> 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
|