LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.01 (02) [E]

Wed Sep 1 15:05:38 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 01.SEP.2004 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: ezinsser at tiscali.co.za <ezinsser at tiscali.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.31 (08) [E]

Hi all,

Someone referred to:
 >dike meaning embankment ?

This is also a term used in rock mechanics and mining engineering and
(before Ron jumps up
and down about the mentioning of possible derogatory terms or expressions),
it refers to
an intrusion of another type of rock into the usual rock type. A band of
sandstone into
granite, for instance.

Regards,
Elsie Zinsser

----------

From: Philip Ernest Barber <pbarber at loc.gov>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.31 (08) [E]

How about "forlorn hope" (originally Mil.: a group of men on a deparate
defensive or offensive operation whose loss is more or less certain)
from Dut. "verloren hoop"?

----------

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.08.31 (05) [E]

>> From: Pyt Berg <pytbergy at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Dutch into English
>>
>> am trying to ascertain the Dutch words that have come into English
Hi,
Just have a look into our archives.
I remember to have  quoted a  ( rather humorous) text of this Dutch
loans. I think the title was English=Dutch.
groetjes
luc vanbrabant
oekene

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Etymology

Ron, you wrote:

"I  have a feeling that many etymologists automatically apply the label
"Dutch" because Dutch is a "bona fide" language in their eyes (because it is
a national language), and the traditional view is that "Low German" is a
German dialect group, is therefore less consequential in their eyes, apart
from the fact that there are fewer and poorer resources for it than for
Dutch."

Why would you have such a feeling and why would you ascribe such bias to a
bunch of rather serious scholars? I guess that etymologists specialise by
period. The major period for "Low German" borrowings into English was the
14th century during the ascendancy of the Hanseatic League. Any specialist
in this period  must know that "Low German" was its lingua franca, and
questions of "dialect" or language" are irrelevant. Moreover, etymology is
not carried out solely in the English-speaking world. Swedish and Dutch
etymologists, for example, are not going to use the attribution "Dutch" so
casually, and English etymologists will not be invited round for tea if
their work is considered inferior by these peers.

Of course it's possible that we may not have a record of the earliest use of
a word in English and may mis-assign its origin, but is this a more serious
problem for Low Saxon than for other borrowings? It isn't a competition and
ultimately it doesn't _matter_ where an _individual_ word comes from.

"Dollar" is very relevant. The source "Joachimst(h)aler" is clear, but was
it abbreviated in Germany/Bohemia or in the Dutch/Low German language area?
If the former then attributing the word to Dutch/Low German is simply to
give credit for a spelling error. Jefferson (1782) caused "dollar" to be the
name of the US currency. According to Bryson he wrote, referring to the
Spanish peso or piece of eight "the dollar is a known coin and the most
familiar of all to the mind of the people", which implies the term had been
around for a long time before that. And how did "dollar" get attached to the
peso?

"Gas" was invented by a Dutchman in early C17 and presumably first used in
Dutch though Van Helmont's explanation of its derivation is quoted by Onions
from a Latin text. But it wasn't used in its modern sense (a fluid which
fills any container it's put in) until 1779, by whom I don't know. Some
people say "gas" was a major factor in clarifying what gases were. The
earlier "air" led natural philosophers to believe that what we call gases
were impure forms of ordinary air: with the new term they could more easily
escape from this false premiss. If that is true the key fact about "gas" is
not who invented it but who first applied it in its modern sense.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Etymology

John,

I was merely cautioning against putting too much stock into less serious
etymological works, some of the more "user-friendly" ones, especially some
web presentations (that also list as "Dutch" such items that seem to be
native to English).  The full latest version of the _Oxford English
Dictionary_ (to whose online version I am lucky to have access) contains
fairly detailed information about first known occurrences and lists the
sources and years.  It also states when a word could be of either Middle
Dutch or "Middle Low German" (Middle Saxon) origin.  However, many, if not
most, works do not, included earlier, abridged versions of the _OED_.

Besides, if we want to do justice especially to Zeelandic and Western
Flemish -- the former having ambitions to be officially recognized -- we
ought to mention them as specific sources, given that they *were* considered
separate in the "Middle" period and especially Zeelandic appears to be the
main base on which overseas "Dutch" varieties rest, in large part probably
also Afrikaans.  Not doing so seems like referring to Scots loans as English
loans (as in North American and Australasian English), and to Lowlands Saxon
ones as German or Dutch loans (as in Scandinavian, Kashubian, Polish,
Baltic, Baltic Coast Finnic, Russian and English).

Of course it is not a competion, just a matter of accuracy, of giving credit
to or at least mentioning those languages that these days tend to fall
through the cracks because they are not considered languages or power and
consequence these days.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes!

Regards,
Reinhard

==============================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.
=======================================================================