From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60778
Date: 2008-10-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
>> 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.
===========
No,
English spelling owes much to French writing.
out with Middle English ou = French ou is an obvious example.
You cannot deny this.
The fact this word is English is irrelevant.
Out never was a French word either until 1960.
Arnaud
========
>
>> 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
========
No, I disagree.
There was no -h-.
The examples you give show attempts at renderings *kni:t (with long i:, I
previously omitted this detail) using the conventions of French writing.
I believe you are erroneously trying to interpret graphic _conventions_ as
real _phonetic_ notations. I think this is completely out of place.
ict, ist and eit are three different attempts at rendering the long vowel i:
in kni:t.
You have not given any dates for these forms.
They must be rather late, because they reflect a rather advanced phonetic
stage for both French and English.
Arnaud
========