Talk:Jazz (word)/Archive 1

Article creation

Created article. This relies heavily on Gerald Cohen, "Jazz Revisited: On the Origin of the Term--Draft #3," Comments on Etymology, Vol. 35, Nos. 1 - 2 (Oct. - Nov. 2005), cited in the Sources section. While this is just a working paper and is not peer-reviewed, it includes a large number of source texts. John M Baker 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculative theories

There are many speculative and unsourced theories concerning the origins of jazz. They should be presented and discussed here until sources for them can be presented. The first of these, moved from the article, is presented immediately below. John M Baker 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of jazz to languages of New Orleans

From 1763 until 1803 New Orleans remained under Spanish control. May be the word jazz was deformed out of the Spanish word Payoso (Jester). The Yiddish word Pojaz and the German word Bajazzo have an identical meaning. Possibly the first people, who used to listen to jazz music, they thought, they had taken part in a funny show.

The Oxford English Dictionary includes a number of quoted usages of "jazz" in the musical sense which make me doubt that the word originated in baseball. There is one quote from 1909, and another from 1913... I'd guess that the word existed in the late 19th century with some generic meaning of energy, excitement, happiness, etc., and then came to be used in the various senses mention on this page. I can't speculate on it's etymology, but the idea of a derivation from "payoso", et al., looks interesting. CMcQueeny 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As shown in the article, the 1909 quote is an error and the 1913 quote (the reference to "ragtime and 'jazz'") is not really in the musical sense. 69.138.206.171 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, theres an interesting quote in the OED for the verb form of "jazz" that might explain the word's origins: "1917 Sun (N.Y.) 5 Aug. III. 3/6 In the old plantation days when the slaves were having one of their rare holidays and the fun languished some West Coast African would cry out, ‘Jaz her up’, and this would be the cue for fast and furious fun... Curiously enough the phrase ‘Jaz her up’ is a common one to-day in vaudeville and on the circus lot."

We were 'just' playing

There is another fascinating explanation for the origin of the "jazz" word. Legend tells that a group Afro Americans were playing in a bar in New Orleans in the 1910's. A bystander was excited and went to them to ask what it is they were playing. One of the musicians answered with a strong southern accent: "We were just playing". The bystander heard: "We were jazz playing" and began to spread the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.112.12.62 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Irish derivation

One recent author on the subject proposes that it is derived from the Irish word "teas", pronounced 'cheYASS', meaning "heat".

See: <http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/irish.html> - and - <http://www.counterpunch.org/cassidy07142006.html> -- for Irish origin of the word jazz. (Moved from main article by John M Baker 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Why is this not in the main article? It's a strong hypothesis.67.11.186.127 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no support for it in the historical record. John M Baker 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article at the first link cites quite a bit of evidence. You may disagree with the conclusions, but that is rather different from saying there is "no support." Clearly this one author believes that there is support. So what is the problem with including it as one of the numerous hypotheses that have been proposed?Verklempt 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cassidy's articles do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. He champions Irish (Gaelic) derivations that differ from accepted wisdom in the field. Generally, as here, his evidence consists of a perceived similarity in sound and meaning between an English word and a supposed Irish etymon. Such cross-language similarities are frequent and considered insufficient evidence to show an etymology. Cassidy cites no other evidence for such a derivation, and as far as I know no one suggested a relationship between jazz and teas until Cassidy did so 80 or 90 years after the fact. John M Baker 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Re verifiability, we have a published article by a college professor. That most certainly meets the requirements. 2) I agree that sound-alike hypotheses are weak, but that criticism applies to pretty much all of the hypotheses on table. What makes Cassidy's any weaker than the others? 3) Do you know what the slang dictionary's 1860 primary source is? That would be relevant to include.Verklempt 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) Cassidy's role on the faculty of the New College of California does not convey instant credibility. He is a co-director of their Irish Studies Program, as well as a filmmaker and musician. None of these roles require any knowledge of lexicography. Although some popular publications have written about his work, I'm not aware of a single linguist or lexicographer who gives his work any credence whatsoever, nor am I aware of any scholarly publishers who have published his work on etymology. I think Cassidy himself would agree that his conclusions depart radically from those embraced by the linguistic mainstream. (2) Other hypotheses are considered more plausible. For example, consider the possible derivation from jasm, currently considered the most likely source. Jasm already existed in American English, with a meaning close to that of early uses of jazz. There is even an early source spelling jazz as jaz-m, implying that the writer saw them as the same word. (Jasm, being itself slang, did not have an accepted spelling.) In contrast, there is no evidence that teas even was known in the U.S. In fact, we have Scoop Gleeson's evidence that he heard jazz in a craps game, an unlikely way for him to have encountered an Irish word. (3) I'll take another look at HDAS, when I get a chance. It does quote the 1860 usage. (4) I probably should update the etymology section at some point. The enthusiasm source for jasm is not well-supported (it was just someone's proposal on a listserv), and there are some other proposed derivations, such as from French chasse, that are not discussed. I don't think that one's considered seriously any more, though. I'll try to check, but I think jaser may be the only serious alternative to jasm at present. John M Baker 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any pesonal investment in Cassidy or this theory. I would also make "jasm" the frontrunner, if the claim to temporal priority holds up. However, I don't see the Cassidy hypothesis as being weaker than any of the others included in the article. I would still ask you to justify excluding it. I don't think your Verifiability objection holds up. Other speculative hypotheses remain in the article with no citations whatsoever. This cite may be weak, but it beats the others, and certainly meets WP.Verklempt 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will do well if we start putting in theories that are considered nonsense by practitioners in the applicable field. I am not a linguist or lexicographer myself, but I have enough familiarity with the field to know that Cassidy is considered to have no credibility. If there are other unsupported speculative hypotheses, they should be removed or given support (or, for now, at least a "Cite" warning). John M Baker 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is criticism of Cassidy, then that should be juxtaosed in the article with his claims, instead of excluding the debate altogether. Once again, *all* of the hypotheses are totally speculative and unsupported. According to the standard you've just articulated, they should all come out of the article.Verklempt 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. If, as you imply, the legitimate hypotheses (by which I mean those that are promoted by actual linguists) are inadequately sourced and supported, then the solution is to include better sourcing and support, not to include implausible ideas from people with no knowledge of etymology.

An alternative, I suppose, would be to include discussion of Cassidy's proposal in the "False Leads" section, the same as is currently done for the "jasmine" and "Jezebel" proposals. John M Baker 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which hypotheses are advocated by linguists? I don't see any cites to any linguistic journals. I don't see cites to any scholarly literature at all in this section. Again, if this is your standard, then all of the etymological hypotheses need to come out of the article.Verklempt 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've amply made your point that the article's assertions need further support. I'll add references when I get a chance. John M Baker 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For further discussion of the proposed Irish derivation, see Recent edits & reverts, below. John M Baker 14:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabic origin

In his groundbreaking "A History of Arabian Music," Henry George Farmer wrote of the early 'Abbasid Caliphate (Also known as the Islamic Golden Age):

"The word for the proportionate dividing of the melody or rhythm has it's roots in jaza'a, which opens an interesting speculation for the origin of the modern word jazz." -- p. 106, 1929, Luzac and Co.

