Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Chaps

Are non-participants allowed to weigh in here? If not, then I will post at Talk:Chaps instead.

There are separate issues involved here as I see it.

1) What is the older pronunciation? 2) What are the current pronunciations and their distributions?

1) Linguistically, there are two obvious possibilities: 1) ʃæps is older and tʃæps is the result of spelling pronunciation by those who see the word spelled more often than they hear it pronounced. 2) tʃæps is older and ʃæps is the result of analogical assimilation to "chaparral" and possible French influence. Both solutions are EQUALLY possible from the standpoint of linguistic argumentation and naturalness. Indeed, the evidence seems clear from the references cited that the Spanish models were pronounced both with initial tʃ and initial ʃ either regionally or idiolectally. The Spanish models are, indeed, relevant to the discussion since the transition from donor language to borrower language is never radical, but is always gradual, following fairly regular paths until the word is completely assimilated into the lexicon of the borrower language. The parties to this dispute seem to imply that the process was sudden and that the answer is either 1) or 2)--it was not and never is. Indeed, the most likely possibility is 3) both variants are equally old, but cowboys standardized their pronunciation on ʃæps. Montanabw has provided a number of references that by the end of the nineteenth century (at least) the word had been completely assimilated into English as ʃæps among working cowboys. Before this complete assimilation, the tʃæps pronunciation may have been in existence, but there does not seem to be any documentary evidence for it other than the spelling "chaps". This is not surprising since a pronunciation that matches the spelling would not be something worthy of note by an author--only when the spelling does not match the pronunciation do authors make a special effort to note it. So the absence of prior statements that the word was pronounced tʃæps is not really illuminating since that is the most common spelling of the word and the spelling matches pronunciation. The very fact that the word is spelled "chaps" is fairly strong evidence of one of its original pronunciations. However, despite variation in its earlier pronunciations, the evidence seems clear that by the end of the 19th century the word had become somewhat standard in its pronunciation of ʃæps among cowboys in the Western US. There have been no references provided to how non-cowboys pronounced the word at this same time. Since an encyclopedia is descriptive and not prescriptive, the cowboy pronunciation is not the "standard", but one variant if there are other variants. What does Webster's of 1900 have for the pronunciation of the word? And the comments that the ʃæps pronunciation is because Americans couldn't "wrap their tongues around" the longer Spanish words is folk etymology and not accurate linguistically. Americans have no problem with "chaparral", for example. It is common for English speakers to clip long forms for common items--"fender" from "defender", "sub" from "submarine", "gig" from "gigabyte", etc. The comment is also irrelevant for determining whether tʃæps or ʃæps is the older form. BOTH forms are equally well-formed according to English phonotactic rules (compare ʃi:p "sheep", tʃi:p "cheap"). The "wrapping the tongue" comments are only relevant to why "chaps" is a shorter word than the Spanish models.

2) DARE is rock-solid as a source for contemporary American pronunciation. It is cited more commonly than the OED when it comes to American regional usage. It is just as authoritative as the OED among professional linguists. If DARE says that both variants are in use in the Western US, then that should be the end of the matter. Both variants are equally worthy of consideration and citation in an encyclopedic article (which is descriptive, not prescriptive). It can be noted that working cowboys tend to prefer ʃæps, but any other comments about the distribution of either or both forms are unscientific. The comment that "English riders use tʃæps" is overly restrictive (and mildly perjorative) since the usage of that form is much more common than just among English riders. The segregation of the English-speaking world into working Western riders and English riders is not an accurate portrayal of the English-speaking population of the Western US, let alone the entire English-speaking world. "Today, there are two pronunciations of "chaps"--one is more common among working cowboys while the other is more common among the general population." That's the statement that can be documented based on all the references adduced to this point in the discussion and the most accurate statement of linguistic fact.

Thank you for letting me put in my two linguistic cents. (Taivo (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Since Montanabw mentioned the order of ʃ and tʃ in OED, it should be noted here that order of presentation means nothing in the OED. It is simply "sort of" alphabetical in this case. The OED is not prescriptive, in any case. Here is the exact comment from the introduction to the OED:

"Each pronunciation in the revised text is given in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), according to a revised model of Received Pronunciation devised by Dr Clive Upton of the University of Leeds, and the scope of this information has been extended to include a ‘standard’ U.S. pronunciation based on a model devised by Professor William Kretzschmar of the University of Georgia. Words from other varieties of English have been given pronunciations based on (but not identical in all details with) the models used by the principal historical dictionaries of World Englishes (such as the trisyllabic New Zealand term mahoe, originally from Maori, and the disyllabic Caribbean mahoe). The Dictionary does not aim to cover dialectal variation in pronunciation within each variety."

