Not a lot more to the question really. Why are fishermen called anglers?

BCH

Because the hook forms an angle?

Because the hook is an angel in Old English. The noun yielded a verb in Middle English anglen 'to fish'.

Does this mean that
fish hook and angel are from the same source and yet have no apparent connection? Or does angel come from a complete different source?

Probably not. AHD only takes them back to OE and Greek, respectively but I wouldn't think there is much connection between fishhooks and messengers.

FWIW, angel is from Greek αγγελος (angelos) the translation of Hebrew מַלְאַךְ (mal'akh) 'messenger'. The word for fishhook, which occurs in other languages (e.g., Old High German ango, angul 'fishhook, spine, barb', Old Irish écath 'fishhook') is from PIE *ank- 'to bend, curve' (IEW pp.45f.), and which is related to Latin angulus 'angle, corner, nook', Greek αγκυλος (ankulos) 'bent', αγκυρα (ankura) 'anchor'.

there ya go.

Yeh,well, the funny and confusing thing is that the Du. word "engel" = "angel" only needs one character at the front: (h) "hengel" to get the meaning "fishing rod" and the word "hengelaar" means "angler".

To make it more confusing the word "engelenhaar" means "angel's hair".

I see from your post that the origins are different , but in Dutch it all gets rather "hooked up". Quite amusing.

simple~

the rod : line relationship is always an angle, usually obtuse
( more than a right, 90 degree angle ) and rarely acute ( less than 90 ).

the rod : line relationship is always an angle, usually obtuse

This is a joke, right? Did you read the rest of the thread?

no joke; simply dangle the weighted line coursing thru the loops on the rod and notice the angle at the junction of the line-rod tip! This is why fishermen are referred to as anglers

heh

no joke ... This is why fishermen are referred to as anglers

Well, if serious, your etymology is quite simply wrong. Fishermen are called anglers because the Middle English verb for 'to fish' was angelen, and that verb came from the Old English noun for hook, as mentioned in this thread above. This predates the borrowing of Norman aungle, originally 'corner (of a room)' into Middle English. This French word goes back to roughly the same PIE root as the angle 'hook' word, but the routes these two words took is different. The angle is one in the hook, and not in the rod and line.

Well, fishermen who catch fish by throwing a spear, the spear makes a hook with the water surface at some stage, but they are not called anglers.

The same angle is the source of "England", apparently because the Angles were from an area of land shaped like a fishhook - the Angeln district of Schleswig-Holstein.

And the story of Augustine, for whom the Canterbury Cathedral
is named, upon seeing blond blue-eyed slave children in Rome's
Forum, asked who they were. Being told they were Angles from
the land of Anglo Saxons, he replied: "Not Angles, but Angels".

Well, if serious, your etymology is quite simply wrong.


My etymology is the same as yours! Of course etymologic origins are essential technical aspects to be considered; however, they are not the exclusive method for assessing the evolution of word meanings. Fundamental considerations include more empiric criteria similar to simple associative applications like the angle created by at the junction of the rod and line.
The common man contributes to the evolution of word meaning, but seldom consults etymologic sources!

My etymology is the same as yours!

Well, I looked at both of them, and they are substantially different, but whatever floats your boat ...

Of course etymologic origins are essential technical aspects to be considered; however, they are not the exclusive method for assessing the evolution of word meanings. Fundamental considerations include more empiric criteria similar to simple associative applications like the angle created by at the junction of the rod and line.

I see. So we just get to make stuff up while sitting in our armchair contemplating the future. OK, works for me. The etymology of eye is the two lidded eyes on either side of the nose.

The common man contributes to the evolution of word meaning, but seldom consults etymologic sources!

Sorry, I obviously mistook you for somebody seriously interested in etymologies of words. My bad.

Actually, you quite missed the point ; etymological searches are always informative and relevant; however, in and of themselves, they are not all-encompassing dogma when considering the evolving use of terms / phrases, particularly allowing for colloquialisms, regionalisms, connotations and the more than occasional malaprop.
It seems that you would do well to delve into lexicography in more depth; I'd suggest starting with innovative concepts promoted by PW Hanks, who focuses on, amongst other aspects, convention v. creativity and innovation with regard to meaning.
Glad for the discourse; sorry if you're torqued, dismayed bewildered or even the least bit intransigent.

I see. So we just get to make stuff up while sitting in our armchair contemplating the future. OK, works for me. The etymology of eye is the two lidded eyes on either side of the nose.

@|@

It seems that you would do well to delve into lexicography in more depth;

Well, I have delved into it, that's why I took issue with your calling yours an etymology. I have no problem calling it a folk etymology or poetry or something else. (Of course, you can call it what you will, but you oughtn't to be dismayed when people misinterpret your unique intended meanings with mundane ones.)

I'd suggest starting with innovative concepts promoted by PW Hanks, who focuses on, amongst other aspects, convention v. creativity and innovation with regard to meaning.

Never heard of him or her. I've had to make due with the likes of L Zgusta, S Landau, Y Malkiel, et al. Do you have a title or ISBN? I'd also like to suggest you take a look at some of their work, too, for an alternate view of lexicography. You might also want to check out what Jim Quinn, J-J Lecercle, M Heidegger, and L Wittgenstein all have to say about language and meaning.

Glad for the discourse; sorry if you're torqued, dismayed bewildered or even the least bit intransigent.

Nope, just confused. Like if I say "cow" but what I mean "purple", and then I get my panties in a knot cuz you didn't understand me. Carry on with the monologue or join the discourse if you want to. Now that I have a context within which to to understand your intended meaning, I'll walk on down the path to language.

zmjezhd, am I mistaken, or are you not a professor of linguistics?

are you not a professor of linguistics?

Sorry, Jackie. I was a professor of computer science, but I have never taught linguistics as I only have an AB in linguistics.

Now, THERE'S glory for you!

"only"; uh huh. [bow of respect e]