It ’s in all probability fair to say thatfakeis fast becoming one of the heavy buzzwords of 2017 . But behind the word is a rather tricky — and for the most part unresolved — etymological story that takes us back to the hole-and-corner vernacular of other nineteenth century criminals . Take a look at this :
That ’s an extract fromA New and Comprehensive Vocabulary of the Flash Language , adictionary of criminal slangcompiled by James Hardy Vaux in 1819 . Surprisingly , this definition put up us with the early known record of the current import offake . Although the Oxford English Dictionary dates the Book to 1775,their earlier record of it looks to be a misreading offalse , and so ca n’t be guaranteed . Fakeis also a naval condition used to describe spiral forget me drug that seem to be former , but that ’s considered unrelated . So we ’re not dealing with some long - established Anglo - Saxonism here . Instead , fake , in the signified of something being bogus or counterfeit , obviously commence spirit a lilliputian over 200 years ago among the “ ostentation ” language used by criminal in 18th- and 19th - hundred England .
Vaux ’s “ flash ” was a veiled slang used by outlaw to keep their activities a secret from the authorities , their victim , or anyone else who go on to overhear their scheming . For example , ajumpwas a ground - floor window . Dummy - hunterswere robber of billfold and purse . Afly covewas a shopkeeper who could not easy be robbed . Ahoxterwas the privileged pocket of a coat . Andknapping a Jacob from a danna - dragmeant “ steal a ladder from a night working person ” for the purposes of scale a wall or reaching a high-pitched window .
It ’s mediocre to presume Vaux would in all probability have had insider noesis of this sort of matter . Despite being credit withproducing the very first dictionary ever compiled in Australia , Vaux was a British - have a bun in the oven ex - yard bird who included in his dictionary all those terms he had hear while swear out clip in punishable colony in Australia in the early 1800s — fakeamong them .
So we know the word has condemnable origins , and presumably dates back to sometime around the late 18th one C , but where did it arrive from ? Admittedly , it ’s unvoiced to say — not least of all because Vaux ’s explanation is so wide - ramble that it gives us little , if any , point to go on .
Faking , according to Vaux ’s definition , could once be taken to mean everything from robbing to murder , cutting to breaking , pinching to writing , and make something to breaking something . In fact , Vaux was compel tointroduce this entry in his dictionarywith the caveat thatfakewas “ a word so variously used , that I can only illustrate it [ here ] by a few example . ”
Amidst the blizzard of contend definition , the use offaketo mean “ imitative ” or “ unreal ” is at least beginning to emerge in Vaux ’s account , most notably in the expression “ to fake your peg , ” which meant to feign unwellness or harm to escape piece of work or military serving . It ’s this sense of the news that has outlast to this 24-hour interval — and it could be this that points us toward where the Scripture might actually have spring up .
One theory title thatfakecould be related tothe Germanfegenor Dutchvegen , both meaning “ to polish , ” or “ to wipe clean”—the implication being that something might once have been said to have been “ faked ” when it had been cleaned up to come out more valuable than it really was . If that ’s the grammatical case , thenfakemight be related to a dialect termfeakorfyke , mean “ to tweet or move quickly , ” or elsefeague , an 18th - one C argot word signify “ to put ginger or a lively eel up a horse ’s anus to make it seem more sprightly . ” ( No , really . ) Alternatively , fakemight derive fromfac , a derivative of the Latin verbfacio , which literally means to “ make ” or “ do . ” This more general account is less inventive , but might at least account for the word ’s array of dissimilar meanings in Vaux ’s lexicon .
It ’s hard to say which — if any — of these hypothesis is right without further written grounds , but we can at least be sure that"faking"things is not quite as sometime as we might think .
