Er .... ahem .... don't go blaming Mark, Candice, the poor man knows nothing
about it. This is down to a long-running bc silly between me, Roger C, the
Rodent, and Judy, plus one or two others who occasionally feel like joining
in.
I've been known as Rabbit on and off for many years, and it's now developed
to Bunnitt, usually with a double tt on the grounds that rabbitts can't
spell. (I did tell you it was silly!) I suspect that it got into the header
of this thread accidentally, when the Rodent responded to a post of mine.
The interesting thing is, the conversation's been running under that head
for a while now, and Candice seems to be the first person to have noticed --
I didn't myself, to start with, and then it seemed wiser to let it die the
death, rather then start (oh dear!) any more hares.
Oh my ears and whiskers, don't tell Vile Boris!
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "MC Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Dust Bunnits
Hi Mark, what's with "Bunnits," as opposed to
"Bunnies, " the form I grew up with?
Thanks--Candice
--- Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Neither contact nor cognate forms, but a common
> ancestry.
>
>
> At 01:00 AM 9/1/2007, you wrote:
> >>Yup, the pejorative came first, before even the
> >>gender applied to, but when I look at the
> >>Germanic cognates
>
>>(http://books.google.com/books?id=Lx8B2tyuy1MC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=slut+etymology&source=web&ots=c_Y7kYOIv4&sig=dModOQmfb78SJs4rAOMa9GFMQgw)
>
> >>the sexual imputation appears in some languages
> >>but not in others. Meanings in the various
> >>languages: Icelandic, a heavy, loglike fellow;
> >>Swedish dialect, a slut, an idler; Norwegian,
> >>idler; Danish, slut; verb forms, Icel;andic and
> >>Norwegian to droop, allied to Danish loose,
> >>flabby. From slot-, stem of past participle of
> >>Norwegian sletta, to dangle, drift, idle about.
> >>Further allied to Dutch slodde, a slut, and the
> >>verb to slide.Cf. Irish slaodaire, a lazy person,
> from slaod, to slide.
> >
> >Um. Post-Skeat, we have Onions in the Oxford
> >Dictionary of English Etymology saying "contact
> >with Continental words similarly used and having
> >the same cons[onantal] framework SL..T, cannot
> >be proved" and the OED: " Forms having some
> >resemblance in sound and sense also occur in the
> >Scand. languages, as Da. slatte (? from LG.),
> >Norw. slott, Sw. dial. slåta, but connexion is very
> doubtful.]"
> >
> >-- which would suggest parallel or convergent
> >evolution rather than cognate forms, if that's
> >what you're suggesting above. Assuming the word
> >doesn't come into use much before it's first
> >recorded, the end of the 14thC is a bit late for
> >an unidentified borrowing from another
> >continental language. By then, when words are
> >borrowed [I think], they tend initially to look
> >very much like their form in the language they
> >are borrowed from. (Which contention would be a
> >bit stronger if I could think of an example.)
> >
> >I'm drawn towards the idea that "slut" comes in
> >because there's a strong phonaesthetic framework
> >around the general semantic area of glub and
> >grot, similar words just begging to be added
> >to. I haven't checked the date origins of the
> following, but consider:
> >
> > slut / slattern / sloven
> >
> > slug / (slow) / sloth
> >
> > sot
> >
> > slubber / slobber
> >
> >-- given that weight of phonaesthetic
> >negativity, sluts virtually have to be sluttish,
> nah?
> >
> >>I'm assuming that the various idle, slovenly
> >>meanings are earlier, and that by a process of
> >>convergence the sexual and the social accreted to
> the word.
> >
> >I'm inclined to agree, but the 50 year range in
> >the OED is a narrow one, within the margin of
> >error of when the word appears vs. when it's
> >first recorded in print. Also, I simply picked
> >up the definitions the OED gives without
> >checking them against the citations themselves
> >-- too much trouble at this time of night --
> >which is sloppy of me, given past
> >experience. But LEME did seem to concur --
> >Florio is more colourful (as ever) in his range
> >of synonyms for the word, but he's not untypical
> >of all the writers who "define" it between
> 1550-1700.
> >
> >>Seems to me too reasonable to be a
> >>frseh-hatched folk etymology of my own, but I'm
> >>aware that the best available is far short of
> proof.
> >
> >Yup.
> >
> >Back to the Spital House. I'm beginning to get
> >to *like that bloody poem, which is worrying.
> >
> >Ulp ...
> >
> >Robin
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
|