Language desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 10

doggy speculation

The origin of the English word dog is unknown (though a speculative etymology is given there). It was first used for English mastiffs.

From reading etymologies of English place-names, many of which contain an abbreviated Old English personal name, a hypothesis occurs to me (as it must have occurred to others) that maybe the breed was named for a breeder called Docga; though I haven't come across such a name, it fits the style – as far as I can tell.

So: Who knows enough Old English to say whether Docga could indeed be the short form of an OE personal name? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive, with that spelling, it would have been pronounced like modern English 'dodger', so I doubt it is related to 'dog'. 'Dogga' was the word I have seen often used as its etymology, and it was quite simply a type of dog and not all of them. This would be like calling all dogs a 'Dachshund' or something. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KT, read the etymology in the article the OP links (which the OED will corroborate – this is something I've previoously taken an interest in): the derivation of 'dog' from OE 'docga' is not in doubt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it in doubt, afaik, that words resembling dog were first applied to specific breeds before becoming general – odd though that may seem to you. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory, but it seems unlikely. According to the OED, dog "belongs to a set of words of uncertain or phonologically problematic etymology with a stem-final geminated g in Old English which is not due to West Germanic consonant gemination and therefore does not undergo assibilation. These words form both a morphological and a semantic group, as they are usually Old English weak masculine nouns and denote animals; compare frog n.1, hog n.1, pig n.1, stag n.1, Old English sugga (see haysugge n.) [i.e., a hedge-sparrow], Old English wicga (see earwig n.), and perhaps teg n. [i.e., a yearling sheep.]" So a derivation of just dog from a breeder's name would be problematic, as it would not account for the other animal terms. John M Baker (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't aware of the "set of ... problematic" words. But doesn't frog have a German cognate? —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here three years ago. The Georgian word for dog is dzaghli and the Basque word is Txakurra whence Spanish chacorro > cachorro. Sardinian has giágaru (Campidanese) 'hunting dog', Corsican ghjacaru, and Albanian has zagar 'hunting dog'. This may hint at some substrate language and or wanderwort source for the word dog. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has the word дог (dog), but it refers specifically to the Great Dane. Their general word for a dog is собака (sobaka), which sounds like a non-rhotic sa-barker (how appropriate). Back when the British tennis player Sue Barker was a competitor, whenever my then father-in-law (whose English was rudimentary) heard her name mentioned, he thought they were calling her a bitch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the association with hunting dogs seems widespread. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of word "combination"

This question refers to the following article: Capital punishment in Texas#Capital offenses. In this sub-section of the article, the fifth bullet point lists one of the definitions for capital offenses in Texas. It states: While incarcerated for capital murder, the victim is an employee of the institution or the murder must be done "with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination". The first part of that statement essentially refers to an incident in which a death row prisoner kills a prison guard. What does the second part of that statement refer to? What could the word "combination" possibly mean in this context? My hunch tells me that (perhaps) the word "combination" is some sort of odd substitute for the word "prison gang" (or just "gang"), but even that doesn't quite make sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of profit suggests that they are referring to (criminal) money-making enterprises involving more than one prisoner. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "conspiracy to commit murder" would be the normal term. Note that the conspirators don't need to be in a gang together or have any other association than to plan the murder together, and, in this case, plan to profit from it in some way. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Yes, that all makes sense. But, the statutes (state laws) of Texas are, clearly, legal in nature. Why wouldn't they use a more "legalistic" word, such as "conspiracy" or "conspirators"? Why would they specifically use such an odd and "non-legal" word as "combination"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a very old law ? We'd have to research it's origins to figure out the strange word choice. Maybe a non-lawyer wrote it, and the lawyers who reviewed it thought it was good enough, and didn't want to insult the author, so let it stand ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But, it has to be post-1976 ... so, it's not that old. Seems a very odd choice of words. Also, I believe that only lawyers draft laws, no? The legislature of Texas must have lawyers on staff who review all bills, laws, etc. I am sure they must even draft them, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See combination. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. So, it is a synonym for "conspiracy". I never heard of the word "combination" in this context. And I am quite surprised that the drafter of the law didn't simply use the word "conspiracy". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be synonymous in general speech - the OED has examples of this usage dating back to the 16th Century - but there may be a subtle legal distinction. According to our conspiracy (criminal) article "under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime." In other words, for there to be a conspiracy it's not enough for two conspirators to make a plan, they have to take some step towards carrying out that plan. It may therefore be the case that the word "combination" was chosen to make it clear that in this instance there is no need to demonstrate there was an overt act in order to determine that there is a combination. By the way, unless I am misreading the law, the phrase does not in fact mean "conspiracy to murder", it means murder in order to establish, maintain, or participate in a "combination", which I would understand here as "joint criminal enterprise". So I'd suggest your intial understanding that this relates to murders that are carried out as part of the activities of a criminal gang is spot on. The wording "the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination" is identical to that in Section 71.02 of the Texas Penal Code [1] which is, as the reference I've posted shows, is concerned with organized crime and "street gang" activity. Valiantis (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha, thanks. I figured there must be some logical reason that the drafters would specifically use such an odd choice of words. So, just let me get this straight. You are saying that a "conspiracy" requires two components: the planning plus some overt act in furtherance of that plan. In contrast, a "combination" requires only one component: namely, the planning (without necessarily requiring the overt act). As such, the "combination" sets a lower bar. Obtaining a conviction on a "combination" charge requires less proof/evidence (fewer elements) than obtaining a conviction on the "conspiracy" charge. So, if the death row prisoners make a plan (in concert), that is enough for a conviction. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually put in motion any acts toward the furtherance of that plan. Is my understanding correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems the prosecutor has to show that a "combination" exists or is being furthered. In some cases (known gang members) that may be easier. FWIW, I also found Combination Act which is an old usage -- in short it's an illegal organization, like in RICO laws. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. This was very helpful. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]