i dont see how all this nitpicking is relevant. language is too important
to leave to linguists, and as we know for centuries or millennia rabbis
are the ones who have done all the important work of etymology. in
fact EVERY rabbi i have ever read (at one time i used to read german
rabbis looking for examples bearing on the early history of jewish
german/yiddish) was among other things an expert on language.
incidentally, not only language. if i ever get cancer, too, i will consult
a rabbi and not an oncologist. i just had one question: why can’t rabbi lazerus
also be right because in that case good could come from god, which in turn
comes from gada. or maybe both come from gada in parallel, because obviously
it is good to have on your side of the angel who is in charge of mountains and not
so good to have be upset with you.
so why should we call rabbi lazerus’s brilliant etymology a “FOLK-etymology” if we don’t
apply the same term to rabbi klein’s?
[incidentally, on a side note, technically a folk etymology is NOT a naive
pseudo-etymology but rather an ALTERATION which has no obvious etymology
in a given language (either because it is borrowed or because it has changed too
much over time either semantically or phonologically for its native origin to be
apparent to a nonspecialist). so, the alteration of chaise longue to chaise lounge
so that it now can be related to lounge is a folk etymology but a claim that
butterfly is derived from flutterby is not a folk etymology but a false etymology.
there should be a term for a false etymology that is believed/taught by individuals
who dont understand how etymology works, but there apparently isn’t. this is presumably
why the term folk etymology is used for this, but that’s confusing two very different things.
for one thing real folk etymologies are probably most often precisely the work of
the FOLK, whereas it seems that naive pseudo-etymologies have long been
the province of intellectuals of various sorts.