LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.12 (01) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.SEP.2005 (01) * 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: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.11 (10) [E]


>From Doug:
"The apparent absence of "ganz" cognates in Old English, Old Norse, etc.
would seem to be compatible with (among other things) a loan from Latin.
Classical Latin "gens" = "tribe"/"clan" ....."
Doesn't "gens, genus" or its IE forbear mutate into Germanic as *kinaz, 
whence kin? I think it's Grimm's or Verner's or somebody's Law.

Paul

----------

From: Roger Hondshoven <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.10 (04) [E]

  Hello Denis>

   There seems to be a slight misunderstanding. The question is not whether
'helegans' is a word of the past. I think I clearly stated that "'gans'
sounds quaint to me, as something of the past."  'Helegans', to me, is
simply a dialect word. I also wrote: "On the other hand I stick by my
opinion that in general Belgian Dutch (and certainly in the one that I
speak) 'heel' is the normal word. "
  In that respect I would like to point out that some philologists devoted
attention to the issue of 'gans' versus 'heel'. H. Heidbuchel (a Fleming),
in his ABN-Woordenboek, s.v. 'gans', gave as his advice: "(beter en gewoner)
heel, geheel, helemaal". P.C. Paardekooper (a Dutchman), in his ABN-Gids,
categorically rejected 'gans'.
  Maarten van Nierop (a Dutchman) reserved considerable space to the
discussion of the usage of both words in his 'Honderd taaie belgicismen'
(1968): "..in België gebruikt men vrijwel altijd , althans meestal, als
bijvoeglijk naamwoord en als bijwoord 'gans'; in Nederland daarentegen
gebruikt men als bijvoeglijk naamwoord gewoonlijk 'geheel' of 'heel', en als
bijwoord 'heel' of 'helemaal', en soms: 'gans'./.../ globaal zou ik durven
schatten, dat tegenover 100 keer 'gans' in Nederlandstalige boeken, kranten
en gesprekken (niet in dialect) in België, laten we zeggen 85 keer 'heel,
geheel, helemaal' en 15 keer 'gans' in boeken, kranten en gesprekken in
Nederland staat./.../Terwijl het gebruik van 'gans' in het Nederlandstalige
gedeelte van België stilistisch ongeschakeerd is (het wordt gebruikt in
gewone, dichterlijke, banale, precieuze en geleerde stijl), wordt het
gebruik van 'heel,geheel, helemaal, gans' in Nederland bepaald door
stijlsferen en stilistische bedoelingen. Ik moet hier nog wel even opmerken
dat 'gans' in de Zuidnederlandse dialecten helemaal niet zo algemeen is!"
(p. 51, 52)  I don't agree with van Nierop now, and I wouldn't have agreed
either in 1968. Even in those days 'gans' was not all that much used in
spoken Dutch in Belgium. I am ready to concede that four decades ago 'gans'
was perhaps a very widely uused word in written language. But I think
language use in Belgium has changed considerably since 1968. I think that at
that time I, for myself, had already given up 'gans' practically completely
for twenty years. Of course, I belong to the generation that lived through
the German occupation and thought that 'gans' sounded too German. (By the
way, etymological dictionaries designate Middle Dutch 'gans' as a borrowing
from Old High German) Anyway, I have always considered 'gans' as an
unpalatable word.
  I have just conferred with a friend of mine, a fellow-student, and asked
him about his opinion. "I exclusively use 'heel, geheel, helemaal', he says,
but I notice that in newspapers 'gans' is still often used. In the dialects
of Brabant 'heel' is the rule." To him, 'gans' is obsolete. He also
disagreed with van Nierop's statement about 'gans' in Belgium. All of this
seems to corroborate my point of view that 'gans' is a thing "of the past",
a word that is not supported by living speech any more.

  Regards,

  Roger

  > From: denis dujardin <dujardin at pandora.be>
  > Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.10 (02) [D/E]
  >
  > In Westflemish "helegans" is currently used on a daily base. It is
  > definitely not a word from the past.
  >
  > Denis Dujardin
  > Kortrijk
  > Westflanders

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