 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009origin of German measles
What is the origin of the term German Measles? I've heard two different origins for the term. One is that it was identified by German doctors. The other is that it is the word 'german' in the sense of being similar or germaine to measles. It was originally known as Rötheln, and then as Rubella from 1866. When did the name German measles start? For that matter, would something from that region be called "German" at that date? Germany as such didn't exist. Wouldn't a name like "Prussian" or "Bavarian" be more likely? > What is the origin of the term German Measles? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "German" at that date? Germany as such didn't exist. > Wouldn't a name like "Prussian" or "Bavarian" be more likely? Do you trust Wikipedia? Here's what it says: "Rubella is also known as German measles because the disease was first described by German physicians in the mid-eighteenth century." If this isn't good enough, try searching the Web. Google claims to have 384,000 hits for "German measles."  SignatureBob Lieblich Measly German >> What is the origin of the term German Measles? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do you trust Wikipedia? Not as an authoritative source. Peter Morris (in alt.usage.english): > "Robert Lieblich" <r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> Do you trust Wikipedia? > > Not as an authoritative source. But Usenet is one? Joachim On 24 May 2009, Joachim Pense wrote > Peter Morris (in alt.usage.english): > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But Usenet is one? With an explanatory cite, yes: see Evan's response. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > What is the origin of the term German Measles? > > I've heard two different origins for the term. One is that it was > identified by German doctors. The other is that it is the word > 'german' in the sense of being similar or germaine to measles. Apparently neither. See below. > It was originally known as Rötheln, and then as Rubella from > 1866. When did the name German measles start? The OED cites it to 1875. Google Books can push that back to 1851: [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating] In some cases it might be best described as 'something between measles and scarlet fever', followed by desquamation of the cuticle in branny scales, and resembling what I have read of as _Rötheln_, or German measles. _The Sanitary Review_, 1857 An 1870 treatment explains the etymology: It was first described by German physicians about the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, and particularly by Ziegler, Heim, and Hildenbrand. The last of these writers called the new disease "rubeola," and retained the name "morbilli" for measles propers; and this nomenclature has been adopted by many subsequent German writers, including Schönlein; whereas English writers, with the exception of Dr. Copland, have followed Cullens nosology, and called ordinary measles "rubeola." Hence the rubeola of many German writers is not the rubeola of English nosologists, and when the new disease came to be recognized in England it was often designated "German rubeola or measles." Charles Murchison, "Case of Rötheln, or German Measles", _Lancet_, October 29, reprinted in _The Half-Yearly Abstract of the Medical Sciences_, July-December, 1870. So it was "German measles" in the sense of "what German physicians called 'measles', as opposed to what English physicians called 'measles'." > For that matter, would something from that region be called "German" > at that date? Germany as such didn't exist. Wouldn't a name like > "Prussian" or "Bavarian" be more likely? Apparently German was a common name for things related to all of the German-speaking countries. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > What is the origin of the term German Measles? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "German" at that date? Germany as such didn't exist. > Wouldn't a name like "Prussian" or "Bavarian" be more likely? What do you mean Germany didn't exist? It didn't exist as a unified state, but it certainly existed as a geographical indication. Jan Quoth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder), and I quote: >> What is the origin of the term German Measles? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >It didn't exist as a unified state, >but it certainly existed as a geographical indication. And as the name of the language and its speakers. German was a designation of nationality long before there was a unified German state: "1581 MULCASTER Positions xxxviii. (1887) 168 The Germaine or French gentlewymen" "1851 MAYHEW Lond. Labour I. 361 The tools..are sometimes displayed on a small barrow, sometimes on a stall, and are mostly German-made." And here's how the Jacobites contemptuously referred to the Hanoverian succession: "Wha the deil hae we gotten for a king But a wee, wee German lairdie And when we gaed to bring him hame He was delving in his yairdie" SignatureJames > Quoth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder), and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "1581 MULCASTER Positions xxxviii. (1887) 168 The Germaine or > French gentlewymen" And 'germania' was the Roman name for the relevant area of northern Europe. Caligula had 'Germanicus' as one of his names, from his father who was known as Germanicus after *his* father who was given the name as an honorific after his successful campaigns in the area. