It's the word of the day at the OED, and it means what you think — foolish philosophy.
It's an old funny word, traced all the way back to 1592:1592 ‘C. Cony-Catcher’ Def. Conny-catching To Rdr. sig. A3 That quaint and mysticall forme of Foolosophie.
I had to look up "Cony-Catcher"/"Conny-catching" too, and I imagined, wrongly, that it was a reference to female genitalia. But, no, "coney" is the skin of a rabbit. And to "coney-catch" is to swindle.
From 1907:
1907 Putnam's Monthly May 188/1 ‘Man is truly handicapped by reason.’ Doubtless, when it comes to this kind of ‘Foolosophy’.
But what kind of philosophy was it? Here's the whole essay from Putnam's: "Quack Journalism."
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
I didn't know it meant to swindle, but I assumed it had something to do with rabbits. (I think one possible explanation for the name of Coney Island had to do with there being lots of rabbits there originally.) I don't think coney refers only to the skin, but also to the animal itself.
I have an annotated book of nursery rhymes and remember there being at least one that has the word "cunny" in it, which is a genitalia reference.
Were I still in practice, I’d save “cony-catch” for use in a brief. Right up there with “argle-bargle”.
I was introduced to the word "coney" through reading the Lord of the Rings.
Anybody who read or watched Lord of the Rings knows a 'coney' is a rabbit or hare.
Or fish, so you get half credit for your guess.
Coney Island was once a literal island inhabited by rabbits. The inlet that separated Coney Island from Brooklyn could be crossed at low tide, which enabled the Dutch settlers to use it for grazing cattle. In fact the whole of South Brooklyn was once a phalanx of islands separated by tidal creeks that were eventually reclaimed by the colonists.
To expand on Nar's correction:
a. A rabbit: formerly the proper and ordinary name, but now superseded in general use by rabbit, which was originally a name for the young only.
b. Still retained in the Statutes, and in more or less familiar use with game-keepers, poachers, game-dealers and cooks: in market reports, now usually meaning a wild rabbit.
>>I imagined, wrongly, that it was a reference to female genitalia.
Dang! In the Lord of the Rings, I was certain Sam was referring to kinky sex when he said "There's only one way to eat a brace of coneys."
Ann, you do yourself an injustice! That link goes not just to the essay you quoted, but to the entire issue -- and to the next one; for all I know, through the entire year. (1907 -- I think you said this, but haven't gone back to check yet.) It was interesting to try to guess the year, based on internal clues. Upton Sinclair is in there, and Bernard Shaw, and a bunch of then-recent historians, and Chesterton -- the last in an essay I know to be from 1906 or 1907.
The article on how new writers are distorting and perverting the English language is a classic. I want to send it to my current editor, who rails constantly against the same thing, though I doubt he blanches when someone uses "transpire" for "take place," or "phenomenal" for anything except in contrast to "noumenal." There is a delightful phrase in there, tweaking people who avoid Latinisms, translating the "impermeability of matter" as the "thoroughfarelessness of stuff." He slips when he denounces "quondam friend," saying there's nothing wrong with "former friend"; Shakespeare (whom he idolizes) uses "quondam king" in (I think) one of the Henry VI plays.
Speaking of Shakespeare, there are a couple different commentaries on the then-newly-discovered "Grafton Portrait."
Can anyone conceive a modern monthly containing such a wealth of goodies?
We used to follow a beagle on Facebook whose name was Max. He had lots of doggie adventures. And he had a 'Filosofee', 'You has to has snacks and love.' Sometimes in our home we repeat Max's filosofee to one another and smile.
Damn, Michelle. I thought Shakespeare used "condom king."
Or was it 'quondam queen"?
So Foolosophy means what you think — foolish philosophy. Perhaps all things philosophical are foolish.
This reminds me of the word existentialism which I see as an attempt to define the philosophical rules for human existence as we interact with others in the world we live in. My reaction is why do we have to have a philosophy for reality?
But some folks like our past president who makes up new rules when the old ones don't work for him, as in 75 million beats 81 million every time.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा