March 28, 2016

The Taxing Etymology of Ask

A couple of months back, I learned that task arose as a variant of tax, with the /s/ and /k/ metathesized. This change apparently happened in French before the word was borrowed into English. That is, French had the word taxa, which came from Latin, and then the variant form tasca arose and evolved into a separate word with an independent meaning.

I thought this was an interesting little bit of historical linguistics, and as a side note, I mentioned on Twitter that a similar phonological change gave us the word ask, which was originally ax (or acs or ahs—spelling was not standardized back then). Beowulf and Chaucer both use ax, and we didn’t settle on ask as the standard form until the time of Shakespeare.

But when I said that “it was ‘ax’ before it was ‘ask'”, that didn’t necessarily mean that ax was the original form—history is a little more complicated than that.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that ask originally meant “to call for, call upon (a person or thing personified) to come” and that it comes from the Old English áscian, which comes from the Proto-Germanic *aiskôjan. But most of the earliest recorded instances, like this one from Beowulf, are of the ax form:

syþðan hé for wlenco wéan áhsode

(after he sought misery from pride)

(A note on Old English orthography: spelling was not exactly standardized, but it was still fairly predictable and mostly phonetic, even though it didn’t follow the same conventions we follow today. In Old English, the letter h represented either the sound /h/ at the beginning of words or the sound /x/ [like the final consonant in the Scottish loch] in the middle of or at the end of words. And when followed by s, as in áhsode, it made the k sound, so hs was pronounced like modern-day x, or /ks/. But the /ks/ cluster could also be represented by cs or x. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use ask and ax rather than asc or ahs or whatever other variant spellings have been used over the years.)

We know that ask must have been the original form because that’s what we find in cognate languages like Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old High German. This means that at some point after Old English became differentiated from those other languages (around 500 AD), the /s/ and /k/ metathesized and produced ax.

Almost all of the OED’s citations from Old English (which lasted to about 1100 AD) use the ax form, as in this translation of Mark 12:34 from the West Saxon Gospels: “Hine ne dorste nan mann ahsian” (no man durst ask him). (As a bonus, this sentence also has a great double negative: it literally says “no man durst not ask him”.) Only a few of the citations from the Old English period are of the ask variety. I’ll discuss this variation between ask and ax later on.

The ax forms continued through Middle English (about 1100 to 1475 AD) and into Early Modern English. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (about 1386 AD) has ax: “I axe, why the fyfte man Was nought housbond to the Samaritan?” In Middle English, ask starts to become a little more common in written work, and we also occasionally see ash, though this form peters out by about 1500. (Again, I’ll discuss this variant more below.)

William Tyndale’s Bible, which was the first Early Modern English translation of the Bible, has ax: Matthew 7:7 reads, “Axe and it shalbe geven you.” The Coverdale Bible, published in 1535 and based on Tyndale’s work, also has ax, but the King James Bible, published in 1611, has the now-standard ask. So do Shakespeare’s plays (dating from the late 1500s to the early 1600s). After about 1600, ax forms become scarce, though one citation from 1803 records axe as a dialectal form used in London. And it’s in nonstandard dialects where ax survives today, especially in Southern US English and African American English. (I assume it also survives in other places besides the US, but I don’t know enough about its use or distribution in other countries.)

In a nutshell, ax arose as a metathesized form of ask at some point in the Old English period, and it was the dominant form in written Old English and an acceptable variant down to the 1500s, when it started to be supplanted by the resurgent ask. And at some point, ash also appeared, though it quietly disappeared a few centuries later. So why did ask disappear for so long? And why did it come back?

The simple answer to the first question is that the word metathesized in the dominant dialect of Old English, which was West Saxon. (Modern Standard English descends not from West Saxon but from the dialect around London.) These sorts of changes just happen sometimes. In West Saxon, /sk/ often became /ks/ in the middle or at the end of a word. Sound changes are usually regular—that is, they affect all words with a particular sound or set of sounds—but this particular change apparently wasn’t; metathesized and unmetathesized forms continued to exist side by side, and sometimes there’s variation even within a manuscript. King Alfred the Great’s translation of Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, switches freely between the two: “Þæt is þæt ic þé ær ymb acsade. . . . Swa is ðisse spræce ðe ðu me æfter ascast.” This is pretty weird. When a change is beginning to happen, there may be some variation among words or among speakers, but variation between different forms of a word used by the same speaker is highly unusual.

