<div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">===========================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 09 November 2009- Volume 01<br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><a href="mailto:lowlands.list@gmail.com">lowlands.list@gmail.com</a> - <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/">http://lowlands-l.net/</a></span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">
<span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)</span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Language Codes: <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/codes.php">lowlands-l.net/codes.php</a></span><br>
===========================================<br></div><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI"><span class="gD" style="color: rgb(91, 16, 148);">Paul Finlow-Bates</span> <span class="go"><<a href="mailto:wolf_thunder51@yahoo.co.uk">wolf_thunder51@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI">LL-L "Lexicon" 2009.11.08 (05) [EN]<br><br></span><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
I agree with the sentiments, but as causes go, this must be about
as lost as they get. Most English-speakers aren't English, or even
British. In fact most probably don't even have origins in these
islands. "The speech of our forbears" could means practically anything
on Earth.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Â </div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">There's nothing stopping anybody picking a "Saxon" word over a Latin one if they feel like it though.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Â </div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Paul</div>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Derby</div><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
England</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">----------</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI"><span class="gD" style="color: rgb(200, 137, 0);">DAVID COWLEY</span> <span class="go"><<a href="mailto:DavidCowley@anglesey.gov.uk">DavidCowley@anglesey.gov.uk</a>></span></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI">LL-L "Lexicon" 2009.11.08 (05) [EN]<br><br></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Thanks John (Howland) - the quotes from Mollee are fascinating. You may
be aware that Dorset poet and 'polymath' William Barnes was saying much
the same kind of thing somewhat earlier in the 1800s - I wonder whether
Mollee had been influenced by him?</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
You touch on the idea of 'ethnocentrism' too, and I also note one of Ron's comments in another e-mail:</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
'I have heard people insist that English developed from Latin or
French, and they seemed to think I was cuckoo (or perhaps a rampant
Nazi) for insisting it was essentially Germanic, which to them had a
negative ring'...</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
I go out of my way NOT to risk folk thinking the restoration of OE
words is somehow about being ethnocentric (or worse). Barnes and Mollee
were of course writing before the two world wars, and use words like
'Saxon' and suchlike in ways which might today be more open to being
hijacked by far right-wingers. I try to emphasise that if we get back
any updated words from Old English, that's something which can be
positive for all English speakers today, whatever hue or ethnic origin.
Although 'Germanic' is a valid linguistic term, Â its a sadly
understandable fact that it can have a negative ring to many. I find it
more helpful to speak in terms of 'getting back to the roots of
English', 'restoring lost words to English' and so forth - which is far
more likely to get listened to  (in the UK at least, probably elsewhere
too).</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
Back to the positive - I just feel that the use of some of these words
would be clearer - in fact Mollee's point about them being
self-explaining is valid for many.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
B.t.w. Ron you say 'afterfollower' sounds a bit 'silly' - I think again
that's part of conditioning: you'd say the same about 'afterbirth' and
'aftermath' if they hadn't lasted as established words. You ask why use
'after' - if one said 'who's the king's follower?' it would have an
obviously different meaning, so the 'after' is there to show the
distinction. Surely you'd agree that 'oathbreach' and 'mouthroof' are
clearer than 'perjury' and 'palate' and could get back into English
very easily?</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
David</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">----------</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: R. F. Hahn <</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
Subject: Lexicon<br><br>Thanks, David.<br><br></span><div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">B.t.w. Ron you say 'afterfollower' sounds a bit 'silly' - I think again
that's part of conditioning: you'd say the same about 'afterbirth' and
'aftermath' if they hadn't lasted as established words. You ask why use
'after' - if one said 'who's the king's follower?' it would have an
obviously different meaning, so the 'after' is there to show the
distinction. Surely you'd agree that 'oathbreach' and 'mouthroof' are
clearer than 'perjury' and 'palate' and could get back into English
very easily?<br></div><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>I do understand, and I do appreciate your points and intentions.<br><br>I am not quite sure, though, if you and Luc, got my point that, semantically speaking, "afterfollower" is what in German is called </span><i style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">doppelt gemoppelt</i><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> in that "to follow" already implies "after."</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">On the other hand, now archaic "to forego" (as in "foregone conclusion," not to be confused with "to forgo") is one of those surviving Germanic-rooted constructions. It uses "to go" which in itself does not imply "fore." And, indeed, there is the equally archaic derivation "foregoer," denoting 'predecessor' and often specifically 'preceding messenger'.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Therefore, just for the sake of argument, I'd suggest that a suitable alternative to "afterfollower" might be "aftergoer" or, in my opinion better, "aftercomer." This would be symmetrical with "foregoer" and would avoid the (seeming) redundancy. If you choose "aftercomer" in the sense of 'successor', then "aftergoer" could denote 'pursuer'. I hope you can see my intentions in the choices of "come" and "go." This would be consistent with expressions such as "This sentence comes after (= follows) that sentence," and "I'll go after (= pursue) the thief." (Of course, in modern parlance both of them can mean 'to pursue' depending on context, as in "He came after me" and "I went after him.")</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Regards,</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Reinhard/Ron</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Seattle, USA</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
•
<p>
==============================END===================================
<p>
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org.
<p>
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
<p>
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
<p>
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
<p>
are to be sent to listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org or at
<p>
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
<p>
*********************************************************************