> we think that an etymological analysis is needed to shed light on why the word is used in some ways today I doubt this very much. Words are used the ways the

> we think that an etymological analysis is needed to shed light on why the word is used in some ways today I doubt this very much. Words are used the ways they are today because people, at some time, adopted that use. That’s it. That’s the story. Now, something like the OED is wonderful for investigating when/where word uses emerged. Why they emerged when/where they did suggests some deeper reason than “people started using the words those ways.” Except for technical or official vocabulary, I doubt such a deeper reason exists. > and to basically reveal its core ideal meaning I don’t know why you’d think an etymology reveals that. “Core ideal meaning” sounds too purposive, like someone somewhere innovated the word you’re studying to capture just that meaning. Suppose a language‘s etymology for “car” (the language’s equivalent I mean) is “fire wagon” because that was what people happened to start calling it and it caught on and spread. That doesn’t give you any deep insight into cars, fire or wagons. Nor does it give you any deep insight into word formation (semantically), nor about the range of possible extensions of “car” in that language (e.g., if they invented a car powered by water and introduced the term “water car,” they wouldn’t then find it somehow forbidden because etymologically it’s a water fire wagon). > You have your tools, you should know them adequately well. Language is worth special attention. No disagreement here. But we don’t study the origin and history of hammers simply because we want to be careful, excellent craftspeople in the present. (But, as I say, language and its history are interesting topics in themselves.)