Conference thebay::joyoflex

This is known as "folk etymology" and is fairly common.  Sometimes people 
come up with a more or less plausable story for the origins of a word or
a phrase and that story advances into popular legend.  I'd say you have an
excellent chance of making your story into a folk etymology favorite.  All
the pieces are there with only the minor annoyance of it being entirely wrong.

Other favorites of the folk etymologists are explainations of the origins
of "the whole nine yards"  and to "buy the farm."  I'm sure others in this
file can think of even more notorious ones.  It would probably be fun to
explore what words have folk etymologies in this note.  It would not be
fun to list all the guesses at the two above once again.

					>>>==>PStJTT

	The ending -en of German verbs is pronounced weakly, so
	'foppen' sounds almost like 'fopp'. An ending p will often become
	a soft b, as any phonologist will tell you. So the German derivation 
	seems plausible here.
	
	Now what are the chances of a name like Fobbing to be abbreviated 
	in fobb, and to give a verb fobb off ? I wonder.

	Consider the village of Sonning which is not far from Reading, 
	England. If a taxman trying to collect the Poll Tax gets kicked out
	of there, will that generate an expression "Sonn off" ? Or "Son of" ?
	
	 roger

    re: 1
    
    I appreciate your scepticism, but I have to assume that the historical
    research is accurate, and that the villagers of Fobbing did actually
    "fob off" the poll tax gatherers. Perhaps it's just an amazing
    coincidence. One possibility that springs to mind is that the village
    was notorious for being a haven of ne'er-do-wells who wouldn't face up
    to their civic responsibilities like loyal subjects, hence acquiring
    the name Fobbing ("bunch of low-down cheats").
    
    Chris

    The community charge (introduced in Scotland this year, and to be
    done so in the rest of Britain next year) should not be regarded
    as a "poll tax" - because it is not. Resident foreigners (unless
    they are Irish - a curious anomaly that should have been abolished
    a long time ago) are not eligible to vote, but they are subject
    to the community charge if they have a permanent dwelling place.

>    					Resident foreigners (unless
>    they are Irish - a curious anomaly that should have been abolished
>    a long time ago) are not eligible to vote, but they are subject
>    to the community charge if they have a permanent dwelling place.
 
    Unless they are visiting armed forces (eg USAF) living on or off base
    -  they will pay nothing towards the "community charge". Some East Anglian
    communities who had previously been receiving rates on many properties
    occupied by US air force personnel and their families got rather
    annoyed by the prospect of such a sudden drop in income. To levy
    such a charge would contravene the Visiting Forces Act apparently.
                                                                        
    But, it's true, it's not strictly a "poll tax". The term "charge"
    is being used to make it sound a little less offensive than "tax"
    (along the lines of George Bush's "user fees"), though of course
    a tax is what it is. But not everyone in the community (as in
    the above example) will be subject to it.
    
    This brought to you, of course, by the same government whose leader
    recently pronounced, "there is no such thing as society, only
    individual people". So how does the concept of a "community charge"
    fit in with that philosophy?
                                                                
    John  

>    This brought to you, of course, by the same government whose leader
>    recently pronounced, "there is no such thing as society, only
>    individual people". So how does the concept of a "community charge"
>    fit in with that philosophy?
  
Easy.  There are only individual people.  So, if those individuals want
to form a community, they have to pay a "user fee."

By the way, although you can call Curious George's user fees taxes, based on
the thought that any fee paid to the Feds is a tax, they are really not as
bad as could be.  Right now, everyone is underwriting the cost of providing
certain services.  Now more of the cost will be put on the users of the
service.  That's not to imply people who don't use the service will be
relieved of underwriting it... costs never go down in government.  (Ask me,
I'm from Massachusetts.)
						>>>==>PStJTT

    re: 6
    
    So what happens when the users of a service are, by the nature of their
    need for that service (such as, social security), unable to bear the
    cost of it? Does the state withdraw/cut back that service? Do you
    institute a two-tier service, where those who can afford to bear the
    cost of a quality service (say, medicine) do so, while those who can't
    have to put up with a minimally funded state option?
    
    This is getting away from the original point of this note, but I'm
    curious to know.

    Funny thing is, the Govt. over here has just decided to force 
    council house tenants to pay for arears incurred by council house
    tenants.
    
    (Council house means house owned by local council and rented to 
    individuals).
    
    This is to stop councils using the fruits of the 'community charge'
    to balance the books. 
    
    This *is* the rathole ote, isn't it?
    
    Richard.

    One other origin that I know supposedly stems from the days of the
    Crusades. The story goes that a crusader was forbidden to have sexual
    relations with women of whichever land was under siege, unless he
    had permission from the reigning monarch. When this had been granted,
    the soldier was "Faunicating Under Consent of the King".
    
    Totally without substance (I believe the word is derived from German),
    but breaks the ice at parties.
    
    Phil