XPost: alt.usage.english, alt.language.latin
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 19:59:01 +0000, Ed Cryer wrote:
HenHanna wrote:
this etym. doesn't make sense in that...
Descendants of Picasso (?) can make no investment and just get
Revenues.
_______________
The word "revenue" has its origins in the Latin term "revenire," which
means "to come back" or "to return." This Latin word is formed from the
prefix "re-" (meaning "back" or "again") and "venire" (meaning "to
come").
In Middle French, the term evolved to "revenu," which referred to income
or profits returning to a person or entity.
By the late 14th century, it was adopted into English as "revenue,"
primarily referring to the income generated by a government or a
business.
Summary:
Latin: "revenire" (to come back)
Middle French: "revenu" (income or profits)
English: "revenue" (income, especially for governments or businesses)
This evolution reflects the notion of income returning to its source.
The "re" doesn't apply.
Revenue is merely the incoming money to a company or government.
If you want it to imply more, then that's your opinion.
Try and justify your claim. The best I can make of it is that income is causally related to expenditure. Which is refuted daily by modern
economics.
Profits in a capitalist economy are not causally connected with
expenditure. They depend on other factors.
Ed
___________
i'm not making much of a claim... just an observation that...
in Jp and Chinese counterparts, there's no Element of coming BACK
(just Income)
Cantonese, Mandarin: 收入 (zh) (shōurù)
Japanese: 収入 (ja) (しゅうにゅう, shūnyū), 収益 (ja) (しゅうえき, shūeki)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)