LL-L "Etymology" 2008.11.24 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 24 November 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: Diederik Masure <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2008.11.23 (03) [E]

>>RR skreiv:
>>Note that this word has the characteristic Dutch epenthetic *-t-* between
*-n* and the suffix *-je* (as does *Bontje* [ˈbɔnʨe]
>>'piece of candy' mentioned earlier): *-n-t-je*. (The labial equivalent is
*-m-p-je*.)

This is incorrect, imho. The -t- is original, medieval -kîn had its -k-
palatalised and maybe affricatised to -tcîn (cant make the c-cedille on this
keyboard) as Early Modern Dutch spellings like -tgen or -tgien indicate. The
here from derived -tje(n) then lost its /t/ in some circumstances, at least
in Holland.
That the -t- is original we can also still see in other dialects, eg. some
parts of West Flemish (maybe also Zeeuws then?) where the suffix is -tsje
even in words where Dutch lost the t. I have f.ex. read huustje for D
huisje.
Compare also the diminutive of ´licht´, lichtje which in Holland is
pronounced without its t althouh belonging to the stem, but keeping its t at
least in belgian brabant.
Similar to this loss of -t- before -j- in Hollandic could be the inversion
of the 2nd person sg, komt je -> kom je, lacht je -> lach je etc.

Diederik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20081124/673ca828/attachment.htm>