I'm well aware. I did post the etymonline link, after all. However, it doesn't change anything. The series of glyphs used by the OP author hasn't represented wh

I'm well aware. I did post the etymonline link, after all. However, it doesn't change anything. The series of glyphs used by the OP author hasn't represented what he meant it to represent for centuries. It's still a deeply archaic usage, whether we're dealing with a single word or two homonyms.