Language Of Confusion: Red-, Part II

Once again, we’re looking at words descended from the Proto Indo European root red-, which means to scrape, scratch, or gnaw. Most of these make sense, at least.
 
First we’re going to look at raze, which is basically the origin point of a lot of the words today. It showed up in the mid sixteenth century from the defunct words racen and rasen (they didn’t care so much about spelling back then). It’s from the Old French raser and Medieval Latin rasare, which is from the classical Latin radere, which we talked about last week as meaning to shave, and that’s from red-. Though some people actually think radere might not be from red-, even though they look similar and mean pretty much the same thing, and I can’t even say that’s a crazy idea because word origins can be very, very stupid.
 
Razor of course is similar in origin. It showed up in the fourteenth century, meaning it’s older than raze, from the Old French razor/raseor, which is from the abovementioned raser, and so has the same origin beyond that. Weird how raze means to completely wipe things away like demolition, while a razor is generally something you use to remove hair.

Next is abrasion, which is pretty close to corrosion and erosion. It showed up in the mid seventeenth century (with abrasive not until 1805), coming from the Medieval Latin abrasionem, which is from the classical Latin abradere, to scrape away. Radere should be obvious by now, and ab- means away or off. To abrade is to scrape away, and an abrasion is something scraped away!
 
This one is kind of obvious when you think about it: erase. It showed up in the seventeenth century from the classical Latin erasus, erased. That’s from eradere, to eradicate (BTW though it makes sense, eradicate is not related to these words at all), or more literally to scrape off. The prefix here is from ex-, out, and the rest is from radere, so when you’re erasing something, you’re scraping it all out.
 
Finally today, the word that will probably make the least sense. Rascal showed up in the mid fourteenth century as rascaile, meaning someone of the lowest class or the foot soldiers of an army, as well as a tricky or dishonest person. It’s from the Old French rascaille, rabble or mob, and its origin before that is kind of a mystery, but it might be from the Old French rascler, from the Vulgar Latin rasicare, to scrape, which you might remember being the origin for rash. The thought process is that things that are scraped off, “the scrapings” are the lowest level of society, the rabble, the rascals. Don’t dismiss it when far stupider etymologies are true.
 
Sources
Online Etymology Dictionary
Google Translate
Omniglot
University of Texas at Austin Linguistic Research Center
University of Texas at San Antonio’s page on Proto Indo European language
Dictionary of Medieval Latin
Encyclopaedia Britannica

Language Of Confusion: Deleted, Part I

There’s a surprising number of words that mean getting rid of something. Might as well look at them now!

Delete itself showed up in the early sixteenth century from the classical Latin deletus, which means extinction or annihilation. That’s the past participle of the verb delere, which is just to delete, which itself is from delinere, to smudge—to delete was to erase by smudging something. Delinere is a mix of the prefix de-, from or away, and linere, smear or wipe, so yeah. To wipe away is to erase. Somehow that’s from the Proto Indo European slei-, slime or sticky, seriously that’s where we get the word slime from. No, I don’t know how we get from slime to delete. That’s just how it is.
 
Now let’s look at erase. It showed up in the seventeenth century from the classical Latin erasus, from the verb eradere, erase or scrape off. The e- is from ex-, out [https://www.etymonline.com/word/ex-], and radere literally means to shave or scrape, so to erase is to scrape out. Some people think that radere is from the Proto Indo European root red-, to scrape, scratch, or gnaw, but, well, the fact that it would make sense is suspicious. Never trust making sense when it comes to etymology.
 
Case and point, eradicate. You’d think it would be related to erase, or at the very least rad-. Nope. Not one bit. Eradicate showed up in the early fifteenth century from the classical Latin eradicatus, from the verb eradicare, which means to destroy, uproot, or root out. The e- is from ex- again, though it means out here, and the rest is from radix, root. That one is from the Proto Indo European wrad-, branch or root and is actually the origin word for radish. So yes. Because you root something out, eradicate is more related to radish than erase.
 
Obliterate showed up in the seventeenth century from the classical Latin obliteratus, from obliterare, to obliterate, efface, or erase. No shocking revelations here. The ob- means against while the rest comes from littera… letter. Okay, may have spoken too soon about there not being any shocking revelations. Apparently there was a Latin phrase, literas scribere, which meant to write across letters—as in over them, striking them through. So because people had to strikethrough letters, we obliterate things.

What? It makes perfect sense.
 
Sources
Online Etymology Dictionary
Google Translate
Omniglot
University of Texas at San Antonio’s page on Proto Indo European language