Science > Linguistics
To bee or not two be
agni:
Was reading Ouspensky the other day and couldn't help to notice simlarity between two words BEEHIVE and BEHAVE (the way englishmen would pronouce it). Beehive mentality, can be paraphrased as Behave Mentality in terms of obidience.
Now I am wondering if these two words have the same origins. They seem to have appeared about the same time.
=========
Word: Beehive
Pronunciation:
\ˈbē-ˌhīv\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
1: hive 12: something resembling a hive for bees: as a: a scene of crowded activity b: a woman's hairdo that is conical in shape
&
Word: Behave
Pronunciation:
\bi-ˈhāv, bē-\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
be·haved; be·hav·ing
Etymology:
Middle English behaven, from be- + haven to have, hold
Date:
15th century
transitive verb 1 : to manage the actions of (oneself) in a particular way 2 : to conduct (oneself) in a proper manner intransitive verb 1 : to act, function, or react in a particular way 2 : to conduct oneself properly
PepperFritz:
--- Quote from: agni ---Now I am wondering if these two words have the same origins. They seem to have appeared about the same time.
--- End quote ---
No, they are not related.
"BEEHIVE" is a compound word, combining "BEE" and "HIVE", the etymologies of which are as follows:
BEE:
O.E. beo, from P.Gmc. *bion (cf. O.H.G. bia, M.Du. bie), possibly from PIE base *bhi- "quiver." Used metaphorically for "busy worker" since 1535. Sense of "meeting of neighbors to unite their labor for the benefit of one of their number," 1769, Amer.Eng., is from comparison to the social activity of the insect; this was extended to other senses (e.g. spelling bee, first attested 1809). Beehive is first attested c.1325; as a kind of hairstyle, 1960.
HIVE:
O.E. hyf, from P.Gmc. *khufiz (cf. O.N. hufr "hull of a ship"), from PIE *keup- "round container, bowl" (cf. Skt. kupah "hollow, pit, cave," Gk. kypellon "cup," L. cupa "tub, cask, vat"). Figurative sense of "swarming, busy place" is from 1634.
The etymology of "BEHAVE" is as follows:
"BEHAVE":
c.1410, from be- intensive prefix + have in the sense of "to have or bear oneself in a particular way, comport." O.E. behabban meant "to contain." Behavior is 1490, from havour, altered (by influence of have) from aver, from O.Fr. aveir "to have." Behaviorism coined 1913 by U.S. psychologist John B. Watson (1878-1958).
While "HIVE" and "HAVE" may look and sound similar in terms of modern spelling and pronunciation, in the middle ages they would have been pronounced quite differently ("wheave" vs "hava"), as suggested by their origins. Although the two words do, coincidentally, involve a sense of "containment" -- i.e. a "hive" is a "container" for bees, and to "have" is to "contain", and to "behave" is to "contain oneself".
agni:
Thank You PepperFritz. Time to familiarize myself with etymology more. How trustworthy do you think modern day etymology is ? Do you know by any chance any good source to find out how etymology dictionaries are compiled ?
--- Quote from: PepperFritz ---While "HIVE" and "HAVE" may look and sound similar in terms of modern spelling and pronunciation, in the middle ages they would have been pronounced quite differently ("wheave" vs "hava"), as suggested by their origins. Although the two words do, coincidentally, involve a sense of "containment" -- i.e. a "hive" is a "container" for bees, and to "have" is to "contain", and to "behave" is to "contain oneself".
--- End quote ---
As far as "wheave" vs "hava", rearrange/extract couple of letters from "wheave" and we have - "we have". Too many coincidences :)
Probably, it's my mind playing tricks on me of trying to see what I want to see in both cases of "beehive" vs "behave" & "wheave" vs "hava".
PepperFritz:
--- Quote from: agni ---How trustworthy do you think modern day etymology is ? Do you know by any chance any good source to find out how etymology dictionaries are compiled ?
--- End quote ---
Not sure what you mean by "modern day etymology" and "trustworthy". The study of the English language is a pretty straightforward and well-established; the history and origin of English words are traced back through their appearance in various written texts throughout the ages, as well as their relationship/borrowing/evolution from the words of other influential languages. Where etymologists are able to provide a clear demonstrable history/evolution of a word, they do so; and when clear sources are lacking and they are relying on conjecture and/or speculation, they so indicate. It's a massive group effort whereby the scholarship of one generation builds upon the previous one.
The grand-daddy of all etymological dictionaries is the Oxford English Dictionary (in its complete, unabridged form), and it remains the gold standard. If you really want to get a sense of the vast amount of time and first-rate scholarly resources that went into (and continues to go into) the compilation of the OED, I highly recommend any of the numerous books that have been published about it, especially "Caught in the Web of Words: J. A. H. Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary".
--- Quote from: agri ---As far as "wheave" vs "hava", rearrange/extract couple of letters from "wheave" and we have - "we have". Too many coincidences :)
--- End quote ---
Yet they remain unconnected "coincidences". It's difficult to explain how far off the mark your "approach" to this subject is, due to your lack of knowledge about it. It's like someone trying to tell a zoologist that a tiger and a zebra MUST be closely related, because they both have stripes and a tail. I had a strong interest in ancient languages from a young age, and am fortunate to have studied most of the old languages that are incorporated into our current modern English -- i.e. Classical Latin and Greek, Old French, Gaelic, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon (now known as "Old English"), and Middle English. Therefore, when I look at just about any English word, I can very quickly identify its meaning and history, based on what are, to me, readily identifiable components. Much in the same way a zoologist can quickly identify the various biological components that makes a species relationship apparent. Etymology is more science than art.
English is an incredibly rich language, with almost every word laden with fascinating social, religious, and political history. A good start for the layman to get a sense of this is Melvyn Bragg's very good BBC television series and accompanying book "The Adventure of English: The Biography of a Language".
agni:
--- Quote from: PepperFritz ---Not sure what you mean by "modern day etymology" and "trustworthy". The study of the English language is a pretty straightforward and well-established; the history and origin of English words are traced back through their appearance in various written texts throughout the ages, as well as their relationship/borrowing/evolution from the words of other influential languages. Where etymologists are able to provide a clear demonstrable history/evolution of a word, they do so; and when clear sources are lacking and they are relying on conjecture and/or speculation, they so indicate. It's a massive group effort whereby the scholarship of one generation builds upon the previous one.
--- End quote ---
I come from the perspective, that if history has been twisted for political and control reasons, that same can apply to etymology.
--- Quote from: PepperFritz ---Yet they remain unconnected "coincidences". It's difficult to explain how far off the mark your "approach" to this subject is, due to your lack of knowledge about it. It's like someone trying to tell a zoologist that a tiger and a zebra MUST be closely related, because they both have stripes and a tail.
--- End quote ---
They are unconnected. After reading your analogy with zebra and tiger, you do make me laugh at my approach and my own foolishness, I'll remember that when I will be looking at such "coincidences"(if they can be even called that, and that one of the things you are pointing out at, right ?) As I mentioned in previous post I am seeing what I want to see. And you see right, my approach is an approach of complete amateur.
Thus I believe my post is very out of line, and I see I was asking these question for selfish reasons, things that I found are interesting to ME, not to forum members, nor I think they are of real benefit to anyone doing work. I apologize for bringing noise to the forum again. I clearly see that my bs levels are still very high, and only "valuable" contribution I can provide is to "Baked Noodles" section of the forum. It means more reading, learning and self-evaluation for me , before "contributing" again. I really thank you for helping me seeing that !!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version