LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.MAR.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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (03) [A/E]


Heather wrote:
"Since that name now has actually come up: Could somebody please tell me
about its pronunciation Keethley!"

I am no scholar of sound shifts between Old, Middle and Modern English, but
I presume the modern pronunciation represents an attempt to say a sound that
no longer exists - judging from the fossilised pronunciation recorded
orthographically I suspect something similar to the Greek "ghamma" phoneme.

I think the same process is at work where _tough_ is pronounced now as [tuf]
even though the spelling shows that it was originally *[tu:x]. Likewise the
placename _Loughborough_ [lufbra] from a presumed original *[lu:xboru:x].
There are many other examples.

Hope this helps.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (03) [A/E]


Mark wrote:
> Dear Gabriele (& Ron),
>
> Subject: LL-L "Onomastica"
>
> Thanks guys!
>
> > -loh denotes a clearing created by fire
>
> > (Ron:
> > > > Old (High) German: lôh 'glade' (e.g., MG _Lohe_ 'blaze', 'flame')
> > > > Old Saxon: lôga 'blaze* vs lôh (~ lâ(h)?) 'glade'Old Frisian: loga
> > 'blaze
> > > > Old English: > lîeg 'blaze'* vs lêah 'glade'Old Norse: leygr, logi
> > 'blaze'),
> >
> > whereas -rode is a clearing that was created mechanically, i.e. by
cutting
> > brush and uprooting trees.

Actually, I realized only now, when I read what you had quoted, that German
"-rode" and English "root" (as well as "rood") are probably related...

As to "loh": the old German word for a bright flame, "Lohe", is almost out
of use these days, except for a few remnants:

lichterloh brennen - to be brightly ablaze
lohfarben - yellowish, tawny (like a lion, for example)
lodern - to flicker brightly, like a big fire

"Lohe" also denotes the solution of tan bark that tanners use
("Gerberlohe"). I don't see an obvious connection here - maybe somebody else
does?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From:  klaus schmirler <KSchmir at online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (03) [A/E]

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>

>>   Keighley,
>
> Since that name now has actually come up: Could somebody please tell me
> about its pronunciation?<
>
> Keethley
>
> !!

Then it's true!

The f pronunciation of "gh" is (in my understanding of phonetic
relationships) strange to begin with, but this ...

It may probably not be much stranger than the k/s divide of the
indo-european languages, the different Romance realizations of c or the
kiesen/küren word stems which I also don't understand, but I "see" they
are there.

Why this belated isolated instance in the middle of Yorkshire? (Don't
bother to answer unless there is an easy explanation everyone should
know -- there probably isn't).

klaus

----------

From:  R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Onomastica

Klaus, Lowlanders,

I'm not offering an explanation for the isolated occurrence of /G/ > /T/,
other than "weird things tend to happen to names, especially place names.

Most fricatives sound rather alike, especially if you don't look at the
speaker.

Loss of fricatives and their replacement by surviving fricatives is not all
that unusual, especially in English and in Celtic.  There is the
better-known case of the loss of English /G/ (written <gh>) and its
replacement by means of /v/ -> [f], as in "laugh".  Then, still occurring in
more recent times, there is dialectal or idiolectal replacement of /T/ by
/f/ and /D/ by /v/ (e.g., "both" as "bofe", "the" as "ve", "rather" as
"rahver", and "through" as "frough").

What we write <th> represents two fricatives in English: a voiced one and an
voiceless one.  I don't see why these should not be used to replace <gh>,
and someone has thought so before me.  It is only that this came to be
formalized sporadically and rarely, and then in names.  It tends to be local
dialects that determine the pronunciation of place names, and in some cases
the written language preserves the older pronunciation.  It would be
interesting to know if in those Yorkshire dialects the shift "gh" > "th" was
regular at one time.

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