Re[4]: [tied] Surname 'Knyvett' etc. and OFr 'c(a)nivet'

At 11:32:28 AM on Friday, October 10, 2008, Arnaud Fournet
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>> these writings <cnict>, <cnist>, <kneit> suggest they
>>> rhymed with -i:-t or -ij-t, there was no -h-t. /x/ was
>>> already dead at the time of those writings. Cf. fait /fä/
>>> written faict, dit /di/ written dict.

>> All irrelevant: I'm talking about Anglo-French and Middle
>> English spellings of Old English <cniht> and its Middle
>> English reflexes.

> I understood that you were talking about Anglo-French
> speakers miswriting Middle English *kni(h)t as <cnict>,
> <cnist>, <kneit>.

Then why did you ask whether 'AFr' referred to Old French?

> I was suggesting that these writings probably reflect the
> disapperance of -h-, There is no reason to suppose that
> -h- is represented by either -c- or -s- or -i-. Cnict is
> *knit the same way French dict stands for *dit with no
> real -c-. Cnist is *knit the same way French beste stands
> for *bete with no real -s-. etc. Therefore relevant.

But completely wrong, since the word in question isn't
French.

> These are just awkward spellings of *knit with no -h-.

No, they're attempts to represent a sound that wasn't
present in OFr at the time and therefore had no standard
representation. The word being recorded was late OE and
early ME /knixt/; /k/ and /s/ were two of the closer
possible approximations.

Brian