16

From the online etymology dictionary (boldface mine):

spine (n.)
c. 1400, "backbone," later "thornlike part" (early 15c.),
from Old French espine "thorn, prickle; backbone, spine" (12c., Modern French épine),
from Latin spina "backbone," originally "thorn, prickle" (figuratively, in plural, "difficulties, perplexities"),
from PIE *spe-ina-, from root *spei- "sharp point" (see spike (n.1)).
Meaning "the back of a book" is first attested 1922.

I do not comprehend the underlying semantic notions for the entitled question; the human spine does not resemble or feel like a “thorn, prickle”.

  • It would also be interesting to know when. – Asteroides Feb 23 '16 at 22:55
5

To me the "processes"

vertebra

look like thorns

spine

  • But it's not the vertebrae that are called spinae, only the spine. There's nothing about vertebrae in Lewis & Short (nor in English): archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/… – Cerberus Mar 4 '16 at 21:22
  • @Cerberus "not the vertebrae [...] only the spine": What do you mean? The vertebrae are the spine. (E.g. from oxforddictionaries.com "spine: a series of vertebrae [...]") I was thinking that if spina meant "thorn" initially, it could have come to mean "spine", because the spine is a long thorny thing. (The "thorns" are called processes now—from Latin processus, of course, but in the sense of "outgrowth of tissue from a larger body" this word is bound to have a shorter etymology, at least shorter than something as simple as "spine/backbone".) – Earthliŋ Mar 5 '16 at 8:03
  • Very well: a vertebra is not a spine, and a vertebra is never called a spina, only the spine is. A vertebra may contain processes, but containing x is not the same as being x. A spina may have a thorny shape and thus be called a thorn, but not because it contains thorns, or it'd be a pars pro toto. But the dictionaries do not mention any pars pro toto, they just say a spine is called a spina, the most obvious conexion (x=y because x resembles y, not p=q because p contains things that resemble q). – Cerberus Mar 5 '16 at 17:12
  • 1
    @Cerberus OK, I agree with you and as you can tell from my 7-word answer, I didn't intend it to be more than a guess. – Earthliŋ Mar 5 '16 at 17:37
  • Sure, nothing wrong with guesses! I was just expressing a bit of scepsis. – Cerberus Mar 5 '16 at 17:45
12

Lewis & Short say it came to refer to various things shaped like a thorn or prickle in its transferred senses, under which they group "backbone". Our backbone is a long, thin object, after all. Perhaps their sense number 2 elucidates the etymological path for you: a fish-bone. Those are pointed and can prick into your flesh, and they resemble backbones in that they are bones.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.