LL-L "Etymology" 2008.01.07 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  07 January 2008 - Volume 05
=========================================================================

From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2008.01.07 (02) [E]

From: Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2008.01.04 (06) [E]

Hi all,

Thanks, Diederik, Marcel and Mark for the Afrikaans words relating to *
Indo-European:*

* * **leudh-* 'to go freely', 'to grow'** > *leudho *'people'.

>And I just noticed that apparently Dutch is the only Germanic/W.European
language that does not use the latin word "muscle" but "spier". Anyone knows
other Germanic languages that use a more "original" word?
Well, Westerlauwer Frisian has "spier" as well. This is as expeced (old
Germanic i: is preserved, in Dutch before -r as well).

I would think 'bil' is quite an interesting meaning of muscle too besides
'spier'?

bil in WF is what corresponds to "dij" (thigh) in Dutch. It is neiter as
well (it bil), where Dutch has "de bil" [buttocks].

Groete,

Henno

----------

From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2008.01.05 (05) [E]

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

Thanks for the contributions in the thread!

This ought to be a crossover to "Grammar" perhaps ...

As has been mentioned, Dutch *jullie* 'you' (plural), Afrikaans
*julle*'you' (plural), and Afrikaans
* hulle* 'they' incorporated by way of suffixing a noun for 'people' (*lied*,
*lui*).

This reminds us once again that the introduction of politeness -- which more
often than not is the result of "cultured" foreign influence -- is likely to
alters ("destroys") the symmetrical structure of native systems, especially
pronominal systems. What happened in Dutch and Afrikaans is also something
that has happened in English and Scots.  In Low Saxon it has happened under
Dutch influence on Netherlands soil, while in Germany it began later under
German influence, is still not happening in many dialects and is still
perceived as foreign ( *geel* 'yellow' = German-style) by many speakers.

Traditional Modern Low Saxon | Old Saxon | Old English | Modern English:
Singular
   1. ik | ik | ic | I
   2. du | thū | þū (obj. þē) | (thou ~) you
   3. masc. hey | hē | hē | he
       fem. sey | hē | heo | she
       neut. it ~ et ~ dat | it | hit | it
Dual
   1. -- | wit | wit | --
   2. -- | git | git | --
Plural
   1. wy | wī | wē | we
   2. jy | gī | gē (obj. eouw) | you
   3. sey | sia | hie | they

In Modern English, the original objective case of the second person plural
form has become the general nominative second person pronoun. This is
because this plural form came to be used as a polite pronoun and eventually
made the familiar pronoun redundant. As a result, there is no longer a
distinction both between familiar and polite and between singular and
plural.

In Frisian (WF) something similar happened: originally one had:
(modern or premodern forms)

singular
(1) ik (obj my)
(2) do / dû (obj dy)
(3) hy (with er as clitic), hja (with se as clitic), it (obj. him, har, it)

plural [dual survives only in mainland North Frisian: "wat" and "jat" <
*wit, *jit]
(1) wy
(2) jy (obj : jo)
(3) hja (or hjo, in some dialects), obj (h(j)ar)

jy as the plural became the polite form [based on French "vous", presumably]
and in fact the object form become the form for all forms eventually: jo.
[jo can be the polite plural and singular form]
So there was a lack of a proper plural corresping to do/dû, and this became
the already old form: jimme (already "belegt" in Old Frisian as jimma) < ji
- men (you people).
This form also exists in North Frisian (jam) so must be from the Middle Ages
already, as the split
off happened quite early.

Old Low Franconian | Modern Dutch | Afrikaans
Singular
   1. ik | ik | ek
   2. thū | jij, gij | jy
   3. masc. hē | hij | hy
       fem. hē | zij | sy
       neut. hē | het |
Plural
   1. wī (obj. uns) | wij (obj. ons ) | ons
   2. fam. gī | ju*llie* ~ gij | ju*lle*
       pol. gī | gij ~ u | u
   3. hē | zij | hu*lle*

In Dutch and Afrikaans, introduction of a polite level caused similar
shifts, and the word for "people", "folk" (*lied*, *lui*) came to mark the
familiar forms and was extended to the equivalent of "they".


The j-forms (jij) are the same etymologically as the g-forms (gij); the
former are Ingwaeonic forms:
jij - jou on the coast vs. gij - u in more "pure" Franconan varieties.
Now "gij" is the colloquial form in the South (Brabantic and Belgian Dutch),
while it is bookish (and written language only)
in the North. Jij doesn't occur "natively" in the South, as does "jullie", I
believe. "gij" is more normal (but written language is
more conformant to Northern practice).
I also believe "gijlieden" also existed (to disambiguate between singular
and plural gij, I suppose), but is no longer used, I think.

The jij/gij supplanted the older "doe", "dou" (the latter in Northern
varieties). The Bible translation in Dutch (statenvertaling) did not use
this form but gij instead (the Southern form) which explains the more formal
connotation of "gij" in Northern Dutch.
(like thou still does in the King James for non-thou speakers).
U comes from Uwé (from U.E. < Uw edele "your honour" as used in letters
etc.) so the U form derives from the old possessive of "gij".

What about *u*?

In Neerlandized Low Saxon, does *oe* ([u(:)]) for the second person singular
and plural come from the same source as Dutch *u*, or is there a link with
old * thū*?

It's the old object form for Old Saxon "ji:" (which still exists in many
varieties, written as "ie", or "i'j" or something similar).
[the j- form is an Ingvaeonic relic in modern Saxon]
There are still dialects that use "doe" for singular (object "die"), "ie"
for plural (object form "oe"), which is the original system.
Some dialects use "ie" as a polite form as well.
So "u" and "oe" are related.

Henno Brandsma

----------

From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2008.01.06 (03) [E]

Modern Low Saxon:

   - *sout* (pl. soyt)
   - born
   - *spring ~ spreng ~ sprang*

Old Saxon:

   - *sōth*
   - born

Notes:

Old Frisian:

   - spring:
      - burna
      - walla
   - well:
      - burna
      - walla
      - *sāth*


Modern WF: boarne (pronounced [bwan@]), saad [somewhat rare], welle [even
rarer]

I'm also interested in the *séaþ* / *sāth* / *sōth* group for 'well'. Is
there any connection with "to seethe"?

It is. WF has "siede" for this verb, Dutch "zieden". In Dutch "zieden" is
not used that much (mostly in "ziedend" = very angry),
while "siede" is (for me) the normal word for "to cook, to boil" [some
dialects have "koaitsje, kôkje" instead; an early Latin loan].
Originally it must have meant a warm well.

Henno

Any input would be welcome.

Reinhard/Ron

----------

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

Thanks for all of that erudite information, Henno!

As for "seethe," Modern Low Saxon has *seyden* (*seden* ['zE.Id=n], *seiden*['
za.Id=n]), but in most dialects it's on its way out.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080107/601519d3/attachment.htm>