In other words, both pronunciations of "chaps" are cited as "'standard' U.S. pronunciation" with equal weight. There is no citing of "non-standard" pronunciations in OED. (Taivo (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have reconsidered my position on DARE now that I have read several reviews outside wikipedia and, most of all, seen the full entry in its complete context. I am, frankly, very concerned at how the filing party distorted and chose selective excerpts from DARE to promote only her own view and failed to acknowledge the full range of use. (and was completely off base on Colorado pronunciation) Today, it is obvious (though no one can find a true linguistic study, I suspect) that the "shaps" pronunciation has both regional and riding style variations, (English riders in the west usually say "shaps" unless they moved here from the east coast, where they say "chaps") but my point in this, all along, has been that "sh" is listed first in most pronunciations, hence, I presume viewed as the primary form, (and explicitedly designated as such in DARE) and, to the extent that "ch" is used by horse people (as opposed to the general non-horse public, who, reasonably, would have no clue how to pronounce technical language and wouldn't be expected to) has only been mentioned as a pronunciation amongst horse people AT ALL in possibly the last decade or so (comparing the works by the same author, 20 years apart). Other than the OED and DARE, all we really have are various guides to "cowboy lingo" which ALL note "sh" and are quite consistent from 1944 to 2001.

But, truly, at the end of the day, what we have are people saying, "me and all my friends say 'ch'" against multiple sources that overwhelmingly place the "sh" pronunciation as primary and "ch" secondary, plus a number of usage guides (now numbering at least a dozen), both print and online, explaining the technical language (whether a

The whole notion that "chaps" is a technical term is invalid. Whether a person is a working cowboy or not, or even a rider, native Westerners can name the obvious distinctive parts of a cowboy's clothing and rig--hat, chaps, lariat, boots, saddle, etc. The names of the parts of a saddle are technical terms since most people don't know them outside the profession. But "chaps" does not fall into this category. You cannot discount the pronunciation of nonriders outright. To do so is equivalent to saying that a Yankee's pronunciation of "opossum" and "victuals" is irrelevant. To divide the pronunciation of "chaps" up into Western riders and Eastern riders is inaccurate. Try telling that person in Central Texas who said tʃæps in the DARE survey that they are an "Eastern rider". (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

From the point of view of the presented evidence, the most accurate statement would seem to be: "The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]." There really isn't a need to talk about the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation at all in this article. Every attempt so far to delineate the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation has been inaccurate, unsourced, and, to varying extents, perjorative. This proposed wording also gets out of the "standard" or prescriptive mode. The detailed linguistic transition from Spanish to English is also rather extraneous to this particular article since the details are not really enlightening to an understanding what "chaps" are. If the alternate pronunciation absolutely must be mentioned, it should be done so noncommittally: "The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders." Without looking up new sources, there are adequate references already presented for both of these statements--DARE, OED, the best of Montanabw's refs. (Taivo (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think that is progress. I offer a small addition, because Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Taivo's offering:

"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."

My offering:

"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in North America north of Mexico working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."

--Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's simplify the wording to "The word chaps......Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western U.S. and Canada, working riders have tended to...." (Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What makes the [ʃæps] pronunciation primary? Most common usage? Earliest usage? First define it, then prove it.

By the way, This online dictionary dates chaps to 1810-1820, yet according to Montanabw above, [ʃæps] appears 120+ years later, in "cowboy lingo" books from 1944 onward. Well, I can attest that not all cowboys say [ʃæps]. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1922, Phillip Ashton Rollins, The Cowboy: His Characteristics, His Equipment, and His Part in the Development of the West, Charles Scribner's Sons, 353 pages, page 116: Not more specialized than the spurs but more conspicuous were the "chaparejos," universally called "chaps".--Una Smith (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my compromise wording "since at least the end of the 19th century" is important. I think that Montanabw has shown that at the end of the 19th century, ʃæps was the most common pronunciation among working Western riders. Before that is left up to the vagaries of the borrowing process (see my above comments about the complexity of the process of borrowing words from one language to another). Montanabw's references are not just from the 1940s, but date back into the 1890s. I would actually be skeptical of any reference to "chaps" in English in the first two decades of the 19th century. The western frontier was still east of the Mississippi at that time and the Western, Spanish-based, cowboy culture was not even in its infancy. Remember that the first American settlers in Mexican Tejas were after Stephen Austin's arrangements in 1821. (Taivo (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That 1810-1820 reference appears even more mistaken now. The source is apparently the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (not a primary source, but a secondary one). It says that it is an Americanism derived from chaparajos. But when you look at the entry for chaparajos, the date is 1860 to 1865! You can't have a word derived in 1810-1820 from a word that was not in the language until 1860-1865. This source is not based on primary information anyway. If you read the introductory materials for the Random House Dictionary (I don't have a copy) you will probably find a statement that says "all etymologies are based on the OED" or "all etymologies are from X's Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". In my own linguistic work, I have found this online etymological dictionary to be far more reliable than anything on dictionary.com and its date of usage is far more likely to be accurate (1844). And, of course, the ultimate in reliability is the OED, which lists the first reference to "chaps" as 1884 (so the online etymological dictionary's entry may, itself, be a typo for 1884, since the online dictionary relies heavily on the OED). All sources are not created equal. The 1810-1820 date appears to be a mistake or just plain wrong. (Taivo (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And to address your doubts about the primacy of ʃæps among cowboys at the end of the 19th century, you need only look at the complete DARE listing provided by Montanabw above. The references from the end of the 19th century are virtually unanimous in spelling the word "schapps" or "shaps" or such, indicating a general pronunciation tendency. The spelling "chaps" may reflect 1) pronunciation (which it probably does in some cases), 2) an anti-German bias during the first half of the 20th century which would preclude the spelling "sch...", 3) French influence on pronunciation, or 4) influence from the Spanish spelling. The most likely reasons for the spelling "chaps" from a linguistic standpoint are a combination of 1) and 4) with a sprinkling of 2). I don't think this reflects any French influence at all since the Western cowboy culture is solidly Spanish.

