02-12-03 20:00, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>> and the
>> > <-mb> of <thumb> (OE þu:ma) is only orthographic, not
> etymological):
Actually, I wrote that.
> Are you sure? The Oxford Etymlogical Dictionary cites plural
> _þumbes_ from the 12th centtury, and singular _þoumbe_ from the 13th
> century.
The /b/ of <mb> was often dropped already in Early Middle English (by
1300) and occasionally as early as (Northern) Late Old English, also
intervocalically. There's plenty of scribal evidence for that, e.g.:
OE camb : ME com (14th c.)
OE dumb : EME domme (13th c.)
OE climban/clomb/clumben : LOE oferclom, EME clim (13th c.)
OE a:cumba : LOE acuma, ME okom(e) 'oakum'
The OE form was invariably <þu:ma> (pl. <þu:man>) < *þu:m-on- ('the
thick one'), and all the Germanic cognates have only final /-m/ plus
weak-noun endings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the early
<mb> forms date back to ca. 1290, i.e. a time when final /-mb/ was
definitely becoming unstable, and are almost certainly reverse spellings
for /m/. I can check the earliest attestation dates in Kurath's ME
dictionary (not that they're gonna make much difference).
Piotr