3 ms·

For the longest period machinery involved wooden components (wheels, shafts etc). Maybe the term "bug" originates from wood-eating bugs that were literally eati

For the longest period machinery involved wooden components (wheels, shafts etc). Maybe the term "bug" originates from wood-eating bugs that were literally eating parts of the machinery or at least affecting its function?

meindnoch 2y ago
Machine parts were already made from metals by the time the English language had developed. So no.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  Is it your contention that by the time the English language was developed no machines had any wooden parts? And if so - just when do you think the English language was developed. Although it seems wrong to speak of a language as being developed.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Let's also ask if they think the word "bug" only exists in whatever modern form of English they are referring to...
  - meindnoch 2y ago
    I was referring to Early Modern English, aka the 1700s. The earliest written evidence of the word "bug" used in this context is from the 19th century. By that time, most machines were made from metallic parts. Of course, more primitive machines were still using wooden parts, as they do today! Of course, the word "bug" might have been used in this context centuries earlier, without producing any written records! But let's not kid ourselves. OP had no evidence of their theory whatsoever. They just made up a story. I can make up an equally "likely" theory: maybe people were often saying "oh, I've made a big mistake", and "big mistake" turned into "bug mistake", which was then shortened to "bug".
    - openrisk 2y ago
      What a vitriolic and absurdly pseudo-scientific reaction to the mere suggestion that the concept of bugs breaking machines may have been more literal in past, wood-dominated eras... The probing question is whether such failure modes (from bugs) were indeed common in pre-industrial machines (so as to warrant popular expressions). Thats something an actual expert could opine on with some impact.
      - meindnoch 2y ago
        No, dude, it was you who put forward a Joe Rogan-tier pseudoscientific theory about the usage of the word "bug" with no evidence backing it whatsoever. It needs to be called out, before people start misquoting it as fact, like how people ran with the 100% pseudoscientific glove-knitting theory for Roman dodecahedrons, which some people still quote on this board as if it had any scientific merit at all.
        anon84873628 2y ago
        I suggest re-reading the original comment with fresh eyes. The author didn't put forth a theory or "made up a story" as you suggest. They asked a genuinely curious comment that was obvious as such.
    - cam_l 2y ago
      More likely, the word bug itself had different connotations at the time. No surprise that the word bug itself is etymologically linked to goblins or ghosts in the time period referred to. And fits perfectly with the usage in the quoted paragraph. https://www.etymonline.com/word/bug https://www.etymonline.com/word/bug
Liquix 2y ago
Edison's usage makes sense regardless of what the machine is made of. Bugs (insects) are a great representation of the types of defects he's describing – small, hard to notice, unwelcome, and some have the potential to cause serious damage if ignored.

meindnoch 2y ago

Machine parts were already made from metals by the time the English language had developed. So no.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
Is it your contention that by the time the English language was developed no machines had any wooden parts? And if so - just when do you think the English language was developed. Although it seems wrong to speak of a language as being developed.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Let's also ask if they think the word "bug" only exists in whatever modern form of English they are referring to...
- meindnoch 2y ago
  I was referring to Early Modern English, aka the 1700s. The earliest written evidence of the word "bug" used in this context is from the 19th century. By that time, most machines were made from metallic parts. Of course, more primitive machines were still using wooden parts, as they do today! Of course, the word "bug" might have been used in this context centuries earlier, without producing any written records! But let's not kid ourselves. OP had no evidence of their theory whatsoever. They just made up a story. I can make up an equally "likely" theory: maybe people were often saying "oh, I've made a big mistake", and "big mistake" turned into "bug mistake", which was then shortened to "bug".
  - openrisk 2y ago
    What a vitriolic and absurdly pseudo-scientific reaction to the mere suggestion that the concept of bugs breaking machines may have been more literal in past, wood-dominated eras... The probing question is whether such failure modes (from bugs) were indeed common in pre-industrial machines (so as to warrant popular expressions). Thats something an actual expert could opine on with some impact.
    - meindnoch 2y ago
      No, dude, it was you who put forward a Joe Rogan-tier pseudoscientific theory about the usage of the word "bug" with no evidence backing it whatsoever. It needs to be called out, before people start misquoting it as fact, like how people ran with the 100% pseudoscientific glove-knitting theory for Roman dodecahedrons, which some people still quote on this board as if it had any scientific merit at all.
      - anon84873628 2y ago
        I suggest re-reading the original comment with fresh eyes. The author didn't put forth a theory or "made up a story" as you suggest. They asked a genuinely curious comment that was obvious as such.
  - cam_l 2y ago
    More likely, the word bug itself had different connotations at the time. No surprise that the word bug itself is etymologically linked to goblins or ghosts in the time period referred to. And fits perfectly with the usage in the quoted paragraph. https://www.etymonline.com/word/bug https://www.etymonline.com/word/bug

Liquix 2y ago

Edison's usage makes sense regardless of what the machine is made of. Bugs (insects) are a great representation of the types of defects he's describing – small, hard to notice, unwelcome, and some have the potential to cause serious damage if ignored.