Origin of silent K in kn words

does anyone know why?

Phonotactic constraints, really. Basically, "kn" was considered to be difficult to pronounce and people being people and wanting to pronounce things more comfortably deemed the "new" pronunciation "n" as being more comfortable. (Others: gn, hn, hl, hr, hw)

I know that in Old English, these clusters were all pronounced, well, "as written", but over the time have changed. I would imagine that, like other phonetic changes, it started from a few people making a mistake in pronunciation and others adopting it for whatever reason (it seemed easier, the person/group making the mistake had prestige, etc.) and it fanned out from there. According to this page (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980514), these were dropped in the 17th century (although this page [http://users.aol.com/rlongman1/GNorigin.html] suggests that hn was dropped even earlier [unsurprising considering modern English orthography]).

The silent 'k' in words like 'knight', 'knock' and 'knob' is a remnant of Old English, and wasn't silent at all but was pronounced along with the 'n'. Nobody really k-nows why or when it became silent but this change is believed to have transpired sometime around the 16th to 17th centuries. For some reason the 'kn' consonant cluster became hard for English speakers to pronounce. Perhaps it's the result of foreign influences; after all, England began colonizing the world at a large scale around this time. This phenomena is just one of those mysteries of English language development -- along with the Great Vowel Shift.

Sorry, Ailian. I didn't refresh. You're theory makes a lot of sense. One only needs to look at the popularity of Estuary English to see how pronunciation patterns change for no apparent reason.

I wouldn't say that Estuary English is a change of English for no reason. From what I've read, it has to do with gaining "street credibility," and the dialect owes much of its influence to the London Jamaican dialect. It also has something to do with less status consciousness and the accepting of some of the traditional patterns of speech that have always existed in East London by the middle class, but not all of those patterns.

''hl'', ''hn'', ''hr'', and ''hw'' have disappeared in spelling but for some reason ''kn'' and ''gn'' have not and remain as fossils from old English. We could get rid of ''kn'' and ''gn'' and replace them simply with ''n'' but then how would we spell ''know''? If we dropped the ''k'' in ''know'' we'd get ''now'' which is already a word which is pronounced differently.

The reason that they have disappeared from spelling is most likely due to the fact that the sounds were gone by the time that spelling of those words previously having those sounds was standardized in Modern English. Personally, I like the current spellings as they let us know which is "know" and which is "now" (and "knot" or "not" and so on).

I've heard somewhere on the web that some Scots pronounce the ''kn'' in words like ''knight'', ''knock'', ''know'', ''knob'', ''knife'' etc. as a voiceless dental nasal different from the ''n'' sound in ''net'' and similarly they pronounce the ''gn'' in ''gnarl'', ''gnome'', ''gnat'' etc. as a voiced dental nasal so, for them the ''k'' and ''g'' in ''kn'' and ''gn'' is not silent but ''kn'' and ''gn'' are diagraphs representing the dental nasals. So, if we got rid of ''gn'' and ''kn'' and replaced them with ''n'' it would work for everyone except for those people that use the dental nasals. For then ''kn'' and ''gn'' are diagraphs representing two phonemes different from [n]. So, is getting rid of ''kn'' and ''gn'' in a spelling reform really such a good idea then?

And similarly I've heard that some Scots pronounce ''wr'' as a rolled ''r'' and ''r'' as a regular ''r'' and pronounce ''wh'' as a voiceless ''w''. So, then, is replacing ''kn'', ''gn'', ''wr'', and ''wh'' with ''n'', ''n'', ''r'', and ''w'' in a spelling reform really such a good idea?

For some Scots ''kn'', ''gn'', ''wr'', and ''wh'' are diagraphs representing distinct sounds different from [n], [r] and [w] and don't contain silent letters.

How would you respell this sentence if you were to respell it in a phonemic spelling reform?

''What my father told the court he had wanted was not to be caught with a court of water in the cot of his daughter all hidden away in the cart of his brother and he knows what he has written on the gnome.''