The keys to my compromise wording are 1) it accurately reflects the linguistic situation at the end of the 19th century--that Western cowboys tended to use ʃæps; 2) it removes the anti-tʃæps bias by leaving the distribution of the pronunciation tʃæps unspecified; 3) it removes the absolutes of standard prescriptivism by using "tended" and "also common".

So, with the corrections noted above, the compromise wording stands at:

The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, working riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders. (Taivo (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Taivo, for putting such a lot of effort into this discussion. The compromise wording here looks almost right to me; the problem is it still conveys the disparity of status that has dogged the versions contributed by those arguing for the primacy (synchronically and diachronically) of the /ʃ/ form. The forms of words here (also common outside the community of working Western riders) carries the unjustified implication that working Western riders are somehow more entitled to determine the normative pronunciation of the word. This is bogus: the only normative authority is usage across the English-speaking world, regardless even of whether the speakers in question have ever sat on a horse. If those outside the community of working Western riders have the /tʃ/ form, then that form is an equally valid element in the documentation of contemporary English pronunciation. And if the origin of this form (who knows?) is in spelling pronunciation, well so what? That's the nature of language change.

So (to get to the point) I think we need to get away from the concessive note in The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common. Can I suggest The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread? C0pernicus (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion here so far, I think the shibboleth cannot be avoided.

The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos or chaparreras. From its earliest recorded use to today, two pronunciations have been in use: [ʃæps] and [tʃæps]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, speakers have tended to use the pronunciation [ʃæps] but both pronunciations occur there to the extent that [ʃæps] has become a shibboleth. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread.

Does this work for you? --Una Smith (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Montanabw needs to weigh in the compromise wording as well. She's out for a couple of days (see above). But the problem with the "from the beginning" comment is that Montanabw's evidence is stronger for ʃæps at the end of the 19th century than yours is for tʃæps. Your only evidence is the spelling and the spelling is most likely a reflection of the Spanish spelling (whatever the pronunciation). Montanabw's evidence is an alternate spelling that is different than the Spanish model. Your evidence is circumstantial at this point and Montanabw's is "eyewitness". Go to a college library and find a copy of a Webster's dictionary from about 1900 or another dictionary from the late 1800s and see how that dictionary marks the phonetics of the word. That will be much more substantial evidence of the existence of both pronunciations in the late 19th century. I don't doubt that both pronunciations have been in existence throughout the history of the word, but there is a difference in the quality of the evidence that you and Montanabw have produced. Your evidential problem is that the spelling alone is not enough evidence of the pronunciation since it is just a reflection of the Spanish spelling.

I agree that the compromise wording still has a bit of the "standard" versus "nonstandard" tinge to it, but I'm a bit reluctant to categorically state that tʃæps is more widespread. There just isn't enough hard evidence to suggest that either form is more common than the other. DARE, at best, suggests an East versus West divide at about the Rocky Mountain front, but the evidence cited above by Montanabw is miniscule (just four data points). I'm in Ukraine right now and can't consult a hard copy of DARE. If someone has access to the hard copy they should look to see if there is a map accompanying the entry for "chaps". Sometimes the maps have more data points than just those cited in the text. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Let's not personalize this, please. ʃæps is sometimes identifiable by virtue of its spelling alone; tʃæps is not. This is a bias in the evidence itself. I agree that consulting old dictionaries would be useful here. I have a photocopy of the relevant pages in DARE; it includes no map for "chaps" but perhaps the editors would provide one. I will ask! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.135.31 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 April 2008 UTC

Back during my grad student days at KANSAS (!) one of my profs was one of the main guys putting together DARE. Even in the early 80s, when everything was still on magnetic tape, they could run queries of the data base and build whatever map they pleased. I wonder if they're still willing to do such things? I would hope so, but I've lost contact with the process. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The word "chaps" has been borrowed into Australian English from the United States: "chaps, 'tʃæps, n., abbreviated form of chaparejos." The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t157.e9406> Note that the form is tʃæps in Australia. So we can't really say that ʃæps is a shibboleth among working cowboys because no one would doubt that Australian cowboys are "working". Don't know exactly how to fit this into the current compromise wording, but based on this, the discussion of pronunciation must be broader than just the United States and Canada. (Taivo (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed. I have done a lot of web and Google Book searches now on "chaps", "shaps", and "schaps", and as far as I can tell the usual pronunciation is tʃæps in England. (Chaps are widely worn in the eastern US and in the UK for schooling horses.) In Canada I find a mixture of tʃæps and ʃæps, ʃæps primarily in interior British Columbia.