Scottish Gaelic derivation

Another strong possibility is the derivation from the Scottish Gaelic word "deas" meaning south. Most commonly this has come into the English language as jess or jessie ("deasach") a derogatory term meaning soft. However the original pronunciation is perhaps more similar to jass. Given the role of Scots in the region at the time, it is not unlikely that this term would have been used to describe southern, or African, music and style.

Sufi "jazd"

Another explanation for the word "jazz" comes from esoteric Sufi descriptions of the experiences of the higher planes of consciousness. It is said that wayfarers can become lost, enchanted, and absorbed in the ecstasy and bliss while experiencing the incredible sights and sounds and powers of the higher planes of consciousness. The wayfarer is said to be "jazd". − It may be conjectured that the word "jazd" made its appearance in the western world through the studies and translations of ancient, mystical, Persian poetry by such English scholars and poets as A. J. Arberry, E. H. Whinfield, Titus Burckhardt, etc. and from there slipped into modern speech. Later, in describing the experiences of musicians and connoisseurs of certain music of the earlier 20th Century the term "jazd" was applied and from there it was just a short hop, skip, and a jump to calling the music that inspired such states jazz. (Originally posted by User:Shrizarinazarbarkar.)

"Jezze-Belles"

For sure, Jazz, is one of the most controversial word in the english language. No doubts, no discussions about that. It, the word, is not a noun, an adjective, a verb. It's just a word. Being a "Jazz Lover" addict, I've heard, throughout my life many explanations. The one I liked most ( and that's what it is, you have to choose the one you like most...) is this: Jazz, the music, was "born" in Missisipi. It was played by pianists as a background music to the scene of the Missisipi"s Brothels. The women, prostitutes, came from France. At least the most expensive ones. The "true merchandise". They were called then " Jezze-Belles". A mixture from Jezebel, directly from the Bible, with a Tricky-game, referring to their French origin. They, the french prostitutes, were the most expensive ones. The real "Treat". Jezze( From Jezebel, the Bible) and Belles, from their supposed beauty. The music that was playing as part of the "scenario" was then, so called " Jezze music", which meant music for prostitutes. As the time went on, it became, to be accepted by society, " Jazz" music. From all the versions I've come about, this is the one that, to me, a deep lover of Jazz, seem the most reasonable, the most logic. That's it folks...

DYK

It's unfortunate that this came to the front page with the DYK hook "[DYK] that the word jazz was originally a California baseball slang term and was first applied to a style of music in Chicago?" If one were to distill this article down to a single sentence, it would have made an excellent hook. Namely "[DYK] the origin of the word jazz is debated?" House of Scandal 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The article currently begins "The origin of the word jazz is one of the most sought-after word origins in modern American English." This is a factual statement, since there has probably been more research into the origin and history of jazz than that of any other word that originated in the United States, except for okay. As an initial sentence, though, it could be improved. Loodog changed it to "The origin of the word jazz is not very well-known," which is also a factual statement but seems like a weak beginning and doesn't really get across that this is a matter in which there is both much interest and much misinformation. Ndorward changed this to "The origin of the word jazz remains unclear." Not only is this untrue - due to the large amount of research, the word's history is unusually well-documented - but it is immediately contradicted by the remainder of the paragraph. John M Baker 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On considering this further, I revised to essentially remove the sentence. John M Baker 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

When referring to a word as a word, it's standard practice to place it in quotations. This should be Origin of the word "jazz". Exploding Boy 04:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. I looked on Google, and it appears that this is the only article on Wikipedia that has the title starting with "Origin of the word." I will move this article to Jazz (word) to solve this problem. Speciate 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the rename to "Jazz (word)", the various links to "Origin of the word jazz" need to be updated. John M Baker 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ndorward revert

I agree that Cassidy is speculative at best, and should not get anything more than a mention. However, you reverted some passages that were well-cited. I think that stuff should stay in, so long as it does not violate WP:ORVerklempt 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Well-cited" in the sense that they cited something, but what they cited wasn't relevant to the key claim: that jazz derives from Gaelic. There's no citation proving this or even providing indirect evidence for it. Just tagging the claim with "(Ó Dónaill, 611; Dineen, 517-518; Dwelly, 942.)"--no references, no first names--proves nothing: who are they, what do they say? Are these Gaelic dictionaries or English-language dictionaries or what? -- & the various cites aren't relevant to much else either--so what that JT Farrell wrote historical fiction in 1932 that uses the word "jazz"? By then it was a commonplace word, in all its various meanings.

Cassidy & his etymology already have a mention in the earlier version of the article, & this seems sufficient. --ND 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aruging to keep the Cassidy stuff. But I did think that he entered some additional info that is not married to his Irish thesis, and that is worth using.Verklempt 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is that trying to sort out the solid research from the speculation, the sense from the nonsense, in "Medbh" (surely Cassidy himself? or someone with a strong interest in publicizing his views?)'s postings is not worth the trouble, as the recent history of edits suggests. Good luck. --ND 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

After the last few days, I now agree.Verklempt 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another huge cut-&-paste of the same material by Medbh, which was quickly reverted by another user. I have placed a note on Medbh's talk page asking her(?) to desist; I haven't yet resorted to Wiki's formal anti-vandalism notices (& threats of blocking) in hopes that whoever it is can be convinced to tone things down, or at least make a cogent reply on the talk page or this page, rather than the robotic cut-and-paste they've been indulging in. --ND 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits & reverts

User Medbh has persistently pasted-in lengthy texts about Daniel Cassidy's claims that "jazz" derives from Gaelic (Cassidy originally had only a brief, skeptical mention in the article). These insertions disregard the existing article's structure and content, and Medbh has also taken to deleting non-Cassidy scholarly references from the bibliography. Several users including myself have reverted the article or requested that changes be more sensitive to already-achieved consensus & the existing state of the article, but with no success. --ND 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• As an editor involved in the reverting, I think that Medbh has something of value to contribute to this article. However, I think that Medbh should become more familiar with Wikipedia norms and culture, especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Medbh should discuss controversial edits on the Talk page in an attempt to arrive at reasonable consensus compromises. Cassidy's speculative theories have not been published in any peer-reviewed scholarly venue, and thus deserve only cursory mention.Verklempt 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Medbh's edits present a number of problems, which I would summarize as follows:

1. Medbh has made long and substantially similar edits repeatedly, with no revisions to meet other editors' concerns or to discuss the edits on the Talk page.

2. Medbh's edits are not properly formatted, making the article difficult to read and follow.

3. The edits are not integrated with the remainder of the article. For example, the edits include some previously provided information in variant form.

4. Medbh's source, Daniel Cassidy, How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads (2007), is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. Cassidy is an academic administrator at the New College of California, but he has no apparent training in linguistics; the college's website describes him as a "film maker, musician, and writer."[1] His book was not peer-reviewed and has not been well-received by professionals working in the field. One professional lexicographer has called him a "known crank" with "rickety logic and dubious scholarship" and described his work as "rubbish" and "junk etymology."[2]

REPLY: Mr. Baker, the main source for this entire site is Gerald Cohen's work which is a self-published working-paper and NOT peer reviewed. Why is Cassidy held to one standard and Cohen another? See quote below:

"Created article. This relies heavily on Gerald Cohen, "Jazz Revisited: On the Origin of the Term--Draft #3," Comments on Etymology, Vol. 35, Nos. 1 - 2 (Oct. - Nov. 2005), cited in the Sources section. While this is just a working paper and is not peer-reviewed, it includes a large number of source texts. John M Baker 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)." 

