Damn! That got away from me in the middle of an important sentence! While I was revising it too!

Hill recalls that in 1843 the soloist among cotton-screwers was called the "shantier," which he derives "from the French word chanteur, a vocalist."

The more I think about this, the better it sounds. (Disregard the final paragraph of my last post as needlessly hypothetical.) *If* Hill is right about "shantier" in Mobile in 1843, and *if* the word "shantier" came from N.O. (I don't know how many French speakers were screwing cotton in Mobile in the 1840s - presumably very few), an anglicization of "chanteur" might be the source.

In that case, "shanty" would be a back formation from "shantier," on the assumption that a "shantier" was one who "shanties" and that the special songs he sings are properly called "shanties."

That would neatly explain the troublesome sound change from "ch" to "sh," and would replace the improbable idea that English-speaking seamen would have mysteriously adopted a French command to "Chantez!"

Lyman doesn't explicitly endorse the "chanteur" etymology, which is why I missed it the first time through. But yes, I think "shanty" could have come from "chanteur" through "shantier." (Hill seems to be the only writer to use "shantier," but since "chanteur" is indeed French for a male singer, the etymology of to "shanty," etc., is quite plausible.)

Case closed? It's tempting to say so.