Talk:ooze

Etymology

why is the W missing? maybe this word is actually from old norse? Bgagaga 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The disappearance of the w- can be paralleled with the pronunciation of English who, which still shows orthographically. After the ME ō becomes a ū sound, it absorbs the preceding w- Leasnam (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The two Old English words WASE (mud) and WŌS (sap, juice, et cetera)[3] are not necessarily connected. The Sanskrit form is ultimately akin to the sub root of the former of the two[6]. Perhaps ultimately from Eurasian √ (of water)[4]. Andrew H. Gray 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Andrew (talk)

[0] means 'Absolutely not; [1] means 'Exceedingly unlikely'; [2] means 'Very dubious'; [3] means 'Questionable'; [4] means 'Possible'; [5] means 'Probable'; [6] means 'Likely'; [7] means 'Most Likely' or *Unattested; [8] means 'Attested'; [9] means 'Obvious' - only used for close matches within the same language or dialect, at linkable periods. √ means original or earliest root.