5. Medbh's edits give undue emphasis to Cassidy's theory that jazz derives from Irish teas. Unlike many of Cassidy's other etymological claims, this theory has some degree of plausibility; another prominent lexicographer has called it "not obviously absurd,"[3] which is fairly high praise under the circumstances. But the derivation from teas has less support than competing theories and should not be given more emphasis than them.

6. Medbh's edits include irrelevant information, such as quotations from a novel set in 1914 (a relevant time period) but written years later.

7. Some of Medbh's edits have deleted the legitimate sources originally presented. John M Baker 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not my work (aside from some minor edits); I don't have a vested interest in it besides not wanting to see it badly damaged. Setting aside issues of content, you do not even adhere to proper formatting, citations, &c., & disregard the structure of the existing article--just cut & pasting a huge chunk of text into the middle of the article & deleting everything except Cassidy's book from the bibliography is not acceptable. --ND 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC) While no one owns jazz, either the word or the Wikipedia article, I am the principal contributor to the article. I do not question that the article could be improved, but I do ask that you take into account the concerns that I expressed on the article's Talk page: 1. Medbh has made long and substantially similar edits repeatedly, with no revisions to meet other editors' concerns or to discuss the edits on the Talk page. 2. Medbh's edits are not properly formatted, making the article difficult to read and follow. 3. The edits are not integrated with the remainder of the article. For example, the edits include some previously provided information in variant form. 4. Medbh's source, Daniel Cassidy, How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads (2007), is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. Cassidy is an academic administrator at the New College of California, but he has no apparent training in linguistics; the college's website describes him as a "film maker, musician, and writer."[1]

His book was not peer-reviewed and has not been well-received by professionals working in the field. One professional lexicographer has called him a "known crank" with "rickety logic and dubious scholarship" and described his work as "rubbish" and "junk etymology."[2]

REPLY FROM MEDHB: This is utter nonsense. Cassidy is a tenured faculty member at New College of California, where he teaches media studies and Irish Studies. Prior to that he was on the graduate faculty of the Film Department at SF State. He is NOT an administrator at New College. Another example of either a lawyerly disregard for inconvenient facts or just plain poor research by Mr. baker.

His book was peer-reviewed, and chapters from the book presented at academic conferences at New York University, Ontario University, UC Berkeley, New College of California, and numerous other Irish Studies conferences in Canada, the US, and Ireland. I attended two of them in person! Again your facts are just plain wrong.

Grant Barrett and Gerald Cohen's works, which are cited by Mr. Baker on this site are not peer reviewed at all. Do only works by irish scholars have to be peer reviewed? Grant Barret is a writer with no academic credentials in linguistics. Gerald Cohen's works are self-published and not peer reviewed by anyone. He mails them out to people himself. He has no American publisher. I do not think this removes either Cohen or Barrett's works from consdieration, BUT let me reiterate that both of Mr. Baker's "experts" are NON-peer reviewed.

On the other hand, Cassidy's book "HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG; The Secret Language of the Crossroads," has received stellar reviews from respected academics in the field, including Professor J. Joseph Lee of NYU and University College Cork, a fluent Irish speaker and arguably one of the most respected Irish Studies scholars in the world , Professor Robert Scally, former Director of NYU Glucksman's Ireland House, a highly distinguisehd author and academic, and Professors Peter Linebaugh, and Esther O'Hara (University of California, Berkeley), to name just a few.

So Cassidy's work has been reviewed by peers, who are professors, PhDs, and experts in the field of Irish Studies.

BAKER: "One professional lexicographer has called him a "known crank" with "rickety logic and dubious scholarship" and described his work as "rubbish" and "junk etymology."[3]

Grant Barret is not a "professional linguist," and none of his books are peer reviewed. Barrett has no academic position at a college or university that I am aware of and he does not read or speak Irish. His childish attack on Cassidy is not worthy of comment. Yet you elevate Barrett's opinions to "expert" opinion. This shows your palpable bias agaiunst Cassidy and for the non peer-reviewed, non-academic Grant Barret. Its tone speaks for itself. I am surprised you would cite it instead of these easily searchable (on Google) reviews from academics, authors, Irish-language experts, and journalists. I also find it interesting that you ignore Irish langauge experts' opinion on Cassidy's work.

The Irish language editor of the Irish Times, Pól Ó Muirí, had this to say about Cassidy's work. Perhaps Mt. Barret or one of the Irish language experts at your law office or at ADS can translate. I guess the Irish language editor of the Irish Times is a crank?

Leabharmheas Le Pól Ó Muirí Beo, Aug 20, 2007

Déantar léirmheas sa cholún seo ar leabhair Ghaeilge agus Bhéarla, ag baint le réimsí éagsúla. An mhí seo: How the Ir ish Invented Slang: the secret language of the crossroads le Daniel Cassidy (CounterPunch). Léirmheas le Pól Ó Muirí.

Údar Gael-Mheiriceánach é Daniel Cassidy, mar a d’aithneofá ar a ainm baiste agus ar a shloinne, agus comhlacht Meiriceánach é CounterPunch. Is leabhar i mBéarla é seo faoin Ghaeilge agus leabhar ina gcíorann Cassidy lorg na Gaeilge ar Bhéarla na Stát Aontaithe. Is i Nua-Eabhrac a tháinig Cassidy ar an saol agus is de thaisme a chuir sé spéis san ábhar seo. Cara dá chuid a fuair bás go hóg agus a d’fhág foclóir Gaeilge le huacht aige ba chúis le tús a chuid taighde ar fhocail Ghaeilge a mhaireann faoi chruth an Bhéarla Phoncánaigh.

Agus bí ag caint ar liosta focal. Scríobhann Cassidy go bhfuil bunús Gaeilge le focail ar nós “slum”. Tháinig sé sin ó “is lom” agus teifigh Éireannacha ag cur fúthu i gceantair bhochta Nua-Eabhrac agus Bhostúin. Is as an Ghaeilge a thagann an focal “jazz”; teas is fréamh leis; tagann “snazzy” as snas; is ionann “dingbat” agus duine bocht; “gink” agus geanc; “croak” agus croch; “clout” agus clabht; “so long” agus slán.

Tugann Cassidy mórán samplaí d’fhocail Bhéarla atá i mbéarlagair na Stát Aontaithe agus is fíor go bhfuil na leaganacha Gaeilge a aimsíonn sé iontach cosúil leis an Bhéarla ó thaobh fuaime agus brí de. Go fiú is go n-aimsíonn sé corrbhriathar a mhaireann faoi chruth amhráin. Ag scríobh ar amhrán amháin de chuid na sclábhaithe traenach, cuireann Cassidy ina luí ar an léitheoir gurb ionann curfá an amhráin: Fil-i-me-oo-re-i-re-ay agus “Fillfidh mé uair éirithe” a chiallaíonn, dar leis, “time to get up, I’ll go back.”

