Natural languages...

The word "End" can also mean any "extremity" and not just the opposite of "beginning". Otherwise phrases "on both ends of the spectrum" wouldn't make sense.

Thus, a positional encoding of a number has one side (end) where the impact of digits is much higher (big) than the other side (end) where the impact is lower (little).

Little end: the side with lower "weight" Big end: the side with higher "weight"

Being "little endian" is a property of the encoding or architecture, not the property of the word. The word is not "little endian", i.e. its "end" is not "little". The encoding is little endian in that it starts with the little end of the word. You're rightly confused because the fact we're now suddenly talking about the start of the word is implicit and based on the assumption that the reader knows Gulliver's tale.

You're doubling down on the ambiguity and thereby proving the point.

If end means start, then why use this word?

Little endian is in reality little startian and big endian is big startian.

In fact, we could simplify this even further and just call big endian, startian and little endian, just endian.

You're right it's ambiguous. It's a playful reference to a piece of literature.

It's also quite an old terminology which is not going to change.

If we could come up with a new terminology from the start we could find better options.

For example:

* Least/Most Significant First (LSF / MSF) * Low/High Address Least Significant (LALS/HALS)

Etc

It was / is a very straightforward question. Given this C fragment:

  u16 x = 1;
  u8 * px = (u8 *)&x;

What byte does px point to? LSB orders means that it points to the least significant byte (that has value 1); MSB order means it points to the most significant byte (value 0).

    int* x; // x is an int-pointer
    int *y; // dereferencing y gives an int
    int * z; // int multiplied by z

I'm being silly, but floating the the asterisk between the type and the identifier gives me the same feeling as the "array indices start at 0.5" compromise mentioned earlier.

(For the record, the second way is the universal and objective truth.)

But when you say "the second way" are you counting from zero or from one?

Given the context, you've got to wonder if the ambiguous terminology was deliberate.