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > Quoth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder), and I quote: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > as Germanicus after *his* father who was given the name as an honorific > after his successful campaigns in the area. And after his death, Jan >> > Quoth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder), and I quote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jan "Rubella is also known as German measles because the disease was first described by German physicians in the mid-eighteenth century." Wikipedia On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >>>> Quoth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder), and I quote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > first described by German physicians in the mid-eighteenth > century." Wikipedia Misleading, like a lot of Wikipee; a good example of the writer displaying his lack of knowledge. As Evan explained in his response elsethread, it didn't refer to the physicians who described it; it distinguished the national usages for what what meant by "measles". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > physicians who described it; it distinguished the national usages > for what what meant by "measles". Me or thee? Wikipedia has 30 citations. Your posting has none. So who am I to believe? [...] > Me or thee? > > Wikipedia has 30 citations. Your posting has none. So who am I to > believe? Take heart: anyone can believe. SignatureLes (BrE but friend of whom) >> On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Wikipedia has 30 citations. Your posting has none. So who am I to > believe? Wikipedia has no citation for that statement. It does have a citation for In 1814, George de Maton first suggested that it be considered a disease distinct from both measles and scarlet fever. All these physicians were German, and the disease was known as Rötheln (from the German name Röteln), hence the common name of "German measles". but as it's an off-line source, it's difficult to tell whether that source supports the "hence" or simply that George de Maton, in 1814 was the first to call it a separate disease. Harvey, on the other hand, does have a citation ("as Evan explained in his response elsethread"), to an article that includes a quotation from an 1870 source: It was first described by German physicians about the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, and particularly by Ziegler, Heim, and Hildenbrand. The last of these writers called the new disease "rubeola," and retained the name "morbilli" for measles propers; and this nomenclature has been adopted by many subsequent German writers, including Schönlein; whereas English writers, with the exception of Dr. Copland, have followed Cullens nosology, and called ordinary measles "rubeola." Hence the rubeola of many German writers is not the rubeola of English nosologists, and when the new disease came to be recognized in England it was often designated "German rubeola or measles." Charles Murchison, "Case of Rötheln, or German Measles", _Lancet_, October 29, reprinted in _The Half-Yearly Abstract of the Medical Sciences_, July-December, 1870. The OED had only cited "German measles" to 1875 (although I was able to find it back to 1857), so at a time when the disease was first being spoken of as "German measles" in English, a medical practitioner explained the name, in a medical journal, as having been due to the difference between what English writers and German writers called "measles" (or, more precisely, "rubeola"). German measles was what Germans called "measles". You can believe who you like, but personally, I think my explanation is the more likely based on the evidence we've seen so far. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Are you okay?" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose |cubs off." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Quoth Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>, and I quote: >>> On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >You can believe who you like, but personally, I think my explanation >is the more likely based on the evidence we've seen so far. I agree that you have found the most likely explanation. Now if you could only add it to the Wikipedia article... SignatureJames >> Wikipedia has 30 citations. Your posting has none. So who am I to >> believe? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > You can believe who you like, but personally, I think my explanation > is the more likely based on the evidence we've seen so far. I like it. As first grader during WWII, neighbors had a quarantine sign posted on their house that warned of "Rothen Measles". I remember the "h" but not an "i", and someone back then said it was German measles. Someone else said that "Röthen" was "red" in German. So...I always thought of it as "red measles". The sign was posted in German and English (but I don't recall any English on the sign) because about half the population in the town was German. The rest of us were Italian and Irish, except for the summertime Barbadian peapickers. I didn't catch the measles during that outbreak, but I understand "German measles" was considered the most dangerous, not because it could kill, but because it caused birth defects if pregnant women caught it early in the pregnancy. >>> On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > You can believe who you like, but personally, I think my explanation > is the more likely based on the evidence we've seen so far. My response was to: "Misleading, like a lot of Wikipee; a good example of the writer displaying his lack of knowledge." On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >>>> On 27 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Wikipedia has no citation for that statement. It does have a >> citation for -snip- >> Harvey, on the other hand, does have a citation ("as Evan >> explained in his response elsethread"), to an article that >> includes a quotation from an 1870 source: -snip- >> You can believe who you like, but personally, I think my >> explanation is the more likely based on the evidence we've seen >> so far. > My response was to: > > "Misleading, like a lot of Wikipee; a good example of the writer > displaying his lack of knowledge." Then you should have placed the response after that comment, instead of after my citing of Evan's post. But whatever; I'm happy to stand by my swipe at Wikipedia -- it's basically a pub conversation, not a reference source. