# Etymology of 'force'



## Dolamolu

Perhaps some of you who know a little about Middle English can help me.  I'm wondering about some words like 'force' and 'port' that are spelled  with 'or' but are (or were) pronounced /or/ instead of /Or/. How did  these words get this vowel, and why aren't they spelled with 'ou' or one  of the normal spellings for /or/? Here are some other words like this: 

pork 
fort 
Portugal 
sport


----------



## francisgranada

I haven't understood very well you question about the spelling with "or", but etymologically all your examples (including _force_) are of Romance (French, Latin) origin.


----------



## CapnPrep

Wikipedia has some information about the spelling of words in the NORTH vs. FORCE word classes: Horse-hoarse merger. 

The words that you are interested are simply listed as exceptions, but in many cases the spelling may just be preserved from Old French, as francisgranada suggested.


----------



## bibax

In Europe we learn mostly the Received Pronunciation which is non-rhotic and doesn't make difference between horse and hoarse, both words are pronounced /hO:s/.

I wonder if the Chinese learners of English distinguish the 'horse/hoarse' pair in pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Dolamolu said:


> Perhaps some of you who know a little about Middle English can help me. I'm wondering about some words like 'force' and 'port' that are spelled with 'or' but are (or were) pronounced /or/ instead of /Or/. How did these words get this vowel, and why aren't they spelled with 'ou' or one of the normal spellings for /or/? Here are some other words like this:
> 
> pork
> fort
> Portugal
> sport


The opposition is not /oɹ/ vs. /ɔɹ/ but /ɔ:ɹ/* vs. /ɔɹ/.

The question is: Why did the long vowel /o:/ survive and didn't shift to /u:/ as most other Middle English /o:/s as in "moon" /mo:n/>/mu:n/ (predominant Middle English spelling was "mone") which shifted some time during the 15th century. My suspicion is that the following "r" prevented this but I have no proof and there or counter examples, like "moor" which shifted towards /u:/ though it never arrived there completely and though some speakers do say /mɔ:ɹ/). I don't know how to explain that. Sometimes, different regional variants became standard for different words. This might have played a role.



francisgranada said:


> I haven't understood very well you question about the spelling with "or", but etymologically all your examples (including _force_) are of Romance (French, Latin) origin.


An example of Old English origin is "more".
______________________
* Or variants /oʊɹ/ or /oɘɹ/


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> The opposition is not /oɹ/ vs. /ɔɹ/ but /ɔ:ɹ/* vs. /ɔɹ/.


Both are correct: I assume Dolamolu was referring to ModE (in non-merger dialects), and you are referring to MidE (pre-GVS).



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> The question is: Why did the long vowel /o:/ survive and didn't shift to /u:/ as most other Middle English /o:/s as in "moon" /mo:n/>/mu:n/


 As you just said, the vowel was /ɔ:/, not /o:/. In the GVS, /ɔ:/ raised to /o:/ (> /oʊ/, e.g. _home_, _boat_).


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> As you just said, the vowel was /ɔ:/, not /o:/. In the GVS, /ɔ:/ raised to /o:/ (> /oʊ/, e.g. _home_, _boat_).


Sorry for the sloppy way of explanation. The modern English "long o" is /ɔ:/ while the Middle English "long o" was /o:/. So I treated the shift /o:/>/ɔ:/ as "remaining a long 'o'".

But you are right /ɔ:/ existed in ME too. I should have said:
_Why did the long vowel /o:/ shift to /ɔ:/ and not to /u:/..._


----------



## Dan2

bibax said:


> In Europe we learn mostly the Received Pronunciation which is non-rhotic *and *doesn't make difference between horse and hoarse, both words are pronounced /hO:s/.


That's correct, as long as you mean "and also" rather than "and therefore".

Whether the "horse" and "hoarse" vowels are distinct in a given dialect, and whether a given dialect is rhotic, are independent questions:

Rhotic, "horse" and "hoarse" distinct: some Southern US dialects (also dialects in Scotland, etc.)
Rhotic, "horse" and "hoarse" merged: the most common US dialects
Non-rhotic, "horse" and "hoarse" distinct: Eastern New England (including traditional Boston dialect)
Non-rhotic, "horse" and "hoarse" merged: Standard British English.

(Note that Standard British English, so widely viewed as "most correct", is the historically _least_ conservative dialect in these two respects...)


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> ...The question is: Why did the long vowel /o:/ survive and didn't shift to /u:/ as most other Middle English /o:/s as in "moon" /mo:n/>/mu:n/ (predominant Middle English spelling was "mone") which shifted some time during the 15th century.


Thanks, now I understand. 


> My suspicion is that the following "r" prevented this but I have no proof....


 
Yes, or the following "*r*" influenced the pronounciation later on. 

See for example the following words: _four, for, fore, floor, war_. Theese words are not examples for the "vowel shift" discussed here, of course, but they may demonstrate the evident influence of the "_*r*_" on the preceding vowel in a (stressed) syllable. I suppose that the different spelling suggests, that the pronounciation in the past was (at least partially) different, while today they sound equally, or almost equally. 

