LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.25 (03) [A/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.SEP.2005 (03) * 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: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.24 (02) [E]

Hi Gabriele,

Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.23 (10) [A]

> Mark wrote:
>> moderne Engels. Weliswaar, Moderne Engels het die grootste woordeskat van
>> alle tale ter Wëreld, maar hoor nou mooi vir die algewone enkeltalige
>> Engelsman, en jy hoor hoe maak hulle inteendeel staat op die kleinste
>> werkende woordeskat as enige ander enkeltalige in sy eie taal.

> Are you sure? I heard that German had the largest vocabulary, due to all
> those composite nouns and verbs, while English is a lot more limited in
> that
> respect.

Well so the dons (the English ones) do brag, and having seen the Oxford
English Dictionary in all its glory on Professor Abercrombie's shelves, I am
not disposed to differ. And in this country, on the other hand, as well as
Old Blighty, I have had the pleasure of company with a working vocabulary of
two syllables & no adjectives. Well, this doesn't argue poor language,
consider Hemingway ---.

>> due to all
>> those composite nouns and verbs, while English is a lot more limited in
>> that
>> respect.

Hi Ron! We can also do composites. Consider the one that, she averred, got
my mother a distinction in her Orals in her matric year:
'Landbougenoodskaptentoonstellingkommitteevergadering', (the 'Agricultural
Union exhibition committee meeting'). And this is not a fantasy or a
one-time word. It must be trotted out as a matter of course in all rural
districts every year around July.

My all-time favourite is that historic dorp bearing the name
'Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein', (the 'Spring where two
buffalos were killed stone dead with one shot'). Let the Welshman read, &
weep!

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: Henry Pijffers <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.25 (02) [E/LS]

Gabrielle wrote:
 >
> not Dutch because, since their last spelling
> reform, they've had to make do with the same word for a badger and a
> necktie, and only one word for leather, ladder, theory, learn, and 
> teach...
>
How does a spelling reform reduce the number of words in a language
(other than removing the odd letter so two words are written the same)?
I certainly don't understand your examples.

regards,
Henry

----------

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.24 (07) [E]

I am intrigued by all this discussion on size of languages.

In English would '(a) play' be counted as well as '(to) play' or would they
just be counted as one - 'cos if so, then English has a disadvantage in
having lost morphological features that differentiate nouns from verbs
adjectives from adverbs etc etc.

And any actual count would not actually reflect the breadth of use the
words can be put to.

Heather ................. still having a nice Sunday ; - ))))))))

----------

From: Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.25 (02) [A/E]

Haai almal,

Gabrielle: In Afrikaans beteken 'leer' ook:
ladder, run (in a stocking), learn, teach, leather,
philosophical/scientific basis (soos in 'bestaansleer' en 'regsleer')

Cheerio,
Elsie Zinsser
Actually, coming to think of it, "leer" seems like the mother of all false
friends in European languages - meaning all of the abovementioned terms in
Dutch, "empty" in German, "ogle" in English, and "read" in Spanish - any
others?

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.25 (02) [A/E]

Mmm, I'm not so sure if what you say about Dutch is true.
Who says that "leer" meaning "leather" is the same word as "leer" meaning
"theory" (E. lore), or "leer" meaning "ladder" (the normal word in Dutch
is "ladder" too, "leer" is archaic a/o regional), or "leer" meaning
"teach" or "learn"?  I see five different words here, homonyms but not
synonyms. And the German trick with all the preps, we have in Dutch too,
as in other languages like Polish etc, I believe. Inleggen, opleggen,
uitleggen, afleggen, onderleggen, overleggen, aanleggen etc etc.
Maybe Mandarin Chinese has the largest vocabulary, but it has probably the
largest amount of homonyms, too. Except for some polynesian languages,
probably.
But, like you, I don't care who wins here, German or English, or another
language.

Gruesli
Ingmar

>Gabriele "Global Moose" Kahn hat geschrieben:
>Mind you, I don't really care which language has "a larger vocabulary"; I
>just don't think that English can rightfully make this claim. There must
>be languages with plenty more words than both English and German -
>probably not Tokpisin, though, and certainly not Dutch because, since
>their last spelling reform, they've had to make do with the same word
>for a badger and a necktie, and only one word for leather, ladder,
theory, learn, and >teach...
>
>Actually, coming to think of it, "leer" seems like the mother of all false
>friends in European languages - meaning all of the abovementioned terms in
>Dutch, "empty" in German, "ogle" in English, and "read" in Spanish - any
>others?