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >But whatever; I'm happy to stand by my swipe at Wikipedia -- it's >basically a pub conversation, not a reference source. That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.... -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness On 27 May 2009, Garrett Wollman wrote >> But whatever; I'm happy to stand by my swipe at Wikipedia -- >> it's basically a pub conversation, not a reference source. > > That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.... Yeah, I know. That's still my view, though -- I don't trust it or use it as anything even remotely approaching a citable reference source, and I doubt the research seriousness of anyone who does. There ya' go.... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >Yeah, I know. That's still my view, though -- I don't trust >[Wikipedia] or use it as anything even remotely approaching a citable >reference source, and I doubt the research seriousness of anyone who >does. For professional writing in your line of work, that's entirely reasonable. For settling arguments in USENET debates, however, I don't think you can justify any requirement of "seriousness". In situations where research cited to an encyclopedia would be appropriate (e.g., primary school), Wikipedia is a reasonable source. For indulging one's own curiosity, it is unparalleled -- far better than any other resource for breadth (if not depth) of coverage. And, of course, you have access to the complete revision history, something no other publisher provides. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness On 28 May 2009, Garrett Wollman wrote >> Yeah, I know. That's still my view, though -- I don't trust >> [Wikipedia] or use it as anything even remotely approaching a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reasonable. For settling arguments in USENET debates, however, > I don't think you can justify any requirement of "seriousness". We differ on this; I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect debating points on usage in AUE that cite references to refer to, well, citable references. "An anonymously-authored article claims that somebody else whose stuff I didn't look at says so" doesn't strike me as good enough for this forum. I can see that Wikipedia can be used as a bibliography that can be used to find citable sources; the bibliography itself, though, isn't citable. > In situations where research cited to an encyclopedia would be > appropriate (e.g., primary school), Wikipedia is a reasonable > source. I'm not particularly objecting to its use in primary school reports (although I'd say that's instilling sloppy, "good enough" habits in the kids). I don't accept, though, that any useful discussion in AUE about usage can be based on sources that are suitable only for primary-school-project research. > For indulging one's own curiosity, it is unparalleled -- > far better than any other resource for breadth (if not depth) of > coverage. No argument there; just don't use it in AUE as "This is the source of usage X; Wikipedia says so", and we'll get along fine.... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>But whatever; I'm happy to stand by my swipe at Wikipedia -- it's >>basically a pub conversation, not a reference source. > >That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.... For a few hours following my stroke and a period in intensive care, some joker amended the entry for me in the Wikipedia to record my death. Grossly exaggerated, of course. SignatureJames Follett [snip] > But whatever; I'm happy to stand by my swipe at Wikipedia -- it's > basically a pub conversation, not a reference source. At least you spelled it right this time, 'arvie [sic]. An ad hominem remark or "sour grapes"? On 29 May 2009, Rambler III wrote > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > An ad hominem remark or "sour grapes"? I've no idea what that refers to -- my denigration of the thing as a citable source? That doesn't qualify as ad hominem -- Wikipee ain't a hominem, so I don't see how one can ad it -- and I certainly don't harbour any sour-grape feelings. I've just got a very low opinion of it in general, and a lower-than-zero level of respect for it as a citable reference. I realise that others differ -- that they find it not only useful as a starting point but sufficiently reliable to cite as a reference work. I reserve the right, though, to think they're wrong, and to have virtually no respect for their research integrity when they cite it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 May 2009, Rambler III wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > don't see how one can ad it -- and I certainly don't harbour any > sour-grape feelings. [...] An ad encyclopediam, no? Or ad locum intertelarem. SignatureMike. On 29 May 2009, Mike Lyle wrote >> On 29 May 2009, Rambler III wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > An ad encyclopediam, no? Or ad locum intertelarem. sh.t. I wish I'd studied and understood Latin, rather than just picked up a bit here and there. (insert hands-up/shruggy emoticon here, assuming such a thing exists...) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > What is the origin of the term German Measles? . . . > For that matter, would something from that region be called > "German" at that date? Germany as such didn't exist. > Wouldn't a name like "Prussian" or "Bavarian" be more likely? Romans 2000 years ago called the land east of the River Rhine Germania. The word Germany meant all the German-language countries long before their political union was proclaimed (1871.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.