Nurp, We do not need to keep ''kn'', ''gn'', ''wr'' and ''wh'' just to favor a few Scots that use the dental nasals, a rolled r and a voiceless ''w'' distinct from [n], [r], and [w]. We should have spelling match how the majority speaks ''not the minority'' and so these distinctions can be ignored. We can replace ''kn'', ''gn'', ''wr'' and ''wh'' with simply ''n'', ''n'', ''r'' and ''w''.

Oh, and here's my respelling of your sentence in a phonemic spelling reform.

''Wut mie fothur toeld thu kort hee had wuntid wuz not too bee kot with u kort uv wotur in thu kot uv hiz dotur ol hidun uwae in thu kart uv hiz bruthur and hee noez wut hee haz ritun on thu noem.''

The Germanic languages gave English these "gh", "kn" words where "ch", "k" were once pronounced, and one theory I've heard is that it didn't fit into the Britons (comprising the Celts) scope of pronunciation; either they couldn't adopt it in natural speech or it wasn't aesthetic. I'm not sure of "gn" - I think this is in part a Latin reminance that was generally always pronounced "ny" like in "gnocchi".

Joe, well, some people say that a spelling reform should include all dialects if one happens. Maybe the ''kn'', ''gn'', ''wr'' and ''wh'' should be ignored but my system includes them as they represent distinct phonemes for some Scots.

I've heard there's someone by the name of Jim that's interested in included all dialects in his spelling reform proposal and he includes ''wh''.

Jim, if your trying to include the distinctions made in all dialects in your spelling reform proposal then it should include all the distinctions included in my proposal. For ideas on how to add them to your system you might want to have a look at my proposal on this thread http://p081.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=46.topic .

''What my father told the court he had wanted was not to be caught with a court of water in the cot of his daughter all hidden away in the cart of his brother and he knows what he has written on the gnome.''

Jim, how does this sentence come out in your system. Here's how it comes out in mine,

''Whut mie fahdher dha kohrt hee had wuz not too bee kaut with a kort uv wauter in dha kart uv hiz brudher and hee knohz whut hee haz writynn on dha gnoem''

To see the rules to my system go to this thread http://p081.ezboard.com/feuropa2frm40.showMessage?topicID=45.topic

''ignore'' becomes ''iggnoer'' in my system.

Ackkk! Another thread taken over by the spelling reform agitators!

must...form...a <gasp>...counteroffensive...

''Wut mie fothur toeld thu kort hee had wuntid wuz not too bee kot with u kort uv wotur in thu kot uv hiz dotur ol hidun uwae in thu kart uv hiz bruthur and hee noez wut hee haz ritun on thu noem.''

verses

''Whut mie fahdher dha kohrt hee had wuz not too bee kaut with a kort uv wauter in dha kart uv hiz brudher and hee knohz whut hee haz writynn on dha gnoem''

Which one is better? The first of course. My respelling is better than Nurp's.

''We could get rid of ''kn'' and ''gn'' and replace them simply with ''n'' but then how would we spell ''know''? If we dropped the ''k'' in ''know'' we'd get ''now'' which is already a word which is pronounced differently.''

Simple, respell ''know'' as ''noe'' and then it wouldn't be spelled the same way as ''now'' also similarly you could respell ''knew'' as ''nue'' to go with ''noe''.

Often a thread about some other topic gets side-tracked by spelling reform or some other tangent.

HOW DOES JIM DEAL WITH THESE DISTRACTIONS?

HE IGNORES THEM ... SOMETIMES.

Other times he tends to make some smart aleck comment which he usually tends to regret in time. Other times, when he's being nice, he redirects the tangent to a more approapriate place.

What's he going to do this time?

''What my father told the court he had wanted was not to be caught with a court of water in the cot of his daughter all hidden away in the cart of his brother and he knows what he has written on the gnome.''

It's a "quart of water". How can you have a "court of water"?