Is deacair gan aontú leis an chur síos sin agus cuireann sé téis de chuid an scoláire Breandán Ó Buachalla i gcuimhne dúinn. Thug sé caint i mBéal Feirste blianta fada ó shin inar léirigh sé go raibh Gaeilge in amhrán de chuid na bhFear Buí, Lilly Bolero: “lilí, ba léir ó, b’againn an lá.”

I measc nithe spéisiúla eile, scríobhann Cassidy go dtagann an focal “buckaroo” ó bocaí rua. Buachaill bó a bhí ann mar buckaroo agus arís, tagann ciall agus fuaim chur síos Cassidy le chéile. Cén fáth nach mbeadh tionchar ag an Ghaeilge ar chaint na mbuachaillí bó? I ndeireadh thiar thall, ba iad na hÉireannaigh teifigh eacnamaíochta a linne. B’éigean dóibh glacadh leis na poist ab isle céim agus is beag post ab ísle céim ná tiomáint eallaigh thar mhachairí Mheiriceá.

Samhlaigh seo fosta: Bhí clú ar John Wayne – nó Marion Michael Morrison! – mar dhuine de na haisteoirí ba chumasaí dá ré. Is minic a ghlac sé páirt i scannáin buachaillí bó agus bhain sé Oscar as a pháirt mar Rooster Cogburn sa scannán True Grit. Labhrann Rooster aon fhocal amháin Gaeilge le linn an scannáin sin. Agus é ag déanamh tagairt mhaslach d’inchinn mná, labhrann sé faoi “clábar”. (Amharc ar an scannán, mura gcreideann tú mé.) Is ar thailte na nIndiach i lár an 19ú haois atá an scannán suite agus ba spéisiúil fáil amach cá bhfuair lucht an scannáin an focal. An amhlaidh – agus níl anseo ach buille faoi thuairim – gur cuireadh an focal isteach mar aitheantas don chanúint áitiúil? Ní focal é a shamhlaíonn tú le cathracha na Stát, áit ar chuir formhór na nÉireannach fúthu.

Is é rud atá déanta ag Cassidy go bhfuil tús curtha aige le díospóireacht faoin Ghaeilge sna Stáit Aontaithe. Tá cainteoirí dúchais ag dul anonn chun an Oileáin Úir ó aimsir an Ghorta Mhóir. Bhain siad leis an aicme is lú pribhléid ar feadh Mad Dog Coll: cainteoir dúchais Gaeilge agus coirpeach mór le rá tamaill mhóir fhada. Is minic a chuirtear síos ar a n-imeacht as Éirinn i dtéarmaí talaimh amháin, is é sin, d’fhág siad an t-oileán ocrach ina ndiaidh agus sin go bunúsach a raibh i gceist lena gcaill. Is annamh a chuireann staraithe nó scríbhneoirí síos ar an rud a thug siad leo – mar atá teanga.

Ó luaigh mé Breandán Ó Buachalla uair amháin, luafaidh mé arís é. Scríobh Ó Buachalla ceann de na leabhair ba thábhachtaí riamh 40 éigin bliain ó shin, I mBéal Feirste Cois Cuain. Tá an t-am ag duine éigin a mhacasamhail – I mBostún Cois Cuain – a scríobh, leabhar a chuirfeadh síos ar an teanga thall agus ar na daoine – ó Rooster Cogburn go Mad Dog Coll – a labhair Gaeilge. Tá an chéad chaibidil scríofa cheana féin ag Daniel Cassidy.

Tháinig Pól Ó Muirí ar an saol i mBéal Feirste Lá Nollag, 1965. Is Eagarthóir Gaeilge de chuid an Irish Times é; colúnaí spóirt le Foinse agus scríobhann sé colún ar an Belfast Telegraph. Le cois bheith ina iriseoir, is file agus scríbhneoir é.

Nocht do chuid tuairimí maidir leis an alt seo i gClár Plé Beo! Give your opinions on this article in Beo!'s Forum.

++

Mr. Baker, how about these Irish and American academics, journalists, and award winning authors? Professor Joe Lee is no Grant Barret, of course. He has a PhD. and speaks Irish.

HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG, by Professor J. Joseph Lee, NYU, University College Cork.

"THIS IS A LANDMARK BOOK!"

In this courageous, crusading manifesto, Daniel Cassidy flings down the gauntlet to all those compilers of dictionaries who fled to the safe haven of ‘origin unknown’ when confronted with the challenge of American slang. He claims instead that much of it, from the ‘Dead Rabbits’ of ‘The Gangs of New York’ to ‘jazz’ itself, had its origin in words from the Irish language brought by the floods of Irish immigrants. The originality and importance of the argument makes this an exciting contribution to both American and Irish Studies. This is a landmark book, at once learned and lively, and quite enthralling as to how American English acquired so vibrant a popular vocabulary. As Peter Quinn puts it in his Introduction, a gem in its own right, Cassidy ‘has brought back to life that which was considered dead and settled’. The corpse he has resurrected is bound to spark intense interest and debate.

Prof. J. Joseph Lee, Professor of Irish Studies Director, Glucksman Ireland House, New York University; Professor of History, University College Cork.

Or how about one of the most respected journalists in Ireland, who also speaks irish, Frank Mc Nally? The Irish Times devoted two long articles to Cassidy's book this summer. See Kate Holmquist's lengthy feature on Cassidy's book. It took up a whole page of the Irish Times. But then again, she is no Grant Barret. Here's just a peiece of the Frank McNally review from August. It was on the Op-ed page of the Irish Times, which is not edited by Grant Barret so it is must be a crank newspaper.

“It's not every dictionary you can describe as a thrilling read. But when I picked up Daniel Cassidy's How the Irish Invented Slang the other day, I soon found myself reluctant to put it down... this is a page-turner. Cassidy makes a powerful case for the Irish langauge influence on American slang."

                   Frank McNally, Irish Times

In Ireland this summer, Cassidy's work was featured in every newspaper in Ireland, in both the Irish and English languages. RTE, Ireland's national broadcaster, devoted a whole hour to an interview with him. It is easily searchable on google. The BBC, BBC Ulster, Foyle Radio (Derry), Donegal FM, Highland Radio, Cork FM, Waterford FM, and a number of other radio stations, including Irish language stations devoted literally hours of air time to favorably reviewing Cassidy's work.

But of course to Anglophiles this means nothing. Again, Grant Barret was not invited on these shows, so they must all be cranks.

In San Francisco, the Chronicle devoted 3/4 of a page to a glowing review of Cassidy's book. The Chronicle is a crank newspaper. It did not quote Grant Barret.

“Professor and author Daniel Cassidy can say this for sure: He's huge in Ireland…By plucking words such as "scam" and "snazzy" out of old English dictionaries and comparing them with phonetic twins in Irish dictionaries, Cassidy shows how Irish words were absorbed into American English while the Irish themselves were assimilating.”

