punch not < panc

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

>Nicholas Widdows wrote:

>> In summary, it first occurs in English in 1632, and is repeatedly cited,
>> always with <u> and with variable ingredients; the expression <bowl of
>> punch> then turns up in Continental languages as <bolleponge>, <palepuntz>,
>> <bouleponges>, <palepunshen>. Clearly at this date it was pronounced with
>> [u]. No suitable Indian language has [u] in 'five'.

Tom Wier replied:

>If it were [u], why would it have been carried over into (what
>I presume to be) French with what looks like an [O]?  It seems
>[U] would be a better candidate than [u], which French certainly
>has.

The _pan~ca_ in question is a Sanskrit word, where so-called short <a> is
phonetically [^].  (This is a pronunciation of some antiquity.  It is specified
by the very last rule of Pan.ini's grammar, which cryptically states: "a a",
meaning: "Instead of [a], say [^].")  Need I add how the British spell [^]?
The continental vowels would then be fairly standard attempts at what is (for
them) one of the classic unpronounceable English vowels.

I don't know any modern Indic languages (or any great amount of Sanskrit, for
that matter), but I believe that a modern numeral with [^] can readily be found
there.

So if the standard etymology of _punch_ can be attacked, it's not on phonetic
grounds.  Anyone for semantics?

Leo

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis