LL-L "Etymology" 2002.10.27 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.OCT.2002 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2002.10.26 (08) [D/E]

Ron wrote:

>      Modern Lowlands Saxon _mack_ 'fit (to handle)', 'tame'

There's a Shetland word _makly_ with a similar meaning, though I'm surprised
not to be able to find it in The Shetland Dictionary. CSD, though, cites
_mak_ with this meaning.
>
>Scots did not participate in k-palatalization

This is something which I've never properly understood. I've always
understood that pairs such as Eng. _church_, _bridge_; Scots _kirk_, _brig_,
were owing to the Scots forms being derived from Old Norse rather than Old
English (so eg. David Murison in The Guid Scots Tongue, p. 48ff). Apparently
there are some semantic distinctions in English based on this etymological
difference - so the cognate _shirt_ from OE and _skirt_ from ON - but such
differences are more typical of Scots, eg: Eng. _shelf_, Scots _skelf_. Now,
does this mean that Scots did not undergo k- and g- palatalisation at all;
or that it borrowed ON forms lacking palatalisation (which would seem to
presuppose some palatalisation elsewhere) or that it did not undergo
palatalisation under ON influence (which, it seems to me, could only be a
theory.)

Certainly there are words in modern Scots with apparent palatalisation, such
as _watch_ (_match_, flame-stick, doesn't count because it's French)  and
_cheese_. Does anyone know which factors are involved here - is there
partial palatalisation, delimited either lexically (eg: words with OE rather
than ON origin) or according to some phonological rule; or are the words
with palatalisation English loan words, as _which_ and _much_ surely are,
the Scots forms being _whilk_ (now probably obsolete, and replaced in
traditional braid Scots by (th)at) and _muckle_? Presumably there is some
rule whereby we have English _watch_ and _wake_ with different meanings from
the same origin.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings 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>.
=======================================================================