I believe our "canons of etymology" document is due for a review and update. In the spirit of refining our collective understanding and methodology, I’ve proposed four new statements. I’m not certain whether these ideas are unwritten, incorrect, or entirely novel, but I’d appreciate feedback and discussion on them.
Proposed Statements:
A historical etymology from within the same language is always wrong. This suggests that genuine historical etymologies follow external influence or older roots and cannot arise from a single language's contemporary self-perspective.
Embodied meanings precede concrete, which precede abstract meanings. This posits a developmental hierarchy in meaning, reflecting how human cognition and language likely evolved.
A personal name is older than its surrounding vocabulary, has a correspondingly simpler meaning, and is unlikely to represent an entire sentence. This emphasizes the primordial and foundational nature of personal names, rooted in simplicity and practicality rather than being intricately inflected and arranged compositions.
You can say something is related, but you can’t say something is not related. This applies a logical rigor to etymological connections, likening the assertion of unrelatedness to an argument from silence. It encourages openness to potential links rather than premature dismissal.
Are these principles already implicit in current practices, or do they represent new directions?
Do these statements hold up under scrutiny and align with linguistic evidence?
Could these proposals enhance our methodology or address gaps in the field?
