English Chess Forum

According to the Oxford English Dictionary 1752, the first edition of which there were 27 volumes, the word rook means wind from a chariot. I have seen a chess book that says rook means chariot. In the 11th edition of the OED it says that rook simply means wind. The word rook is believed to come from the Persian word for wind anatalogically, rukh.

There is the story of chess being invented in Persia. The mountains in the East and West representing the two armies and the plains in between the board. Tehran means seat (for the shah) is part way up the mountain. Does he direct the two armies?

"When the night descends the wind increases." Persian proverb.

Francis Fields wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:52 pm

According to the Oxford English Dictionary 1752, the first edition of which there were 27 volumes, the word rook means wind from a chariot. I have seen a chess book that says rook means chariot. In the 11th edition of the OED it says that rook simply means wind. ...

Since the first edition of the OED (edited by Sir James Murray, father of chess historian Harold Murray), began in the 1880s and was completed in 1928, and had 10 volumes, while the edition currently in preparation is the 3rd, I think we can assume you are thinking of some other dictionary entirely, or else you have a total disregard for facts?

Francis Fields wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:52 pm

According to the Oxford English Dictionary 1752, the first edition of which there were 27 volumes, the word rook means wind from a chariot. I have seen a chess book that says rook means chariot. In the 11th edition of the OED it says that rook simply means wind. ...

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:13 pm

Since the first edition of the OED (edited by Sir James Murray, father of chess historian Harold Murray), began in the 1880s and was completed in 1928, and had 10 volumes, while the edition currently in preparation is the 3rd, I think we can assume you are thinking of some other dictionary entirely, or else you have a total disregard for facts?

Mr Fields is well known for making posts with content which might be acceptable on April 1st, but to my mind are quite unacceptable on any other day.

Francis may have meant Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary, which he has mentioned before -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diction ... h_Language

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:24 pm

Francis may have meant Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary, which he has mentioned before -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diction ... h_Language

Is this the same dictionary that famously missed out

Contrafibularity, PERICOMBOBULATION, Anaspeptic, Frasmotic and Interfrastically ?

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:36 pm

Mr Fields is well known for making posts with content which might be acceptable on April 1st, but to my mind are quite unacceptable on any other day.

David, I fear that you are too censorious. This thread has clearly piqued the arcane interests of several of our esteemed colleagues, to the benefit of all.

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:24 pm

Francis may have meant Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary, which he has mentioned before -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diction ... h_Language

Johnson's Dictionary is available online. There is nothing remotely resembling Mr Field's claim in the entry for 'rook'.

Maybe FF is a script writer for Donald T. ?

John (and Peter), I am not responsible for the contents, or lack thereof, of Dr. J's legendary lexicon.

'Rook', Francis, came into English through Arabic rukh via Persian from the Sanskrit word for a chariot ratha.

Thanks for the encouragement, Nick.

Tim (and David) may be sticklers for the actual facts, but...

When the post-truth Sun ascends the alternative facts increase. (Trumpian proverb)

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:36 pm

Mr Fields is well known for making posts with content which might be acceptable on April 1st, but to my mind are quite unacceptable on any other day.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:36 pm

David, I fear that you are too censorious. This thread has clearly piqued the arcane interests of several of our esteemed colleagues, to the benefit of all.

Nick, I make no apology for warning that anything posted by Mr Fields is likely to be spurious. I don't like seeing respected members of this Forum being maliciously deceived.

However, it is Carl's call and he appears to share your view. I shall therefore leave things there.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:48 pm

Nick, I make no apology for warning that anything posted by Mr Fields is likely to be spurious. I don't like seeing respected members of this Forum being maliciously deceived.

I'm not expressing any opinion, one way or the other, on Mr Fields but I do feel that anyone who consistently and deliberately posts misinformation on this site should - if he or she disregards a suitable warning - be barred. I can't be alone in finding this site the source of useful information and, if I'm faced with having to double-check everything in case it's yet another spoof, the value of the site is in my opinion somewhat diminished.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:08 pm

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:24 pm

Francis may have meant Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary, which he has mentioned before -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diction ... h_Language

Is this the same dictionary that famously missed out

Contrafibularity, PERICOMBOBULATION, Anaspeptic, Frasmotic and Interfrastically ?

Francis Fields wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:52 pm

The word rook is believed to come from the Persian word for wind anatalogically, rukh.

Does it have "anatalogically"?

For the record, my copy of the OED (published 1979, copyright 1971) has this statement regarding the derivation of the chess sense of rook: "The ultimate source is the Pers. rukh , the original sense of which is doubtful".

I don't have access to the 1752 edition, for the good reasons already mentioned.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:48 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:36 pm

Mr Fields is well known for making posts with content which might be acceptable on April 1st, but to my mind are quite unacceptable on any other day.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:36 pm

David, I fear that you are too censorious. This thread has clearly piqued the arcane interests of several of our esteemed colleagues, to the benefit of all.

Nick, I make no apology for warning that anything posted by Mr Fields is likely to be spurious. I don't like seeing respected members of this Forum being maliciously deceived.

However, it is Carl's call and he appears to share your view. I shall therefore leave things there.

I am unsure to be honest although it probably does deserve moving to the not chess section along with the more silly posts.

Colin Purdon wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:48 pm

For the record, my copy of the OED (published 1979, copyright 1971) has this statement regarding the derivation of the chess sense of rook: "The ultimate source is the Pers. rukh , the original sense of which is doubtful".

I don't have access to the 1752 edition, for the good reasons already mentioned.

The entry for the third edition of the OED (November 2010 - available online but a subscription needed) gives more information. It says that the word came to English from French, and was originally "Sanskrit ratha chariot, on account of the piece representing a chariot in the Indian version of the game". It goes on to say "perhaps influenced by Persian ruḵ", better known in English as roc, a gigantic mythical bird of prey. It then adds

Early chess-pieces showing chariots are known both from Asia and Europe, and the most common shape of the rook in the medieval Near East and Europe can be interpreted as a stylized pair of horses; archaeological evidence also shows that an association with the mythical bird (see roc n.) was occasionally made in Central Asia at an early date.

Perhaps the more erudite members of the forum will know where the OED got all that from? I thought that the current shape of the piece came from a representation of a military howdah; I don't know where I got that idea from - maybe because I grew up near to the Elephant and Castle in South London.