your user name? Put any comments below in a new section. (Taivo (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, so how long to we wait on this before we paste something into the article that is better than what is there? The article needs mending while we wait. Would anyone object to me pasting our polling version into the article while we wait for final approval here? (Understanding, of course, that the fix may be temporary.) (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, obviously I'm cool with it. Aeron is probably not going to vote, see her talk page, she is going to be off wiki due to a real life crisis. I don't know what's up with Una, maybe someone ask on her talk page if she is going to vote. She was online as of the 21st, so should know the voting is up. MADAME MEDIATOR, how long do we wait for active contributors to vote before closing the case? Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there was pretty good covergence of opinions on the current version. I suppose that since Una had the original concerns that got us here, we will want to see her opinion. But, from the previous discussions, it didn't seem that she had any significant objections to the current version. So, I support Taivo's placement of the current version on the chaps page. If Una has objections, we can certainly fiddle with it some more... although I hope we are done. Getwood (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur; if Una has no or few objections, this version can be implemented and this closed as a success. Thanks for your patience and willingness to work this out. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So how long to we wait for Una to be back online? Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say 1 week *at most*, and if she's not online by then you should be able to implement this and I'll put the mediation "on hold" until she gets back. Sound good? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As most of you know, I stuck the polling version in the article (with a "temporary" comment) last Friday after waiting five days for Una's approval. So, right now, the "status quo" is that the polling version is in the article and we're on hold here. (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Well, as Una's agreed, that seems to be that. I'll close this as successful in just a minute. Thanks to all for your work and patience; I'm glad that this could be resolved. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keilana, thank your for keeping the heat turned down as this dispute was resolved. Taivo, thank you also for diving into this as a new, relatively unbiased, outside opinion and for your active efforts at finding common ground and assorted wordsmithing. I hope I speak for everyone when I say that we all appreciated your efforts. Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. (Taivo (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

I thank everyone who remained civil while participating in this mediation. Your cooperation was much appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will briefly re-iterate what has already been said here: Thanks to all. It was tumultuous at times (and I readily admit to contributing to that...), but ultimately very gratifying. My apologies to any I might have offended, and my thanks to all for invigorating my interests. I am proud to have been involved with this group of bright contributors. Let's do it again...peacefully. Getwood (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)