TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: couth/uncouth From:Karen Kay <karenk -at- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:14:49 -0800
Michael LaTorra said:
> With regard to the topic of backformations, Sally Marquigny wrote:
> >"Couth" is a backformation from "uncouth". The AHD even lists it as a
> >backformation.
> This intrigued me, because I thought that "couth" was an old English
> word. So I went to my copy of Webster's (pub. 1979) and found the
> following:
> couth - a. known [Archaic]
> uncouth - a. [Middle English; Anglo-Saxon] 1. unknown [Obs.].
I'm not sure what the point of this is--it says Archaic, not Old
English, so I would venture to guess that the dictionary writer didn't
have a clue and that there's no evidence for it as an Old English
word. (Otherwise it would say Old English.) They don't list it as a
back-formation, but that's the implication.
