----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: snap~patrick
>> The plural of Haggis can't be Haggi. Hagges, maybe, or even Haggeres. But
> to
>> give Haggi as the plural the singular would need to be Haggus. You could
>> anglicise (oops!) it, and make it Haggises.
>
> It was, of course, originally "haggus" (from the medieval Latin
> HAGGUS, -I -- look it up in that nice dictionary your husband bought you,
> Joanna). As the final vowel was pronounced as a scha, in the course of
> time, it came to be orthographed (worse things happen -- think "Menzies"
> pronounced 'mingus') with the "i" token replacing the "u".
>
> However, as the last syllable of the plural *isn't* a scha but a full
> vowel,
> this escaped whipping.
>
> Which is why the legitimate plural of "haggis" is "haggi".
>
> A Mad Provoked Thistle.
>
> (who's off to check out the DOST.)
It isn't *in that nice Medieval Latin dictionary my husband bought me, which
is a shame. Nothing remotely comparable, single or double g, any reasonable
vowel, first letter voiced or unvoiced. I think you're having me on. I bet
the word never had anything to do with Latin. Unless you're prepared to
accept a derivation through classical Latin 'agger', a mound or heap, or the
waste materials forming such a heap?
joanna
|