Why is Arguing from Etymology a logical fallacy?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I never really understood this. Many times I've found that ferreting out the roots and original meaning of a word or idiom can shed a lot of light on a debate. This is especially true when one debater challenges the other to define a term he has used, which is always fair game. This is not to say that a debater is only allowed to use a term to mean something close to its etymological origin. However, it could very much be of use to the challenger to say something along the lines of, "I've always understood term X to have something to do with A, since it comes from the Sanskrit word for ..., and up until recently carried the implication of ...". Such a statement could be grounds for asking the debater who first used the term to rephrase himself.

 

[L2R]

More important that the origins of words are the meanings given to them by the user. Language evolves, meanings change, connotations come and go. The effort to get along and create an understanding with one's peers is far more important that being "correct" or "proper".

Etymology can be cited when querying for clarification, but to argue it is pretty much besides the point of the discussion at hand. I wouldn't go so far as call it a logical fallacy, but perhaps a miscommunication. Misuses of words have no effect on the messages being attempted. A truth is never lessened by poor communication.

 

[Nagelfar]

Only because the strict etymology is an abstract object, and what it means to contemporary thought can differ; communication only as it is widely useful and understood as meaningful in living language, has pertinence. It is useful as you say, to go to the etymology to break down the specific bifurcated distinctions of one word or another for appropriating their exacting use; but those categories found can only be useful to the current understanding of the word; otherwise the word must be abandoned, even if etymology gives it said place of use historically, for an alternate word which corresponds to the intelligible meaning of your contemporary language. Using etymology strictly is a logical fallacy because it divorces it from the living meaning of language where the language has diverted from its etymology, but as such is in wide enough currency within that diversion to be incomprehensible outside of the otherwise living context.

 

[B9]

What L2R said, - also etymology can take one to a place where the cultural reference is so remote it's highly unclear if one or either party would truly understand it or if they did feel they understood the other party may well understand something different as they'd be projecting their own thoughts onto this possibly archaic term.

It's all about consensus of terms and it is very easy to get lost yet think that you are not IME - then again I'm an imprecise commnicator

 

[tambourine-man]

However, it could very much be of use to the challenger to say something along the lines of, "I've always understood term X to have something to do with A, since it comes from the Sanskrit word for ..., and up until recently carried the implication of ...". Such a statement could be grounds for asking the debater who first used the term to rephrase himself.

That isn't a line of argument and, to my mind, shouldn't be regarded as a fallacy.

It's a request for clarification and position.

That doesn't make you fallacious. Just a grammar Nazi.