Etymology: Apparently < jolly adj.+ a second element of uncertain origin (probably the male forename Roger: see Roger n.2), although the semantic motivation of either element is not sufficiently clear.
Quot. 1724 suggests a French origin of the term. Perhaps on the strength of this quotation, some have suggested that the term is an adaptation (if so, evidently with folk-etymological alteration) of a French phrase *joli rouge, lit. ‘pretty red’ ( < joli jolly adj. + rouge rouge adj.), but this etymology is unconvincing, as no such (or similar) phrase appears to be attested in French with reference to a pirate’s flag, and the flag in question is (and always was) black rather than red. As for the semantic motivation, the first element may refer to the appearance of the skull, the conventional emblem adorning the flag, with the skull’s mouth humorously being taken as showing a broad grin; with the second element, compare Roger n.2 2 and especially Old Roger at Roger n.2 2b.
The 1724 quote is:
1724 ‘C. Johnson’ Gen. Hist. Pyrates 193 On the hoisting of Jolly Roger, (the Name they give their black Flag,) their French hearts failed.
“Old Roger” is a humorous or familiar name for the devil.
Agreed, Cecil misses the point. No lips = see the teeth, and not just the teeth in front, but the teeth up the jaws, which curve back and up, and thus look like a smile. Ergo, jolly.
“Roger” is a British euphemism for fornicate. With no evidence at all I’d always assumed “Jolly Roger” was a celebration of the rapine that, I’m sure, accompanied pirate life. Perhaps if anyone knows how far back that euphemism goes (so to speak)?
It happens. Don’t forget entertainment value. The column in particular is a money-making feature in a for-profit publication. If sometimes the class cutup in Cecil gets the better of him, I try to cut him the slack he deserves on that basis. You draw more flies with honey.
(Unless it’s a subject near and/or dear to my heart. Then, I degenerate into uber-grumpy NEERRRRRRRDRRRRAGE! After that passes, I console myself that my nerd-fueled indignation may have contributed to entertainment value, if not to enlightenment, so all’s right in the world again.)
ETA: OK, that’s just weird. Irishman, you and I have had this exact exchange before in the thread I cited, except our positions were reversed. I was grumping and you appear to be arguing for the humor value.
Actually, if you look at my overall comments in that thread, you should see that I was making the same point there that I am making here. That column on D&D did nothing to dispell ignorance, it was all about running down the new thing. This column, he dismisses with snark a serious explanation for the “jolly” part. Neither serves the goal of fighting ignorance.
I think the difference is that on this topic, my righteous nerdular indignation wasn’t triggered, so I am taking a more bland and philosophical approach, and in the D&D topic I was seething and inflamed. And in both cases, yes, you are exactly in the same place. So we exchanged places because I moved to the other side of you. Still, stuck me as very odd.
Anyway, minor hijack ended.
Cecil sometimes plays parts of a topic for yuks. Love it, hate it, it is what it is, and overall, the Dope is a pretty good value proposition, ignorance-fighting-wise.
I agree with the sentiment - if I snark, I do so good naturedly. I also don’t particularly enjoy xkcd (to be perfectly honest, quite a bit of it goes over my head and other times I feel Munroe is a bit introspective) but it may not be strictly true.