[Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

Tue Oct 27 17:46:42 PDT 2015

It is open and shut.

Saying it came from a well established name for wandering people versus
having no alternative, the only scientific thing to do us to accept the
plausible explanation.
On Oct 27, 2015 7:56 PM, <sargondj at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm no philologist, but I don't think it's as open and shut as suggested.
> While there is no proof the term derived from something other than in
> reference to the people, there is equally no proof to the affirmative that
> it is named after those people. Although it is indeed probable that it was
> named after the Roma people, mere coexistence (or pre-existence) of the
> term doesn't confirm it's the source.
>
> To keep things in perspective: On more than one occasion, I've heard
> contra dance callers explained that an "allemande" comes from the French "à
> la main" or "by the hand." However, that is apocryphal and the true origin
> is from a reference to a German dance (in French, "Allemande"). Just
> because something sounds logically consistent doesn't mean that's the true
> origin. I think the fact that the term is shortened to "gip" in some
> contexts and spelled as "jeepsies" in another leaves enough reasonable
> doubt that it could come from other derivations. That said, it may need to
> be retired regardless.
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 13:50, Ron Blechner <contraron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This should be open and shut.
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gypsy
>
> The term, whether with a y or i vowel (remember, this is before Webster
> invented the dictionary with standard spellings) is ~400 years old.
>
> The burden of proof is thus on those who would say there's some other root
> of the word where the Morris dancers got it.
> On Oct 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" <twirly-girl at bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading all the historical origins discussion.  It's seems to
>> me we are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with
>> Romani people.  We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers
>> using whole and half gip, and appropriated the movement and term for
>> broader use in country dance, apparently without investigating origin.  And
>> we have a possible association between an Elizabethan? theater production
>> called the Spanish Gypsy, with a dance of similar name with movement that
>> may or may not be what we now call gypsy, but was not so named in said
>> dance.  We are all assuming that at some point, someone was referring to
>> the Roma, to their hands free dance, to their gaze, or something, but we
>> don't know.
>> That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer
>> encountered.  People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and
>> association.  And some feel it is not politically correct, and take
>> offense.  We haven't heard of a case of Romani people taking offense,
>> presumably because we haven't had any attend a contra? That doesn't make
>> using the term ok, it just means we have no usable specific data.  Sargon's
>> question therefore remains unanswered.  What are the criteria for removing
>> a term from our vocabulary?  What level of provable offense constitutes
>> reason for removal?  Even if the answer is none, it's worth asking
>> ourselves.
>> Andrea
>>
>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it
>> differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing,
>> because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse
>> direction version.
>>
>> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy"
>> move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
>> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and
>>> when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical
>>> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously
>>> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify
>>> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when
>>> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is
>>> deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken
>>> to eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes
>>> to mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the
>>> reference to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always
>>> featured red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's
>>> advocate I ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the
>>> etymology of the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can
>>> rightfully be cast aside for being an offensive term?
>>>
>>> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with
>>> offensive terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely
>>> independently? For example:
>>> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a
>>> swastika.
>>> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
>>> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common
>>> rock formation.
>>> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
>>> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
>>>
>>> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and
>>> appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in
>>> contra dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant
>>> elimination? Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather
>>> genuinely trying to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra
>>> vocabulary. Curious about any/all perspectives on this -- thanks!
>>> Sargon
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <
>>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apologies for putting words in your mouth.  I misunderstood what you
>>>> were saying.
>>>>
>>>> -- Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you
>>>>>> say on the web page.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Alan -
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe I say that.  I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use
>>>>> the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it.  I agree that morris
>>>>> dancers use "gyp".
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin Hume
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151027/e5491fd0/attachment.htm>