LL-L "Lexical usage" 2003.02.07 (11) [E/S]

Fri Feb 7 20:50:12 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 07.FEB.2003 (11) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (ZeÃªuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Lexical usage" 2003.02.06 (12) [E]

Sandy wrate:
>
>Like I says, I'm keepin my neb oot o't - I dinna enter
>competitions an that's flet (an what a guid thing that's
>turnt oot, in this case!). Sae I'm juist daein what I'm
>telt, an it's aa been taen doun, like I wis telt! Nae
>raison we couldna pit your stuff up itherwhaur, tho.

Weel, like ye ken I teuk the same view aboot the kempin - maistly cause I
thocht at wi Bob an Colin baith pittin in bitties at I jaloused wad be alang
the richt lines, the war nae pynt me daein anither ane. Houaniver, I did pit
up thon lang flyte aboot (a) expository Scots in general, an (b) the first
orra translate at thon same team did, cause I coudna keep my neb oot
aathegither. Forby that, John Law sent me the translates ti hae a scance
ower, like I sayed.

>What happened here wis, Matthew Fitt an his chiels coudna thole
>lossin the contest wi guid grace, an gaed on threepin at John
>Law that he wis mistakkin hissel bad &c &c greet girn peendge,
>as weel as fraisin thair ain translate fae here tae Hecklebirnie.
>
>Ane o thair chief compleents wis that we should be uizin
>spellins like "minister", no "meinister". John Law sent them a
>list o a hunder an odd things wis wrang wi thair translate an
>Matthew's reaction wis tae awa tae Embro an wirk on't wi the
>ither twae chiels. Of course I ken fine they wad never hiv duin
>sic a thing as refer tae Bob's translate in ony wey that wad be
>tae thair benefit, I dinna mean tae imply that at aa.

Coorse no! Speecially cause, as we ken, ane o the pynts o haein a closin
date wis sae naebodie coud hae the benefit o hindsicht o ither fowks ettles.

(Um - ye hinna nae Austens i yer faimly tree, hiv ye...?)
>
>Funny eneuch, leukin at their new translate we see spellins
>like "meinister"! An a lot o ither gey Scots that they wis
>meant tae be threepin against in the first place. Oh my goad,
>thay'v slaigert thair braw anglified translate wi a lot o
>Scots wirds!
>
>I shoud say, in case ye dinna aareddy ken'd, it's the "licht"
>translate that the pairliament haes waled. Oh aye - an the
>title o the document will be pitten back intae English - thay
>can uize English or Gaelic for the title but thay'r no alloued
>Scots.

Weel, the 'English or Gaelic' thing is policy, an naething at oniething can
be duin aboot the nou. Houaniver, I think at the'r some gey awkward things
shoud be spiered aboot the wey at ae team did the leet-lowpin an aathing -
myndin at the ettle here wis ti mak a translate at wad 'set the mood' for
expository Scots. I winna gang in til't onie mair on this leet, but I'll
mibbie send ye some o the things I'v juist been sayin ti John Law aboot it.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

----------

From: luc.hellinckx at pandora.be <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Lexical usage

Beste liÃ«glanners,

Remember the use of double negatives (very common in Flemish, Brabantish and
Afrikaans), a topic we discussed a while back ?
Well, when I read the last few posts I couldn't help but smile...the point
is that "to iterate" already means "to repeat"...OK, I know "to reiterate"
is fully accepted in English, but yet it is somehow strange from a logical
point of view *s*...the only meaning could thus be "to restart the whole
process of iteration over and over again.
However, when I came across the phrase "to reiterate again" in one of the
most recent messages, my mind went adrift *s*...
Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com <mailto:sassisch at yahoo.com>>
Subject: Lexical usage

Hoi, Luc!

> However, when I came across the phrase "to reiterate again" in one of the
most recent
> messages, my mind went adrift *s*...

Well, yes, etymologically speaking it is certainly _doppelt oder dreifach
gemoppelt_.  However, in real life it is perfectly fine, I think.  It simply
means "to repeat again," because, as you noted yourself, repeat of the
meaning "again" ("re-" and "iter-") is no longer perceived by most users of
the language.  Besides, I understand that English did not make up
"reiterate" but got it from Latin _reiterare_ 'to state/say over again'.  It
is already in Latin that _iterare_ 'to restate', 'to repeat' (< _iterum_
'again') and _reiterare_ 'to restate/repeat over' coexist.  I wonder if in
Latin these don't actually convey different meanings, perhaps something like
'to repeat (whatever last statement)' vs 'to repeat (a series of statements)
in toto', and I wonder if this difference was or is not also intended to be
observed in English.   I don't see any problem with "again" in this
connection: "to repeat" and "to repeat again"; e.g., "Thanks for repeating
it for me, but may I ask to repeat it (once) again?"

I find the verb "to redouble" much stranger (e.g., "We must redouble our
efforts.") and therefore never use it, feel that "to double" suffices.  I
suppose "redouble" would make sense if doubling already took place; i.e.,
'to double again'.

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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>.
 =======================================================================