As for the second question, it’s not entirely clear how or why ask came back. At first glance, it would seem that ask must have survived in other dialects and started to crop back up in written works during the Middle English Period. Or perhaps ax simply remetathesized and became ask again. But it can’t be quite that simple, because /sk/ regularly palatalized to /ʃ/ (the “sh” sound) during the Old English period. You can see the effects of this change in cognate pairs like shirt (from Old English) and skirt (from Old Norse) or ship (from Old English) and skipper (from Middle Dutch).

It’s not entirely clear when this palatalization of /sk/ to /ʃ/ happened, but it must have been sometime after the Angles and Saxons left mainland Europe (starting in the 400s or 500s) but before the Viking invasions beginning in the 800s, because Old Norse words borrowed into English retain /sk/ where English words did not. If palatalization had occurred after the influx of words from Old Norse, we’d say shy and shill instead of sky and skill.

One thing that makes it hard to pin down the date of this change is that /sk/ was originally spelled sc, and the sc spelling continued to be used even after palatalization must have happened. That means that words like ship and fish were spelled like scip and fisc. Thus a form with sc is ambiguous—we don’t know for certain if it was pronounced /sk/ or /ʃ/, though we can infer from other evidence that by the time most Old English documents were being created, sc represented /ʃ/. (Interestingly, this means that in the quote from Alfred the Great, the two forms would have been pronounced ax-ade and ash-ast.) It wasn’t until Middle English that scribes began using spellings like sch, ssh, or sh to distinguish /ʃ/ from the /sk/ combination.

If ask had simply survived in some dialect of Old English without metathesizing, it should have undergone palatalization and resulted in the modern-day form ash. As I said above, we do occasionally see ash in Middle English, which means that this did happen in some dialects of Old English. But this was never even the dominant form—it just pops up every now and then in the South West and West Midlands regions of England from the 1200s down to about 1500, when it finally dies out.

One other option is that the original ask metathesized to ax, missed out on palatalization, and then somehow metathesized back to ask. There may be some evidence for this option, because some other words seem to have followed the same route. For instance, words like flask and tusk appear in Old English as both flasce/flaxe and tusc/tux. But flask didn’t survive Old English—the original word was lost, and it was reborrowed from Romance languages in the 1500s—so we don’t know for sure if it was pronounced with /sk/ or /ʃ/ or both. Tusk appears in some dialects as tush, so we have the same three-way /sk/–/ks/–/ʃ/ alternation as ask.

But while ash meaning the powdery residue shows the same three-way variation, ash meaning the kind of tree does not—it’s always /ʃ/. Ask, ash, and ash all would have had /sk/ in the early stages of Old English, so why did one of them simply palatalize while the other two showed a three-way variation before settling on different forms? If it was a case of remetathesis that turned /ks/ back into /sk/, then why weren’t other words that originally ended in /ks/ affected by this second round of metathesis? And if /ks/ had turned back into /sk/ at some point, then why didn’t ax ‘a tool for chopping’ thus become ask? Honestly, I have no idea.

If those changes happened in that order, then we should expect to see /ask/ for the questioning word, the tree, and the tool. But there’s no way to reorder these rules to get the proper outputs for all three. Putting palatalization before metathesis gets us the proper output for the tree but also gives us ash for the questioning word, and putting a second round of metathesis at the end gets us the proper output for the questioning word but gives us ask for the chopping tool. And any way you rearrange them, you should never see multiple outputs for the same word, all apparently the products of different rules or at least different rule ordering, used in the same dialects or even by the same speakers.

So how do we explain this?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe the sound changes happened in different orders in different parts of England, and those different dialects then borrowed forms from each other. Maybe some forms were borrowed from or influenced by the Vikings. Maybe there were several other intermediate rules that I’m missing, and those rules interacted in some strange ways. At any rate, the pronunciation ax for ask had a long and noble tradition before falling by the wayside as a dialectal form about four hundred years ago. But who knows—there’s always a chance it could become standard again in the future.

Sources

Hayes, Bruce, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, eds., Phonetically Based Phonology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 138–139.
Lass, Roger, Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 58–59.
Ringe, Don, and Ann Taylor, The Development of Old English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 203–207.

