Chasing the etymology of the word frou-frou, I found it was of echoic formation, a generic term of which I was ignorant. It seems to me to resemble onomatopaoeia, but I guess many of you will know much more than I do about it. The OED says:
quote:
Of the nature of an echo: a term proposed by J. A. H. Murray and used in this Dictionary to describe formations which echo the sound which they are intended to denote or symbolize.
1880 J. A. H. MURRAY Addr. Philol. Soc. 20 note, Echoism..has the useful derivatives echoist, echoize, and echoic. 1886 N.E.D. s.v. Botch v.1, App. related to Du. botsen to knock, dash, Ger. dial. butschen, butzen to strike, knock; according to Franck an onomatopic word of echoic origin. 1950 PARTRIDGE Here, There & Everywhere 182 Grurmstipth, an omnibus: obviously an echoic term.
Interesting. I've never heard or read the word "echoic" before, nor "echoize" nor "echoist."
So if someone's outfit is very "chi-chi," that would be an echoic formation, but what about razzle-dazzle or ping pong? Boo-hoo, as opposed to boo-boo? I wonder whether it has to be an exact repetition of the same syllable? Of course, ping pong is actually onomatopoetic.
Wordmatic
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Originally posted by wordmatic: I wonder whether it has to be an exact repetition of the same syllable? Of course, ping pong is actually onomatopoetic. Wordmatic
I don't think repetition of the syllable is a necessary defining factor. My impression was that echoic formation had to echo the sound which they are intended to denote or symbolize. So, bing, bang crash, miaow, plop are all echoic— with no internal repetition.