FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   >>  
e joke to be in the best of taste. Of course all educated people know that it was once not unusual to speak of a man of medicine as a 'leech'; but probably there are many who imagine that this designation was a disparaging allusion to the man's tool of trade, and that it could be applied only to inferior members of the profession. The ancient appellation of the healer is so far obsolete that if I were to answer a question as to a man's profession with the words 'Oh, he is a leech', there would be some risk of being misunderstood to mean that he was a money-lender. Etymologists generally have regarded the name of the bloodsucking animal as the same word with _leech_ a physician, the assumption being that the animal received its name from its use as a remedial agent. But the early forms, both in English and Low German, show that the words are originally unconnected. The English for _medicus_ was in the tenth century _l['[ae]]ce_ or _l['e]ce_, and in the thirteenth century _leche_; the word for _sanguisuga_ was in the tenth century _lyce_, and in the thirteenth century _liche_. According to phonetic law the latter word should have become _litch_ in modern English; but it very early underwent a punning alteration which made it homophonous with the ancient word for physician. The unfortunate consequence is that the English language has hopelessly lost a valuable word, for which it has never been able to find a satisfactory substitute. H.B. DIFFERENTIATION OF HOMOPHONES On this very difficult question the attitude of a careful English speaker is shown in the following extract from a letter addressed to us: METAL, METTLE: AND PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPLE 'I find that I do not _naturally_ distinguish _metal_ and _mettle_ in pronunciation, tho' when there is any danger of ambiguity I say _metal_ for the former and _met'l_ for the latter; and I should probably do so (without thinking about it) in a public speech. In my young days the people about me usually pronounced _met'l_ for both. Theoretically I think the distinction is a desirable one to make; the fact that the words are etymologically identical seems to me irrelevant. The words are distinctly two in modern use: when we talk of _mettle_ (meaning spiritedness) there is in our mind no thought whatever of the etymological sense of the word, and the recollection of it, if it occurred, would only be disturbing. So I intend in future to pronounce metal as _met[e]l_
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   >>  



Top keywords:
English
 
century
 
mettle
 

animal

 

question

 
physician
 
modern
 

thirteenth

 

profession

 

ancient


people

 
thinking
 

pronunciation

 

distinguish

 
naturally
 

ambiguity

 

danger

 

PRINCIPAL

 

careful

 

speaker


attitude

 

difficult

 

HOMOPHONES

 

extract

 

public

 
PRINCIPLE
 
METTLE
 

letter

 
addressed
 

educated


thought

 

spiritedness

 

meaning

 

etymological

 

intend

 
future
 

pronounce

 

disturbing

 

recollection

 

occurred


distinctly

 

pronounced

 
Theoretically
 

DIFFERENTIATION

 

distinction

 
identical
 
irrelevant
 

etymologically

 

desirable

 
speech