Reference to "working cowboys" can be qualified, if necessary, to limit it to (some) cowboys working in western North America. --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "some" is not supported by the references. I think that the references are pretty clear that "working cowboys in western North America tend to...". Neither is an absolute, but the references seem to indicate that more cowboys use ʃæps, but, of course, not all cowboys. The cowboys' pronunciation seems to be losing ground to tʃæps, but within the community, ʃæps seems to be more common. And the New Zealand reference seems to indicate that New Zealand cowboys have followed the ʃæps pronunciation rather than the tʃæps pronunciation which Australian cowboys seem to have followed. That's not too surprising given New Zealand's well-known propensity of trying NOT to be "Little Australia". (Taivo (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note here the usage of chaps for chain saw safety: Northern Tool chaps (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Safety chaps are the first use mentioned in the non-equestrian use section. --66.167.135.31 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the bifocals aren't as focused as they should be :p (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

DARE employs quantitative data gathering but the entries do not necessarily contain all data. Here is a description of what kinds of data may be included in an entry. Because of their criteria for data to include in an entry, spellings other than "chaps" may be over-represented. --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it would be useful to get a "data dump" from the DARE database on either a map or as a text file. (Taivo (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm amused. The filing party was the first to promote DARE as the be-all and end all source, and I believe it is the "ethnographic dictionary" she referred to when initially taking this to mediation. But now that I looked at the hardcopy and found out that it actually offers more support for my view, all of a sudden, it isn't any good. Sigh... you know, this isn't about winning, losing, or "proving" anything. It is about the weight of the evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have exchanged several e-mails with Luanne von Schneidemesser, Senior Editor, Dictionary of American Regional English. She told me that "chaps" was not a word on the DARE questionnaire, so DARE has no quantitative data on its pronunciation. The citations in DARE are from its Main File, a collection of other reliable dictionaries, newspaper clippings, etc., and the "usu" in the lead merely summarizes the citations. She also mentioned that she remembers writing the "chaps" entry and being surprised by the [ʃæps] pronunciation; a Kansas native, she knew only [tʃæps]. Does Kansas count as western? --Una Smith (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the comment re "usu" is my own. --Una Smith (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb again and represent some compromise wording. It has several features: 1) it recognizes the complex origins of the word, 2) it recognizes the widespread acceptance of one pronunciation at the end of the 19th century among one group of professionals, 3) it recognizes the widespread use of the other form of the word in today's English-speaking world. I think that these are the three things that the references prove.

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparral and aparejos 'apparel'. They are also sometimes called chaparerras. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in Australia, the eastern United States and Canada, and the United Kingdom.

That's a real mouthful, I know, but I think it accurately reflects the referenced facts that have been presented. Fix my Spanish derivation if I'm mistaken. I don't like using the term "shibboleth" since there is always a judgement involved. Yes, there are cases where it is used as a shibboleth, but I seriously doubt than most employers (if any at all) would determine whether or not a man works by pointing to a pair of chaps and asking, "How do you say that?" Men are not expelled from the PRCA if they say tʃæps. That's the definition of a shibboleth. I see it more along the lines of "y'all" in the South. You know whether the person is a Yankee faking it by how they use "y'all", but service is not refused on that basis. (Taivo (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Take two

I like the above. Some edits, though: chaparerras → chaparreras; specify English-speaking cowboys (important in this context). --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparral and aparejos 'apparel'. They are also sometimes called chaparreras. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in Australia, the eastern United States and Canada, and the United Kingdom.

I'd like sourcing re the etymology from "aparejos"; in the southwest US, in both English and Spanish, "aparejos" refers to a pack saddle consisting of a pair of leather sacks (sometimes just one double size sack) stuffed with straw, wool, or hair. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I found it: Random House Unabridged on dictionary.com. It looks like I misread and it's not "apparel", but "gear" and "chaparral" should actually be Spanish "chaparro" (based on the etymologies in other dictionaries). I think that it's a very likely etymology based on linguistic considerations. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the origin of "chaparejos". "Chaparral gear" sounds like an extremely likely origin. But that's just my linguistic opinion on the various etymologies presented (or, actually, the one etymology in the absence of other possibilities). (Taivo (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I like this version. It seems to be accurate, without implying right/wrong. Una's modifications are appropriate.

As far as the Spanish derivation goes, I think there is no question about at least an indirect link with chaparral. A derivation of chaps supporting the chaparro root is described in Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk. pp. p.54. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |title= (help); Missing pipe in: |authorlink= (help): "chaps: (''chaparreras''|tʃaparéras] <''chaparro'' [see above] plus Spanish suffix ''-era'' 'utensil'; the preferred pronunciation in English is (ʃæps); this pronunciation was probably influenced by the Spanish spoken along the border where speakers pronounce the digraph {ch} as[ʃ] or{sh})." I don't know if this distinction is important, but it seems that chaparral and chaps both come from chaparro, which was also in use in Texas, and was likely derived from the Basque txapar(ra). (Voc. Vaquero pp. 52-53).--Getwood (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so with the corrections and clarifications, we're at:

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear. Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and aparejos 'gear'. They are also sometimes called chaparreras, from Spanish chaparro and the suffix -era 'utensil'. The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional cowboys have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps]. This pronunciation is also used among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

