Question: I am curious as to the origin of the word "mutt," meaning "a dog of mixed breed."
Answer: Tracing "mutt" back to its origins involves many centuries and two additional species, one with four legs and the other with two. We begin with "moton," a word ultimately of Celtic origin (it is related to the Welsh "mollt," meaning "a ram") that was used in Old French to mean "a sheep" and "the flesh of a sheep used for food." Borrowed into Middle English as "motoun" with these senses at about the beginning of the 14th century, the word eventually came to be spelled "mutton." Its "sheep" sense had fallen into disuse in English by the end of the 19th century, but its "food" sense, of course, continues in use today.
The TV character Archie Bunker of "All in the Family" fame was known for addressing his hapless son-in-law as "meathead." The Archie Bunkers of an earlier time in America expressed a similar sentiment with the word "mut-ton-head," which was first recorded as a slang term in 1803. It wasn't until about a hundred years later that the shortened form "mutt" first appeared, originally with the sense "a stupid or foolish person." Its use in referring to dogs followed soon afterward. It occurs not only as a synonym of "mongrel," of course, but also as a generalized term of abuse for any dog, in which it can probably be best regarded as the canine equivalent of "meat-head."
Question: How did the word "preventive" become "preventative" in current accepted usage, such as in "preventative medicine"? It sounds like pretentious wordspeak to me.
Answer: "Preventative" is not a new word. It was first condemned in the mid-19th century, when one critic claimed that no such word existed, but even then it had already been in use for 200 years, almost as long as its more common synonym "preventive."
You might say that "preventive" is preferable to "preventative" because it's shorter, but how then do we explain why the adjective "interpretative" was at one time considered superior to its shorter synonym "interpretive"? Grammarians tried to make a case for "interpretative" by pointing to the Latin verb stem from which it is derived, "interpretat-." But "interpretative" is really just one of many "-ative" adjectives in English that have their ultimate origins in Latin but are formed from English verbs that do not end in "-ate": "preventative" from "prevent," "representative" from "represent," "affirmative" from "affirm," and so on. This is in contrast to an adjective like "demonstrative," formed from the verb "demonstrate."
Analogous formations are not uncommon in English, and it is by analogy to words like "demonstrative" that words like "preventative" were formed. (It was probably in a sort of reverse analogy that "interpretative" was modified to "interpretive" in imitation of the more widely accepted "preventive.") The analogy was carried one step further in the 15th century when "-ative" was added to the verb "talk," a word with no Latin origins whatsoever. As far as we know, no one has ever objected to the adjective "talkative."
"Preventative" has been employed by reputable writers throughout its history. Though criticized for its supposedly irregular formation, it is in fact formed the same way as such undisputed words as "representative," "affirmative" and "figurative." In short, "preventative" and "preventive" are both correct - "preventive" is simply a much more common word.
Question: The following is an example of one of my pet peeves: "Sixteen people were interviewed for the position, but none were hired." The word "none" is a contraction of "not" and "one," and should therefore take the singular verb "was," not the plural verb "were."
Answer: Your assumption that "none" is a contraction of "not" and "one" is only half right. The source for "none" is the Old English word "nan," which was in fact formed from "ne," meaning "not," and "an," meaning "one," but "nan" itself was inflected for both the singular and plural. Hence the word has never existed in the singular only. King Alfred the Great used it as a plural as early as 888 A.D. Other examples of the plural can be found in thousands of reputable sources, including the Bible, with authors ranging from John Milton to William Safire.
The notion that "none" should only be singular is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. Today, many people believe as you do that the plural is incorrect, a misconception that confuses the etymology (or history) of the word with its actual usage. In practice, however, "none" continues to be both plural and singular, as it has been since Old English. Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism.