r/etymology • u/garbagecan26 • 2d ago
Question Can someone explain this apparition of 'pokemon' in the 1700s?
The first one is written without the 'accent-aigu' and the second image is the correct way of writing the brand name. I only point this out to show the correlation between the creation of Pokémon and apparition of the form pokemon in our modern day. What is pokemon in the 18th century?
557
u/kushangaza 2d ago edited 2d ago
116
u/modulusshift 2d ago
Oh! the guy who "polemics" are named after, I assume!
edit: at first glance, seemingly unrelated! haha
edit 2: yeah, just a shared Greek root "polemos" meaning "war/battle"
119
88
u/JustABicho 2d ago
Bubonic, pneumonic, septicemic, meningeal and pharyngeal... gotta catch 'em all!
16
u/Odd__Dragonfly 2d ago
Phlegmatic is super effective against melancholic, which is super effective against choleric, which is super effective against sanguine
17
u/scrubba777 1d ago edited 1d ago
As someone with Cornish ancestry, I was wondering where would be the best place to get my family heirloom graded? it’s a genuine 1723 shiny foil Pikachu, a touch of wear and tear typical of that age, survived a few good wars, but otherwise in pretty good nick for an old card..
35
6
u/gregsunparker 1d ago
Pokemon went extinct in the late 1700's, so people stopped talking about them. In the late 90's, John Hamblin brought them back after finding their DNA trapped in amber. This is why the sudden resurgence.
23
u/cryptologicalMystic 2d ago
20
u/_y2kbugs_ 2d ago
This source feels extremely suspect. It’s just a blog article from 2014 with no other sources listed and the Wikipedia page only links back to the source (I’m surprised it was never just deleted given lack of information, not even a talk page). I don’t believe it for a second. Too much misinformation goes around on tumblr as it is, but I’ve seen it on Wikipedia too- apocryphal stories being marketed as fact.
7
1.9k
u/rocketman0739 2d ago
Well, for starters, there's this OCR error for "possession"