ABSENT 'without'

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/26/04 3:16:26 PM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:

"absent" -- which started out in latinate legalism -- vs. "without"
>
> arnold
>
>
How do we know that ABSENT 'without' startred out in latinate legalism? I
remember publishing a brief article in AMERICAN SPEECH about this in the 1980s,
and I don't recall that the author made that connection (though maybe he did).
Since AS is available (and totally indexed) on JSTOR, I could go look it up,
but I thought since Arnold said it, it must be right--I'd just like to know how
he knows and what his evidence is.