# origin of "&"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [November 21, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956 "2002-11-21T15:49:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@martinouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martinouse)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/1 "2002-11-21T15:49:45Z")
Lots are those who use the “&” symbol that means “and” but very few are those who know its origin. I even can’t find this information in the encyclopedies of my university. So please show me that you too have an encyclopedic knowledge of typography.
---
### Author:  [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/2 "2002-11-21T15:52:06Z")
The symbol is a stylized combination of E and t, and stands for “et,” the Latin word for “and.”
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/3 "2002-11-21T16:28:39Z")
As I’ve remarked before, I suspect an alternative origin. When I was a kid, I learned to make a sign for “and” by drawing a “+” sign without lifting the pen from the paper. You make a strong downward stroke (the vertical line), then recover upwards and circle around counterclockwise , continuing to make the horizontal stroke. If there’s a slight separation on the upwards recovery stroke you get a pretty good ampersand (&) that is almost lying on its back. I didn’t realize the relationship between this figure and the ampersand, however, until I was looking through some 17th and 18th century deeds, and I noticed that all of the ampersands seemed to be lying “on their backs”. It was clear to me that they had been made by the same process I had been taught, and that what I had been taught was really a way to make an ampersand.
If the ampersand really _is_ the combination of “E” and “t” to make “Et” (Latin for “and”), it’s difficult to understand why these should be lying on their backs instead of upright. And why should the “E” be capitalized? I submit that the origin of the ampersand is that it is [i[not\* “Et”, but a stylized (for quick writing) form of “+”.
I know that the reference books are all against me on this. But I’m arrogant enough to think I’m right.
---
### Author:  [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/4 "2002-11-21T17:48:53Z")
The fact that you have to lay the ampersand on its back to get this connection tells against it; also, you have to make the ‘+’ pretty dang swirly to make it look like an ampersand. I thought about this possibility at one time, and dismissed it.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/5 "2002-11-21T18:25:37Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The fact that you have to lay the ampersand on its back to get this connection tells against it; also, you have to make the ‘+’ pretty dang swirly to make it look like an ampersand.
But you missed my point – in the old documents the ampersand _is_ laying on its back. To me that tells in its favor. And you don’t have to make it “pretty dang swirly” – the way they made it looks very much like an ampersand.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/6 "2002-11-21T19:45:57Z")
I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen reference to words like “manet” in old manuscripts, written as “man&”. If I can dig up a reference to this, I’ll post it.
---
### Author:  [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/7 "2002-11-21T20:34:15Z")
It’s possible that THOSE authors approached the ampersand that way, but Roman writings make it clear that “Et” is the true origin:
[http://www.adobe.com/type/topics/theampersand.html](http://www.adobe.com/type/topics/theampersand.html)
The version of the ampersand that might, conceivably, look sort of like a hasty plus sign is a younger version; and most resembles (to me) a lower-case “et.”
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/8 "2002-11-22T00:25:18Z")
(Sigh!)
The plus sign is a simplified ampersand.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/9 "2002-11-22T01:57:00Z")
I always figured that using a modified plus sign to mean “and” developed independently, deriving from the mathematical plus sign. The mathematical sign, in turn, supposedly derives from a symbol used on overweight bags of grain.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/10 "2002-11-22T04:09:31Z")
Martinhouse, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, nice first post, glad to have you here.
However, I think this probably belongs in General Questions and so there it is being moved.
---
### Author:  [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/11 "2002-11-22T10:44:34Z")
I reckon it looks like a knot that ties two words together.
Clearly it ain’t the actual origin, but there ya go. Still looks like a knot to me.
---
### Author:  [@ninevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninevah)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/12 "2002-11-22T11:23:06Z")
Where does the word ‘ampersand’ come from then?
