LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (13) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 24.SEP.2004 (13) * 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: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (11) [E]

Mark, thanks so much!  That's a lot of good information.

I think your explanation has answered my question, but (isn't there always a
but?) looking at the other lowlands languages with cognates of "ruth", they
also seem to have a w in the place that English has the thorn.  Okay, so Old
English orthography has confused a bunch of us moderns.  We see an Old
English thorn and think it's a w.  That explains the original discrepancy.

The cognates provided by several of you gave an example of the Dutch words
"rouwen, ruwelijk" and one Old High German of "hriuwa" etc.  Is this the
same thing as the thorn and w orthographic confusion?

I'm asking this because I'm having trouble reconciling this with the
(in)famous Grimm's Law.  When Old English and Modern English have the theta
sound in *-ruthen, I would expect a frontal stop or fricative in that same
place in the other Germanic languages as well.  I can read Dutch, but my
knowledge of the sound system is limited.  Therefore, the question:  Why w
in the Dutch word "rouwen"?  Is it a /v/ therefore a frontal fricative
(although labial) like German, or is it more of a back glide like in
English?

Thanks.

Mark Brooks

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