                   Reyhan Harmanci, San Francisco Chronicle

Eamonn McCann is a renowned author and columnist, who is also fluent in Irish. He is a revered Civil Rights scholar with family in the Donegal Gaeltacht. None of them are named Grant Barret, so McCann and his family are all cranks. Unlike the dúid Barret.

"Save the Irish dúid from the Oxford English dictionary! Daniel Cassidy has shaken the study of linguistics in the U.S. with a startlingly new theory – that much of American slang has been borrowed from Irish... Cassidy’s ideas have rapidly gained academic respectability since the publication of his book early this summer. This book is truly amazing!”

                   Eamonn McCann, Belfast Telegraph

Alex Cockburn is from Cork, Ireland, and studied the Irish language for the first six years of his schooling. He reads Irish and speaks it. He is a crank too, since he does not know who Grant Barret is.

“Imagine old sunken roads, re-surfaced on our maps, imagine an x-ray of the American language, its sinews and its muscles. This is what Dan Cassidy gives us in his thrilling investigation... He lays out what the Irish in their revels, their loves and hates, their exuberant, often desperate battle with the New World, have given America in the way we all speak and read and write." “

                   Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch  

Peter Quinn is a highly respected novelist and essayist. His grandparents were Irish speakers. Quinn also does not know who Grant barret is. Quinn is another crank.

“Roll over, Webster and Murray…what Cassidy has done is nothing short of miraculous.”

                   Peter Quinn, author
                   Looking for Jimmy: A Search for IrishAmerica. 

Maureen Dezell is former drama critic for the Boston Globe and a respected critic and author. Dezell is a crank too in Grant barret's world.

“Among artists, scribes and scholars who have probed the Irish American past, only Daniel Cassidy has delved into the essence of Irish American culture and character: our inherited gift of language. Cassidy has explored and explained the origins and endurance of the blunt, evocative, sordid and exquisite Irish words and phrases that gave verve to the American vernacular.”

                   Maureen Dezell, author 
                   Irish America: Coming Into Clover

Professor Bob Scally was the founding director of NYU's Ireland House. He is one of the most respected academics and authors in the field of Irish Studies.

Of course only English speakers are experts on the Irish language in Grant Barret's world. So Professor Scally is a crank too, I suppose?

“Irish Americans especially will be delighted to know they have been speaking Irish all along in their slang and American English... With imagination and scholarship, Cassidy has restored this hidden treasure to us in a book that is filled with wit and imagination.”

                   Prof. Robert Scally, Professor Emeritus, New York University.
                   Author, The End of Hidden Ireland.

On Nov. 6th in NYC, the Irish Arts Center, the Irish-American Cultural Institute, The Irish Consul General, New York University's Ireland House, and CUNY's Irish-American Studies Program, three of them instituiions which provide instruction in the Irish language at all levels from beginner to graduate level, will honor Daniel Cassidy and his new book: How the Irish Invneted Slang: the Secret Lnaguage of the Crossroads. Cassidy will be introduced by the New York journalist and author Pete Hamill.

Of course, how can these cranks compare to experts like Professor Grant Barret?

"This book is essential to reading James Farrell, Eugene O'Neill, and Pete Hamill, and belongs on every writer's reference desk. The whole jargon of the city-desk, the arena, the wharf, the street-corner, detention hall, not to mention the joint, is here."

                   Prof. Peter Linebaugh, author of The London Hanged

5. Medbh's edits give undue emphasis to Cassidy's theory that jazz derives from Irish teas. Unlike many of Cassidy's other etymological claims, this theory has some degree of plausibility; another prominent lexicographer has called it "not obviously

YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK.

Mr. Baker, I have limited time. I cede this space to the Anglophile dictionary dudes and the cronies of the Great Crank Grant Barret.

But I will bet you an unlawyerly 5 bucks that you have not even read Cassidy's book.

That is crankdom personified. Within a year or two, all of this baloney from the Grant Barret's of the world will be sliced and diced in English and Irish.

You win for now. I am too busy to argue with someone who hasn't read the book and wouldn't know an Irish word if it bit them on the puss (pus, lip, mouth).

Beir Beannacht, Medhb

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Medbh"

• Medhb, thank you for your response. I'll number my responses for ease of reference:

1. With respect to Cassidy's work, the point made below under Cassidy and WP:RS is correct: His book does not meet the WP:RS standards. The reviews you quote are from the Irish and American popular press (newspapers and the like), not scholarly journals. The professors you quote all seem to be professors of Irish studies. I'm sure they know a lot about Irish, but that doesn't mean they know anything about the etymology of American English words.

2. No, I haven't read Cassidy's book. I considered buying a copy, but I don't think that would accomplish anything. I could form my own opinion of it, but I'm not a linguist, so my opinion would matter only to me.

3. Cassidy is Director of the Irish Studies Program at New College of California.[4] If this is a tenured faculty and not an administrative position, then Mr. Cassidy has my apology. It does not in any case appear to be a position requiring any training in linguistics, beyond presumably a knowledge of Irish.

4. Grant Barrett is one of the more prominent lexicographers in the United States and needs no defense from me. John M Baker 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he a profesional linguist? No. Is his book peer reviwed? No. Did he present his book at any scholarly conferences? No.

Medhb says that Cassidy's book was peer reviewed. I don't think this is at all correct. The book was published by a radical leftist vanity press. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't meet the standards set by WP:RS. When we are looking for a reliable linguistics source, we want to find one that was written by a professional linguist, published in a scholarly venue, and peer reviewed by other linguists. Cassidy is not a linguist, has not published in scholarly linguistics journals, and has not been peer reviewed by other linguists.Verklempt 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Verklmept is verklempt. To call CounterPunch Books a Vanity Press implies that Cassidy paid to have his book published. Do you have proof of that?

Are you a professional linguist? Was Mencken a profesional linguist? Is Grant Barret a professional linguist? How about James Murray?

What English dictionary editors can you name that are "professional linguists?" What is a "professional" linguist as opposed to an "amateur" linguist? ?

Jass, n., an early spelling for jazz. Teas (pron. j’ass, chass), n., heat, passion, excitement, highest temperature. (Ó Dónaill, [1977?], 611; Dineen, 517-518.)

In a special March 1917 issue of Victor Record Revue published to promote the Original Dixieland Jass band’s first Jass record, the Victor Company was still trying to decide how to spell the hot new word Jass.

“Spell it Jass, Jas, Jaz, or Jazz – nothing can spoil a Jazz band. Some say the Jass band originated in Chicago. Chicago says it came from San Francisco – San Francisco being away across the continent… Anyway a Jass band is the newest thing in cabarets.” (Victor Record Review, March 7, 1917; Peter Tamony, Jazz: The Word, And Its Extension To Music, JEMF Quarterly, Spring, 1981, 10.)

Jazz, n., a name given to African-American music; excitement, passion, enthusiasm; heat; “hot air,” excessive verbal passion; something or someone hot or exciting; sexual intercourse, to have sex with someone.

Teas (pron. j’ass, chass), n., heat, passion, excitement, ardor, enthusiasm, anger, highest temperature. (Ó Dónaill, 611; Dineen, 517-518; Dwelly, 942.)

