Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The New Nature

1

The word's not lost: I vividly remember my 8th grade science teacher stating that he preferred the name "Flutterby", and that's what we called them the whole year.

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey | December 4, 2007 12:01 PM
2

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

The word "butterfly" is not a corruption of "flutterbye". It's from "butter" + "fly", and no one really knows why.

C'mon, Charles, you insult Nabokov when you associate him with this kind of idiocy.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 12:05 PM
3

Isn't one supposed to associate Nabokov with twelve-year-old girls?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | December 4, 2007 12:08 PM
4

No.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 12:10 PM
5

And what does the Nike swoosh have to do with anything? Chuck, this is probably your most misinformed, obtuse posting in weeks.

Posted by DaiBando | December 4, 2007 12:11 PM
6

From http://www.takeourword.com/arc_logi.html#butterfl


Where does the word butterfly originate?

One common yet erroneous explanation for this word's origin is that it comes from flutterby. What we do know, instead, is that this word is very old (pre-8th century). It was originally buturfliogæ, a compound of butere "butter" and fleoge "fly". Why butter? Some suggest that it was due to many butterflies being yellow in color, like butter. Others believe it is based upon the yellow excrement of butterflies. Still others hold to the notion that butterflies were thought to land in kitchens and drink milk or butter left uncovered (this, interestingly, is supported by a German word for butterfly, milchdieb "milk-thief").

Posted by NaFun | December 4, 2007 12:17 PM
7

My goodness, Mudede, you are channelling old man Webster himself! Why must the word make such boringly logical sense?
"Butterfly" creates a delightfully incongruous image, suggesting the sense of the actual creature only through onomatopoeia. The word is a tiny poem unto itself. And considering the mysterious nature of this little beastie, it is appropriate that it have a mysterious name, don't you think?

Posted by Irena | December 4, 2007 12:25 PM
8

butterfly is infinitely cooler than flutterby, and not at all illogical. it is after all a "fly" of some sort, no?

Posted by brandon | December 4, 2007 12:32 PM
9

What about Butterball chicken? Where did that come from, Charles?

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 4, 2007 12:35 PM
10

Mr. Poe apparently isn't familiar with "ball butter".

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 12:38 PM
11

!!!

Mr. Poe apparently takes showers, Fnarf. Something to consider?

Posted by Irena | December 4, 2007 12:43 PM
12

Charles, here's a process (took me five seconds) you can follow before posting falsehoods again.

1: Open up your OED
2: Type in "Butterfly"
3: Read the etymology section
4: Don't make up shit about flutterbye

In the future, ask yourself if the only reason you believe something is true is because it's a pleasant sounding theory.

Just be glad we don't call them "schmetterling". God I hate insects.

Furthermore, the made up flutterbye->butterfly transition could be a case of metathesis (if you stretch it), a well known phonological transformation... Just like "ask"->"aks" (except I didn't pull that example out of my ass).

Posted by Jason Petersen | December 4, 2007 12:51 PM
13

Oh, come on, Irena. There's a better joke in there than that!

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 12:54 PM
14

Fnarf, you charming old windbag, don't be so contrary. It's bad for your heart.

Posted by Irena | December 4, 2007 1:16 PM
15

Fnarf is grumpy and old. Leave him alone. He's harmless.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 4, 2007 1:23 PM
16

Bile is the only thing keeping me alive. And Almond Roca.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 1:41 PM
17

You imbeciles are so distracted by your attempts to look smart you didn't read the headline, the first line, or look at the picture. Or think about what it means if a corporation puts it's logo into an animal's DNA. Who could stop them? Who would?

Think about the terrible loss of nature and what that might have to do with calling something that flutters by a flutterbye. See, there are a bunch of trivial facts that you can stuff in your head, and then there is understanding.

Posted by elenchos | December 4, 2007 2:16 PM
18

Uh-huh.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 2:28 PM
19

"Chuck, this is probably your most misinformed, obtuse posting in weeks."

There's a lot of competition for that title.

Posted by Bison | December 4, 2007 2:37 PM
20

How the HELL do you put a logo into an animal's DNA? Is it even possible? And if it were, what's the likelihood a company would risk the negative publicity? Sounds like a pretty serious investment to me.

The implications are disturbing, elenchos, but I'm not panicking yet.

Posted by Irena | December 4, 2007 2:56 PM
21

Presumably you would just insert it using genetic modification techniques. But I'm not sure what that would get you; if it's encoded in the DNA, no one could see it, and while your creation would be patentable it wouldn't have any utility.

To change the DNA so as to DISPLAY THE LOGO visibly on the animal sounds a hell of a lot more difficult -- and just as pointless. Would a pig with a Nike swoosh PAINTED on it be effective advertising? No.

There is an ethical issue with genetically modified organisms, which, despite the scaremongers, has little to do with "danger, danger", and everything to do with the ethics of patenting organisms. For instance, GM rice and GM corn both exist, and people who plant it are legally prevented from harvesting the seeds and replanting the next season, as has been standard practice for thousands of years. You have to buy again, every year. That's an ethical quandary, not a scientific one, and can and should be addressed. I personally would support a multinational effort to ban the patenting of plants and animals.

But none of that has anything to do with butterflies, flutterbyes, ludicrous falsehoods about language, or Nabokov.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2007 3:14 PM
22

Oh Pretty Pretty! I want to stick a pin in it!

Posted by Madge-YoursoakingINIT! | December 4, 2007 4:22 PM
23

Shouldn't that be "flutter by"?

Posted by idaho | December 5, 2007 12:19 AM
24

@6:
Though I don't know the expression Milchdieb for butterfly, I know that the common German word Schmetterling comes from Schmandling ("little sour cream eater"). Supports the idea that at least in the Germanic cultures, butterflies were associated with dairy products.

And dyslexia? WTF, do you think peasants in Olde England could read at all?

Posted by Suryo | December 5, 2007 2:14 AM
25

nqcgldpye yxrvfag ykwbgjr neuxwfam uelatkyb xvrmzgat rnsodc

Posted by dgqa jwvrgfkoy | December 12, 2007 11:28 AM
26

nqcgldpye yxrvfag ykwbgjr neuxwfam uelatkyb xvrmzgat rnsodc

Posted by dgqa jwvrgfkoy | December 12, 2007 11:28 AM
27

mnzgraw mwnvopdy otunxqysb qmyrxuvtg eznboukg trdsxgi ejhdcrq http://www.jpevd.ihsz.com

Posted by tpedz chnlk | December 12, 2007 11:29 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).