In my own words, an etymological root fallacy is anachronistic retrospective eisegesis. Dunamis (power) is most often the unfortunate victim of such shoddy (mis-)interpretation. What do I mean by this cumbersome phrase “anachronistic retrospective eisegesis”? Well, it is a looking back (retrospective) on a word which predates English (anachronistic) and forcing the meaning of a present day English word back onto that Greek word (eisegesis) from whence the English word came. So, for example, people read dunamis inRomans 1:16 and think that dynamite’s root in this Greek word gives the reader license to read dunamis with this present day concept of dynamite; but bear in mind that Paul had no concept of dynamite when he wrote that the gospel is the power (dunamis) of God for salvation. Therefore, don’t read any concept of dynamite back onto dunamis though the English “dynamite” undoubtedly comes from it.

It may preach, but it’s not correct!

I’ve just learned the etymology of  the word “suede.” It seems rather obvious now that I think about it.

undressed kid skin, 1884, from gants de Suède (1859), lit. “gloves of Sweden,” from Fr. Suède “Sweden.”

Etymonline.com scores again!