Date:  Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:39:18 -0800

From:  Dan Moonhawk Alford <dalford[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]S1.CSUHAYWARD.EDU>

Subject: Re: /w/ and /hw/



Speaking of which, where does 'hore-hound (drops)' fit into this, if at all?



On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Dennis R. Preston wrote:



> Rudy,

> Of course you are right. Perhaps some of us slipped into saying 'derived

> from' when we meant 'cognate with.'

> Now we know the source of the 'wh'; a very late analogy, but I'm still not

> sure about the vowel. I take your citation to be of 'hore' with a long

> vowel(?) If so, it should be ModEng [u] as I have heard it in Northern

> American use. Why is the majority usage [o]?

> Dennis

>

> >    If English <whore> derives from Latin <karus>, it must be as a loan-

> >word, much too late for Grimm's Law. So then it should be <*core>, which it

> >ain't. So much for armchair etymologizing. In such questions, my sainted

> >OE professor, Rudolph Willard, used to repair to the OED, which informs us

> >that OE had <hore> (possibly derived from ON), and that the <wh> spelling is

> >a 16-th century refinement (I would guess on the model of <whole>). But any

> >connection with a Latin /k/ would have to be at a pre-Latin level, not a

> >direct borrowing.

> >    --Rudy Troike (back in the fray again!)

>