---
### Author:  [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/13 "2002-11-22T11:59:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ninevah \*
> \*\*Where does the word ‘ampersand’ come from then? \*\*
One theory has been mentioned in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=145448). From **Derleth** , near bottom of page.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/14 "2002-11-22T13:00:16Z")
Thanks for the links!
Looking over them, though, I see two distinct and very different figures – one in which the “ET” elements are very clear, and another that looks like the single-stroke “+” sign I’d mentioned earlier. Just because they’ve all been collected onto the same webpage doesn’t mean they share a common ancestry.
> [@](#):
>
> (Sigh!)
>
> The plus sign is a simplified ampersand.
(Sigh!)
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/15 "2002-11-22T15:15:14Z")
People tend to forget that our modern mathematical notation is not ancient. If you look at the work of the classical mathematicians, you don’t find nicely written _equations_, you find long, hard to understand _sentences_.
The ampersand predates the plus sign by a considerable amount.
[This page](http://members.aol.com/jeff570/operation.html) lists the earliest use of ‘+’ as a modified ‘et’ circa 1356-1361. The ampersand, of course, dates back to the Roman era, [circa 45 AD](http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2008/2008article5.htm), according to this page.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/16 "2002-11-22T15:29:31Z")
I don’t forget that – I just don’t think that the ampersand is significantly older than the plus sign. If the "45 AD figure refers to the Pompeiian grafitti referenced in the earlier link, I’m not convinced it’s an ampersand.
---
### Author:  [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/17 "2002-11-22T15:48:34Z")
I don’t have a cite, but I have read it in many places. The & is a stylized Et, the plus sign is derived from the & and the old school “and” sign is derived from the + sign. What goes around comes around.
As for the name ampersand, I don’t think there is much doubt about its origin. As senseless as it sounds, generations of British public school boys recited the alphabet thusly:
Ay per se A (meaning roughly “Ay” which stands for A
Bee per se B
… (23 lines omitted)
Zed per se Z
And per se & (pronounced “and”)
and the last one got corrupted to ampersand.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/18 "2002-11-22T16:12:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by CalMeacham \*
> **I just don’t think that the ampersand is significantly older than the plus sign.**
Assuming that the fourteenth century date for the plus sign is correct, **Podkayne** appears to be correct.
From this page:
[http://www.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/abbrevtn.htm](http://www.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/abbrevtn.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> **The Tironian “et” sign was used in Insular scripts, and it gradually, in the twelfth century, replaces the ampersand which was used in early Caroline minuscule; it survives through the Gothic period, but the ampersand re-emerges in the early modern period.**
Also:
> [@](#):
>
> **Ampersand (&): alternates with (and in the modern period replaces) the Tironian nota for “and.” Its name is derived from the phrase “and per se [by itself]” = and.**
---
### Author:  [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/19 "2002-11-22T16:14:05Z")
With reference to the above link to a previous thread in which Derleth took someone to task for confusing @ and &, implying he’d misspelt ampersand as appersat, I think the someone is owed an apology.
There was indeed an attempt to name @ the appersat ( ‘at per se at’), along the same lines as the purported origin of ampersand (‘and per se and’).
[http://www.robertfulford.com/AtSymbol2.html](http://www.robertfulford.com/AtSymbol2.html)
---
### Author:  [@Milton\_De\_La\_Warre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milton_De_La_Warre)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956/20 "2002-11-22T20:04:21Z")
Originally posted by ninevah
"Where does the word ‘ampersand’ come from then? "
What aldiboronti said, and also I read in a magazine in College that it specifically comes from the old English hornbooks (actually wooden boards with the whole alphabet and some symbols on it). “A per se A, B per se B,” …all the way to… “And per se And”. So what is that squiggly thing called? It means “and”, but in school people learned it as an “An’pers’and”.
It was mentioned that the hornboks and allwere common when people like Shakespeare were going to school. However, I know there has been a lot of MISinformation passed on a website about Life in the 1500’s, so it’s possible that this could be part of that incorrect folklore.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of/137956.md?page=2)