Not a single musician in New Orleans – Black, White, or Creole – used the word “Jass” or “Jazz” for hot music until the Original Dixieland Jass Band (ODJB), a motley crew of Irish, Sicilian, and working-class “white” boys from the back streets of the Big Easy, hit the music-biz jackpot in March 1917, when they recorded the first Jass record in history in New York City: Dixieland Jass One Step and Livery Stable Blues. (Louis Armstrong, In His Own Words, 1999, 83, 218, 175; Tamony, Jazz: A Quarterly of Music, [year?], 37 -39; David Meltzer, Reading Jazz, 1992, 42; Peter Tamony, JEMF Quarterly, Spring 1981.)

The Secret of “Jazz”

In the red-light districts of San Francisco’s Barbary Coast, Chicago’s First Ward, New York’s Tenderloin, and New Orleans’ Storyville, where the hot new music had been born, that old Irish word teas (pron. ch’as, j’as, heat, passion, excitement) also meant sexual “heat, passion, excitement.”

“The word Jazz was ... a sex word in California and was a common localism in San Francisco when I arrived there in 1899 and until I left there (for Chicago and Kelly’s Stables fame after September 1914). I shall be glad to swear on oath before a notary public that Jazz as a sex word was not only used in San Francisco before the (1906) earthquake and fire, but that it was of such common use that it was a localism. During those days I played at Luna’s Mexican restaurant on Geary Street with Miguel Luna and Harry Warren. They played nights at a (whore) house on Stockton Street and I heard the word Jazz repeatedly. (Richard Holbrooke, Storyville magazine, 1974, 48, 55; Tamony, JEMF Quarterly, Spring 1981, 12-16.)

“Thirty-five years ago (ca. 1890) I played the trombone... I made tours of the big mining centers when the West was really wild ... I was piloted to dance resorts – honky tonks. The vulgar word jazz was in general currency in those dance halls thirty years or more ago” (Clay Smith, Etude magazine, Sept., 1924, quoted in Holbrooke, “Our Word Jazz,” Storyville, 1974, 48, 49.)

Jazz was so full of jasm and gism (teas ioma, pron. j’ass iomə, an abundance of heat and passion; fig. semen) no one could, or would, write it down. In 1913, it was a word you learned by ear – like jazz music.

 In James T. Farrell’s novel, Gas House McGinty, written during the Jazz Age and set in Chicago in 1914, Farrell’s Jazz had absolutely nothing to do with hot music. It is the jazz (teas, pron. j’as, ch’as, heat, passion, and excitement) of sex. 

“He thought of the girls he had had in the past. There was the time he was fourteen and Nellie O’Brien had copped his cherry…The bird who invented jazzing was a bum inventor to throw in all those complications and grief.” (James T. Farrell, Gas-house McGinty, 1932, 130.)

“‘Hell, if you guys can’t buy your way in, I don’t know how in hell you’ll ever get by St. Peter. With all the women you claim to be jazzin’, it ought to take a hell of a lot more than the back pay to slip you by,’ said Heinie.” (Farrell, Gas-house McGinty, [1933?], 140.)

Sidney Bechet set the tone for succeeding generations of African-American musicians with his hatred of the word jazz. “... Jazz, that’s a name the white people have given to the music... Jazz could mean any damn’ thing: high times, screwing... It used to be spelled Jass...” (Sidney Bechet, Treat It Gentle, An Autobiography, 1960, 1978, 3.)

Jazzy, adj., spirited, lively, exciting, hot.

Teasaí (pron. j’así, chassí), adj., hot, warm, ardent, passionate, exciting, fervent, enthusiastic, spirited, fiery. Fonn teasaí, vehement desire; duine teasaí (pron. din’ə j’así), a hot-headed person, a passionate person.. (Dineen, 1194; Ó Dónaill, 1221.)

1) The term "vanity press" is not limited to authors paying for publication. That practice is actually rather common in academia, only it's called "subvention." No, the term "vanity press" refers to a press run by an individual to appeal to his own vanity. He typically puts out small runs of books that could not be published with a respectable press, books that most academic libraries are unlikely to buy, and books that most likely will not sell more than a few copies.

REPLY: Cassidy's book was 9,000 on Amazon last night Oct. 5th, 2007). Grant Barret's most recent book is rated 58,000 (Oct. 5, 2007). Prof. Lighter's HDAS is below 1,000,000 rating. Prof. Cohen's Etymological Notes are self-published and not even on Amazon. However, I do not dismiss Mr. Barrett's book because it sells less than Cassidy's. I have not read it, so I cannot say anything about it. Cassidy's "How the Irish Invented Slang" went into second printing in less than 60 days. It has been reviewed in more than 25 newspapers, magazines, journals, and media outlets in the past two months. It has been featured on TV, films, 30 radio shows in Ireland, the US, UK, and Canada amd given several awards already.

To publish with Counterpunch, an author needs only to take a political position that is attractive to the press's slightly nutty owner. That press has no reputation for fact checking, as required by WP:RS. 2)

REPLY: The statement "CounterPunch has no record for fact checking" is an outright lie.

A "professional linguist" is ordinarily a person who has a degree in linguistics and who teaches linguistics at a university.

REPLY: What degree in linguistics does Grant Barrett (your expert) hold?

Certainly Cassidy need not meet that standard to be mentioned or cited in this article. He would however need to meet that standard for the article to give his speculations more than a cursory mention in passing, alongside the other non-peer-reviewed speculations.

Who peer-reviewed Barrett's books? What academic conferences did he present at?

PS: You don't need to reprint your entire thesis every time you post to this discussion page.

You have erased Cassidy's thesis countless times. I have not erased Barrett's thesis or Cohen's or Lighter's.

We've all seen it already, more than enough times to get the drift.

REPLY: You have not read Cassidy's book or the essay on the word jazz yet you contuinue to criticize it. Shouldn't you at least READ IT?

You might find that you get more satisfaction here by attempting to fit into the local Wikipedia culture, or at least by trying to be a mensch. Verklempt 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: Does this Wikipedia culture permit non-experts, with no credentials or publications of any kind, to erase people's books and attack them with lies and canards: CounterPunch is a vanity Press, CounterPunch is not fact checked, Cassidy's book was not peer reviewed, Cassidy is not on the faculty at New College.) CounterPunch is fact-checked by a whole group of editors and even has a legal staff. Cassidy's book was edited by Englisn and Irish language scholars. Cassidy's book ancdthesis of a considerabvle Irish language influence on American Vernacular has beeb peer reviewed and presented at academic conferences at some of the top universities in the US. Cassidy has been on the faculty of New College since 1995.

It seems to me we are discussing a book Mr. Verklempt and Mr. Baker, Esq., refuse to read.

But then, accoring to them, they shouldn't even have an opinion since they are not a "professional linguists."

But they have an "amateur opinion" on Cassidy's book -- without reading it -- and then use that "amateur opinion" to censor his book, "How the Irish Invented Slang," from Wikipedia's Word Jazz entry.

They attack Cassidy's credentials: "Cassidy is not a teacher or faculty member, he's an adminsitrator." (Lie)

They question his publisher's legitmacy and politics, etc. "He's a lefty, a pinko...etc. --"

But they refuse to read the book.

Hmmmm, sounds like the Bush administration and the Neocons.

