Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:56:46.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pepper, Pickle, and Kipper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Extract

When we find an English word beginning with p, we quite properly suspect it of being an adopted word—if not evidently imitative or of nursery origin. For early English words beginning with p there are two chief sources: Latin (including indirectly Greek) and Celtic. If the word appears only in England, it may a priore have come from either of these languages. If it is found both in England and on the continent, it is almost sure to have come from the Latin. Pickle appears both in England and in North Germany, Holland, etc., and we are therefore justified in suspecting a Latin origin for it. It also belongs to the category of words that we know to have been largely drawn from Italy. In the earliest days the Italian traders introduced piper ‘pepper,’ vinum ‘wine,’ acetum ‘essig,’ etc. Later the Germanic peoples owed much of the development of the culinary art among them to the Christian priests and monks from Italy. They were fond of good living, of spices and of sauces. They brought with them from the South seeds and plants, and they raised vegetables and herbs for the table and for the cure of the sick. It is, therefore, but natural that we should suppose that so artificial a product as pickles should have had a similar source. These considerations and a knowledge of the South-German use of pfeffer in senses similar to those of pickle led me to associate pickle with pepper. One kind of pickling suggested that kipper was only another form of the same word.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1899

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is strange that Wilmanns attributes the change of e to ö to a neighboring l or sch, and admits the influence of a neighboring labial only in the dialects. There are but four words in his list that do not contain a labial, and more than that number that contain a labial but do not contain an l or sch, The truth appears to be that labials and sch and l tend to labialize an e, and that they are particularly successful if a labial and an l or sch occur near the same e, just as English u is generally retained only between a labial and an l or sh (full, pull, bull, wolf, etc.; push, bush, etc.), while it sinks and becomes unrounded elsewhere (but, cup, us, etc.; rush, gush, etc.).

2 The meanings of the three words are classified and arranged alike, so that the corresponding uses may easily be found.