LL-L "Etymology" 2002.10.27 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.OCT.2002 (08) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Idiomatica

Beste liëglanners,

A 'black eye' is called "ön blaa kaj" in my version of Brabantish.

If aliens ever hear the pronounciation of this word they will probably link
it with "black eye" because it sounds almost the
same...yet it ?probably? means "een blauwe kade" (D) *s*.

The point is that I've never been able to explain this word "kaj"
satisfactorily...It seems likely that "kaai", "kade" (D),
"quay" (E) could have been an influence (in a sense that the bone structure
under an eye forms sort of a fence), but at the
same time the group of "kieuw", "kauwen" (D) ~ "to chew" (E) ~ "Kiefer" (G)
~ kiëvern (B, to eat slowly) might have played a
role too. Especially because the usual pronounciation for "kaai" (D) is
"kee" (< French "quaie"). It wouldn't be the first
time however that Antwerp exports words that it heard from scandinavian
(skol and fak), english or scottish seamen (blakaaj
???).

Ron, the medieval word "Metze" is just a pet name for Mechtild and now I
quote Matthias Lexer : "...als appelat. s.v.a.
mädchen niedern standes, oft mit dem nebenbegriffe der leichtfertigkeit;
hure."

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2002.10.27 (05) [E]

Dear John,

I believe you are right. Scots did palatalise. But palatalisation
naturally only took place before palatal vowels in the following
syllable. Northern Old Anglian, from which Scots is derived had
infectional endings with palatal and velar vowels in one paradigm, so
that palatalisation and retention of velars must have occured within
such a paradigm of a verb or noun. When the unstressed vowel became
schwa, forms with or without palatalisation were generalised. As to be
expected these developments showed regional differences. Perheps
non-palatalised forms in Scots were encouraged by a Norse cognate, from
which, as you have stated, many non-palatalised forms also derive. In
fact I believe Old Norse to be the origine of the overwhelming majority
of non-palatalised forms.

John wrote:

"This is something which I've never properly understood. I've always
understood that pairs such as Eng. _church_, _bridge_; Scots _kirk_,
_brig_,
were owing to the Scots forms being derived from Old Norse rather than
Old
English (so eg. David Murison in The Guid Scots Tongue, p. 48ff).
Apparently
there are some semantic distinctions in English based on this
etymological
difference - so the cognate _shirt_ from OE and _skirt_ from ON - but
such
differences are more typical of Scots, eg: Eng. _shelf_, Scots _skelf_.
Now,
does this mean that Scots did not undergo k- and g- palatalisation at
all;
or that it borrowed ON forms lacking palatalisation (which would seem to
presuppose some palatalisation elsewhere) or that it did not undergo
palatalisation under ON influence (which, it seems to me, could only be
a
theory.)

Certainly there are words in modern Scots with apparent palatalisation,
such
as _watch_ (_match_, flame-stick, doesn't count because it's French)
and
_cheese_. Does anyone know which factors are involved here - is there
partial palatalisation, delimited either lexically (eg: words with OE
rather
than ON origin) or according to some phonological rule; or are the words
with palatalisation English loan words, as _which_ and _much_ surely
are,
the Scots forms being _whilk_ (now probably obsolete, and replaced in
traditional braid Scots by (th)at) and _muckle_? Presumably there is
some
rule whereby we have English _watch_ and _wake_ with different meanings
from
the same origin.
John M. Tait."

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings 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>.
=======================================================================