LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 03 October 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Lexicon

Dear Lowlanders,

I often wonder if it is correct to make the general pronouncement that
lexical enrichment tends to occur in cases of  "mixed languages", i.e. those
that underwent some degree of hybridization, as in the cases of the Lowlands
languages Afrikaans, English and Scots, and to a degree also Missingsch and
Stêdsk. (*All* languages are mixed to some degree or other, but I am talking
about what is or approaches hybridization.)

The simple explanation would be that more lexical choices and thus
"non-moderating" lexical differentiations become available were one or more
language feeds into the development of the base language. By
"non-moderating" I mean that an imported previously foreign word becomes
available where, if differentiation does occur, an "unmixed" language tends
to create compounds.

Using English, well-known examples are French-derived "beef" and "pork"
versus the compounded equivalents of "cattle flesh/meat" and "pig/swine
flesh/meat" in related "unmixed" languages.

I am particularly thinking of lexical differentiations that in "unmixed"
languages are not usually made, are only made when specification is
necessary in certain contexts. For instance, English has "cushion" and
"pillow" where Low Saxon usually uses *küssen* (*Küssen*) for both (German *
Kissen*, related to "cushion") and specifies *kopküssen* (*Koppküssen* "head
cushion") for "pillow" only if necessary.

Similarly, Low Saxon *blad* (*Blatt*, German *Blatt*, cognate of "blade")
usually covers both "leaf" and "petal", which in English are strictly
separated. The "leaf" meaning is basic to *blad*. So, for instance *
rosenblad* (*Rosenblatt*) is ambiguous in that it can denote either a leaf
or petal of a rose. If you absolutely need to specify the idea of "petal"
you would have to say *bloydenblad* (*Blödenblatt*, German
*Blütenblatt*"blossom/bloom leaf"). In the case of
*rosenblad* (*Rosenblatt*) it tends to be the "petal" idea that is being
conveyed, probably because rose petals play a prominent role in tradition
and literature while leaves of the rose stem do not.

The example of "leaf" versus "petal" makes me wonder if the availability of
lexical differentiation causes mental differentiation. Is a petal a type of
leaf to a speaker of Low Saxon or German while to an English speaker the two
are like "apples and oranges", i.e. denote two quite different things?
Similarly, do English speakers think of cushions and pillows as incomparable
items because they have totally different names, while speakers of Low Saxon
or German see a pillow as a type of cushion? Does use of the words "beef"
and "pork" allow a degree of mental distance from the origin of these foods
while the native-based compounded equivalents constantly remind you of the
animals from which they were taken?

Things to ponder and spout off about ... I guess it touches on the old
question "Does language influence perception?"

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20081003/8f4d7d5d/attachment.htm>