LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.25 (02) [E]

Sat Sep 25 14:06:25 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.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: Steven Hanson <hanayatori at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Etymology

"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"

The "th", according to etymonline.com, comes from an analogy to the word
"truth".....rue/ruth, true/truth.

ruthless
c.1327, from reuthe "pity, compassion" (c.1175), formed from reuwen "to rue"
(see rue (v.)) on the model of true/truth, etc. Ruthful (c.1225) has fallen
from use since late 17c. except as a deliberate archaism.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ruthless&searchmode=none

----------

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (13) [E]

>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

the th is a noun suffix added to a word that once had a /w/ but lost it

http://www.etymonline.com/

ruthless
    c.1327, from reuthe "pity, compassion" (c.1175), formed from reuwen
"to rue" (see rue (v.)) on the model of true/truth, etc. Ruthful
(c.1225) has fallen from use since late 17c. except as a deliberate archaism

David Barrow

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (13) [E]

Dear Mark

The -w- in Dutch "rouwen" is pronounced like an English w.
Initially Dutch w- is more or less like German w [v], although there is an
important difference
between Dutch v- and Dutch w-.
In Dutch v- is pronounced somewhere between [v] and [f], and w- more between
[v], [w] and Spanish b/v.
Wat (what) and vat (barrel), waar (where/true) and vaar (sail), wrede
(cruel) and vrede (peace) and many
many more are minimal pairs, every native Dutch speaker will immediately
hear which word is meant.

Intervocally and word finally -w- or -w is pronounced like English [w]:
Ruwe (rude), nieuw (new), blauwe (blue), uw (your), sneeuw (snow).

In  many Southern Dutch pronunciations (including Flemish) w is always
pronounced [w], as well as by our
exuberantly compatriots from the Caribbean (Suriname and Dutch Antilles
Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire),
who dwell here in large numbers nowadays.   Ingmar

----------

From: klaus schmirler <KSchmir at online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (13) [E]

> From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
> Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2004.09.24 (11) [E]

> 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 don't know much about the scripts involved, but I think the source of
your confusion is really the English noun marker -th (-d in Scandinavian
languages). It's "ruth" from "rue" as in "length" from "long" or, I'd
guess, "wrath/wroth" from "wraw".

Guessing again, I suspect Dutch to have same -e (derived from -a) as
German: "ruwe" < the adjective without "lijk".

klaus schmirler

The w then has nothing to do with the thorn and is just the normal
continuation/variation of u as a glide.

----------

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

Mark Dreyer wrote:
"The similarities are such that both the modern reader & calligrapher
must beware of confusing them, the minuscule 'thorn' & 'ween'."

Mark uses the spelling "ween" for what is more generally "wyn(n)". Just to
add to his very full account of AS calligraphy, the confusion also exists
between the majuscule versions of these letters. If you look at a
reproduction of the first page of _Beowulf_ you can see this in the first
word "hwaet". (The minstrel or bard is supposed to have struck his harp and
pronounced "hwaet" to tell his audience to shut up and listen.) Mark seems
rather attached to the half-uncial style but the _Beowulf_ ms (about 1000
CE) is written in what looks to me like a Caroline minuscule (a slightly
confusing name which indicates that in ordinary writing most of the
letters - as today - were minuscule). I think Mark omitted "eth" from his
list. This is the letter written in minuscule form like a backward-sloping
"d" with a line through the stem, or in majuscule form as a "D" with a bar
through the upright. This was used interchangeably with "thorn" to represent
the voiced and unvoiced "th".

Your mission now, if you choose to accept it, is to list all the Mod Eng
words which have a difference in meaning according to whether the "th" sound
in them is voiced or unvoiced. This is not about spelling, so only the sound
of the word counts.

Mark D: you could try looking for OE fonts at www.murphymethod.com/red3.html
I've looked at the specimens there but not attempted to download them. I
don't recall what the type of hand is.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

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

Mark Brooks wrote:
"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."

Oh no it doesn't! The "-th" in "ruth" is just a suffix which turns a verb or
adjective into a noun as in "true" => "truth", nothing to do with wyn and
thorn. "*-ruthen" needs something a lot stronger than one "*"! So nothing
remotely to do with Grimm's Law, except in its grimness (or grimth).

John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

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

Ingmar wrote (avove):

> Intervocally and word finally -w- or -w is pronounced like English [w]:
> Ruwe (rude), nieuw (new), blauwe (blue), uw (your), sneeuw (snow).

Incidentally, this brings us back to the relationship between /w/ and /g/.

Quite a number of Lowlands Saxon (Low German) dialects have a /g/ (and
English _-gh-_)here:

ruug [ru:x] 'rough', 'rude' || ruge ['ru:ge]
blaag [blQ:x] 'blue' || blage ['blQ:ge]
snygen (<sniegen> ['sni:gN]) ~ sneygen (<snegen> [sne.IgN]) 'to snow'
etc.

Kumpelmenten,
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.
======================================================================