LL-L: "Etymology" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.1999 (06)

Fri Aug 6 00:13:21 UTC 1999

  =========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 05.AUG.1999 (05) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Etymology

Muhammed asked about "gormless". I think that is the spelling most people
would use, though Chambers Dictionary also has "gaumless" and gives the
derivation from ON "gaumr".

In case non-English-speakers are not familiar with it, Chambers has a high
content of Scottish words (and so is much loved by crossword compilers).

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Muhammed Suleiman [suleiman at lineone.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" [E/Norwegian] LOWLANDS-L,        05.AUG.1999 (03)

> While the etymology ("without understanding") is sound, "gaumless" is now
> considered obsolete in English, while it seems to me that the form
> "gormless" could now be considered general English (or at least general
> British English). The spelling "gormless" is supported by speakers of
> Scottish English, the "r" always being clearly trilled.

I wonder, though, whether this word can be considered indigenous to
Scotland. or whether it is a 'Saessenach' loan. If the word has indeed
Scandinavian antecedants, it would only be expected to find forms of it in
Lallans and Shetlandic.

Regards,

Dr M Suleiman

----------

From: Jasmin Harvey [jharvey at ucla.edu]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" [E/Norwegian] LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.1999 (03)

t 09:14 AM 8/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Unfortunately, I
>don't have an Old Norse or Icelandic dictionary within easy reach right now
 <snip - jh>
>What is of interest to us here is that in both Norwegian languages _gaum_,
>derived from Old Norse /gaum+r/ _gaumr_, basically means 'attention', as
seen in
>the phrases _Gje gaum!_ 'Pay attention!'

Dear Ron and all,

>From Zoega's Old Icelandic Dictionary (unfortunately I don't have a copy of
Cleasby-Vigfusson):  gaumr, "heed, attention" indeed.  Compounds:
gaum-gaefa = to heed, gaum-gaefdh ("edh", not d) = attention, care, gefa
gaum at (einhverju) = to pay attention to (something).

Also: ga' (that's an accented = long "a") = to heed, as in ga' si'n = to
take care of oneself, gudhs hann ga'dhi = he gave heed to God.  Related
words: ga'lausigr = heedless, wanton,  ga'ligr = mindful of, ga'samr =
heedful, attentive, and, close to what we're looking for, ga'lauss =
wanton, careless.

To confuse matters: gro'mr = blot, dirty splot, and the compound
gro'mrlauss = free from spot.  But I don't think that's it really.
Although the metathesis of gro'm - gorm would not be a problem, the
semantic connection of the other is much stronger.

The American Heritage dictionary (3/ed) seems to agree with us: gormless
[from dialectal gawm, sense, from Middle English gome, notice, from Old
Norse gaumr].  But it doesn't take it back any further than that.  I
couldn't find it in Buck's Indo-european synonyms, but there's an art to
looking in there, and I didn't take a lot of time to do so.

Possibly related?  /gram/, which a quick look through my Old English,
Middle High German, and Middle Dutch readers produced, all in the meaning
of "angry, hostile."  Probaby has to do with "grim".

Jasmin Harvey
Germanic Linguistics, UCLA
jharvey at ucla.edu

----------

From: Muhammed Suleiman [suleiman at lineone.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.1999 (04)

> Do you think this could be a case of r-insertion in rhotic varieties,
i.e.,
> reanalysis of supposedly "southern" non-rhotic /(...)orC(...)/ -> [O:] (->
[o:])
> as rhotic [Or], analogous to /form/ -> [fO:m] ~ [fo:m] = [fOrm]?  In other
> words, I am speculating that _gaum(less)_ came from Scandinavian _gaum_
(see my
> previous posting) and came to be reanalized as _gorm(less)_, hence two
spelled
> versions of which the "wrong" one has taken over.

Your initial statement [ r-insertion in rhotic varieties ] seems to
contradict both the Uyghur examples, and the British English examples you
give. Unless of course sleep is befogging my understanding!

Lancashire and Yorkshire varieties of English are essentially rhotic, even
if they lack the trill of the Scotsmen. It seems, then, that the _gorm-_
spelling, could be a hypercorrection from the southern non-rhotic dialects.

Neither a man of Lancashire, nor a Yorkshire 'Tyke', would dream of speaking
of 'Lore and order' or of 'Africar'. Any such pronunciation would most
likely be anathema to a Scotsman too, a fact that the good Sandy could
perhaps confirm.

Regards,

M Suleiman

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Etymology

Muhammed wrote (above):

> It seems, then, that the _gorm-_
> spelling, could be a hypercorrection from the southern non-rhotic dialects.

Something like this is what I had in mind as one of the possibilities.  Just
because the word survives in the northern varieties and in Scots does not
necessarily mean that these varieties were the originators of this word.  It
could have started farther south on the west coast.

My basic point had been that the sequence [O:m] is rare or unique and therefore
may have been reanalyzed as [Orm] or [9rm], analogous to _form_ or _firm_.
Crudely put, if a non-rhotic speaker had introduced the word [gO:m] to a rhotic
speaker, the latter, being aware of the "missing" /r/ in that person's speech,
could have assumed that there was an underlying /r/ lurking there and thus could
have rendered it as [gOrm] as a type of hypercorrection or overcompensation.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 ==========================================================================