[u]Gramma[/u]

I went on an excursion through my library, looking for the answer to tsuwm¡¦s question, does gramma = writing, and gramma = small weight mean that there is an actual lexical connection; or is it possible that the term gramma was simply overloaded?

I found the answer in Origins A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, by Eric Partridge:

gram (1). See GRAIN, para 2.
gram (2), gramme. See GRAMMAR, para 1.

„³ grain ¡K 2. Gram, a plant grown for its seed, drives from Port grao, from L granum.

¡§AHA!¡¨ I thought. I could see how a unit of small weight could derive from a grain, and expected to learn that the weight gram and writing gram were unrelated. But nooooooooo¡K I read further:

„³ grammar ¡K 1. Grammar, the Latin language (C14-16), the general subject (C14 onwards), hence a book of grammar (C16 onwards) derives from late ME gramer, gramere, from OF-MR gramaire (MF-F grammaire) a semi-learned, irreg derivative from L grammatical, trin of Gr grammattke (elliptical for g. tekhne, the art of alphabetical characters, the art of reading and writing), prop the f of grammatikos, skilled in grammar, adj from gramma, a letter of the alphabet, lit something written or for writing, hence also ¡V from the marking ¡V a small weight (whence F gramme, E gram), perh for *graphma, from graphein (s graph-), to scratch or carve, hence write; akin to OE ceofan to notch, nick, cut (whence CARVE, q. v. sep), MHG-G kerben, to notch or nick, MHG kerve, a notch, Lett grebiu, I carve; IE r *gerbh-.

There is, indeed, a lexical connection. Huh.

And while I was tracing the origins of ¡§gram,¡¨ I discovered an interesting connection to ¡§glamour¡¨. From Thereby Hangs a Tale, Charles Earle Funk:

glamour

Until the seventeenth century there was no necessity fo anyone to speak of ¡§Latin grammar,¡¨ because that was the only kind of grammar that was taught. Anyone who knew his ¡§grammar¡¨ necessarily knew Latin. Even in these days [c 1950], among untutored folk, any learned person is regarded with something akin to awe. But in those days, when few men in any community could read or write, one who was so leaned that he could read and speak Latin was believed, by common folks, to possess occult powers, to be capable of witchcraft or of working magic spells. Accordingly, in the speech of England, such a person was said to have gramary, that is, ability to effect charms through a knowledge of grammar. In Scotland he had glamer, a corruption of the same word and with the same meaning. Various Scottish writers, spelling it glamer, glamour, or glamour, used the term in that sense, but it was Sir Walter Scott who explained it and brought it into English usage slightly more than a century ago. Since then we have extended the earlier sense by glorifying the enchantment, though we no longer imply that one possessing glamour is necessarily learned.

There is a similar discussion in Horsefeathers & Other Curious Words, Charles Earle Funk & Charles Earle Funk, Jr.



NOTE: I drafted this in Word, and a cut and paste resulted in the bizarre transformation of some characters. But I'm not gonna retype it all.