(Taivo (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Once we get this wording right and properly sourced, we should probably remove the pronunciation comments under non-equestrian uses since the sourcing for those comments is not as good as we are putting together for this statement. It also seems that those comments are more prescriptive in nature. This should be our one and only statement on pronunciation, as accurate as the sources allow and properly referenced. Una already made this proposal on the Talk:Chaps page. (Taivo (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree--Getwood (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take 3

Derived from Taivo's most recent version above. --Una Smith (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word chaps is a clip of any of several loanwords from Mexican Spanish, for this kind of garment. They include chaparejos, chaparajos, and chaparreras, all of which still are used in English, especially in catalogs of Western wear. The Spanish pronunciation of the initial "ch" varies between [tʃ] and [ʃ]. In the western United States and Canada, since at least the end of the 19th century English speakers have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]. There, this pronunciation is used especially among professional cowboys. It is used also among professional cowboys in New Zealand. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread. It occurs in some of the western United States, the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

First off, I would like to thank everyone for their patience while I was offline. My thoughts to date:

• I really like some variation of Tavio's "... working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word..." language, as opposed to "cowboys." I believe that "working western" reflects the widespread use of the term by horse show people, rodeo people, reiners, cutters, etc...its use is by no means limited to cowboys only. "Working western" is a nice broad term that, speaking as a person who is not a cowboy but a working western rider (though I also ride English, depends on what the horses I have at any given time do best at), I find that particular wording to be a very acceptable compromise.
• I am also OK with the wording, "...since at least the end of the 19th century..." again, that is verifiable by just about every source provided that discusses history at all.
• I am also OK with some statement, with source, to the effect that in the UK and Australia, "ch" is used, but in NZ "sh" is used. That said, I have noticed a tendency for some parties to take things out of context and use only the parts that they agree with, conveniently omitting that which doesn't support their views...all I ask is that we be careful on that count.
• For the sake of peace in our "family," though my suggested language notes an east-west distribution, I would also be comfortable with those who say we probably need to not mention east-west distribution at all. (by the way, the east-west split actually may occur, not at the Rockies, but farther east, at about the 96th meridian, which is the climatic line that divides the west and east...with evidence from the 1944 cowboy dictionary, published by U of Oklahoma press, from DARE suggesting a language sift in east Texas and a clear shift by the time you get to Illinois, plus some anecdotal evidence in the form of "someone I talked to" says that in the Fort Worth, TX area (at 97 degrees west longitude), the distribution is about 50-50. And I can speak firsthand to hearing "sh" in Minnesota. (Not that this is a source, just a comment)
• I think it critical not to take the "chaps" spelling in any book as proof in either direction as to pronunciation, as "chaps" is, since at least 1940 or so, acknowledged as the "correct" spelling (however you want to pronounce it), given that we have pretty clear evidence that many words with a "ch" spelling may have an "sh" pronunciation outside of this particular dispute.
• Which way it was said "first" is probably irrelevant, as per
  WP:NOR
  any attempt to solve that question would be, at least, original synthesis. And, furthermore, does anyone here, even fluent Spanish speakers, have any clue as to the pronunciation of Spanish by the cattle-working and largely illiterate population of Old Mexico circa 1840-1870?
• I am vehemently opposed to any type of wording that says that the "ch" form is "more popular" or "more prevalent." For the purposes of peace in the family, I suggest that we say nothing on that matter one way or the other. However, I do want to share my reasoning for this:
  • The first is lack of any kind of polling data. We all here have no clue whatsoever as to which way it goes beyond "me and my friends all say it this way." If we take DARE and combine it with the multiple slang and usage dictionaries that have been produced, the examples actually suggest more examples of "sh," given what they have, which, per
    WP:V
    is really all we have. But, as I said, I think a compromise is to say nothing at all as to popularity.
  • My second reason is an analogy that I used earlier on the chaps talk page; that is, widespread use does not really imply correctness or lack of correctness. The example I provided at the time, is from psychology. In popular use, the term "split personality" is often called "
    multiple personality disorder (or for those who really care, dissociative identity disorder
    ). Nonetheless, in spite of a near-overwhelming use of "schitzophrenia," that doesn't change that it is not an accurate term.
  • The third example is from nautical terminology. Living well over 1,000 miles from an ocean, this kid growing up on a ranch read books about sea voyages that contained words like "boatswain" or "quay." Imagine my surprise to learn these words were pronounced "bosun" and "kee." To carry the "most popular" argument forward, it could be argued that, because lots of people live inland than on an ocean, it is perfectly OK to say "boat- swain" and "kway." Personally, I would not ever make that argument, should I mispronounce a nautical term (because I have no freaking clue about boats and oceans), I would graciously accept the "correct" prounuciation and do my very best to say it "right."
• As for the Spanish and French thing, be careful about discussing Spanish pronunciation. I would be more comfortable saying that the pronunciation is simply an Anglicazation of the word--Keep in mind that while much of the vaquero tradition is Spanish, there IS some French influence on many loan words via the fur trade and assorted other cultural exchanges in the west. I need only point out Cheyenne, WY (pronounced "Shy-Ann") and Choteau, Montana (part-time home of
  Sacajawea
  's husband, Touissant Charbonneau, (even Lewis and Clark sometimes spelled his name "Sharbono") and other "ch" words have the "sh" pronounciation, wherever they came from. Further, chaps themselves as a garment may have multicultural influences beyond the Spanish; I noted that in one of my sources, there was a comment that "leggings" that gave rise to the shotgun style of chaps may in fact have been influenced by the leggings worn by fur trappers, who in turn borrowed the idea from Native Americans. (we can skip the discussion of American Indian leggings, but just a note).
• As for root word, if we add up the various references, the stronger sources suggest that chaparreras (however spelled, there seem to be at least four or five ways to spell it) may have been original, and chaparajos some sort of intermediate form on the way to chaps. I don't know and don't really want to waste a lot of time on the question, but I suggest both forms be noted. We have only one source for aparajos, I think. That one was new to me, I would be careful that we don't sythesize a new form here (again, per
  WP:NOR
  ). We also have armas as was noted in the history section (sourced to Western Horseman, which is a pretty authoritative source on western equestrian culture)

