LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (05) [D/E/German]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 03 October 2008 - Volume 05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Arend Victorie <victorie.a at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (04) [E]



Reinhard, ie schrèven.

By the way, one of the Low Saxon words for 'blade (of a knife or sword)' is
*kling* (*Kling*) which I suspect of being a German loan. Perhaps older is
Low Saxon *lemmel* (*Lemmel*) for the same thing. I don't know about its
etymology. It seems like a diminutive form of **lem(b)* or **lam(b)*. Or
does it come from *lamella*?



Nederlaandse Etymologisch woordenboek.

Lemmer (15980 Ook Lemmet (1616) ontstaan ui mnl. *Lemmele *
metaalblad/zwaardkling.

Uit het diminutief *lâmella *van Lat. *Lâmina *of *lâmna *blad metaal,kling

Vgl. lamble (Bern. C.1240)



Goodgaon,

Arend Victorie

----------

From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (04) [E]



Ron:



Another irony perhaps.  We also have blades of grass which can often look a
lot like a leaves depending on the type of grass.  In fact, the blades on
what we call Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana*)* here in Texas, can easily
cut your skin, if you wander too far into one.  That makes me wonder which
came first, the metal blade that cuts or the grass blade that cuts?  By the
way, I believe a "blad" can mean "page" or "newspaper" in some of the
Germanic languages.  Likewise, in English we can "leaf" thru a book or
magazine, and if careless can sometimes cut ourselves on one of the pages or
"blades."



Now about pork and pig or swine.  I would eat pork, and maybe on a long-shot
pig meat, but never swine!  J  Generally, pig and swine still live and
breathe.  Pork comes in a nice package with clear plastic wrap at the
grocery store.



Likewise with beef and cow.  However, if you take a lot of bovines in one
group, you have cattle.  Even in Texas we wouldn't eat cattle, no matter how
hungry we might be!  First of all, eating cattle would involve a very large
number of bovines.  Secondly, since cattle still live and breathe, they
would likely kick us real hard before we ever got a mouthful!



Mark Brooks



----------

From: M.-L. Lessing <marless at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (02) [E]



Reinhard wrote "I guess it touches on the old question "Does language
influence perception?""



At ca. 17 years old, I heard somebody say in English "We passed a serious
financial bottleneck." (Yes, it was long ago, not now! :-))) I had to think
on the "bottleneck" for a moment, then really rolled on the floor with
laughter, the metaphor seemed so funny. Native speakers most time do not
notice the "Bildhaftigkeit" (was heißt das auf Englisch, lieber Reinhard?)
of their language. German has the wonderful metaphor "Zeitlupe" for "slow
motion", but I'm sure most germans don't see the picturesque in it.
Foreigners do, at first. (Well, and poets :-)) If you are "in" a language,
in everyday life, you use the words for the things they mean, and basta.
Language is functional. They who notice all the shades, aspects,
relations and histories of a word (or an object, a person, a situation...)
are not fit for everyday life and get sorted out quickly; that's evolution
at work. It takes too much time & trouble to do so. What if fighters in a
battle stopped to look at their respective weapons, meditating "Hmmm,
doesn't it look like a grass plant?" (the englishman) or "Hmmm, doesn't it
sound like a bell?" (the german). They would get killed of course, sooner
than they could write a poem about their "blade" orr "klinge"! -- It must be
a considered serious sign of decadence in a population if too many poets
come up and thrive. A circumstance absolutely to be avoided!! :-))



Herzliche Grüße!



Marlou


----------

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

Thanks, Arend, Mark and Marlou!

Marlou:

If you are "in" a language, in everyday life, you use the words for the
things they mean, and basta. Language is functional. They who notice all the
shades, aspects, relations and histories of a word (or an object, a person,
a situation...) are not fit for everyday life and get sorted out quickly;
that's evolution at work.

[...]

It must be a considered serious sign of decadence in a population if too
many poets come up and thrive. A circumstance absolutely to be avoided!!
:-))



Uh-oh! That might explain certain things about me, I'm afraid ... I do think
about such things much of the time ... or better to say I "see" and "hear"
those semantic vibrations of words and phrases. I've known and have myself
been using the "bottleneck" expression for eons, yet I still have a mental
picture of it. When I hear, read or use "blade" in connection with "knife"
and "sword" I actually "sense" the shape idea. When I come across German *
Klinge* (blade)*, Klinke* (door handle) or *Klinker* (klinker brick) I am
pretty much fully aware of the aural vibrations of *klingen*, "clanging" ...

What does this say about me? "Weirded out" on account of linguistic excess
and obsession? Way to much etymology indulgence? Please tell me that I'm not
alone, that I'm not the only one to be picked off by Mr. Evolution! Should I
console myself by focusing on being a poet with the linguistic edge ...
albeit over the edge? It is true that practically all words I choose in
poems I choose with consideration to their individual baggage of aural,
visual and textural characteristics and various types of associations. Hmm
... it would be interesting to see fertility rate statistics of poets and
linguists. Too little sex due to too much rumination perhaps, in other words
"top-heavy" rather than "bottom-heavy"? Perhaps our Marlou is on to
something here ...

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.:
*Bildhaftigkeit*: pictorial nature, vividness, visually evocative property,
visual suggestiveness
*Zeitlupe*: literally "time lens/loupe/magnifying glass" = 'slow motion'



----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2008.10.03 (02) [E]

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

> 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 would maybe make a distinction between the cushion/pillow and
leaf/petal cases. In English or Scots, the distinction between cushion
and pillow is clear, but at the same time, you have a feeling that
they're the same sort of thing, it's the intended usage that
distinguishes them, not the objects themselves, except as far as the use
of the object influences its manufacture.

With petal/leaf, on the other hand, it comes as a surprise when you
learn that the distinction isn't usually made in some languages: they
just seem too different (and yet not so different that calling them by
the same name wouldn't cause confusion: eg sword blade or blade of
grass, too different to confuse).

Sometimes I wonder about "missing words" in a language and why language
users notice the problem because of the difficulties they cause, and yet
never invent words to resolve the difficulties.

For example, "inclusive we" versus "exclusive we" in English. In a case
like this, circumlocution doesn't quite serve to overcome the problem of
having no distinction between the two. Occasionally a person finds
themselves in an embarrassing position because someone says, "OK, we'll
go out to such and such tomorrow," and someone's left wondering if
they're invited or not, and needs to know but doesn't like to ask. Why
does no-one invent a couple of words to cover the situation, or why
doesn't language develop to cover areas of difficulty?

Another example in English is when someone asks, say, "So am I not
invited?" and someone replies "Yes." Then you say, "Do you mean 'Yes
yes' or 'Yes no'?" and the invitation or lack thereof turns into a bit
of a fuss and possibly an embarrassment.

Other languages, even neighbours of English, have words to cover such
situations, why don't they develop in English?

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20081003/b630511a/attachment.htm>