From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60772
Date: 2008-10-10
----- Original Message -----
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.
>
> Brian
==============
I understood that you were talking about Anglo-French speakers miswriting
Middle English *kni(h)t as <cnict>, <cnist>, <kneit>.
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.
These are just awkward spellings of *knit with no -h-.
Arnaud