LL-L "Etymology" 2005.07.21 (08) [E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Thu Jul 21 21:18:49 UTC 2005
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 21.JUL.2005 (08) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.07.16 (02) [E]
I don't think we've got a French connection here, but rather a Roman one!
<Wednesday>, Dutch <woensdag> is of course from Wodan, an old Germanic God.
The change into <g-> was in my opinion an attempt to get the Christian God
into it.
>>From Wodensdag to Godensdag is only a small step, and <Gode(n)sdag> = lit.
God's day !
Of couse they forgot to Christianize "Donder(s)dag" < Thonar, "Fridag"
< Freya, and Sater(s)dag < Saturnus, not to mention Sunday and Mo(o)nday.
Ingmar
btw I've always wondered if the ethymologies of the words <God> and
<good>, Dutch <God> and <goed>, Germ <Gott> and <gut>, Scand. <Gud> and
<god> have anything to do with each other...
>From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
>Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.07.15 (06) [E]
>
>Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>>
>In my native Northern Emsland and Huemmling dialect of Low Saxon the
>original word for Wednesday is "Gaunsdag". A former colleague from
>Lohne-Grafschaft Bentheim- (South-West Emsland) used to say "Gusendag".<
>
>Can anyone explain the origin of this word for me.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Heather
>
>----------
>
>From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
>Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.07.15 (07) [D/E]
>
>> From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Lexicon
>>
>> Hi Hyazinth (and Ron and Heather too ;-) ),
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Lombardic also had a g-form "Godan", and most (if not all) Germanic
>> words that ever made it into French changed initial _w_ to _g_
>>
>> "want" (fingerless glove) (D) > "gant" (French)
>> "war" (E) ~ "verwarring" (D) > "guerre" (French)
>> "warranty" (E) > "garantie" (French)
>
>This suggests that garantie comes from warranty, which is in fact the
other
>way round: the English form comes from French, albeit Norman French (the
>stress and suffix gives it away too), which did preserve the w- (even
today,
>the original French dialect of the Channel Islands still has it), maybe
>because the ruling classes were originally North Germanic and did have a
w-
>sound in their original language. The same goes for ward and wardrobe eg
>(robe is French). The gauarantee, guard etc forms are later additions
from
>official French.
>
>This is analogous to Dutch dialects borrowing from Picardian dialects
which
>explains preserved k- instead of ch-, in words like Dutch kandelaar vs
>French chandelier. The English form is obviously based on the latter form,
>while Dutch borrowed ir from Picardian dialects that have (or maye had)
>"candelare" or some such form (non-palatal suffix as well).
>In older days, people borrowed heavily from whatever non-standard dialect
>they happened to be in contact with. The influence of standard languages
is
>from a later date.
>Another example: North-Frisian Danish-like forms are often better
understood
>by looking at the Jutish forms, not the Rigsdansk ones....
>
>regards,
>
>Henno Brandsma
>
>> "ward" (E) > "garde" (French) (imported back into (E) later on as
>> "guard")
>> "wasp"(E), "wesp" (D) > "guêpe" (French)
>> ...
>>
>> Maybe this tells us something about the vocal quality of Old Germanic
>> (?Franconian?) initial "w", being not as voiceless as it is now, but
>> somewhat like "hw", or even "gw"...with a lot of aspiration I mean.
>>
>> Kind greetings,
>>
>> Luc Hellinckx
----------
From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.07.21 (05) [B/E]
Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>Similarly:
chin < OE ci = OF kin, OS kinni
beech < OE bóece, béce, OS bôka
<
NIce examples!
And you have just let slip a valuable clue to the language that I am
researching here.
Our area was West Saxon for about 50 years before being taken over by the
Mercians.
If I have understood histories right, Mercian was derived from Anglian and
differed in some (major?) respects from West Saxon.
I have wondered if there were any Frisian element in Anglian or was it as
different.
You said " Old Frisian doesn't seem to have a cognate of this, by the
way." So the word cannot have come from Frisian. Did it possibly come from
West Saxon?
But then you said " am inclined to believe that
<c> started of as consistent [k] but that the language came with a possibly
Frisian-fed palatalization tendency that came to the fore in certain
dialects and then spread to most of the language."
Which would mean that the Frisian element came later - so does this
indicate a Frisian element in Anglian?
Heather
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Etymology
Hi, Heather!
I'm happy I inadvertently let something slip that was useful. It doesn't
usually work out that way. ;-)
First of all, let it be said that you need not hide your light under a
bushel, or, if you are ignorant that makes two of us. I'm fishing at least
as much as you do.
This thing about Mercia brings up a whole different blurry picture for me.
Did the early English make up this name to denote the borderlands, or were
there among the early Germanic settlers in Britain groups that were known as
Mercians already? I'm asking this because in German and Low Saxon _Mark_
(OG,OS _marca_) means 'borderland' as do Old Low Franconian _merki_, Old
Frisian _merke_, Old English (*_mearce_) _mearcland_ (_gemierce_ 'border',
cf. OLF _gimerki_).
Let's assume for a moment that "borderland" (*_mearce_) did not apply to the
English context but to a group that came from some borderlands in the
European Lowlands. In Germany, names with _Mark_ occur particularly on the
eastern and western fringes of the old Saxon area. In the east, you get,
for instance, "Mark Brandenburg" and "Uckermark," and in the west you get
for instance _märkisches Platt_ for a dialect group within the Westphalian
Saxon area. Since the then Slavonic-dominated east came to be colonized
centuries after the colonization of England, a candidate may be the western
Westphalian area, now in the German-Dutch borderland. This may sound
preposterous, but I want to throw it out there anyway.
Back to your actual question! I don't prepose a temporal situation. I
assume that various ethnic groups trickled into Britain, some separately and
some mixed. I hardly think that any of the new colonies was ethnically and
linguistically pure. When we talk about Saxon, Anglish and Jutish we
probably talk only of domination. Rather dramatic shifts from Continental
to British language varieties seem to point toward various internal
influences, not least of them Frisian influences that may have begun already
on the mainland when the colonists traversed and temporarily settled in
Frisian lands and assumedly took Frisians with them to England. Some
colonies may have had more Frisian influences than others. If
palatalization is assumed to be due to Frisian influence, the question is if
it began before or after arrival in Britain. I rather think that there may
have been a mixture but that eventually more Frisian-influenced dialects of
Old English came to influence others.
(Consider differences such as and (ǣlc >) English "each" vs Scots _ilk_ (Low
Saxon _elk_).)
When I said "Frisian-fed palatalization tendency," I meant the phonological
predisposition of certain (Frisian?) speakers of Old English and their
influence on the further development of English.
I admid that these are airy-fairy ramblings. I feel like feeding the
vultures today. ;-)
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
==============================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.
======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list