Except that is not really what Mercurial means
OR
I believe my Merriam-Webster trumps your Online Etymology Dictionary. Mercurial could mean being born under the planet Mercury but how did THAT planet get it’s name? When people use the word they almost always mean #2. Either way, the source of the word is ultimately a persons name.
Hmm, I’ve always thought that “mercurial” when describing a person was a reference to Mercutio (who might have been named after Mercury for all I know) and not directly to Mercury.
There’s no evidence for this whatsoever that I know of.
Really? You believe that? The Merriam-Webster beats the Online Etymology Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, which are both etymological dictionaries. Really? You believe that? Why?
See, I always assumed the opposite- that Shakespeare named his character with nimble wit and dancing tongue after Mecury/mecurial.
Originally posted by panache45:
I think his full name was Woodrow (“Woody”) Peter Johnson.
Oh, and “algebra” is from an Arabic mathemetician, Al-Jebera.
While I’m not arguing because now that I think about it, it makes sense. However, I’ve spent my entire life with a mental image of “mercurial” being Mercutio-like based on a particular actor’s rendition of him in a production I saw as a kid. So there evidence at least one person did it 
I’m unfamiliar with the Online Etymology Dictionary, but if given contradictory info from the OED and the most recent M-W, I’d go with M-W.
Most fo the OED is quite old, having been written and compiled 80 or more years ago. Some of it was updated in the 80s with the release of the 2nd Edition, but that changed only a small part of the entire corpus. M-W not only has the OED to base its research on, but also their own files and years of scholarly research.
Of course, sometimes the difference between the two is a matter of interpretation of the primary data. Two scholars can read the same cites and come to different understandings. That may be the case here. Unfortunately, M-W doesn’t publish its citations, so we can’t know if this is the case.
Do you understand the difference between etymological dictionaries and regular “definitional” dictionaries? This is a serious question, because I find that most people tend to think of dictionaries as dictionaries when in fact there are enormous differences between them.
The OED has a special purpose, as outlined in the 1933 preface:
Its editors deliberately collected as many usages of words throughout history as they could to trace the development of meanings, senses, and variations as writers used them in new and varying ways.
This is distinctly different from modern dictionary creation, which tries to compile current usage as a way of parsing sets of meanings. The dictionaries may or may not include an etymology, depending on the edition, but the history of the word is of far less importance than the way the word is currently used.
Take the American Heritage Third Edition. It too gives mercurial - as a definition - as being from the god Mercury:
But it also gives an etymology for the word:
Understanding the difference between the etymology of a word and its current definition and usage is critical, because probably the vast majority of words in English have either changed in meaning or grown new meanings unrelated to the way the word originally appeared in the language.
Sitnam clearly doesn’t appreciate this distinction, and perhaps doesn’t even realize that it exists. You cannot say “Except that is not really what Mercurial means” when talking about etymology. Meaning and origin are separate.
I thought, in a thread about word origins, that this was so obvious as to go without saying. That’s clearly wrong. Nothing is so obvious as to go without saying to a general audience, because we each have our specialties.
But I just couldn’t believe that anyone would take Sitnam seriously because of the laughable confusion continually being presented between current meaning and origin.
Mercurial comes from an astrological usage of people born under the sign of Mercury. Today even the astrology nuts tend not to refer to planets that way and that origin would have no meaning for anyone. As a definition, then, the use of Mercury to refer to the god is perfectly acceptable. The careful researcher just has to understand why this change was made and what the true origin of the word is.
I have the OED, the unabridged Random House, the American Heritage, the Microsoft Encarta College, and a pocket Merriam-Webster, BTW. Each treats the language in a somewhat different manner, and each has its uses. For older etymologies, the OED is the standard, even if newer research is crucial. But I never ever confuse an etymological dictionary with one describing current usage. That’s like confusing diesel with gasoline. Your engine will stall if you mix them up.
Foley artists derive the name of their profession from that immortal sound-effects man, Jack Foley.
You know Exapno Mapcase, say what you want, this is from your own cite:
First came the Roman God (c.1150), then the planet (c.1386), then the ‘born under’ (c.1390), then the metal & ‘quick’ meaning (c.1593)
Oh I do, I am well aware that words have different meaning throughout time, and that todays meaning has little relevance on the origin of the word, but when the word is FIRST used for is whats relevant for etymology. Mercurial came from Mercury, and even if it was the planet, the planets name came from the person, so it’s heritage is from a name of a person.
shanghai
Machiavellian
Oh, good grief.
You’re saying that the world’s finest dictionaries got their own definition wrong because they were unable to sort out the meanings of their own source citations. But you were able to figure it out for them.
I’m done here. Have fun.
Method #234 of How to duck out of an argument you’ve lost
Have “maverick” and “macadam” been mentioned yet? After Samuel Maverick (1803-70) and JL McAdam (1756-1836), respectively.
Another form is “tivotee” derived from devotee.
Al Gore has been making a lot of appearance to talk about global warming. Reporters keep pressing him to make a Sherman Statement, firmly stating he doesn’t want to run for president. Gore keeps dancing around it.
After the US civil war, Gen. William T. Sherman was urged to run for president. His answer, “If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve,” has become the traditional denial, the Sherman Statement.
Nina Totenberg is NPR’s legal correspondent. Public Radio stations often give away coffee mugs and tote bags to those who pledge to support the station with money. For some pledges, during some shows, you can get a Nina Totenbag®
In figure skating and gymnastics, several moves are named after the athlete who invented them. A few are the Thomas Flare, the **Axel ** jump, the **Flying Camel ** spin, and the **Hamill Camel ** combination spin.
And that reminds me of the Civil War’s General Hooker. No prizes for guessing what was named after him. 
Rugby players?