I have searched the Internet, unsuccessfully, to find on-line corroboration for the excellent explanation for the derivation of "@" that I received some 45 years ago.
I was visiting with an Anglophile and scholar who was also one of the few remaining skilled Pitman shorthand experts. I asked him the derivation and naming of several of our punctuation symbols that we currently use.
The credibility for his assertions derives from the alignment, some 40 years later, between his explanations and those we can find in both Wikipedia and other more scholarly resources.
His explanation for the derivation of "@" was that it was a shortcut derived from the cursive hand: If you write, in cursive, the word "at", rather than lifting your writing implement from the paper to cross the "t", writers would, following the ending downstroke of the letter "t", would complete the "crossing" with a back-handed sweep to cross the "t", ending the sweep over the "a", or even trailing down to the left of the "a" (as a flourish).
As this cursive shortcut became more accepted and recognized, further abbreviation of the writing of "at" came when the writer, upon completion of the letter "a", would omit, altogether, the upstroke and downstroke of the letter "t", but would finish with the back-handed flourish that previously encircled both letters, but now encircled just the "a", thus becoming simply, "@". The proponents of this shortcut felt that since the visual combination of the cursive "at" with the backhand flourish already possessed a readily recognisable meaning, "at", that dropping the up- and down-stroke component would still convey the meaning while being quicker and easier to write.
Because all accountants recognised this shortcut, the simpler "@" became the accepted norm to represent "at", for example, "<some quantity> @ <some price>".
The name for this symbol simply became the word it represented, "at". Later, editors and lexicographers appended the word "sign" to distinguish aurally between the
word "at" and the
symbol that had, by then, become an accepted short-cut representation for the word.
As we have seen, particulary in the previous links in this thread, many other languages/cultures/countries have assigned names to this "@" symbol that are unnecessarily, yet euphemistically, "lexicomorphic" (i.e. creating a name that looks like the physical appearance) such as:
"monkey's tail" (South Africa)
"crazy eye" (Balkans)
"pickled herring" (Czech Republic)
"elephant's trunk" (Denmark/Sweden)
"pig's tail" (Denmark/Norway)
"swinging monkey" (Netherlands)
"snail" (France)
"hanging monkey" (Germany)
"little duck" (Greece)
"strudel" (Israel)
"maggot" (Hungary)
"little mouse" (China)
"little cat" (Poland)
"little dog" (Russia)
"wiggling worm-like character" (Thailand)
"ear" (Turkey)
All of these endearing nicknames are departures from the original purpose/derivation of the symbol and certainly are no more succinct than the original term "at" or "at-sign".
Cheers,
![[santa] [santa] [santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif)
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via
www.dasages.com]