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