LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.12 (11) [E]

Tue Sep 13 04:55:11 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.SEP.2005 (11) * 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: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon"

Hoj Henno/Heiko,

You wanted to get an appropriate Lowlands word for "verzameling" (D), "set" 
(E). Well, there's one word that immediately comes to mind here, being 
"deel". In Brabantish, you can say "nen diël boeken", "nen diël vraven", 
"nen diël whatever you want...be it living or lifeless objects", and it 
always means: "a collection/set of books, women,...".
Disadvantages are:
1) I don't know if this word has the same usage in Saxon
2) OK for sets with a finite number of elements, not OK for sets with an 
infinite number of elements (zero and infinity not being "real" numbers 
within the scope of an authentic (Brabantish) dialect)...much less even if 
you want to distinguish between numerable and non-numerable infinity
3) confusing if you need a word for "subset", which would then become 
"diëldiël" *s*...a better contender could be something like "onderdeel" 
(onnerdiël).

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.11 (08) [A/E/LS]

Moin Ron,

> It is the cognate of German _Schub_, so it's related to German _schieben_

> Low Saxon _schuven_ and English _shove_. There is no inherent sence of

> 'set' (i.e., a specific group of elements that belong together), but

> _Schoof_ is often enough used in the sense of "group," albeit not

> necessarily complete sets, more like random groups. For this reason alone

> I'm still a bit hesitant. On the other hand, Dutch _verzameling_ does not

> seem to imply a definite set either, nor does German _Menge_ -- certainly

> nothing like English "set." However -- and here he waffles again -- from

> an etymological point of view (from "shoving objects into group

> formation"), _Schoof_ may be the closest we can get with existing

> candidates.

>From what you just told, it really looks nice.

> > "In de Mathematik is en Maat/Liddmaat/Element 'n Objekt, dat Deel vun 'n

> > Schoof is.

>

> How about _Saak_ instead of _Objekt_, and _... dat 'n Part vun 'n Schoof

> is_? (At any rate, with the additional _'n_ before the noun. _Part_ -- an

> older loan -- conveys the idea of "part of a whole" more clearly to me ...

> well, but so does _Deel_, albeit more generalized.

I have to think about Saak. But I like _Part_. I did not know that word in 
LS.

>

> > Gruppen/Koppels?

>

> Ah! _Koppel_! Now we're talking! Can't you use *that* one instead of

> _Schoof_? It definitely conveyes the idea of "set" most clearly to me,

> implying (predetermined) links of objects into sets (from _koppeln_ 'to

> link').

Well.... I have to admit that I need even more words. And when we use 
_Koppel_ for _set_, we might get into trouble. Do you know about the 
mathematical concept of groups and group theory? (I almost wrote group 
therapy...)

Please have a look at de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruppentheorie

That page also has a short introduction for "Nichtmathematiker".

"Groups" are special "set"s with special properties. You take a set (of 
elements) and you define two operations on this set. And once you have 
checked (mathematically spoken "proved") that these two operations work well 
on this set, you have a "group". And then you have come very far, because 
you can study groups in general and then you know that all the properties of 
groups then apply to your set. Then you can even find lots and lots of very 
special groups like "Abel'sche Gruppe" and all those other groups that you 
can find on de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruppentheorie

So a "set" is more like bottles that you place together on a shelf. Sets 
come in all flavours. Some have names, some have their own mathematical 
symbols (like the set of the integer numbers) and others just pop up, 
because you just like them or because you need them in an exercise. Let us 
just invent a group {1,2, "hallo", "Ron"} and let us name this set "Heiko's 
Example". You see: a set can have objects of different types.

BUT: some sets have very special properties and those elements in those sets 
have a lot in common, like in an "abel'sche Gruppe".

So if we use _Koppel_ for _set_, what will we use for _Gruppe_?? And maybe 
the elements in a _Koppel_ would stick too close together to be a _set_??

> Have I sufficiently confused you now?

I think after this mail we are even :)

> > Jonny? Any proposals? This might be your

> > last chance :)

>

> Is that a demonstration of what's meant by the saying _Aanten vun'n Diek

> flöten_ ("to whistle ducks from the pond" = 'to do something in vain', 'to

> waste one's time')? Laat maal usen Jonny tofreden, eische Jung, mit Dien

> kiebige Griensmüüsteree! Up em un sien Blaaskapell laatt wi niks kamen.

> Remember: "Different strokes for different fowks," and that's a good 
> thing.

Well, I did not want to be "kiebig". I just know that Jonny is very much 
against Patentplatt, and I just wanted to give him a chance to state his 
opinion. I think he, too, often has good ideas.