SHARE:
Historical linguistics, Phonology 12 Replies to “The Taxing Etymology of Ask
Jonathon Owen
Jonathon Owen

COMMENTS

12 thoughts on “The Taxing Etymology of <i>Ask</i>

    Author’s gravatar

    This is seriously interesting to me, with your quote:
    “And it’s in nonstandard dialects where ax survives today, especially in Southern US English and African American English. (I assume it also survives in other places besides the US, but I don’t know enough about its use or distribution in other countries.)”
    “Ax”, which I would render as “aks” or perhaps “ahks” is very common in Aboriginal English in northern Australia. While working with an Aboriginal politician, I had a journalist castigate me for not “training” my minister to pronounce the word “ask” correctly. Apart from being cross with her, I had no answer. Just wish I had this blog to supply her! I will now track her down and send this blog to her!! Thanks a lot.

    Mind you, my autocorrect rendered my two citations above as “ask” each time!!

      Author’s gravatar

      I’m glad you enjoyed it, and it’s interesting to hear that “aks” appears as a nonstandard form in Australia too. Thanks for sharing!

    Author’s gravatar

    Seriously, why does anyone submit to the ignorant tyranny of autocorrect? (My apologies for the tangent).

    I think you’ve covered most of the reasonable conjectures yourself, Jonathon. No doubt a historical phonology expert will offer explicit answers. All the languages with a fairly long written history that I’ve worked with show similar evolution – dialect mixing and leveling, certain forms gaining standard status or losing it, common people aping the speech particularities of those they feel are their betters, etc….

    Thanks for a fascinating topic.

      Author’s gravatar

      Thanks, Kim. Like you said, it would probably take someone with a lot more expertise in historical English phonology to figure out what’s going on. I’m a little surprised that I couldn’t find anything that really explained it, though. But it probably does involve a lot of dialect mixing and leveling.

    Author’s gravatar

    And when followed by s, as in áhsode, it made the k sound, so hs was pronounced like modern-day x, or /ks/.

    I strongly doubt that. To this day, in Icelandic, even x is pronounced [xs]; and while chs has become [ks] in mainstream German, it’s reportedly still [χs] in Switzerland.

    Do the Old English hs and cs spellings have a recognizable distribution in time or space? Perhaps we’re looking at a sound change in progress.

      Author’s gravatar

      Grimm’s law would have yielded /xs/ from PIE /ks/, but this chart on Wikipedia shows that /xs/ then changed back to /ks/ sometime between West Germanic and Late Old English. I’m not sure what the evidence is for that change happening at that particular time.

      And as far as I can tell, there’s no distribution between hs, cs, or x spellings. They all appear to be used indiscriminately, sometimes within the same text.

    Author’s gravatar

    Ax for ask is commonly heard across England, though considered to be uneducted.
    Maybe the different evolution of ask ash and axe was influenced by ask being a verb, and taking different inflexionall endings?

      Author’s gravatar

      I suppose it’s possible, but as far as I know, the change from /sk/ > /ʃ/ happened everywhere. I don’t know if a different inflectional ending would have changed that.

    Author’s gravatar

    Jon, you say “variation between different forms of a word used by the same speaker is highly unusual”, but this is manifestly not true. Such variation is extremely common as variationist linguists have been showing for over 60 years. Some of your sources know this (Ringe & Taylor – Ann Taylor studied in my year at Penn, under Labov – probably Lass), others may still think in terms of outmoded categorical linguistics. You’re probably right in modern times that one author is unlikely to use two spellings with different pronunciations except for deliberate effect (though as someone born in NYC, raised in Jamaica, and living for decades now in the UK I often confuse US and UK spellings) – since we are all taught in school to monitor our writing and eliminate variation (“errors”), but there is no reason to think that pre-standardisation and before universal education, writers thought that way – certainly not in Alfred the Great’s time. I think AKS survives more widely than you suggest but we only hear of it in stigmatized dialects, as a badge of ignorance and incorrectness brandished at Caribbean, African American and other groups.

      Author’s gravatar

      This is a very good point, and thank you for making it.

    Author’s gravatar

    I’m from Cradley in the Black Country in the West midlands of England. Here we have a dialect which is said to retain features of Mercian OE.

    I’ve heard older speakers use Axen in the sense of ‘to ask’ at the end of a sentence usually. Or otherwise just Ax for ask and Axed for asked. This has for the most part died out but some still pronounce it in this way. Younger generations don’t obviously due to modern schooling standards and the death of heavy local industry which i presume allowed this way of speaking to survive through the last couple of hundred years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.