LL-L: "Etymology" LOWLANDS-L, 13.DEC.1999 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.DEC.1999 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn//lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: $ Elsie Zinsser [ezinsser at simpross.co.za]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" LOWLANDS-L, 12.DEC.1999 (05) [E]

Haai almal!

Ron wrote regarding supposed Slavic loans that "Mennonite Low Saxon
(Plautdietsch) _Baulj_ 'laundry basin/tub'.  Quiring* assumed that
Plautdietsch and related "Low Prussian"dialects had derived it from
Polish _balia_ of the same meaning.  While this is definitely a
possibility, both geographically and phonologically, it may just as well
be that Plautdietsch and the "Low Prussian" dialects of Northern Poland
had this word already as a part of the vocabulary they had inherited
from the western dialects."

It relates to the Afrikaans _balie_ (_wasbalie; waterbalie;
beskuitbalie; voerbalie_).
I assume we got it from Dutch?

Regards,
Elsie Zinsser

----------

From: Carl Johan Petersson [Carl_Johan.Petersson at Nordiska.uu.se]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" LOWLANDS-L, 12.DEC.1999 (03) [D/E]

Ron and John wrote:

>John, you quoted De Vries:
>
>> "Waarschijnlijk uit het duits ontleend, waar sedert 1559 het woord
>> "pracher", `bedelaar' optreedt en wel te Breslau. Dat wijst op slavische
>> herkomst, vgl kleinruss [= oekraïens ?] "prochaty", `vragen, verzoeken'."
>
>Hmm ...  Are we getting somewhere now?  I still wonder.

De Vries is not the only one that assumes that this word is of Slavonic
origin. Kluge (23. Auflage, 1995) writes:

Pracher(...) 'zudringlicher Bettler' (<16. Jh.). Mndd. _pracher_ aus mndl.
_prachen_ 'zudringlich betteln'. Vermutlich entlehnt  aus poln. (dial.)
_procha_ 'das Betteln', das mit _fragen_ urverwandt ist.

Read carefully - it looks like Kluge (or rather Elmar Seebold, as he is the
author of this edition) assumes it to have entered Middle Low German
through Middle Dutch. Just the opposite of what De Vries believes... The
same explanation occurs also in earlier editions of Kluge. No further
explanation is given, but Kluge refers to two sources (unfortunately,
neither of which I have been able to check):

Wick, Ph. : Die slawischen Lehnwörter in der neuhochdeutschen
Schriftsprache. Diss. Marburg 1939. p. 45 f.

Eichler, E.: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slawischen Elemente im
Ostmitteldeutschen. Bautzen 1965. p. 104.

This is also the source of the Swedish verb _pracka_ (Danish _prakke_),
which is generally assumed to be a Low German loan in the Scandinavian
languages. Niels Åge Nielsens Danish etymological dictionary quotes the
Polish dialectal word _pracharz_ 'beggar' as a possible source for the Low
German noun.

A reflexion of my own:

It is crucial which is the older word: the verb _prachen_ or the noun
_pracher_.

According to Ron's earlier postings and to the dictionaries that I have had
access to (please correct me if I'm wrong), the verb that goes with the Low
German noun _pracher_ is usually _prachern_, not _prachen_. However,
interestingly enough, the form _prachen_ appears to be the only one known
in modern Dutch (at least according to the WNT).

Generally, you would assume a 'nomen agentis' ending in _-er_ to be derived
from a verb, not the other way around. I suppose that is why Kluge presents
his Middle Dutch theory. Judging from Lasch/Borchling,
Mittelniederdeutsches Handwörterbuch, the verb _prachen_ has not been
attested in Middle Low German. Lasch/Borchling list the noun _pracher_, the
verb _pracher(e)n_ and a number of derivatives and compounds, but there is
no verb _prachen_.

This seems to indicate either

1. that _prachen_ is an old form that had died out in the time that the
Middle Low German sources were written but has survived in modern Dutch, or,

2. that _prachen_ is an innovation which had not yet come into use in that
time, or that has only spread in certain areas of the Low Saxon - Low
Franconian language area.

Verbs ending in unstressed _-er(e)n_ usually have some kind of iterative
meaning, and they're nearly always derived from older simple verbs ending
in _-en_. The "rules" of historical word-formation in the Germanic
languages tell us that if a verb _prachen_ can be attested, it should be
older than both _pracher_ and _prachern_. This must be what Kluge thinks
anyway.

If Kluge is right that _prachen_ is attested in Middle Dutch, then he may
have a point, no matter how far-fetched his theory may seem. Still, all
these dictionaries are based on written sources. It is of course possible
that a verb _prachen_ may have existed in other areas, without ever
occurring in writing. The Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal says for
instance that _prachen_ occurs in the modern dialects of
Schelswig-Holstein, but of course we don't know how old it is in these
dialects. It may well be the result of western influence in recent centuries.

If, on the other hand, the noun is the older word (this is the case if
Niels Åge Nielsen is correct and the source is Polish dial. _pracharz_),
the verbs are secondary formations that are based on the noun and none of
the above is of any importance... (?)

>Related to this seems to be the case of Mennonite Low Saxon (Plautdietsch)
>_Baulj_ 'laundry basin/tub'.  Quiring* assumed that Plautdietsch and related
>"Low Prussian"dialects had derived it from Polish _balia_ of the same
meaning.
>While this is definitely a possibility, both geographically and
phonologically,
>it may just as well be that Plautdietsch and the "Low Prussian" dialects of
>Northern Poland had this word already as a part of the vocabulary they had
>inherited from the western dialects.  Note that the cognate _Balge_ ~ _Balje_
>'laundry basin/tub' exists also in Western Low Saxon dialects with the
>additional meanings 'tub' (in general)', 'fodder container', 'trough', 'water
>hole', 'water channel', 'ditch (usually near a dike)'.  _Balge_ ~ _Balje_ >
>_Baulj_ is phonologically consistent.  Could it be a case of Polish having
>borrowed this word?

This must be related to Swedish _balja_ 'tub, bowl' and Danish _balje_. The
etymological dictionaries by Hellquist and Niels Åge Nielsen both say that
this word was borrowed from Middle Low German and that it is related to
French _baille_. They assume it to be of Latin origin, possibly a vulgar
Latin _bajula aquae_ 'water-carrier (i.e. something to carry water in).

Regards,

Carl Johan Petersson

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =========================================================================