Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: September ::
Re: owe-own-won
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0715, Monday, 25 September 1995.
 
(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:01:12 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
 
(2)     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 22 Sep 1995 23:14:02 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
 
(3)     From:   Steve Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM>
        Date:   Friday, 22 Sep 95 22:15:38 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0711  Re: owe-own
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 22 Sep 1995 17:01:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
 
>I am curious if any fellow Shakespearians know about the interchangeability of
>the word "owe" for "own" in Shakespeare's days---if , for instance, there's any
>IDEOLOGICAL implications  to it---The idea seems attractive, and may point
>towards a different attitude of ownership--that is seen elsewhere in
>Shakespeare's plays---Yet, I have found no studies or articles on this
>yet---and maybe I'm reading too much into it-- Can anybody point me towards
>anything? Thanks, chris stroffolino
 
Chris Stroffolino's suggestion about owe/own sent me to the OED for a few
enjoyable minutes.  As early as 888, Alfred used "owe" to mean "have, possess,
own," and it appears that "owe" originally had the sense of "own, have."  But
OED, s.v. "owe" B.II, discusses the connection between "owe" and "own."
Apparently in O.E. "owe" meant both "to possess" and "to have to pay." But
isn't that life?  You get a little geld, and you immediately have to pay it
out!
 
Yours, Bill Godshalk
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 22 Sep 1995 23:14:02 +0100
Subject: 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0704  Qs:  owe-own
 
>I am curious if any fellow Shakespearians know about the interchangeability of
>the word "owe" for "own" in Shakespeare's days---if , for instance, there's any
>IDEOLOGICAL implications  to it
 
Margreta De Grazia (Shakespeare Verbatim, p9) argues that these being homonyms
was a hangover from the feudal linkage of ownership with an obligation to
distribute: if you 'owned' you 'owed'.
 
Gabriel Egan
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Urkowitz <SURCC@CUNYVM>
Date:           Friday, 22 Sep 95 22:15:38 EDT
Subject: 6.0711  Re: owe-own
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0711  Re: owe-own
 
Stretching the owe-own in perhaps irrelevant directions . . . any thoughts
about the own/one homophony?  "One" I am told did not sound like our "won," but
rather like the first syllable in our "only."  Concordanceless at the moment, I
can't look up any usages that would trammel up the problem.
 
                              As ever
                              Steve Urkownwitz
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.