log (n.) 1398, of unknown origin. O.N. had lag "felled tree" (from stem of liggja "to lie"), but on phonological grounds etymologists deny that this is the root of Eng. log. Instead, they suggest an independent formation meant to "express the notion of something massive by a word of appropriate sound." Logging "act of cutting timber" is from 1706. Logjam "congestion of logs on a river" is from 1885; in the figurative sense it is from 1890. Logrolling in the legislative vote-trading sense first recorded 1823, from the notion of neighbors on the frontier helping one another with the heavy work of clearing land and building cabins (as in phrase you roll my log and I'll roll yours). Log cabin in Amer.Eng. has been a figure of the honest pioneer since the 1840 presidential campaign of William Henry Harrison.
log (v.)

"to enter into a log book," 1823, from logbook "daily record of a ship's speed, progress, etc." (1679), which is so called because wooden floats were used to measure a ship's speed. To log in in the computing sense is attested from 1963.

Well,yes, the Dutch word "log" means heavy and slow but to suppose logy might come from Dutch is not logic. We use the word log in most references just like the English word, exept for in the adjective form, where we do not add the 'y '.

He did say "perhaps." AHD agrees with him, adding that it may be a variant of loggy. The y would have been added in English, so its lack in the Dutch is no argument against this proposed etymology

I like the way the OED (Online Etymology Dictionary!) simplifies things [NB: not a recommendation]:
"dull and heavy," 1848, Amer.Eng., perhaps from Du. log "heavy, dull."

W3 adds, 'akin to Middle Low German luggich lazy, sleepy'

-joe (Monday morning, logy to the max) friday

Yeh,yeh, but I can't help associating it with "sleeping like a log".
In the middle ages English and Dutch were so closely related and specially in the language coming from sailing, fishing ,boats and such. Well it's perhaps and sure we're nothing like the lighthearted Italians. Right: Heavy and dull, so be it.
Thanks Anu

btw. I think I remember that the Dutch word "dul " in those days meant mad.
The Breughel painting: "De Dulle Griet" means she is mad; is translated: Mad Meg.

Mad Meg

She's the larger figure in the center: you can enlarge details.

How firm are phonological grounds?

Logy's AT4T

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His
reputation if he didn't. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)

I'm always a little surprised at these less-than-subtle digs at religion.

It is possible to love words, be a respectable thinker, and be religious. There are plenty of other groups to pick on: Southerners, Northerner, Mid-Westerners, Westerners, Easterners, and, of course, Californians. :-) Well, Canadians, too. Then there's the flawed Europeans. And, politicians, absolutely.

BobS

Of course.

But did we not get the same Thought for Today today?

"A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is. -William James, psychologist and philosopher (1842-1910)"

This is not unrelated to the previous poster's question, since it is only true if God exists. Think about it.

I would say this was a case of petitio principii but that would be edging too close to discussing religion, a taboo subject on this board.

I understand the need to protect the forums from degenerating into endless arguments about religions and politics, etc, and agree with the idea of generally steering clear of overt promotion of religious positions. We are here primarily to discuss words.

However, I would argue that it's not possible to have an absolute ban on ever discussing anything religious since that would cut out discussion of a large part of the English language (and other languages living and dead that we also talk about). Many words and their etymologies are intrinsically religious, or occur in a philosophical setting that may legitimately involve talking about historical beliefs, etc. Religious talk in context should be allowed, in my opinion. Same goes for politics. You can't talk about the language of classic pieces of literature like the Gettysburg Address, or the Declaration of Independence, for example, without mentioning the religion and politics expressed in those documents. But it becomes obvious when a discussion has moved on to become merely a stoush between Republicans and Democrats or Atheists and Theists. It's just a matter of using common sense and tact.

>It's just a matter of using common sense and tact

both of which *have gone south here (you should pardon the expression) from time to time in the past. thus we remain ever-vigilant.

-joe (but not vigilantes) friday

This reminds me of the many Americans who believe that "separation of church and state" means that it is forbidden to discuss religion, or things religious, in public schools. This is complete nonsense. It is forbidden to compel students to subscribe to a particular religion (evangelizing), but not to discuss or inform. It's also not "against the constitution" for students to gather on school grounds for a religious purpose, as long as it does not violate any laws and is strictly voluntary. :0)

>to discuss or inform

to discuss or inform in an exclusionary fashion becomes problematic (but now we're approaching that forbidden ground).

Funny, I didn't see the words "in an exclusionary fashion" in what I wrote. Perhaps you're reading something into it? :0)

no; I added those words purposefully -- exclusion is what often happens in the event.

For example, The Pook's assertion that William James's comment is only true if God exists has as an unstated premise that a man has a true existence only if there is God to perceive that true existence. The assertion was worded in such a way as to appear to be a proof of the existence of God. Hence my claim of petitio principii. But perhaps The Pook was offering it as a reductio ad absurdum. One never know, do one?

Not quite.

>sigh<

I thought I was just commenting on AT4Ts that say something essentially critical about religion. It gains nothing, produces nothing. This week has another.

I wasn't stating whether or not religions were opiates of the masses. If religion is not a useful topic here (and of course a warm topic as seen already), to which I agree, then the AT4Ts themselves are suspect. I love the words. Perhaps my method bringing the AT4T to attention was wrong. There are many others far more articulate than me who can say what I wished to say in a better manner. That's why I kept it short. Hmm. and this is loong. ("since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief ..." -- I follow in your footsteps, Polonius!)

Bob V-Vore

if you have a comment regarding AWAD itself, you should address it to Anu Garg [he seldom posts in these forums unless it is *truly administrative; e.g. regarding a software update.]

you can reach him via the Feedback link at the bottom of this page.

..or via the Contact Us link from within the daily mail, if you get that.

We are acquainted via previous e-mails. He knows quite well how I feel. He, like many really smart people, thinks highly of his own opinions. In a previous AWAD summary, he does respond to someone's critique of an ad, responding that he wasn't responsible for the content of the ads (??).

However, this moves me to try again.

Thanks