Font or fount?

[homebuildblo]

Should one say THE FONT OF ALL KNOWLEDGE

OR THE FOUNT OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. Which is correct historically?

[jno]

my Oxford dictionary says fount

[homebuildblo]

Yes, it was my belief that FOUNT was correct but I've heard so many people lately saying FONT that I was beginning to think it was me who was wrong. Even supposedly erudite souls on TV are saying FONT!

[Clanad]

I've noticed the same thing here in the U.S., but I've chocked it up to lack of clear prounciation rather than lack of knowledge...

[Rubberduckie]

I would reckon on fount being short for fountain or source.

[gary baldy]

I suppose strictly speaking both could be correct - where as a fount continually spouts knowledge a font could be seen to hold all knowledge that is worthy.
Saying that the saying is 'fount' as other correspondents have said.

[Quizmonster]

Strictly speaking, 'fountain' is correct rather than 'fount' or 'font'. However, if you have to have one of the latter two, make it 'fount', as the more obvious derivative of 'fountain'.
The following quote is from 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' by John Locke, the 17th century philosopher. Clearly, he was referring to God.
"Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal father of light, and fountain of all knowledge, communicates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid within the reach of their natural facilities."
In a 14th century book, God was referred to as "the fountain of all goodness" and in the 16th century Book of Common Prayer there is a reference to "Almighty God, the fountain of all wisdom". However, Locke's quote - given above - is the earliest reference to �knowledge' in this context.

[Narolines]

Did "fountain" (or "fount") not originally mean "source" or "spring", rather than the ornamental water feature it now denotes?

[Narolines]

Sorry - should have added: Therefore "fount" id the correct word!

[Narolines]

Or even IS the correct word.........

[Quizmonster]

In the sense of source/spring/well, fountain dates back to the late-14th century, fount to the late-16th and font to the mid-17th. There is, therefore, no doubt as to which is the earliest. ('Font', in the sense of the baptism receptacle in church, is older, but that is a different kettle of fish, as it were.)
Given that there is an original quotation from John Locke (see my earlier response) which refers specifically to: "the fountain of all knowledge"...ie the point of the question, presumably...there does not seem to be much reason to suggest that 'font/fount' are somehow "correct". These are simply more modern variants of the original. I appreciate that people use these variants, but there does not appear to be any record of their earliest appearance. A lot later than the 'fountain' version, I'll be bound!

[jno]

well QM, my Oxford dictionary specifically says 'fount of all knowledge', and that seems good grounds to me for thinking it's correct! I suspect it got changed to fount as 'fountain' became associated more with artificial jets of water rather than a spring.

[Quizmonster]

What can I say, J? The Oxford English Dictionary offers no such quote as "fount of all knowledge" under either of the head-words 'fount' or 'knowledge'. (We've been here before in the matter of just which Oxford dictionary is involved in our discussions, haven't we?)
If your variety of OED does have such a quote, presumably it lists an earliest date at which it was recorded. Was it earlier than 1690, as that is the year of publication of the Locke 'fountain of all knowledge' quote that I keep referring to? If so, then I shall happily withdraw my claim that the original "whatever of all knowledge" is the 'fountain' version. I await the evidence.
By the way, 'fountain', meaning an artificial vertical jet of water, dates back to 1509!
Cheers

[jno]

sorry QM - I did explain which Oxford dictionary, then absent-mindedly deleted it before posting. It's the New Oxford, and it's not a quote as such - under fount, it just gives 'fount of all knowledge' as an example of (current) usage, and that's authoritative enough for me. But I have no quarrel at all with your Locke quote, which certainly sounds like the original, er, source. My subsequent comment was just speculation on why the usage might have changed between Locke's time and ours.

[homebuildblo]

Oh dear I seem to have opened a can of worms(?) here AND put the cat among the pigeons(?). To all intents and purposes you have answered my question. The rest is semantics surely. Bless you all for your efforts. You are indeed the founts of all knowledge!

"Before you criticise the other fellow, walk a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticise him you'll be a mile away and wearing his shoes"

[jno]

naaah, you've just opened a civilised debate, homebuildblo, that's what AnswerBank is all about. Be assured there's not the least bad blood between QM and me or anyone else.

[Quizmonster]

I concur with Jno's comments above, absolutely, Homebuildbo! We quite often come up with different answers and go on to discuss the differences, without a shred of animosity, believe me. Certainly neither of us has suggested any here. Cheers

[jan15]

In the US, both words can mean source. According to the A. Merriam-Webster dictionary, they both entered Middle English from Middle French "font", from Latin "fons", meaning fountain.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/font

There's also another word "font", which is derived from the same French and Latin sources as the word "foundry", and which means a set of characters used for printing, which were commonly made by melting and casting metal.