Yes, you can check my other comment nearby at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835497 , which I was composin

Yes, you can check my other comment nearby at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835497 , which I was composing while you were composing yours. In short, > all those senses ("horn thrust and paw slam", "domesticated vs savage") are backformations. We adopted them because they made sense. But now, about > ridiculous folklore etymology someone made up (no offense, and apparently my guess is not right either) It does not work that way. An etymology as an history of a term will produce a chronicle, not yet a meaning: in 1709 somebody started to use "bearskin" out of the proverb, etc. But there is not just that: there is the meaning of terms that we recognize during that development - "horn thrust and paw slam", "domesticated vs savage", as I wrote nearby. So, what I wrote in the original is the meaning that came after the origin - what is intended (or part of what is intended). In fact, "bear" (in market speculation) comes from "bearskin", but where did they take the "bull" from (image that was construed to have a bear as a counterpart)? There you have to reason about the terms and construct a working image. There is no need to call it "ridiculous": it is normal sense attribution for jargon creation. Edit: in fact, for a study of the origin you can also consult Investopedia, "Where Did the Bull and Bear Market Get Their Names?", at https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/bull-bear-market-names/ https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/bull-bear-market-na... where you will find foremostly the images of their ways of attack. Then the origin, the "bearskin jobber", and the need to have a counterpart. Then it noted, importantly, that bets on bull and bear fights were very popular in the past centuries - which can be another origin of using those animals for a bet.