How was the *r* articulated in the Middle English?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I should have said:
> _Why did the long vowel /o:/ shift to /ɔ:/ and not to /u:/..._


That would indeed have been unexpected. But that's not what happened.  However, your point about the lowering effect of coda /R/ is valid. 



francisgranada said:


> See for example the following words: _four, for, fore, floor, war_. Theese words are not examples for the "vowel shift" discussed here, of course,


Yes, they are, of course! _For _and_ war_ are in the NORTH class (along with _horse_), while _four_, _fore_, and _floor_ are in the FORCE class (along with _hoarse_).


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> ... Yes, they are, of course! _For _and_ war_ are in the NORTH class (along with _horse_), while _four_, _fore_, and _floor_ are in the FORCE class (along with _hoarse_).


So my intuition is not so bad... (I only wanted to say that I have not analysed theese words from this point of view... )

How was the *r* articulated in the Middle English? I don't want a detailed explanation here, I only would like to understand whether the "effect of coda /R/" was present already in the 15th century or it's a more recent phenomenon.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> But that's not what happened.


What didn't happen? Do you doubt that /o:/ shifted to /u:/ in other contexts?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> What didn't happen? Do you doubt that /o:/ shifted to /u:/ in other contexts?


Of course not. That is the Great Vowel Shift. What I don't understand is where you think there was a shift *from /o:/ to /ɔ:/*. The words involved in the _horse_/_hoarse_ merger had either long open /ɔ:/ (_hoarse_) or short open /ɔ/ (_horse_) in MidE. Where do you see any long closed /o:/?


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> Of course not. That is the Great Vowel Shift. What I don't understand is where you think there was a shift *from /o:/ to /ɔ:/*. The words involved in the _horse_/_hoarse_ merger had either long open /ɔ:/ (_hoarse_) or short open /ɔ/ (_horse_) in MidE. Where do you see any long closed /o:/?


I see what you mean. I didn't respond to your examples but to those of the OP. I thought he was interested in MidE /o:/s. I did't think the horse/hoarse merger is too relevant to the original question. But maybe I misunderstood the question. In the end it doesn't matter as both MidE /o:R/ and /O:R/ result in ModE /O:R/.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I didn't respond to your  examples but to those of the OP. His examples [_force_, _fork_, _fort_, _port_, etc.] were ME /o:/s.


How do you know that? It seems more like to me that they were originally pronounced with short /ɔ/, and later moved into the /ɔ:/ class. The OP was apparently asking about this change. Some authors suggest that it was triggered by the labial onset, but there are many exceptions.

You are right that as a modern development, the _hoarse_/_horse_ merger is not directly relevant to this issue, but it seems correct to assume that all of the words in the _hoarse_ class (including the OP's examples) have shared a common evolution since before the GVS. 



francisgranada said:


> How was the *r* articulated in the Middle English?


As far as I know the question is not conclusively settled. Some people think it was still an alveolar trill, some people think it was already an approximant, or something else. There was no doubt a lot of regional phonetic variation, maybe not as much as there is today, but enough to cause this sort of uncertainty.


----------



## berndf

Sorry, I didn't see your post when I edited my previous one. Are we in agreement now?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Sorry, I didn't see your post when I edited my previous one. Are we in agreement now?


I'm afraid not.



berndf said:


> In the end it doesn't matter as both MidE /o:R/ and /O:R/ result in ModE /O:R/.


This is incorrect, or it is only correct for dialects that have the _pour_-_poor_ merger, and that is a modern development. The OP was asking about MidE, so the ModE result doesn't matter.

MidE /o:r/ became EModE /u:r/: _boor_, _moor_, _poor_. This is the regular outcome of the GVS, just like in your example _moon_. 

You wanted to know why the OP's examples _force_, _port_, etc. did not also end up with /u:/ after the GVS. The answer is: because they did not start out with /o:/. They must have been pronounced instead with /ɔ:/ in MidE, to result in EModE /o:/.


----------



## berndf

You convinced me.


----------



## mataripis

i agree that the word "force" is related to the word "Port" force is the strenght while port is stationary in position and could mean also the strenght of the principality or kingdom.Force is fluid or energy in sound(intangible) while Port is firm and solid!


----------



## berndf

mataripis said:


> i agree that the word "force" is related to the word "Port" force is the strenght while port is stationary in position and could mean also the strenght of the principality or kingdom.Force is fluid or energy in sound(intangible) while Port is firm and solid!


Well, we did not really discuss evolution meaning in this thread but phonetic development. The only things _force_ and _port_ have in common are the "o" and the "r".


----------



## francisgranada

mataripis said:


> ... the word "force" is related to the word "Port" force is the strenght while port is stationary in position and could mean also the strenght of the principality or kingdom ....


 
_Force_ in English is from the old French "force", which comes from the Latin _"_fortia_"_ from "fortis" (strong). The root *for* in _fortis_ corresponds to the IE **dher* (attested also in other Latin words e.g. _*fir*mus_).

(_Port_ has nothing to do with _force_, as it comes from the Latin "portus", thus from the IE *_*prtu-*_)


----------