You criticize Professor Lee and Scally because they are mere "Irish Studies scholars."

Who do you want judging Cassidy's book?

If a book claimed a significant Yiddish influence on American English would you ignore all Yiddish and Jewish Studies Scholars?

So we now have a situation in which two NON-linguists, Mr. Baker and Mr. Verklempt cite a non-profesional linguist, Grant Barrett, to reject an Irish etymology of the word jazz, which has been peer-reviewed by some of the top scholars in the field of Irish Studies, as well as the Irish language editor of the Irish Times and several of the most well-regarded Irish language publications in the world.

Additionally, these two Wikpedia 'editors" and "experts" reject Cassidy's book, "How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret language of the Crossroads," but admit they have never read it. Then when people put Cassidy's etymology of jazz up on Wikpedia for all to read and judge for themselves, these two non-academics and non-experts simply erase it. By what authority? The only authority they cite is the non-academic and non-professional linguist, Grant Barrett.

Is this not the web equivalent of book burning?

Why is Cassidy's book disqualified and denied space on Wikipedia ? Are non-professionals permitted to reject books they have not read because one person (Grant Barrett) does not like it? Even when leading academics in the field of Irish Studies and Irish language scholars have called it a "landmark" work?

I was going to give up and walk away from this foolishness. But I now sense a larger agenda at work. Wikipedia cannot allow self-appointed editors and non-experts like Mr. Baker and Mr. Verklempt, with no published work or profesional academic credentials, to dictate what is, and what is not, permitted discourse on the origin of the word "jazz."

The Irish etymology of "jazz" should not be censored from Wikipedia. Cassidy's revolutionary thesis of a considerable Irish and Gaelic language influence on American language must not be censored by Wikipedia. That would be a scam ('s cam [e], [it] is crookedness, a deceit, a trick, a fraud). Medhb —Preceding

unsigned comment added by Medbh (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of straw men in Medbh's argument. 1) There is no attempt to "censor" Cassidy's hypothesis. The debate here is over how much play it deserves in the article. 2) Grant Barrett's credentials are not terribly relevant here right now, given that he is not yet cited in the article. However, there is no question that he has a far more established reputation as a professional linguist than Cassidy. 3) Gerald Cohen holds a PhD in linguistics. His work on jazz etymology is not peer reviewed. However, the WP article does not quote Cohen's professional opinions on etymology. It merely gives him credit for turning up the primary source newspaper articles that are cited in this WP article. Certainly the newspaper articles he found meet WP:RS. The cite to Cohen could be excised without changing the quality of the article at all. However, it would be inappropriate to use the sources he found without giving him credit. Finally, even if we stipulate that Cohen is without credibility, that does not really make Cassidy any more credible, does it? Cohen's credibility is irrelevant to an evaluation of Cassidy's credibility. 3) Medbh claims that Counterpunch press does some sort of fact-checking. However, this is not verifiable. WP:RS mandates that sources have a reputation for reliability, indicating that peer-reviewed scholarly sources are preferred. Counterpunch cannot meet this standard. 4) Cassidy's conference presentations are irrelevant, and certainly not peer-reviewed. 5) Cassidy's faculty status at a bogus New Age college is irrelevant, given that he has no credentials as a linguist, and no peer-reviewed publications in linguistics. 6) In my opinion, Cassidy's thesis deserves a mention in this article, perhaps a sentence or two. But then his critics -- such as Barrett -- would also deserve a mention, in order to satisfy WP:NPOV.Verklempt 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

MR. BAKER'S OWN FALSE LEADS, OUTRIGHT LIES, & DOUBLE STANDARDS

1.Gerald Cohen's self-published "vanity" work Etymological Notes is not peer reviewed. Why is Cohen's work cited and Cassidy's peer-reviewed book, How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads, which is peer-reviewed and received great critical acclaim from its publication in JUly 2007, not cited?

Why does Mr. Baker hold non-peer-reviewed sources, Grant Barrett and G. Cohen, to one standard and Professor Cassidy to another?

The real "false leads" in this discussion are the outright lies and distortions that Mr. Baker publishes as fact.

Mr. Baker own falkse leads are numbered below:

1. False lead by Mr. Baker: Cassidy is an college administrator and not on the faculty at New College of California.

Truth by Medhb: Cassidy has been on the faculty of New College of California for 12 years. Prior to that he taught at San Francisco State University.

2.False lead by Baker: Cassidy's book How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret language of the Crossroads, is not peer-reviewed.

Truth by Medhb: Cassidy's book (and chapters in it) were presented at academic conferences in the US, Canada, and Ireland from 2003 - 2007. Cassidy's work has been peer-reviewed by some of the most respected and widely published academics in the fields of Irish Studies. His book was edited by a team of Irish language and English language academics and experts. It has been reviewed favorably in more than 25 Irish and American publications in the past 8 weeks.

His book was first presented and read at Oideas Gael in Donegal, one of the leading Irish language schools in Ireland, to an audience of native Irish speakers, academics, teachers, college faculty, journalists, poets, and students. His book was featured at The Belfast Feile in August. Casidy was introduced to an overflow audience of 250 people by the Irish language editor of the Irish News. Its reception in Irish language publications has been overwhelimgly positive.

3. Falsehood by Baker and Verklempt CounterPunch Books is a "vanity press" and it does not "ell many books."

Truth by Medhb: Both of these statemnets are bold faced lies. Cassidy's book is not self-published or "vanity," and he signed a standard author's contract with CounterPunch. Cassidy's book is selling remarkably well in the US and Ireland. "How the Irish Invented Slang" went into second printing in 6 weeks. It consistently rates in the top 5% of all books sold on Amazon US.

4. Flasehhodd by Baker: Baker states that his views represent the vews of "rofessional linguists"and authors whose works are peer-reviewed. Baker cites Grant Barrett who has no peer-reviewed published work. He cites Gerald Cohen, who also has no peer-reviewed published work on the word Jazz or any other slang words. None of Cohen's etymological works are peer-reviewed or published in the US. He published a "Vanity" pamphlet called "Etymological Notes" which he sells over the internet and through DAS. It is not even for sale in bookstores or on Amazon.

5. Baker speaks with great authority about Cassidy's work. But, Baker has never read How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret language of the Crossroads -- like thousands of other people who bought out the entire first edition in less than 8 weeks. Mr. Baker shouldshould cease and desist his Alberto Gonzales-like "book burning" on Wikpedia by erasing Cassidy's Sanas (Etymology) of Jazz and Jass fro the jazz Word Wikpedia site. Beir beannacht, Medhb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medbh (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1. What is the source for your assertion that Cassidy is on New College's faculty? Even assuming this to be true, I don't see what relevance it has. Why would a position teaching Irish studies give one any expertise in the etymology of American slang?

2. You seem to be unaware of what "peer-reviewed" means. Peer review is a system by which scholarly publishers subject manuscripts to review by known experts in the field before publication. This is different from the reviews that published works subsequently receive. As it happens, the post-publication reviews that Cassidy's book received are not particularly relevant either, because there is no evidence that anyone who reviewed it knows anything about the etymology of American slang.