Before we make any version final, I also encourage everyone to review the article to see how what we do here flows into what's already there (and, I think, not disputed). In particular look at the introduction to the article (where a description of the garment is given) and the History section where, among other things, an earlier form of protective wear is noted, with source from an extensive Western Horseman article on the history and styles of chaps. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "not disputed", please review Talk:Chaps for several unresolved issues. --Una Smith (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Montanabw, but "clip" and "blend" are the precise technical terms used in linguistics for this derivational process. It sounds like you object to the extensive discussion of Spanish etymology. It is all referenced in various places, I just haven't added the references into the wording here yet to keep the clutter at a minimum. Some of the others like the etymological information, especially the inclusion of the relationship between "chaps" and "chaparral" (via Spanish chaparro). The variation in pronunciation in Spanish is also referenced in sources. Personally, being a professional linguist, I like the etymological information. And "anglicization" as a technical linguistic process is actually not very evident in this particular word. Chaparejos and chaparajos are not anglicized at all, they have just been borrowed wholesale from Mexican Spanish. Chaps is a clip of these words, but clipping is not an anglicization process per se. The only true anglicization that has occurred in the word is probably the preference in the use of the tʃæps pronunciation outside the West. Dictionaries love to throw around words like "anglicization", but anglicization is not an accurate portrayal of the history of these words. "Anglicization" is one component of a chain of things that happen when a word is borrowed, but not the only component. These are borrowed words, but they have not really been anglicized yet. Indeed, since both tʃæps and ʃæps are phonotactically well-formed words in English, anglicization is not necessary. Anglicization does not equal borrowing, anglicization is an adaptation of the pronunciation of a word that does not fit English phonotactic constraints to fit within English phonotactic constraints or adaptation of a word to fit English morphological structure. Even the original Spanish words all fit within English phonotactic constraints and English morphological structure, so anglicization is not relevant as a technical process here. We also don't want to lose the note that chaparejos and chaparajos are still in use. So, that being said, I'm going to leave the etymology here for now, but change the wording at the end to replace "cowboy". Since the wording already says "in western US and Canada", "western riders" is repetitive.

The word chaps is a clip of chaparejos (or chaparajos), which is often used as a technical term for this item of clothing, especially in catalogues of Western wear.[cite] Chaparejos is a 19th-century blend of Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and aparejos 'gear'.[cite] They are also sometimes called chaparreras, from Spanish chaparro and the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite] Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the western United States and Canada, English-speaking professional riders have widely pronounced the word [ʃæps].[cite] This pronunciation is also used among professional riders in New Zealand.[cite] The pronunciation [tʃæps] is the most common pronunciation in the eastern United States and Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.[cite]

The etymology section is still long, but at least one other discussant liked it. Montanabw's version is shorter, but loses some descriptiveness. I haven't lived with the article as a whole as you all have, so I may be putting stuff in here that is already said elsewhere more subtlely. (Taivo (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just had to look it up... The older technical term that "clip" replaced is ellipsis and the particular kind of clip here--losing one or more syllables in the middle, is syncope (unless you count the final -s as a suffix, then the process is apocope). We don't want to go there in this etymology. Linguists like clip and blend because they can be used both as nouns and verbs ("chaparejos was clipped" rather than "chaparejos underwent syncope"). I haven't used anything other than clip and blend in over 20 years of teaching the history of English (I really did have to look them up for this comment). (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, there's one other place where "anglicization" could be considered here--the interpretation of the final -s as a plural suffix. But even then, the final -s in the Spanish forms is also a plural suffix, so anglicization wasn't part of the process even in this detail. (Taivo (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Would "The word chaps is a clipped form of..." be both accurate linguistically and acceptable to all? I'm guessing that the term anglicization would fit more with words like "buckaroo" and "hackamore." I like having the etymological stuff in there, but if it seems to be too much, it at least needs to go on the chaps wiktionary page, which needs help. As a compromise, can we combine the etymology sentences:

