Robin,
the reason why you are being delirious is because you tried to oppose to my
clear and immaculate definition of “stupid” and “stupidity “ (as being dull
and slow in mental and emotional perception ) (so, please, read my letter,
before getting into a frenzy of uncontrolled responses) a whirl of
definitions (the delirious blow you desire to hit me with) that are just
a repetition of exactly what I said.
Also, alas, when the world stupid and stupidity (with its unquestionable
Latin etymology) arrived to your country, it was too late for you to claim
but a mere distorted use of it (due to medical doctrines initiated on the
continent centuries before by Greeks and Romans, which define stupid as
being not the same as mad. Therefore not at all applicable, as I stated, to
poet and poetry).
erminia
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:00:22 -0000, Robin Hamilton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Erminia writes:
>
>"
>Note on stupidity: etymologically (being Italian it comes easy to me, the
>etymology of words: I am not trying to intellectualise the matter), it
>comes from the Latin stupor (the being amazed). So to be stupefied, it is
>to be subjected to the effects of something amazing which causes stupor.
>"
>
>Alas, Erminia, there are two problems here. One is the Etymological
Fallacy
>(surely exploded since de Saussure was published early in the century) that
>the current meaning of words can be explained by an appeal to their
semantic
>origins.
>
>But that aside, the etymology you propose is a little dubious.
>
>[With the usual reservations about first citation not necessarily being
>first use, etc. ...]
>
>Both "stupid" and "stupidity" first appear in English in the same work, a
>translation by the poet Robert Copland (fl. 1508-1547) of _The questyonary
>of cyrurgyens, with the fourth boke of the Terapentyke [sic] or methode
>curatyfe of C. Galyen_ by Guido de Cauliaco. This is published in England
>in 1541, and has the following:
>
>"For the fyrste speake ouer lyghtly and to imprudently, ... and the other
>are all togyther stupydes, sturdy, & lytygious."
>
> (defined by the OED under STUPID as: "3. Wanting in or slow of mental
>perception; lacking ordinary activity of mind; slow-witted, dull.")
>
>... and
>
>"Nowe we must esteme the stupydyte or audacyte of the man. I say the
>stupidite yf he thynke to say well and the boldnes yf he fele hym selfe
>culpable to saye nothynge."
>
> (defined by the OED under STUPIDITY as: "4. Dullness or slowness of
>apprehension; gross want of intelligence.")
>
>Copland's translation of Guido's work on Galen would seem to be a one-off,
>as the next appearance of "stupidity" isn't recorded till 1568. Even more
>surprisingly, "stupid" doesn't reappear before 1605.
>
>As there are a relative wealth of instances of "stupidity" recorded after
>1568 and before 1605, it would appear that (counterintuitively) "stupidity"
>was in fairly regular use +before+ "stupid".
>
>The OED [if we accept its authority here] gives separate etymologies for
>"stupid" and "stupidity":
>
>STUPID: ad. L. stupid-us, f. stup-ere to be stunned or benumbed. Cf. F.
>stupide (Rabelais), Sp., Pg. estúpido, It. stupido.
>
>STUPIDITY: ad. L. stupiditas, f. stupid-us: see stupid and -ity. Cf. F.
>stupidité, It. stupidità.
>
>But enough of these modern inferences!! Much more fun is to be found
>mousing around The Early Modern English Dictionary Database (
>http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/english/emed/emedd.html ).
>
>There are 25 examples recorded, so I'll only give a selection.
>
>Cotgrave in 1611 defines both words:
>
> Stupide: [Stupide, benummed, sencelesse; dull, blockish, lumpish;
>amazed, appalled, astonied.]
>
> Stupidité. [Stupiditie, sencelesnesse; dullnesse, blockishnesse;
>astonishment, amazement.]
>
>And (with a bow to Erminia) here's Florio in 1598:
>
> Stupidità, stupiditie, astonishment, amazement, dullnes, or priuation
>of the sences, sodaine priuation or lacke of sence or feeling, benumming,
>astoniednes, dulnes or a trouble of the minde vpon a sodaine feare, not
>perceiuing.
>
>But enough of this stupidity ...
>
>Robin
>
>APPENDIX:
>
>As Robert Copland's poems aren't that easy to find, perhaps a sample might
>be of interest? Yes? No? Anyway ...
>
> A complaynt of them that be to soone maryed
>
>For as moche as many folke there be
>That desyre the sacramente of weddynge
>Other wyll kepe them in vyrgynye
>And wyll in chastyte be lyuynge
>Therfore I wyll put now in wrytynge
>In what sorowe these men lede theyr lyues
>That to soone be coupled to cursed wyues
>
>Now am I in grete myschefe and sorowe
>To soone I put my body in gage
>I lyue in care/nyght/euen/and morowe
>Lytell lacketh that I ne enrage
>To be to soone maryed I layde my gage
>Cursed be the tyme that I it euer knewe
>The deuyll haue his parte of maryage
>And of hym that me fyrste therto drewe
>
>My herte ryght yll dyd me counsell
>To a yonge woman me for to same
>To soone wedde there they dyd me compell
>Wherfore I holde my selfe in fame
>By god I swere and by his name
>I wyll all louers clene dyscourage
>That wolde not wt there wyll take them a dame
>And put them selfe in suche domage
>
>Better it were to be a man sauage
>Than to be take in that ylke lase
>Gentell galauntes flee that passage
>Besyde that waye loke that ye passe
>Go out of that waye that wyll the chase
>Go out of that waye or ye be loste
>Go ye therfro/tourne ye your face
>Go frome that waye to another coste
>
>Go ye thense my frendes I you praye
>Go ye therfro I you do praye
>Go ye frome that hote flambe of fyre
>Go ye therfro as I you saye
>Or ye wyll repente an other daye
>Go ye therfro full loude I crye
>Go ye fro the bonde of welawaye
>Whiche is the arke of all folye ...
|