One of the numerous things that bedevil English spelling are the many silent letters we have in our words.
I have already addressed a number of them in other posts:
the p in ptarmigan
the h in heir, honest, honour, hour and (for some people) herb
the b in crumb
the b in lamb, comb, and dumb
the (for some people) first r in February
the g in reign
the t in hustle, castle, bustle, bristle
the c in muscle
the (for most people) first d in Wednesday
the l in almond, calm, psalm, and palm
the l in salmon
the p in psalm
the s in island and isle
Clearly, there are so many I can't deal with them all in one post, and there are still more, so we should now consider this a series.
The latest installment is inspired by a kindergarten teacher neighbour of mine who relayed a question from her students (out of the mouths of babes, as they say): Why is there an "l" in "could"?
As irregular verbs go, this one takes the cake. Quick, what's the infinitive of "can"?
"To be able to".
Sheesh. It's from a different language altogether, "able" being a word of French origin, and "can" being Anglo-Saxon.
Of course, in Anglo-Saxon, there was an infinitive, cunnan, whose relationship with "can" was much more obvious. Cunnan, however, meant "to know" (it is the source of our word "cunning"). It was only by the 1300s that its meaning had slid from "to know" through "know how to do something" to "be able to do something".
The past tense of cunnan was cuth, spelled couth by the French scribes who meddled with English spelling after the Norman conquest. You will have guessed that it is the source of our word "uncouth", which slid from "unknown, unfamiliar" to "strange" to "distasteful, unpleasant" to "clumsy, awkward", finally landing in "uncultured" by the 1700s.
"Couth", meanwhile, as the past tense of "can", gradually saw its -th ending replaced in both speech and spelling by a -d, so that by the 1500s it was spelled "coud". Unfortunately for it, this meant that it now rhymed with a couple of other auxiliaries, "should", and "would". These came by the "l" in their spelling honestly, "should" being a form of "shall" and "would" being a form of "will". But by the 1500s their "l" was no longer pronounced.
Instead of doing the sensible thing and dropping the "l" out of "would" and "should", we did the English thing and, by analogy, inserted a perfectly unjustified one into "coud".
Good luck to the kindergarten teacher in explaining this one. No wonder teachers have to resort to "just because" so much!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Katherine Barber
- Canada's Word Lady, Katherine Barber is an expert on the English language and a frequent guest on radio and television. She was Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Her witty and informative talks on the stories behind our words are very popular. Contact her at wordlady.barber@gmail.com to book her for speaking engagements; she can tailor her talks to almost any subject. She is also available as an expert witness for lawsuits.
Best of the series since "tarmigan" ... thanks.
ReplyDeleteLove your writing; just spent at least an hour chuckling and having eureka moments here. I was already fascinated with this subject, but you make it so much fun!
ReplyDelete