The word chaps is a clipped form of chaparejos (also chaparajos) or chaparreras, words blended from Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and either aparejos 'gear' or the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite]--Getwood (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good wording. And, yes, "anglicization" is better applied to hackamore and buckaroo. There has been minor anglicization in the history of chaps because the vowel has been changed from [a] to [æ], but that's pretty minor stuff and nearly every borrowing in English has experienced vowel modification. It's literally true that nearly every borrowed word has been "anglicized" by reworking the vowels, but if we say that for every word, then the technical term "anglicization" loses its usefulness. (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just a technical quibble. Chaparejos is a blend because it combines pieces of two words. Chaparreras is a derived noun since it involves suffixation. Apples and oranges. How about:

The word chaps is a clipped form of chaparejos (also spelled chaparajos) or chaparreras, words based on Mexican Spanish chaparro 'chaparral' and either blended with aparejos 'gear' or derived with the suffix -era 'utensil'.[cite] The Spanish pronunciation of these words varies between an initial [tʃ] and [ʃ].[cite] (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think "clip" needs to be wikified. Chaparro refers to a kind of oak; on Spanish Wikipedia

sibilant sound.) I would not refer to chaparral in Chaps for the simple reason that it seems "chaparral" originated in California and "chaps" originated in that other Mexican-Anglo contact zone, the region today known as west Texas and New Mexico. --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We can translate chaparro as 'scrub oak' (or whatever is most accurate), but chaparro needs to be mentioned since it is one of the components of the blend chaparejos and the derived noun chaparreras. To me, "chaparral" is scrub oak country, but if you think there's an important difference, I'm not wedded to translating chaparro that way. So what is best for chaparro? 'Scrub oak'? 'Cork oak' is not appropriate (it's probably Castilian and not Mexican). We'll wikify both "clip" and "blend" since they're both technical terms. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Chaparro is fairly broadly defined in Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk on pages 52-54 under chaparral, chaparro, and chaps. There is also reference to the usage of this word in Texas in 1892, not to mention the fact that there has been no conclusive reference showing Texas/New Mexico as the birthplace of chaps. I can't see how avoiding the use of chaparro or chaparral would benefit. (ps. if anyone is interested, there is a very rough, but growing reference list at User:Getwood/Sandbox/chaps.--Getwood (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the evidence for a Texas origin for "chaps" in English is mostly circumstantial--Anglos were ranching in Texas at least 20 years before they were ranching in California. But that's not evidence, so we don't need to mention which end of the border "chaps" comes from. Does "...chaparro 'scrub oak'..." sound like the best gloss? (Taivo (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why not say chaps is derived from "chaparejos", "chaparreras", etc., all Spanish words for this garment, and stop there? Ie, do not explain the etymology of those other words, unless we add them also to the lead. (Listing them in the lead may be appropriate, actually, as they were and to an extent still are borrowed words in English.) The geography of where early accounts of "chaps" occur is evidence in favor of the TX/NM origin rather than a CA origin, because prior to completion of the

First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 east-west travel from east of the Rockies to California was very slow and difficult, hence limited. --Una Smith (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure I understand your objections to the etymologies. I personally think they are very enlightening because they show the origins of the name in its use: "scrub oak gear". If the etymologies of the Spanish terms led back to something like "yellow pants without a seat" that would not be too interesting, but in this case, the etymologies of the Spanish terms are very relevant and interesting. Please elaborate. I agree that chaparejos, chaparajos, and, maybe, chaparreras should be part of the lead. You find these words in English. Indeed, "chaps" was not a clip of the Spanish words, but of the ENGLISH words after they were borrowed. (Taivo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My objection boils down to this: absent a reliable source, the "scrub oak" story may be a folk etymology. I used to accept it but not anymore. Chaparro (cork oak) was used for hundreds of years in life jackets. Perhaps chaparreras etc. refer to personal protective gear (life jacket, leggings) rather than one vegetation type (among several) where such gear is needed? Also, it has been my experience riding in scrub oak thickets that my upper body is at greater risk than my legs. Chaps are ample protection against cactus, though. --Una Smith (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's evidence that chaparejos is an English word and that chaps is currently still perceived as an abbreviated form of it: Western wear catalogue. A lot of the references previously cited also show this. (Taivo (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

So maybe the first line of the whole article should be Chaps, sometimes referred to as chaparejos, .... (Taivo (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, something like that. --Una Smith (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main & Winchester was in operation making saddles in San Francisco in 1849. By 1881, they were doing ~$2,000,000 in business with ~1000 employees. Try to name a significant Texas saddler who started before the civil war. There was a well-established business in cattle in California early on. Yes, before the trains. Yes, I know that everyone thinks cowboys originated in Texas and moved North. But there's a lot more to the story. Any evidence for Texas origins is circumstantial at best. Chaparro explains why chaps exist. Let's leave it in, and move on.--Getwood (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was a Spanish Colonial cattle culture in California, which is why back when Chaps implied the pronunciation of chaps was derived somehow from the pronunciation of chaparral, I figured the evidence would show the word chaps in some manner originating in California. But I have now looked at many sources and I find no evidence of that. I'd like to see a reliable source that explains how "chaps" is (supposedly) derived from "chaparral", rather than from one of the many Spanish loan words for chaps. --Una Smith (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chaps" is not derived from 'chaparral', no one has said that. "Chaps" is derived from chaparejos/chaparreras which are derived from chaparro 'scrub oak'. "Chaparral" has a separate history coming from chaparro as well. Like cousins, the two share a grandfather, that is all. (Taivo (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've been keeping a close eye on things here lately, and you all are doing a good job hammering out a compromise version. I'm quite pleased with your progress. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're close. And in the interest of sticking to the issue in mediation, maybe we should go light on too many changes to the lead for now, focusing just on the word origin and etymology stuff here. My thoughts on recent comments.

