Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How does 'counting' relate to ‘course of business dealings requiring records’, ‘arrangement to keep money in a business, bank, etc.’?

Post

How does 'counting' relate to ‘course of business dealings requiring records’, ‘arrangement to keep money in a business, bank, etc.’?

+0
−2

I saw this at https://english.stackexchange.com/q/624915, but it got closed without answer. I would like answers, thx.

Etymonline commences with c. 1300, "counting," especially "reckoning of money received and paid, detailed statement of funds owed or spent or property held". Then in the second para., out of left field, Etymonline leaps to

The meaning "course of business dealings requiring records" is from 1640s; hence "arrangement to keep money in a business, bank, etc." (1833)

How did “counting” turn, or pass, into "course of business dealings requiring records"?

Then how did "course of business dealings requiring records’ develop into ‘arrangement to keep money in a business, bank, etc.’ ? How can "counting" have anything to do with these senses?

Etymonline skipped too many steps! please spell out all the steps? thanks.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

This question is unclear (3 comments)
This question is unclear
Jirka Hanika‭ wrote 4 months ago

It is unclear what question is being asked here.

If it is a question about the history of formal accounting (within an English-speaking context), that could make the question off topic or at least difficult to answer within this community.

If it is about the semantic transition from "counting" to "record keeping", that transition doesn't appear too complicated or surprising to me; the records are essentially records of numbers that are to be added together to yield the balance of the account. If the records became a common tool to make such counting and subsequent liquidation more reliable historically, then the transition is a form of metonymy.

Nen‭ wrote 4 months ago · edited 4 months ago

"If it is about the semantic transition from "counting" to "record keeping", that transition doesn't appear too complicated or surprising to me". yes, this is my question. this transition is complicated and surprising to me, that's why I asked. but thanks for assistance. can you write out your comment as a full length answer?

Jirka Hanika‭ wrote 3 months ago

Let's wait whether anyone familiar with the history of accounting and banking, or with the subtlest meanings of "count" is able to answer this more confidently.

I don't feel like that Etymonline necessarily skipped many or any steps. Metonymy is an extremely common figure of speech (and many kinds of metonymy have their own special names) and many permanent new meanings of existing words have originated from a historical metonymy, rather directly. But that's a mere common principle and I'm unsure about the word "count" in its newer meanings specifically.