Mark O:
>I recall from something David Crystal wrote. Essentially, he said no
>completely convincing etymology for 'she' can be presented.
Ah, and this comes back to whether it is more logical to accept
the simplest theory to answer a question, or whether to throw
one's hands up in surrender and accept nothing at all. The latter
isn't striving to answer the question and is therefore illogical.
Clearly, "she" is not a loanword from some extinct language unless
we wish to make one up in our head.
As far as my little brain understands, /heo/ > /sho/ > /she/ makes
a hell of load of sense. The /-eo/ in /heo/ was pronounced [e&],
yes? So, [he&] > [hyo] > [Co] (C = IPA's "c cedille"). Simple
palatalisation.
Eventually, /sho/ becomes the norm. However, by analogy with /he/,
/sho/ is revised to /she/. What on earth is wrong with this view,
I'd like to know?
-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp