LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.26 (05) [D/E]

Sun Sep 26 17:53:49 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.SEP.2004 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Etymology

Hi Ron, you wrote:

'But I'm wondering if in the Germanic varieties there
are cases of *insertion*.'

Not really insertion more cases of development.
Compare Gothic and Old Norse 'Sharpening/Verschärfung' where original jj
changed
to 'ggj' in Old Norse and 'ddj' in Gothic and original ww changed to 'ggw'
in both.

Also similar things have happened in Faroese where post/intervocalic D, g
and gD were lost but a glide has subsequently been added where they used to
exist(to varying degrees depending on the dialect) depending on the
surrounding vowels (either a /j/ or /v/) - the same process as occurs in my
own Estuary English to avoid two adjacent vowels, where I insert a
/j/ or /w/ (or /r/ or /l/) depending on the preceding vowel. If these
processes would go (for John that one, although I'm not thinking of going
back to England yet) one step further, then a g (or d) might develop as with
the Gothic and Old Norse examples.

That a g - or any other consonant for that matter can go through a series of
stages to develop into a glide (j or w), it follows that the same set of
steps can be reversed involving a glide turning into a consonant.
(This latter is rarer, as the tendency in dialects is for simplification in
articulation. The series
vowel-glide involves less movement than vowel-stop so is usually preferred
in language change.)

Anyway, I'll let you know more in a couple more years when I've finished my
PhD.

Gary

----------

From: Bouchonlemaitre at aol.com <Bouchonlemaitre at aol.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.25 (02) [E]

Dag laaglanders,

Naast "ruw" bestaat ook het woord "ruig" in het nederlands.

Groeten
stephan [LEMAITRE]

----------

From: Dan Prohaska <danielprohaska at bluewin.ch>
Subject: Etymology

Reinhard/Ron wrote:
>>Legend:
>>Mid = Middle, Mod = Modern, O = Old
>>D = Dutch, E = English, F = Frisian, G = German, LF = Low Franconian,
>>LS = Lowlands Saxon ("Low German), N = Norse, S = Saxon,
>>Yid = Yiddish

>>OE rúƽ, rúh, rúw > ModE rough, ModSc roch
>>MidS rûge, rûch > ModLS ruge ~ ruug' ~ ruug
>>MidD ruuch , rugh-, ruych > ModD ruig
>>OG rûh, rûch, ruoch > ModG rauh, Yid רױ roy

>>OE blew, bláw > MidE > bla, blo > ModE blue, ModSc blae, blue
>>OF ? > ModWF blau
>>OS blâw > ModLS blau, blage, blaag', blaag
>>OG blâw > ModG blau, Yid בלױ bloy
>>ON blá

>>OE > ModE new, ModSc new
>>OF nî > ModWF nij
>>OS niuui, niuwi, nigi > ModLS ney, neyg, ny, nyg
>>OLF nûwi > MidD nieuwe, niewe, niwe, nuwe, nouwe, nie, ny
   > ModD nieuw
>>OG niuwi ~ niuwe > MidG niuwe, niwe, niu > ModG neu, Yid  ײַ nay
>>ON nýr

>>OE snáw > ModE snow, ModSc snaw
>>OF *snê > ModWF snie, ModEF snê, snö, ModNF sne, sni, snîe
>>OS snêw, snêw > MidS snê > ModLS sney (<Snee>)
>>OLF snêo > MidD sneeu, sneu, snee > ModD sneeuw
>>OG snêo, snêw- > MidG snê > ModG Schnee, Yid ש ײ šney
>>ON snær, snjár, snjór

>>OE sníwan > ModE to snew >> to snow, ModSc tae snaw (NE snyauve)
>>OF ? > ModWF snije, sneie, ModNF snî, sneie, snaie
>>OS ? > MidS snygen, snîghen > ModLS sneyen, snyen, snygen
>>MidD sniwen ~ snien, sneuwen, sn(o)uwen > ModD sneeuwen
>>OG snîwan > MidG snîwen, snîgen, snîen > ModG schneien
>>   (Bayuvarian p.part geschniegn), Yid ש ײען šneyen ->
>>   p.part געש יגן gešnign

>>'to scream'
>>OE ? > ModSc skraich
>>OF ? > ModWF skreauwe
>>OS skrîan > ModLS schreyen, schreywen, schryen, schrygen
>>MidD scrîen > ModD schreeuwen
>>OG scrîan > MidG schrîen > ModG schreien, Yid שרײען šreyen ->
>>   p.part געשריגן gešrign

>>So, interesting things are going on with zero, _g_ and _w_.  They do
>>frequently interact in other language families; e.g., Turkic *dag
>>'mountain'
>>> dağ, daw, taG, tağ, taw, tow, to, taa

>>But I'm wondering if in the Germanic varieties there are cases of
>>*insertion*.