----------

From: Kevin Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.25 (02) [A/E]

> Moreover, I was thinking about verbs such as:

> ablaufen, auflaufen, einlaufen, unterlaufen, ?berlaufen,
> vorlaufen, nachlaufen, fortlaufen, anlaufen, weglaufen,
> verlaufen, mitlaufen,... etc., which are separate words, but
> not "run up, run off, run away, run by, run past, run down..." -
> that's just one word with a bunch of prepositions
> added... you can ask any German. :-)

But the English nouns and adjectives derived from such phrases are single 
words (many hyphenated): run-up, run-off, runaway, overrun, run-down, 
runabout, run-around, runback, run-in, run-through

----------

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Ben.Bloomgren at asu.edu>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2005.09.24 (07) [E]

But then again are words such as 'word' and 'words' two separate words or
just shadings of the same word?

I am taking a class that is an introduction to linguistics, and we just
dealt with this phenomenon of word versus words. Linguistics deals with
phonology and morphology along with tons of other things. The s in words is
considered an inflectional morpheme that pluralizes a noun. Therefore, at
least for a basic understanding of linguistics, word and words are one word
with a pluralizing morpheme.

----------


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

Ben:

> Therefore, at
> least for a basic understanding of linguistics, word and words are one 
> word
> with a pluralizing morpheme.

Thanks, Ben. Voilà , you lot!

This bears to be taken back to the basics:

(1) Inherently, lexicon and spelling are on two different planets (though 
one would hope that spelling would represent lexemes optimally).  How a word 
or words are written does not necessarily say anything about their 
classification and connections. No spelling reform will ever change the 
number of words a language has, nor does any orthography serve as a guide to 
the number of words in a language.

(2) HOMONYMS are words that have the same phonetic form (homophones) or 
orthographic form (homographs) but not the same meaning. In derivation, 
homonym means the same name, homophone means the same sound, and homograph 
means the same letters.
Thus, Afrikaans (1) _leer_ '(learning = teaching =) theory' (Dutch _leer_, 
LS _leyr_, German _Lehre_), (2) _leer_ 'ladder' (Dutch, LS _ladder_, German 
_Leiter_), and (3) _leer_ 'leather' (Dutch _leer_ [< leder], LS _ledder_, 
German _Leder_) are homonyms, three different and unrelated words that 
happen to have the same pronunciation and spelling.

OK, then.  How about this example?  Low Saxon _leddig_ (~ _lerrig_).  German 
speakers might want to argue that it, too, consists of three homonyms:

(1) _leddig_ 'empty' (German _leer_)
(2) _leddig_ 'jobless', 'idle' (German _arbeitslos_, untätig_, _müßig_)
(3) _leddig_ 'unmarried', 'single' (German _ledig_, _unverheiratet_)

Not so.  They all come from the same source and are semantically linked, are 
linked in the way that for instance English "idle" in "He's idle all day 
long" and "idle" in "idle chatter" are related.  The common denominator, or, 
better, the etymological and semantic root of _leddig_ is that of Dutch and 
German _ledig_, related to _leed_ 'limb', thus 'nimble', thus 'unbound', 
'free (to move about)' > 'free'.  So, a pot that is _leddig_ is 'free' of 
contents, a jobless person is 'free' of work, and an unmarried person is 
'free' from ... Well, you get the picture.  So you can argue that _leddig_ 
is one word with different semantic usages/categories, unlike Afrikaans 
_leer_ which can be one of three homonyms.

Heather:
> In English would '(a) play' be counted as well as '(to) play' or would 
> they
> just be counted as one -

Clearly two words that are semantically linked: one noun and one verb.

Cheerio!
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.:
I wrote:
> Jonny, dat luus-our:

Due to a typo this inadvertently ended up being a cross between _sluus-our_ 
(<Sluusohr> "slit-ear" = 'rascal') and _luus-angel_ (<Luusangel> 
"louse-fishing-rod" = "louse catcher" = 'street urchin').  Ah, well.

Heather wrote:
> Heather ................. still having a nice Sunday ; - ))))))))

Glad to hear that.  And mine hasn't quite ended yet, while your alarm clock 
is just about gearing up to call, "Get up, Heather, and say good morning to 
Mr. Monday!"

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