On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:54:29 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2014-04-15 15:25:21 +0000, CDB said:
> > On 14/04/2014 9:40 PM, Gus wrote:
> >> More or less true?
> >> "There was soon a definite divide between the shaven and the
> >> unshaven - at least as far as the shaven were concerned anyway. In
> >> fact, some etymologists think that the term "barbarian" actually
> >> comes from "barba", meaning "beard". Hence, barbarians were simply
> >> all those who were "unbarbered" or didn't shave. (An alternate
> >> theory is that "barbarian" comes from the Proto-Indo-Eurpoean root
> >> *barbar, meaning something to the effect of "stammering" or
> >> "unintelligible", referring to the people's language, rather than
> >> lack of shaving.)"
> >>
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/04/the-history-of-shaving/
> > The "alternate theory" explains the Greek origin of the word
> > ("barbaros") better, since "barba" is the Latin word for "beard".
> > "Barbarus" in Latin is a borrowing.
>
> Better? I don't believe it. Can we really put more trust in the the
> opinion of some unnamed etymologists quoted by an unknown journalist in
> an article dated the 1st April 2013 than in the standard view?
Please read what CDB _actually_ wrote. He endorsed the "alternate"
theory, which in terms of the posted paragraph means the conventional
etymology from "bar bar" 'babbling' or some such.
> At least at the time of Aristotle the Greeks had beards, so why would
> they have used "bearded" as a term of contempt? Why would they have
> adopted a Latin term?
I'm sure CDB is grateful for your support.