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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>