Talk:Etymological twins

removal of Calvinism

The reason I removed

 Calvinism and Chauvinism (Chauvin is French for Calvin)

is that this isn't really appropriate in the sense of etymological twins. These are two different philosphies named after two completely different people. The fact that their names have a similar etymological source is not relevant, as far as I can see.

Yeah, it is irrelevant in every other discussion, but isn't that what makes them a good example of etymological twins? The fact that they have a "similar etymological source", as you say, making them etymological but not semantic twins, is what creates the irony. In my view, etymological twins merit their own article (distinct from Cognate) only if we can come up with funny examples like this one. It seems justified to me, since etymonline is a respected source oft-cited in Wikipedia, though perhaps some more googling is called for. What do you think?Adam Mathias 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think (Calvinism/Chauvinism) is a big stretch, and here's why: if two different philosophies had arised, one called Xism and one called Yism, and the words X and Y were etymological twins, with similar meanings, and the reasons those philosophies were named had something to do with the meaning of those words, then it would be appropriate. But Calvinism and Chauvinism are of course not named on the meaning of the roots. So the derivational tree of the meanings has been in some sense cut. Although I concede that [1] certainly claims they are. --Deville (Talk) 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge to doublet

Also, what do you (or anybody else) think about a merge w/ doublet (linguistics) - Adam Mathias 01:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)?

As for the connection with doublet, I agree, and in fact I don't see what the difference is between etymological twin and doublet at all. These two articles are really pretty much about the same thing. (I see no need to point out the coincidence that these two articles are twins with respect to the Wikipedia hierarchy in exactly the same manner that doublets are twins with respect to linguistic meaning :-D ) Should we merge them? --Deville (Talk) 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

About the merge, I think it should be planned/coordinated, so I guess we should use the merge template on both pages that gives people who frequent the other time to say their piece about yes/no and whether etymological twins should redir to doublet (linguistics) or the other way around. I'll do that now. Adam Mathias 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. You can go fix it up if you like. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)