Subtitle: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends
The Eskimo languages do not have an extraordinarily large number of words for snow. JFK was not understood by Berliners to be saying that he was a jelly donut (the mayor of Berlin, and future chancellor, Willy Brandt, had proofread his speech beforehand). The Chevy Nova did not have problems selling in Latin America because of its name ("nova" was also the name of a leaded gasoline sold by Pemex, the Mexican oil company, for many years). Jazz did not originate from a term for sexual intercourse. This is a book out to take away your linguistic fun.
It is sometimes astonishing how many false etymologies there are. "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge". "Port Out, Starboard Home". Every pop theory of word origin I know of, it seems, is in this book, and they're all wrong. In a few cases, such as the Union General Hooker (whose HQ was known as a den of iniquity) being the source of the term "hooker", which is mostly false (he was a child when the first printed instance of this word, in this sense, being used), but he might have caused the word to become more widely used in that sense. Mostly, though, they're simply wrong, wrong, demonstrably wrong.
"The whole nine yards" postdates WWII by two decades, and does not come from a length of ammo for a machine gun. SOS doesn't stand for anything, it was chosen simply because it was an easy Morse code to remember and recognize. Chicago is "the Windy City" because it's, you know, windy, not because of any metaphor about their politicians or anything else.
There are two reasons for reading a book like this. One is if you, like me, take a perverse delight in finding out that something popularly believed is incorrect. A more wholesome reason is that there are patterns to such malarkey. Wilton does a good job of sorting this horde of folk etymologies into categories, according to the likely motivation for its origin. Sometimes it is to poke fun at powerful people (e.g. JFK). Sometimes it is to boost your own ethnic group. Sometimes it is to tie everything to your own particular topic of interest (railroads, the Civil War, etc.). Sometimes it is to make some phrase like "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" sound less crude that it obviously is, by claiming that it comes from some source other than the obvious.
Reading Wilton's (merciless) dissection of one bogus etymology after another, you can see enough of a pattern to hopefully recognize the next bogus story as such when you hear it. People produce plausible sounding, but incorrect, stories about more than word origins. Reading about how this works in a topic like word origins, which is relatively easy to be emotionally objective about, could help sharpen your senses for similar hooey on other topics.
That's my theory, anyway, though I can't prove it. It's also a delightful and easy read, that I can vouch for from firsthand empirical evidence.