Trick question. There is no difference, but here's how the dual terminology came to be. The season that
describes the transition from summer to winter was known as harvest for many years before autumn came into
being. The usage horse race between harvest
and autumn started in the 14th
century with autumn’s first
publication, and harvest and autumn would duke it out for centuries. Then along came fall in the 17th
century, perhaps a yin to the yang of the word spring, which had at that time just recently established its
lexical dominance in describing the transition of winter to summer. Some word nerds peg it as deriving from a popular phrase at the time, "the fall of the leaf," as in, "Gadzooks, man, you'd best split more wood before the fall of the leaf!" Beginning in the 17th
century then, a three-way war for prominence between harvest, fall and autumn began and by the 18th
century, the urban class’s resentment of the agrarian term harvest (and other factors) contributed to its declining usage. So began
the rise of fall and autumn, whose Hatfield/McCoy feud rages
on to this day. By the numbers, fall is preferred about two to one. So what is the real difference now? Autumn is a little
snootier. I prefer autumn.
No comments:
Post a Comment