1. If "clip" or "blend" are linguistic terms, then let's DO wikify them or something; that was new terminology to me, it sounded weird to this non-linguist ("WTF is a 'clip'" she asked herself, "some sort of haircut??" (LOL!)). OK to use instead of "anglicization" if the terminology is more correct, no problem, but if we are bringing in technical language from linguistics, we'd better explain that somehow.
2. Chaparajos vs. chaparraras: For decades, the conventional wording in most books on western riding has been that chaps is derived from chaparajos, which I always just assumed was correct. However, take a good look at the OED and some of the other sources that say Chaps is directly derived from chaparraras, and one of those sources at least hints that chaparajos is some sort of intermediate form between chaparraras and chaps. This isn't a moral issue with me, I guess a long discussion on etymology should in fact go into wiktionary (imagine me saying that!), here, I think just a "derived from" or "a clip of" or whatever, with a reference to both words, chaparraras first, should be plenty. Chaps protect the legs from assorted brush, whether it is scrub oak, chapparel, mesquite, or good old sagebrush (I've also had holes ripped in jeans by catching a pantleg on a Ponderosa Pine tree, by the way). The etymology linking the brush to the word may be helpful, but only if we keep it real short. I was the original editor to put in the bit about "chaparrel," to assist the pronunciation issue, I'm OK with omitting it too. Whatever.
3. "Catalogues of western wear" -NO. Too narrow. I'd omit that. The wording "chaps" is pretty much universal, usually with an added nod when in written form that its roots are from chaparraras or chaparajos. I honestly do not think I have ever heard a living human being say chaparajos out loud, other than to say something like "chaps comes from the word chaparajos" (grin). In support of this statement, note that "Chaps" is also used in various association rule books (including USEF Equitation division and Western division rules for sure, just checked, and AQHA also I think, will have to check their (larger) pdf tomorrow when I have high-speed access instead of this dialup I'm stuck with at home), most books on western riding, etc.
4. Geographic origin of chaps as a garment itself: There are both Texas and California origins. Actually, if you go back to the Western Horseman "Cowboy armor" article on the historical origins of chaps, they generally reference Spain and Old Mexico without specificity, and keep in mind that the Texas and California traditions BOTH evolved from the same original Spanish traditions, BOTH were raising cattle for a very long time but with obvious differences that arose in part due to geography and climate, one of the more obvious examples being in the handling of roped cattle (the dally versus "hard and fast" tie off of the rope). Both traditions had need for protective garments to protect the legs. There are also clear sources for some northern plains influence on the final garment, via the Indians and the Mountain Men. The book $10 horse, $40 Saddle, referenced elsewhere in the article, written by a fellow who was a Government Historian for the BLM, notes that the shotgun style of chaps was the earlier variety, batwings came later. Yet the batwing design became more common in Texas (it is cooler) and the shotguns more prevalent in the north (and trust the voice of experience, shotguns can be hotter than $#*@! in the summer!). So as far as "Texas first," some designs, perhaps, but the two traditions are, for all practical purposes, equally historic and each contributed elements to the modern product. (Similarly, hackamore training and the bitting of the reined cow horse also developed slightly different traditions.)
5. The crux of this whole dispute is pronunciation in English. Thus, I really don't know if we want to get into the Spanish pronunciation of related words at all; I fear that will generate yet a different spat (says the veteran of the "vaquero/buckaroo" debate in the cowboy article). I'd prefer to duck the Spanish pronunciation issue totally, particularly because we have no experts in 19th-century Mexican Spanish on board here, nor, so far, any sources.
6. I also think that we DO need to have at least a small nod to the "sh" pronunciation, even if we only want to reference DARE's "Usu" note that preceeded the "sh" pronunciation. I looked over Getwood's list and it is really overwhelming as far as the weight of the evidence goes. I really, really, really feel strongly about this. The article language has come a long ways from the original form and it would be a disservice to avoid the question entirely. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below, let's begin to write the final version. With citations. This section can be changed by anyone, but perhaps use strikeout and underlining to show how something was changed. Could get messy, but it's nice to see the earlier versions -- the strikeout and underline method is used by some legislative bodies to allow everyone to see at a glance what changes have been made. For the purposes of this work, I'll paste in the entire history section as it is currently worded in the actual article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab based on my last version and incorporating comments made since then. I don't have all the refs in place yet. Just a note on style, don't put multiple footnotes after something--incorporate all the sources for a statement in a single note number and separate them by a line break with <*br> (without asterisk) (see the way I did note 12). That's my particular pet peeve. (Taivo (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My edits below, mostly wordsmithing for now. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest form of protective leather garment used by mounted riders who herded cattle in