misfire

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Michael Hamm - 09 Nov 2006 16:56 GMT

W3NID indicates that the etymology of 'misfire' is via 'mis-' and 'fire',
as one might expect. Robert Louis Stevenson suggests otherwise. He
writes (in "The Two Matches"), "With that he struck the match, and it
missed fire.". Sounds like 'misfire' was originally a misspelling or
contraction or something of 'miss fire'.

Michael Hamm
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis
msh210@math.wustl.edu Fine print:
http://www.math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ ... legal.html

Reply to this Message

John Dean - 09 Nov 2006 19:07 GMT

> W3NID indicates that the etymology of 'misfire' is via 'mis-' and
> 'fire', as one might expect. Robert Louis Stevenson suggests
> otherwise. He writes (in "The Two Matches"), "With that he struck
> the match, and it missed fire.". Sounds like 'misfire' was
> originally a misspelling or contraction or something of 'miss fire'.

I doubt it. OED's earliest cite is "1752 in Scots Mag. (1753) Aug. 401/2 The
little gun was in use to snap or misfire." whereas "miss fire" doesn't come
along until "1811 Sporting Mag. XXXVIII. 290 It was done without a miss or a
miss fire"
I don't see any reason why the two shouldn't co-exist without being
connected.

Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Reply to this Message

Ray - 09 Nov 2006 23:01 GMT

>> W3NID indicates that the etymology of 'misfire' is via 'mis-' and
>> 'fire', as one might expect. Robert Louis Stevenson suggests
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I don't see any reason why the two shouldn't co-exist without
> being connected.

"Missed fire" might have originated as a misunderstanding of the origin
of "misfire".

Signature

Ray
(remove the Xs to reply)

Reply to this Message

Donna Richoux - 09 Nov 2006 23:22 GMT

> >> W3NID indicates that the etymology of 'misfire' is via 'mis-' and
> >> 'fire', as one might expect. Robert Louis Stevenson suggests
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "Missed fire" might have originated as a misunderstanding of the origin
> of "misfire".

The findings at Google Books suggests that it could well be the other
way around:

46 pages on "missed fire" date:1800-1850
1 pages on "misfired" date:1800-1850

Does the OED say anything about "miss/missed fire"?

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 09 Nov 2006 23:44 GMT

>> "Missed fire" might have originated as a misunderstanding of the
>> origin of "misfire".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Does the OED say anything about "miss/missed fire"?

Yup. "Misfire" is cited to 1752, "miss fire" to 1687, although the
first one that uses it in an inflected form ("missing fire") isn't
until 1765.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 09 Nov 2006 23:23 GMT

Except OED has the verb+"fire", "miss fire", from 1687. With under
eighty years in it, I can't be confident; but so far that has to look
like the origin. I like the suggestion earlier in the thread that
"misfire", "not fire properly", could have coexisted with "miss fire",
"fail to fire".

But I'd like to see the original of the 1687 example: it has a
Rochesterish ring to me!

I don't understand the 1752 quotation: perhaps the context explains it.
If I had to guess, I'd suggest the little gun was being used without a
proper charge to train a dog or a horse.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

misfire