# English poorly - Scottish pawly - French peu?



## Riveralex

The word "poorly" in vernacular English seems related to the word "pauly" or "pawly" in Scots, both of which refer to livestock/people who are not thriving, unhealthy; or to runts (i.e. the smallest of the litter.)

What chance that these are related to the French/ OF "peu" meaning "foot" or "a little"? Under the Normans such livestock as lambs were identified as "beasts of the foot".

Can anyone help with this?

Thanks
Alex Brunel


----------



## breagadoir

no, but it's very interesting. _Bêtes de somme_ comes to mind, no connection though.


----------



## Riveralex

I've just found out that  "beast of the foot" would only be a horse, hound or hawk - anything whre damag to the foot counted as damage to its life. But does this get us any further? Probably not...


----------



## Outsider

I've never heard of _peu_ meaning "foot". The modern French word for foot is _pied_, as far as I know, although this is not to say that _peu_ can't be an Old French word.

Notice however that French _peu_ in the sense of "a little" is an adverb, whereas English "poor" is an adjective. Seeing as they're different parts of speech, it's unlikely that one originates in the other.


----------



## Riveralex

"Peu" exists today in Catalan, the modern French word is irrelevant as Scots and Middle English split off about the same time OF was morphing, didn't they?

I take your point about the part of speech. Yet the words "poorly" and "pauly" are adverbial _forms_ at least and have specific meanings to do with illness and lameness. They're such oddities ( in English esp) in form that I just wonder if they do derive from "poor" or whether they come from another direction. The Latin "pauper" only accounts for the sense of poverty, not the illness bit.


----------



## Outsider

Riveralex said:


> Yet the words "poorly" and "pauly" are adverbial _forms_ at least and have specific meanings to do with illness and lameness. They're such oddities ( in English esp) in form that I just wonder if they do derive from "poor" or whether they come from another direction.


Why do you think those words are oddities, and what makes you think "poor" might have derived from "poorly" instead of the other way around?


----------



## Riveralex

In Englilsh, the word "poorly" is an orphan form - there aren't many words like it that are "adverbialisd" (if that's a word!!) in the same way. "He feels poorly" means "he feels unwell" and it's quite a stretch to associate it with the meanings of the adjective "poor", which is clearly derived from the Latin "pauper" or Fr povre and refers to poverty and/or poverty of skill, workmanship etc - it carries  a sense of lack. Plus, it's a frowned-upon usage - it's considered vulgar.... "nice people don't say it."

In Scots, the word "paulie" or "pawley"  is similar - it carries a clear implication of bad health, smallness and, most interestingly to me, specifically _lameness _- so while it _sounds_ like it derives from "poor" I'm not so sure it does, as there are other roots, like the link with "peu" and the English word "paw" - both of which make some sense in relation to the meaning and the way it's used.

I'm hoping somebody will know something about archaic literary uses of these words? I was working on a Scots piece today, that's why it caught my attention.


----------



## Imber Ranae

I don't know anything about Scots so I can't answer your question about "pawley" or whatever, but I'm not certain what you think is so unique about the English adverb "poorly". If you look at the definition of the adjective from which it is formed, it has many meanings which lend themselves easily to an adverbial _-ly_ form, such as _faulty, inferior, scanty, meager, unfortunate, etc._ It's more basic meaning of _destitute_ or _impoverished_, on the other hand, cannot really be adverbialized in the same way.


----------



## CapnPrep

As far as I know, _peu_ did not mean "foot" in Old French before it morphed [???], or afterwards, for that matter. I don't see how the modern Catalan word could possibly be relevant.

There was an OFr word _poe_ (the ancestor of English _paw_), but then you lose the meaning "little".

For me, all of this is "quite a stretch" and I see no supporting evidence for anything other than "poorly" = "poor + ly" (with a meaning shift that I don't find the least bit surprising). Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.


----------



## Riveralex

I take both of these points. 

Still the word "poorly" bothers me... it doesn't follow the normal rules of formation in English - what other adverbs have oo's in their _stem_ - and its meaning is so specific that it's suspicious. If it were just the meaning alone that was off, I wouldn't think twice about it, but it isn't - it's the form, AND the meaning shift AND also the cultural prohibition that aroused my curiosity.

I thought that Catalan might be relevant, because it has so many archaic survivals.

 The OFr "poe" makes more sense as the ancestor of "'pawley" and perhaps for "poorly", too. The connection with 'peu' in French may be a bridge too far, however.

Thanks for all your input, this has been a really interesting learning for me.


----------



## Hulalessar

Riveralex said:


> Still the word "poorly" bothers me... it doesn't follow the normal rules of formation in English.



The suffix -_ly_ is not just used to form adverbs, it is also used to form adjectives viz: kingly, nightly etc. The two forms have different etymologies. the adjectival from OE _lic_ and the adverbial from OE _lice_.The question is why an adjective forming suffix is added to what is already an adjective. The only other example that comes immediately to mind is_ sickly_.


----------



## Riveralex

That's a most interesting thought! 

What it brings to mind are other words in English that, unlike "kingly" and "knightly" - which have obvious Germanic roots -  those which have a double vowel before "ly", such as "goodly" and "woodly".

Both of these also are mainly obsolete, pre-date Chaucer in usage, and are also perhaps linked to Southern Europe (here I go, off on the Catalan again) via the links between the Norman conquest and the linguistic and cultural movements between Languedoc/Aquitaine and Britain after the Norman conquest.

Do you think that there might be a difference in the root between these words and the other "ly" words that are clearly Germanic in origin? When I've traced them they seem to link them straight back to PIE or IE. 

And (subject change I guess) was there ever a word "foodly" until recently?


----------



## Bruidhe

According to the OED, it came out of "to look poorly"_. 

_The interesting thing to me is a historic Lowland Scots or Scottish English form losing an "r" ... that's what English English tends to do. It's almost diagnostic for the modern Scots accent actually ... a Scotsman saying "Pawly" will just sound like an Englishman saying "poorly".


----------



## Riveralex

That's an interesting wrinkle, re the "r", and is how I originally imagined it would sound -  it's such an interesting word. But the OED information still doesn't account for some of its characteristics, although we all tend to defer to it!!! Best A


----------



## tandemonimom

This is purely a guess based on sound-alike and slightly similar meaning, but could poorly/pawly be related to pule and puling? (The origin is unknown, possibly imitative.) The original meaning of puling is whining or whimpering, which one does when one feels sickly, so if one were "feeling puley" that could lead to "feeling pawly/poorly" over time. It could have acquired the "r" through misassociation with "poor" since both have a meaning of deficiency.


----------

