Discussions about eggcorns and related topics
You are not logged in.
Registrations are currently closed because of a technical problem. Please send email to
The forum administrator reserves the right to request users to plausibly demonstrate that they are real people with an interest in the topic of eggcorns. Otherwise they may be removed with no further justification. Likewise, accounts that have not been used for posting may be removed.
Thanks for your understanding.
Chris -- 2018-04-11
I happened to check the etymology of sackcloth and was informed that it is, unsurprisingly and quite literally, sacking, i.e. cloth from which sacks and bags (rather than clothes) are appropriately made. The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the late 13th century (±50 years before Wycliffe) as the origin date for the sense of penitential or mourning garb.
.
What caused me to check was the realization that in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Esther 4.1) the word is שַׂ֖ק, which transliterates as saq. It also matches the Greek σάκκος (sakkos, e.g. Mat 11.21), which in fact is likely borrowed from some branch of Semitic, and Latin saccus (<Gk.) as well. English sack seems to be Germanic, however it was likely a very early borrowing from Latin there.
.
It seems at least possible that this was an old etymological eggcorn, perhaps of the half-conscious variety, by those with some education in the Biblical languages, which caught on well and early. Of course it is also possible that sacking was independently used for penitential clothing and called by that name, which by pure serendipity happens to sound like the Hebrew, Greek and Latin words, or that some pre-Wycliffer who perhaps knew a bit of Greek and Hebrew (and certainly Latin) used it quite consciously in informal translation and it caught on. Anyhow, at the least it’s an interesting coincidence.
.
Not as good as sadcloth , but still. (Kem scooped this post in that one, noting the saq/sack coincidence, but, perhaps wisely, didn’t claim any eggcornishness in the origin of the English word.)
Last edited by DavidTuggy (2016-01-01 12:38:36)
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline
Nostratic, the posited ancestor of the Indo-European and Semitic families of languages, is considered highly speculative—statistical noise overwhelms vocabulary comparisons after about 5000 years and the common ancestor would lie in the 15000 year range. Given the number of unrelated homophones in a single language (English, for example), we should expect any pair of languages to produce a number of startling soundalikes.
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline