Return to Answer

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. In such a case, I will delete this post and award the bonus to the alternative negative, if it wins.
• This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis, that can be used to disagree with Mitch without voting him down.

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. In such a case, I will delete this post and award the bonus to the alternative negative, if it beats the best positive answer.
• This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis, that can be used to disagree with Mitch without voting him down.
• In other words, I think Joyce might easily have made the pun, but I need you to say it. That he did, of course, only Literature can decide.

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis, that can be used to disagree with Mitch without voting him down.

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. In such a case, I will delete this post and award the bonus to the alternative negative, if it wins.
• This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis, that can be used to disagree with Mitch without voting him down.

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis.

The Null Hypothesis: Nowhere!

Certainly non-rhoticity, both of Joyce's Dublin English and the English of his typically readers, allowed Joyce, the pun-master, especially in Finnegans Wake, to pun haw-hoor-hoer with "whore". In fact, he punned "haw" and "whore" in the "Circes", the "whore" chapter of Ulysses. Even "hear"-"whore".

On the other hand, the idea that Joyce could see "hoe" (or "ho") as punning with "whore" is improbable.

While essentially immaterial to the argument, it should be noted that

1. the modern day term "ho" for "whore" can only be traced to the 1960's,
2. and no one in the literature has ever suggested that Joyce was making such a pun, which suggests none of Joyce's readers see such a pun!

But it is not about rhoticity, rather, is is about vowel pronunciation!

Consider the two words Joyce commonly uses for whore, "whore" ("haw") and "hoer", and compare them to "hoe" and "ho".

whore      as in oar  
hoer       as in lure
hoe        as in oh
ho         as in oh

No English speaker, let alone Irish English speaker, would every pronounce "ho" (oh) or "hoe" (oh) with the same vowel sound as the would "whore" (oar) or "hoer" (lure).

Hence Joyce would never have heard these words be pronounced sufficiently closely for him to see a pun.

• If you think I am wrong, please vote me down. I will remove the post if negative at the end of the bounty period.
• If you think I am correct, then please vote me up!
• If someone gives a better negative answer than me, please vote them up. This really is just to ensure a voteable null-hypothesis, that can be used to disagree with Mitch without voting him down.