3. Actually, I did not characterize CounterPunch Books as a vanity press, nor did I say anything about how many books it sells. I said only that it is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publisher. I do not have an opinion on whether or not it is a vanity press, nor how many books it sells. I don't consider the number of books it sells at all relevant - many scholarly publishers sell few books, and many nonsensical books have become best-sellers. How do you know that Cassidy signed a standard author's contract? I thought you said earlier that you are not Cassidy.

4. Grant Barrett is the author or editor of a number of peer-reviewed publications, including Hatchet Jobs and Hardball: The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang and contributions to the peer-reviewed journal American Speech. Of course, Barrett's comments on Cassidy weren't peer-reviewed - they were just comments on his blog. But I cited them on this Talk page, not in the article, and only for the point that linguists have not received Cassidy's work well.

Cohen's peer-reviewed works include Origin of the Term 'Hot Dog' and Dictionary of 1913 Baseball and Other Lingo. While his work "Jazz Revisited: On the Origin of the Term--Draft #3" is not a peer-reviewed work, it does serve as a convenient compendium of sources and scholarly materials.

5. While I have not read Cassidy's book, I do have some familiarity with his work through his descriptions online[5] and through his postings to the American Dialect Society listserv. John M Baker 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now purchased Daniel Cassidy, How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads (2007) and read the relevant portions. Cassidy's argument for a derivation from Irish teas is based entirely on the following claims: 1. Most competing explanations are inconsistent with the historical record. (The existing Wikipedia article agrees.) 2. Irish teas is pronounced "j'as" in Ulster and North Mayo, one of the three living dialects of the Irish language; in the other two dialects, it is pronounced ""ch'as" or "t'as." (I have no reason to suppose Cassidy is wrong here.) 3. Teas means "heat, passion, excitement, and highest temperature," which is somewhat similar to the early meaning of jazz, which then meant pep, vigor, enthusiasm. (Online dictionaries agree that teas means "heat.")

So Cassidy's theory is essentially based on limited and doubtful circumstantial evidence. Cross-language similarities in sounds of words are common and rarely have much significance. There is no evidence that teas had come into English for any purpose - there are no known 19th century citations of Irish-Americans using "j'as," "ch'as," or "t'as" (or their phonetic equivalents) to mean "heat," or anything else. But Cassidy's theory does have the advantages that it (a) is not inconsistent with the historical record and (b) is as plausible as any other theory of derivation, except one.

The more plausible theory, discussed in the article, is that jazz derives from jasm, which in turn is a variant of jism or gism (previously considered a more respectable word than at present). But Cassidy is on the case: He asserts that jasm and gism derive from Irish teas ioma, which he defines as "an abundance of heat and passion; fig. semen." The etymology of jasm/jism/gism is unknown; I'll try to find out if there is any plausibility to Cassidy's suggestion (for which he again presents no evidence). Google does not present any examples of "teas ioma" that do not come from Cassidy. However, I don't know how good a source Google is for Irish.

Meanwhile, I would say that we should present Cassidy's theory, but not in detail, though it perhaps could be expanded slightly in the article. At some point, it would also be nice to add some information about some of the other theories (mostly now considered discredited), such as the once-popular theory that it derived from the name Jasbo. John M Baker 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposed derivation of jasm/jism from teas ioma doesn't pan out, for a number of reasons, of which I will mention only two: (1) The only evidence supporting such a derivation is the resemblance of jasm to teas ioma. (2) Jasm doesn't resemble teas ioma.

With respect to the proposed derivation of jazz from Irish teas, the main article should continue to discuss it, as it does now; I would not object to a slightly longer discussion, though there is no more evidence in support in the previous edits or in Cassidy's book. If there are no more comments on this in a day or so, I'll take down the Request for Comment. John M Baker 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion apparently being complete, I have removed the Request for Comment. John M Baker 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here since my name was bandied about so pointlessly. I agree that the "jazz" theory should be presented briefly, but that's not what is being done by its proponents. They present it as fait accompli. But it doesn't even require linguistic expertise to see that it's far from solved. The citation record as presented by Cassidy is weak and the chain of logic is a slippery slope. And that's where my expertise does come into play: I am a professional historical lexicographer. I research word origins every working day and I know what a proven etymology looks like. This isn't it. I have, by the way, presented before the Dictionary Society of North American and I am an officer of the American Dialect Society. GrantBarrett 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Format issues

Could people please put their discussion all in one place, & format it properly? It's springing up in at least 3 spots on this single talk page at the moment, & Medbh/Medhb's comments in particular are extremely hard to follow sometimes simply because of their visual disarray. --ND 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reordered to put all of the current discussion about Cassidy under the RFC topic, Recent edits & reverts, with an attempt to keep more or less the original chronological order. For formatting Medbh's comments, there isn't much I can do. John M Baker 14:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lafcadio Hearn

I came across an interesting reference here in an article from Down Beat dated March 1939 claiming that "The famed literateur, Lafcadio Hearn, as long ago as 1885, wrote of the existence in New Orleans of “a music of a rudimentary syncopated type known as jazz.” We know also that Stale Bread LaComb and his troupe of white boys were featured to in the joints of New Orleans’ Storeyville (Storyville) in the ’nineties, when they were billed as 'That Razzy, Jazzy Spasm Band.' " However, hunting further I eventually found a google preview of The Jazz Cadence of American Culture By Robert G. O'Meally which puts the Hearn reference as part of Kingsley's unsupported claim. It also gave some other info about that claim, which at the least indicates that various stories were current in late 1917, so I've expanded that section, and have tagged the allegation of it being a hoax as unsourced. .. dave souza, talk 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that addresses the probable fraudulent nature of the Hearn cite. I'll look for it.Verklempt 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A use of "Jazzy" from the 1890s would be crucially important, if verified, but that's a big if. Multiple sources, including The Historical Dictionary of American Slang, reject Kingsley's article. At some point we need to start adding in-line references to the article; I'll just put in a reference in text for now. John M Baker 05:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the scholarly source that dissects Kingsley's invocation of Hearn, and finds it most likely fraudulent: Lawrence Gushee, "The Nineteenth-Century Origins of Jazz," Black Music Research Journal, Vol. 22, Supplement: Best of BMRJ (2002), pp. 151-174. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verklempt (talk • contribs) 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gil Scott-Heron

I'm New Here has the following quote. Any chance it's legit? Okay, this was a combination of “jism” – what they used to call “jism” in the Brombles and “ass music”. The reason they called it “ass music” was because there was a shipload of brass instruments stolen off one of those ships and all of a sudden everyone in the ghetto had a trumpet or sax or something that they were playing. But they had no formal training so they called them “ass musicians”. So the combination of “jism” and “ass” was what you came up with when you came up with “jazz” – http://saimurai.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/gil-scott-heron-jism-ass/ Otaku2 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)otaku2Otaku2 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I admire Scott-Heron's work, but he was neither a scholar of word origins nor a primary source. He's probably right to think that there's a connection to jism; as the article indicates, "jazz" probably derives from "jasm," a variant of "jism." I don't see any reason to associate "jazz" with "ass music," and I'm not convinced that there ever was such a thing as "ass music." John M Baker (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)