The etymology of 'substance'. Does it mean 'sub'-'stance'?
I am aware of the etymological fallacy and aware that the fallacy itself, also, does not always hold good. In other words, a word's pedigree may, or may not, be the reason it means what it means, today.
The OED tells me, in the small print, that, beyond the immediate Anglo Norman substans lies the Old French sustance and beyond that lies the Latin substare, literally sub-stare 'to stand' or to 'stand under'.
Interestingly, there is a concomitant word in Hellenistic Greek 'υποστασις, hupostasis which, literally, is as the Latin, and can be rendered 'under-upstanding'.
The Latin word substantia was adopted (Vulgate etc) to translate both 'υποστασις, hupostatis and also ουσια, ousia.
Now these two Greek words mean, respectively, immaterial presence and material presence. That is to say, the non-physical aspect and the physical aspect of that which is.
Thus the Latin word substantia - and then the English word 'substance' - came to have twin meanings, originally - it would seem - from the Greek.
'Substance' in the OED is defined as the 'nature' or the 'essence' of something.
My question is - has there been an etymological fault in the development of the word ? Is it actually wrong, conceptually, to use a word which means 'underneath that which stands' to convey both meanings of 'physical material' and 'non-physical being' ?
And has this caused confusion, historically, in the conveying of metaphysical concept ? That is to say, has the concept of 'physical material' been carried over into the understanding of that which is not 'physical material' ?
'Essence' or 'subsistence' conveys absolute being. 'Substance' conveys that which is substantive, that which is materially present.
Should they not have been kept separate ?
And is this word 'substance', therefore, an example of an etymological fallacy ?
There doesn’t appear to have been any confusion in the historical development of the term according to the following Etymonline information. The Greek root meant “essence or nature of anything” and Latin substantia refers also to “stand firm, be present”:
c. 1300, "essential nature, real or essential part," from Old French sustance, substance "goods, possessions; nature, composition" (12c.), from Latin substantia "being, essence, material," from substans, present participle of substare "stand firm, stand or be under, be present," from sub "up to, under" (see sub-) + stare "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."
Latin substantia translates Greek ousia "that which is one's own, one's substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything." Meaning "any kind of corporeal matter" is first attested mid-14c. Sense of "the matter of a study, discourse, etc." first recorded late 14c.
(Etymonline)
Any material that possesses physical properties is called a substance. The word also refers to the gist or main idea of something. If you remember the main point of a lesson, you've got the substance.
History:
- The meaning of the noun substance has evolved over time, yet it has always been related to something sound and solid — from the Latin root substare, which means "to stand firm," to the Middle English definition as an "essential nature." Nowadays, we use the word to define someone who possesses honesty and intelligence, or when we examine a message to find its essence. To be thought of as a "person of substance" is a good thing, but to be thought of as a "substance abuser" is not so good.
(Vocabulary.com)