entomophagy

You could see this word as looking like a line of little bugs heading from the left to the right, with the ones at the right getting… well, either larger or chewed up. In sound, it starts out soft-ish, and then gets to be a bit like a stuffed mouth trying to say something, but ends a little crisper. The rhythm is a trochee plus a dactyl, like etymology.

It’s a two-piece word made from Greek bits. The second half should be recognizable from anthopophagus, macrophage, sarcophagus, onychophagia, and a host of similar words, some less familiar than others: it’s from φαγειν phagein, “eat”. The first half is from εντομος entomos, “insect”; I don’t find it sounds especially insect-like – no buzzes or clicks, just those warm, soft nasals with a stop in the middle – but, yes, it does have a bug-like look. It actually comes from a root meaning “cut up”, because insects have bodies divided into different segments.

So, yeah, it’s eating bugs – cut up or whole, raw, cooked, or live. Does that sound horrifying, disgusting, creepy, et cetera? Well, people in many parts of the world do it, sometimes with considerable relish (and sometimes with no condiments at all). There are communities within Judaism that consider some kinds of locust kosher (I’d stick with locust bean, myself). And, hey, who hasn’t eaten bee puke? It’s great stuff – never spoils – and so flavourful. Most people call it honey.

But of course eating honey doesn’t count as entomophagy any more than drinking milk counts as eating beef. Does eating spiders or centipedes count as entomophagy? It does by the looser definition that allows other creepy-crawlies also to count. (My wife would consider eating shrimp or lobster a kind of entomophagy, given that they are, in her words, “disgusting sea insects” – to which I reply, “I’ll have yours, then.”) But is that true to origins?

Well, we should always remember that etymology is not a suitable guide to the current meaning of a word. The mistaken belief that you can know the true meaning of a word by studying its origins is called the etymological fallacy. Etymology is interesting and often useful information, but words can change their meanings quite entirely over time. As I go to troubles to show, sometimes it’s through cultural shifts, sometimes through aesthetic effect of sound, sometimes through sound resemblance to other words (up to and including shift of sense through confusion). I wonder whether someday the occasional confusion between etymology and entomology will become cemented… Probably not.

But it happens that the very word etymology has an origin that supports the etymological fallacy if you believe it, and disproves it if you don’t: it’s from ετυμος etymos “true” and λογος logos “reason” or “word”. If etymology is about finding the true meaning, then you can say that etymology is really about finding the true meaning; if it is simply about finding the history, then regardless of its origin, etymology is really about finding the history.

And why do I dig up the histories of words, then? Why, to taste them. I like a nice, rich, layered etymology, with its complex flavours. I guess you could call my tasting and digestion of them etymophagy. And so much better than entomophagy… ain’t that the truth!

3 responses to “entomophagy

  1. “But it happens that the very word etymology has an origin that supports the etymological fallacy if you believe it, and disproves it if you don’t: it’s from ετυμος etymos “true” and λογος logos “reason” or “word”. If etymology is about finding the true meaning, then you can say that etymology is really about finding the true meaning; if it is simply about finding the history, then regardless of its origin, etymology is really about finding the history.”

    Do you think that there is something like ‘true meaning’ for a word? Is it not like true meaning of existence or absolute reality: I mean, there is no true meaning—-you as an etymologist, suggesting ‘etymological fallacy’, give a notion to me that the meaning is always flux ( or in a state of flux?). In that case, true meaning for me would be ‘original meaning’: which is, the root of the word—or the meaning which was there when word came into existence—and even to pin-point to that meaning is not possible methinks. Etymology has been understood by me as something tracing the evolution of the word as far as possible. If I were to discover that it means ‘True Meaning’, I would have immediately gainsaid that there exists no such thing! 🙂

    • I don’t think there is such a thing as a “true meaning” either. Words have no objective meaning; it is an agreement by a speech community to use a given word to signify a given thing, and the nature of the definitions is such that there is always a certain fuzziness, even between different uses by the same user. Their common use by a large speech community gives them a certain durability, but to look for some transcendent value… a naive concept.

  2. Pingback: pissant | Sesquiotica

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s