But once we get through with _set_, I can start translating the first 
articles. We are definitely making progress.

Kind regards,

Heiko

----------

From: Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.12 (06) [D/E/F]

Hi Henno,
> >> I suppose you might get away with _Schoof_ ....
>
> This has a very special meaning in mathematics (Dutch schoof, WF
> skeaf, eng. sheaf, French faisceau), which is not "set", so I'd avoid
> it.... (too technical to explain here)
That is bad news for me, but thanks a lot for pointing this out.

Kind regards,

Heiko

----------

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

Luc, Low Saxon _deyl_ (<Deel>) sticks with the original meaning 'part', 
'portion'.  I have a hunch that Brabantish extended this to a set.

By the way, in Low Saxon we also use _'n goud (~ groot) deyl_ (<'n goot (~ 
groot) Deel>) exactly like its English equivalent "a good (~ great) deal," 
implying "a lot," "a sizeable amout," "a good many," "much," etc., but there 
is no equivalent of "of"; e.g., _'n goud deyl schryverey_ 'a good deal of 
writing', _'n goud deyl duyrer_ 'a good deal (dearer =) more expensive'.

Heiko:

> I have to think about Saak. But I like _Part_. I did not know that word in 
> LS.

_Part_ ([pa:t], pronounced exactly as in Australian English, ~ _pat_ <Patt> 
[pat]), obviously a loanword, is widely used, occurs quite frequently in 
Middle Saxon ("Middle Low German") already.  It's usual meanings are 'part', 
'portion', 'amount'.  As in English, it can be used in the sense of "part" = 
"party"; as in _voer myn part_ 'for my part', also meaning 'all right with 
me', 'see if I care', as in German _meinetwegen_ (e.g., _Voer myn part kanst 
dryst na bed gaan_ 'You may go on to bed as far as I am concerned').  There 
is also the derivation _wedder-part_ (<Wedderpart>) 'opposition', 'opponent' 
(cf. German _Widerpart_, thus "counterpart").

> > Have I sufficiently confused you now?

> I think after this mail we are even :)

True.

Well, Heiko, there's _Schoof_ (except what Henno said ...), _Koppel_, 
_Grupp_, _Ritt_ ('row', 'line', 'group'), _Deel_ ... Take your pick!

> Well, I did not want to be "kiebig". I just know that Jonny is very much 
> against
> Patentplatt, and I just wanted to give him a chance to state his opinion. 
> I
> think he, too, often has good ideas.

I know you weren't truly _kiebig_ ('fresh', 'cheeky'), which is why I used 
kiddie lingo to give it a humorous spin.

Yes, Jonny, too, has his moments, and the three of us would make a killer 
team if we could ever see eye to eye in all aspects.  Obviously, you find 
our ideas too radical and "out there," which is fine.  Jonny is weary of 
what he thinks is my literary ivory tower, i.e., my alleged separation from 
Kuddle's and Fiete's _snack_ over _Kööm_ and beer.  Apparently, Jonny, like 
myself, is not happy with you drawing the line at the Dutch border in your 
believe that the gap is too wide, thus are supporting (further) separation 
from our kin, the very people that could help you best with your neologism 
endeavor.  (And in my experience they are, generally speaking, a good deal 
more open-minded and supportive than their counterparts in Germany, not 
necessarily Neerlandocentric, no matter what lame stuff naysayers in Germany 
may allege.)  Besides, you'd get a lot more support from me if you would use 
at least the full Fehrs orthography instead of the wretched scaled-down 
version that causes learners to mispronounce certain words; e.g., _deyl_ 
<Deel> 'part', _deel_ <Dęęl> ~ <Dääl> 'floor', _moyten_ <möten> 'to meet', 
_moeten_ <mœten> 'to be required' ('must'), scaled down to <Deel> and 
<möten> in the incomplete Fehrs method, even though pronounced differently.)

However, all this having been said -- *sigh* -- it is my opinion that we can 
try to work together in "safe" areas at least, perhaps grow together over 
time.  I am a bit more generous there than our Jonny seems to be willing to 
be (which I fully respect).

Petty faction fighting simply can not get us far, will make us lose sight 
and miss the overall goal, which is the one thing we definitely have in 
common.

Let me rummage around in my box of homemade sayings and share this one --  
and I apologize about the particularly poetic and delicate wording, in case 
in its sophistication it is a bit over some folks' heads:

As maten koent wy wat beryten.
Anners kunst up all'ns wat schyten.

As Maten kœnt wi wat berieten.
Anners kunnst up allns wat schieten.

As mates we'd pull off quite a bit.
If not as mates, who'd give a sh…?

Hold Dy vuchtig!
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.
======================================================================= 