'Get shot of' or 'get shut of'?

[BrickBiscuit]

I am firmly in one camp and always assumed the other is a mishearing error, however it seems I am wrong.

I think both are fine. At least from my upbringing in the East Midlands.

Shot of imo.

Shut of.

South Yorks.

Shot

Shot of.

I assumed shot!

Shot

Shot of.

Shut of is the older original expression, pretty sure it was used by Chaucer.

Shot of is the more modern version that will make more sense to modern speakers.

Shot seems to make more sense but if shut is thought to be older I wonder if this is just a case of a spelling variation.
I mean, Chaucer and even Shakespeare spelled words very differently than we do today.
Without dictionaries, I doubt there was a standard version of how to spell myriad words.

Yes and no* Our 'shut' comes from Old English scyttan (pronounced 'shit' in some areas) which turned into shitten/shetten (around Kent) and eventually shut. Without getting into an enormous spiel about vowel shifts, it's never been an O of any variety, and the word shot comes from sceot (pronounced identically).

Hence the two phrases shut of and shot of have to have arisen separately, and I would assume as either a mishearing and/or a 'it makes more sense in modern English'.

*Spelling wasn't standardised for many hundreds of years due to English arising from five different original versions but there were still limits to what was used and spelling still matched pronunciation.

Thanks everyone. I'm with the majority for 'shot'. However, I was wrong that 'shut' is incorrect. It's just different.

Shot.

As in propelling something as far away as possible.

@QwestSproutwhat an excellent post.

But how does it come about that we say 'get shot of' or 'get shut of' when we want to get 'rid' of something/someone?

Shut off, not of.

Ooh, a bit like ‘should’ve’, not ‘should of’?!

Shot of. Southwest.