<div dir="ltr"><div style="text-align: center;">===========================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 03 October 2008 - Volume 02<br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">If viewing this in a web browser, please click on</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page </span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.</span><br>
===========================================<br></div><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>>
<br>
Subject: Lexicon<br><br></span><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRon%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;
mso-font-alt:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:modern;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:-1610612033 1757936891 16 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-alt:宋体;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:modern;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:-1610612033 1757936891 16 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Dear Lowlanders,<br>
<br>
I often wonder if it is correct to make the general pronouncement that lexical
enrichment tends to occur in cases of <span style=""> </span>"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. (<i>All</i> languages are mixed to some degree or other, but I am
talking about what is or approaches hybridization.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>küssen</i> (<i>Küssen</i>) for both (German <i>Kissen</i>,
related to "cushion") and specifies <i>kopküssen</i> (<i>Koppküssen</i> "head
cushion") for "pillow" only if necessary.<br>
<br>
Similarly, Low Saxon <i>blad</i> (<i>Blatt</i>, German <i>Blatt</i>, cognate of "blade")
usually covers both "leaf" and "petal", which in English are strictly separated.
The "leaf" meaning is basic to <i>blad</i>. So, for instance <i>rosenblad</i> (<i>Rosenblatt</i>)
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 <i>bloydenblad</i>
(<i>Blödenblatt</i>, German <i>Blütenblatt</i> "blossom/bloom leaf"). In the case
of <i>rosenblad</i> (<i>Rosenblatt</i>) 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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Things to ponder and spout off about ... I guess it touches on the old question "Does language influence perception?"<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Reinhard/Ron</span>
</p></div>