Reinhard,
This question is difficult to answer without delving deep into Germanic
historical phonology. Whether the above words are cases of insertion in
Proto-Indo-European I cannot answer, but in Proto-Germanic they were already
established in some form or another. The above words have various origins in
Proto-Germanic:

<gh> in "rough" had final /X/ in Proto-Germanic

<w> in "blow" had /w/ in  PG   (in used 'blow' here rather that 'blue' as
the English form of the word appears to be from French, which in turn was
borrowed into early Romance of Gaul from Germanic.

<w> in "new" is from PG /w/

<w> in "snow" is from PG /ghw/

The original sound in the other Germanic 'scream'-words is difficult to
reconstruct as these words were subject to onomatopoeic re-shaping and
probably initial forming anyway.

The situation in PG seems to allow a straight-forward reconstruction (which
of course is always an idealisation).

Thing are changed in the further developments into the various branches of
Germanic and furthermore into the separate modern languages. Alternations
because of the accent-shift to the first syllable in early PG has caused
first allophonic, then grammatically conditioned changes. Verner's and in
our case subsequently Siever's law come into play. The resulting grammatical
changes, or morpho-phonetic alternations, were then levelled out in
different directions in the separate languages, even dialects.

For example OHG (Old High German) should have had the 'regular' infinitive
*snígan "to snow", but instead it took <w> from the third person singular
and the plural preterite and levelled out in favour of <sníwan> which became
"schneibm" in Bavarian dialects. The /g/ reappears in the cited pp.
"gschniign", though I've heard "gschniibm" more often.

Dan

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.25 (10) [E]

Sorry John, but intervocal -w- is really not pronounced the same as initial
w- in Dutch.
leeuwen  ["le:w@] , nieuwe  ["niw@], schuwe  ["sxyw@], with [w] like in
English,
exactly like final -w  in leeuw [le:w], nieuw [niw] and schuw [sxyw], but
unlike initial w-
wie [vi] = who, wereld ["ve:r at lt] = world, wraak [vra:k] = revenge.
This initial w- [v] isn't  however pronounced like Dutch v-, as I explained
before, but
without friction.
All native speaker of Standard Dutch - including myself - are well aware of
the difference between
leven ["le:iv@] = live and leeuwen ["le:w@] = lions, geven ["xe:iv@] = give
and geeuwen ["xe:w@] = yawn
  Ingmar

> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Etymology
>
> Ingmar wrote about Nederlands:
>
> "Intervocally and word finally -w- or -w is pronounced like English [w]:
> Ruwe (rude), nieuw (new), blauwe (blue), uw (your), sneeuw (snow)."
>
> I suppose one could argue that the final "w" isn't really pronounced at
all
> but is simply a way of indicating the diphthong, the second half of which
is
> approx E "oo". But in intervocalic situations such as "nieuwe" ("new"),
> "schuwe" ("shy") and "leeuwen" ("lions") it is surely pronounced (near
> enough) as Dutch initial "w".
>
> John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.25 (10) [E]

Reindert, I think intervocal  -w-  preserved in Dutch is the original
situation here, because Latin has intervocal v in stems like nov-
(new/nine), nev- (snow), etc where Dutch (and English) have -w-, High German
has zero and some Lower Saxon has -gh-.
Latin -v- must be the same as Dutch/English -w-, so this must be the oldest
situation, don't you think?

BTW, actually Dutch doesn't spell -w- but -uw- to indicate the [w]
pronunciation in stead of [v] intervocally.
In Dutch Lower Saxon dialects we always find zero in stead of -uw-,
never -g-: nij, nije (new), snei, sneien (snow), lij, lijte (lee), schreien
(scream/cry). I think Low German -gh- can be derived from the -j- in hiatus:
nije > niJe > niGHe; sneien > sneJen > sneGHen. In Dutch Lower Saxon, -uw-
in blauwe is preserved. How Low German -w- developped to -gh- blawe>blaGHe,
I wouldn't know.
  Ingmar

================================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.
======================================================================