# "Clath to Cloth" not an analogy?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clath-to-cloth-not-an-analogy/109318>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [May 16, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clath-to-cloth-not-an-analogy/109318 "2002-05-16T02:08:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Victory\_Candescence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Victory\_Candescence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victory_Candescence)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clath-to-cloth-not-an-analogy/109318/1 "2002-05-16T02:08:06Z")

</div>

This is the article I’m referring to:

[What is the origin of “Man of the Cloth”?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmanofcloth.html)

Dex says:

> [@](#):
>
> It was clath or clathe in Old English, and the change of the vowel may have been influenced by the name of the Fate.

To the linguists out there:

Couldn’t “clath” have become “cloth” through the same vowel-shifting process that made “stane” become the modern “stone”?

Obviously, this is a heavy, industrial-strength nitpick

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clath-to-cloth-not-an-analogy/109318/2 "2002-05-16T03:47:37Z")

</div>

Since this is a comment on a Staff Report and not one of Cecil’s columns, I’ll move this thread over to the appropriate forum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clath-to-cloth-not-an-analogy/109318/3 "2002-05-16T12:21:13Z")

</div>

\<\< Couldn’t “clath” have become “cloth” through the same vowel-shifting process that made “stane” become the modern “stone”? \>\>

Sure. Could have been any one (or combination) of several reasons. I only cited this one in the Staff Report because I liked the classical allusion.