On the news this morning, the following was said:
"Eye-witnesses say they heard two explosions"
Somehow this seems wrong, because the witnesses did not use their eyes, but their ears. Yet the phrase "ear-witness" sounds wrong.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityOn the news this morning, the following was said:
"Eye-witnesses say they heard two explosions"
Somehow this seems wrong, because the witnesses did not use their eyes, but their ears. Yet the phrase "ear-witness" sounds wrong.
The OED lists ear-witness as a valid word:
A person who testifies, or is able to testify, to something on the evidence of his own hearing.
The earliest citation is dated 1597 and the word is not listed as obsolete or even archaic, but there are no recent citations, either. Take that as you will...
I would say there is no equivalent since the word eyewitness ("a person present at an event who can describe what happened") covers the concept already. Otherwise you might also need a word for a touch witness, or a smell witness.
Divorced of its literal meaning, that is. Not every gentleman is gentle, after all.
Only witness would suffice in case of aural evidence.
Simon got it right.
It's not only a valid English word; it's the title of Elias Canetti's wonderful book Earwitness, which gives 50 character sketches, all of which are ... well, odd, not to say insane; but all of them are also people you recognize as yourself, or someone you know ... sometimes.
As noted in other answers, earwitness is a highly suitable word. However, in the context of
X say they heard two explosions
I'd expect to find the plural of witness ("One who has a personal knowledge of something") rather than earwitness more commonly in place of X. The word listener ("Someone who listens") also works. Auditor apparently doesn't work in English, although in Latin one of its meanings is "A hearer".