05-09-03 12:37, Ray wrote:
> I have one question. I read a book by Larry Trask, which says
> that 'hussy' was the result of 'huswif' undergoing phonological
> reduction. Then 'hussy' underwent analogy, and then the modern
> form 'housewife' occurred.
>
> It seems to imply that 'hussy' replaced 'huswif'! That means the 2
> words were not coeval???
There was no replacement. <housewife> (formerly /"hVzwaIf/ even in
"cultivated" pronunciation, or /"hVzIf/ with the reduction of the second
element) _coexisted_ with <huzzy>/<hussy>, which was a colloquial or
regional form, hence its frequent semantic pejoration ('minx, worthless
woman'). Then, the spelling-pronunciation /"haUs'waIf/ was restored for
the etymological meaning of the word, while traditional /"hVzif/
continued to be used in certain secondary senses, especially that of
'needle-case' (short for <housewife-case>).
The replacement of a traditional pronunciation by one based on spelling
(restoring the etymological transparency of a compound) is a frequent
phenomenon in English:
/"wesk&t/ --> /"weIst'koUt/
/"fOrId/ --> /"fo:(r)'hed/
It is also common for full and reduced forms of the same word to
function independently:
Master ~ Mr.
Mistress ~ Mrs.
sire ~ Sir
one ~ a/an
Piotr