a wake

[lisajane83]

why is a wake called a wake when technically that person will not be waking?

[jno]

a variation of the word watch. (Words ending in -k and -tch are sometimes related: bake and batch). So you'd watch over the body... just in case it did return to life, though this isn't common.

[Quizmonster]

The word, 'wake' in this sense comes from the Old English word 'wacu', meaning 'a watch' as in night-watch...ie a form of vigil, as J says above.
It often referred to the eve of a religious feast-day, when believers would stay awake all night, often combined with fasting, in preparation for the great occasion.
In somewhat later times, the idea had more to do with feasting than fasting! Hence, the Irish idea of a wake at which food is available and drink flows freely.
Accordingly - as burial rites are a form of religious observance - I'd say it was more that than a precaution against someone's being buried alive as some people believe.

[ali_alic]

It is called a wake because there have been instances where coffins have been dug up and scratch marks found on the inside. So the Irish tradition of a wake is where the body is not buried during that period in case the "body" wakes up. This is also where the phrase "graveyard shift" comes from, ie the chap employed to listen out for the scratching!!

[Poglet]

what an interesting queiry! Now you mention it...why is it called thta, personally i think its celebrating the time they have lived! or mayb becuse they believe the person will be waking up to another place for instance, heaven

[Poglet]

can i just add that the answers are silly!

[Quizmonster]

As I said in my first answer, a wake has nothing whatever to do with hanging around in case the supposedly dead person turns out not to be! If it did, The Oxford English Dictionary - the 'bible' of English words - would say so, wouldn't it? It doesn't.
The phrase 'graveyard shift' is not recorded anywhere prior to the early 1900s. Since 'wakes' have been going on for thousands of years, that's surely a bit late for there to be any connection at all between the two.
Forget the scratched coffin-lids and click http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sav1.htm for the website of Michael Quinion, a noted etymologist and lexicographer...ie true word expert There you will find the truth of the matter, Lisa.

[Azimov]

I beg to differ QM.
I remember reading that the term "wake" referred to the days before medical practitioners had the expertise to tell the difference between stone-drunk and dead!
As unlikely as it sounds, it appears that back then it was common enough for someone to get so drunk it was difficult to tell if they were passed out or dead, and the physicians of the day were of no help, the relatives would observe the "body" for a certain time just in case the "corpse" should "wake"!

It doesn't sound so far fetched when you consider how primitive medicine was before the last 100-150 years or so.
Granted, I have no reference for the information I encountered but it does bear thinking about doesn't it?

[Quizmonster]

What can I say, Azimov? If you are not prepared to accept the definition of 'wake' offered by The Oxford English Dictionary (TOED), that's entirely up to you. You are, of course, perfectly free to "differ" from it, despite its being the 'bible' of English words and their meanings.
The plain fact is that 'wake' has meant an all-night vigil as part of a religious rite - such as the celebration of a saint's day or a burial - for almost a millennium. Any additional significance that has been applied to it - scratched inner coffin-lids, listeners in graveyards, clueless doctors or whatever - is just born of people's love of the gruesome!
Even Brewer's, which loves to encourage such notions, has no such thing to say about it.
Sadly, TOED is not available free online, but as a matter of interest, here is the Random House entry about �wake'...

"The wake you're asking about is 'a watch or vigil by the body of a dead person before burial' and hence 'the feasting or other festivities associated with this'. The complete story of this word is quite complicated, but the general idea is that it is related to the wake meaning 'to rouse from sleep', or as a noun 'the state of being awake'. Semantically, a wake meant 'a period of not sleeping while one held a vigil over a corpse'.
The wake 'a vigil' word is found once in Old English, in the compound nihtwacu 'night-watch'. The word has various closely related senses, mostly developing in the Middle English period; one of them ('a church festival as an occasion of festivities') is probably influenced by the related Old Norse vaka."

But you must feel free to go your own way. Personally, I'll stick with TOED!

[Azimov]

I stand corrected QM, I only offered my comments as counterpoint to your own, for the purpose of discussion.
While the TOED might be the bible regarding English, might it not conceivably be incorrect in some aspects?
If not then should we expect next years edition to be entirely unaltered?

I am quite willing to take onboard any views on any subject (such as this one) but I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting one single source as my "bible" with a total disregard to any other evidence, and expect others to follow suit!
I certainly wouldn't then berate others for failing to subscribe to my methods!

[Quizmonster]

I can assure you, Az, that if the next edition of TOED does contain a different explanation/etymology for the word 'wake', I will be the first to stand up and champion that, whatever it is. Why? Because I know it will have been arrived at by a process of dedicated and authenticated scholarship and not by any sort of myth-making.
I said three times - in the phrases 'up to you', 'free to differ' and 'go your own way' - that you were entirely your own master in this matter. How that can be considered "expecting others to follow suit" or "berating" is quite beyond my comprehension.
But what the hey! I'll leave it at that.

[Azimov]

I apologise QM, if my comments were taken as disrespectul or confrontational.
I only meant that your tone (if not your wording) seemed to suggest (to me at least) that you feel that your source is the only reliable one and that we should all respect that view!
I totally agree with your belief that we shouldn't rely on hearsay or anecdotal evidence to arrive at our answers (I'm paraphrasing of course) but I must disagree with your assertion that your comments were free of criticism.
The three phrases you used in reply, if I may quote them, "Up to you", "Free to differ" and "Go your own way" can quite easily be taken to mean, "I offer to show you the correct way but you refuse my help!".
Taken that way I'm sure you can see that, of course, I'm going to come to the conclusion that you expect me to come to the same conclusion as you and that the tone was intended to be somewhat condescending and reproving!

Again, If I misunderstood, or you if did, then I apologise unreservedly!
I do respect your opinions!
And you have gained that respect through your many posts here in Answerbank.
Please respect my opinions too. I am no fool and I would never put forward any theory or assumption as established fact or evidence unless I had solid, concrete and demonstrable proof.
In fact, I would take great exception to anyone who would accuse me of that!

However, enough said on the matter.
I hope I've helped to clear this matter up and look forward to corresponding with you here in future, with no hard feelings!