Are Spiders Bugs? Yes or No?

[KenTheBugGuy]

English

Well the dictionary has the below as one meaning....I chose to use Bug in my name because it can loosely be referred too as many things. If I went with insect, arachnid or even invert most of those did not sound great and roll off the tounge and most could not encompass what I mostly sell


2. (loosely) any insect or insect like invertebrate

 

[JC]

Imo, it's people misusing the word 'bug'.

It's like common names vs. binomial nomenclature. I'll stick with what's correct.

You'll stick to what is correct, or rather you mean to is what accepted by the leaders in the particular field?

Does this mean you will never use the word 'tarantula' to refer to a theraphosid?

 

[buthus]

Its all about context. If I call my buds up and say.."hey, lets go bug huntin' this weekend." They know that means to go out and look for small creatures with the central goal being invertebrates. The context is a global one, encompassing all that the slang use of the term could define.
But, when on the trail and a bud spots me catching something and asks.. "whatchya find?" and i respond.."not sure...some kind of weird bug." He knows i found something that I dont think is a spider, beetle, ant, isopod, tick, pede, scorp, etc. Its definitely an invertebrate, it most likely has six legs and im probably looking at its mouth parts to confirm whether its hemiptera or not. The context has changed to something more specific. The word bug now being used to define what it isnt and though its still being used as a "catch-all" term, the focus of the term is now towards the scientific use of it.

 

[theconmacieist]

...I do understand that some people call spiders bugs. Some people also call tarantulas poisonous, but that doesn't make them right. I just don't think things should be accepted just because a lot of people are misinformed.

 

[buthus]

...I do understand that some people call spiders bugs. Some people also call tarantulas poisonous, but that doesn't make them right. I just don't think things should be accepted just because a lot of people are misinformed.

Ok ...but are beetles bugs? how bout hobgoblins?
Origin:
1615–25; 1885–90 for def. 4; 1910–15 for def. 5a; 1915–20 for def. 14; 1945–50 for def. 15; earlier bugge beetle, apparently alteration of Middle English budde, Old English -budda beetle; sense “leave” obscurely related to other senses and perhaps of distinct orig.


Middle English bugge hobgoblin; probably akin to Low German bögge goblin
First Known Use: 14th century

Obviously, what we currently consider the informal use of the term "bug" long proceeded the scientific one. Hobgloblins were not named after "True Bugs" ( hemipterous insect). Language evolves and many terms take on broad meanings, yet can still be reduced to a specific meaning. Its not something we really have a lot of control over...its just the way it IS. We can however change or add to a term to focus its meaning. In this case people added "True". Some bugs are truly bugs and others are just bugs. None seem to be goblins anymore.

 

[theconmacieist]

In my opinion this is not language evolution but language retardation.

 

[The Snark]

Thank you buthus.

Come on, people!! Define your variables or terminologies. When in doubt, check your etymology. Regardless of common usage, if there is any dispute, debate, or ambiguity the origin of the word must be considered.

Always keep in mind, English is NOT A LANGUAGE. It is a polyglot. (Noun, first definition: a mixture or confusion of languages) Thus, the origin of the words is critical and paramount of one wishes to avoid inaccuracies or ambiguity.

 

[Venom]

Thank you buthus.

Come on, people!! Define your variables or terminologies. When in doubt, check your etymology. Regardless of common usage, if there is any dispute, debate, or ambiguity the origin of the word must be considered.

Always keep in mind, English is NOT A LANGUAGE. It is a polyglot. (Noun, first definition: a mixture or confusion of languages) Thus, the origin of the words is critical and paramount of one wishes to avoid inaccuracies or ambiguity.

While I agree that etymology is important...English is most certainly a language. It has an origin, and an evolution like any other language. It simply happens to be the language with the most worldwide contact with other cultures than that from which it originated, and so it has become extremely diverse, and developed many localized forms. But it's all still English...many dialects of a single language.

In my view, "bug" is not really a scientific term anyway. Something like "Hemipteran" would be the scientific term. No entomologist is going to run around saying species_x of Hemiptera is a "bug" or a "true bug," they're going to use the Latin genus or order designation.

"Bug," then, in my opinion, is a word which is primarily a catch-all colloquialism for non-aquatic invertebrates. Spiders are bugs.

 

[The Snark]

While I agree that etymology is important...English is most certainly a language. It has an origin, and an evolution like any other language. It simply happens to be the language with the most worldwide contact with other cultures than that from which it originated, and so it has become extremely diverse, and developed many localized forms. But it's all still English...many dialects of a single language.

In my view, "bug" is not really a scientific term anyway. Something like "Hemipteran" would be the scientific term. No entomologist is going to run around saying species_x of Hemiptera is a "bug" or a "true bug," they're going to use the Latin genus or order designation.

"Bug," then, in my opinion, is a word which is primarily a catch-all colloquialism for non-aquatic invertebrates. Spiders are bugs.

English is certainly recognized as a language. In fact, the most commonly used language in the world today. Acceptance of usage establishes the legitimacy of a language. Following the pattern that the English language exemplifies, American ghetto slang consisting of grunts, expletives pseudo words and word derivatives shall also become a recognized language.
Be that as it may, polyglots are seldom recognized for their accuracy and definitions usually refer to etymology of the source language(s) to wit, English cannot justify itself; it relies on citing other languages of which it is composed of. A perfect example is your very appropriate use of the word colloquial which is of course Latin.

For native English speaking people the concept that their language isn't a true language is hard to conceive. The concept is much more easily understood when you are versed in a language that stands upon it's own and self defines the majority of the words.

Most of the words used in English today are colloquials and reference to the source languages is usually required to avoid inaccuracies, ambiguities or ... bugs.

 

[JC]

Well then that leaves one question. What do you consider a "true" language?

A language that has never adopted words or need to refer to other languages to defines it's words? Truly virgin and unique throughout history and without any 'ghetto derivations', oh I am sure there are many "real languages".

 

[Michiel]

Well then that leaves one question. What do you consider a "true" language?

A language that has never adopted words or need to refer to other languages to defines it's words? Truly virgin and unique throughout history and without any 'ghetto derivations', oh I am sure there are many "real languages".

LOL. yeah me too!