LL-L "Etymology" 2005.06.03 (15) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.JUN.2005 (15) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Thomas Byro <greenherring at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica" 2005.06.01 (01) [E/LS]

Ron:

I find that often, when English words  of Anglo-Saxon and Romance
origin have roughly equivalent meanings, that the Romance words carry
far less emotional impact, with me anyway.  I once read an article in
the NY Times where the author used the word "overhang" where he meant
"Excess."  The word "overhang" conveyed a feeling of a looming
dangerous presence whereas the word "excess", to me at least, would
have been far more neutral and thus less powerful.  I cannot visualize
"excess" nearly as well as "overhang."

Tom Byro

----------

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

Hi, Tom!

I do believe that your experience is common, if not the rule to some degree
or other.  I suspect that it is not a cut-and-dry matter, that there is some
sort of sliding scale accommodating numerous personal levels of perception.

I assume you have in mind particularly lexical compounds in which the
components are native rather than foreign, something that more readily
conjures up a mental picture.

Take German _Abfall_ 'scraps', 'waste', 'refuse', 'garbage', 'rubbish', for
example (or Low Saxon _af-val_ or Dutch _afval_).   Both native components
are well preserved, and today's speaker has no problem etymologizing: _ab_
'off' and _Fall_ 'fall' (noun).  However, to most speakers in most
situations it is just a word, and I doubt they really etymologize it even
subconsciously, though I might believe that it is easier for them to
remember it because it is easy to analyze it.

But look at the English cognate "offal" (< "off" + "fall") denoting mostly
animal organs of doubtful edibility these days, though in the past, and in
some dialects perhaps still now, it can denote all sorts of shavings,
parings and other types of waste, usually accompanying foodstuffs.  I doubt
there are many English speakers that think about or even know the etymology
of this, even though it is made up of native Germanic components only.

"Garbage" is "garbage," descriptive enough to American English speakers'
minds (and these days to the minds of other English speakers as well), so
descriptive that you would not worry about the degree of descriptiveness.
It's just a word, a frequently used word.  Everyone knows it and uses it but
doesn't etymologize it, doesn't need to.  So it is immaterial that this word
happens to be of "foreign," of French, origin.  Likewise, "trash" and
"rubbish" are just as useful and effective.  They do not appear to be of
foreign origin.  Their origin happens to be uncertain.  Again, it doesn't
matter to the speaker and to the listener.  They are just words, and
everyone uses and understands them, and they are darn well descriptive in
the dialects in which they are used.

So, it seems to me that what you are talking about are less frequently used
words, words that are perceived as "big," words that are at the edge of or
beyond the range of a speaker's everyday active vocabulary.  There are
numerous "big words" hitting the English speaker everyday, and whether or
not he or she has problems with them depends on his or her level of
education and vocabulary, both active and passive.

Romanization of English is quite extensive, as we all know.  However, as Luc
pointed out to Jonny today, it is not that other Germanic languages have not
also undergone considerable Romanization.  I would add that speakers of
other Germanic languages are easily peeved by Romanisms in English primarily
because they are perceived as upsetting the neat
Germanic-word-for-Germanic-word translation process, and this may loom
larger in their minds than it really is.  In the case of English and Scots
(beginning with Middle English and Old Scots), considerable Romanization is
due to the Norman French occupation of Britain, something that is unique
within Germanic, unless you want to make a case for massive Walloon and
French influences in Flemish as well.  Romanization can be as much undone as
the Norman Invasion can be made "unhappen."  Personally, I find attempts at
avoiding Romanisms in English as silly as using them excessively (or
"overhangingly"?).  Things are as they are, and most speakers are not really
aware of or indeed concerned about exactly which English words are of
Germanic and which are of Romance origin.

It is only rather handy to be able to immediately analyze an unfamiliar word
and thus understand it with the help of that and with the help of the
context in which it is used.  If you are a German speaker you understand the
noun _Überbelastung_ pretty much the first time you hear it used: _über_
'over' + _be-last-en_ "to make burdened" = 'to burden', 'to exert pressure'
+ _-ung_ marking a deverbal noun.  In the case of its usual English
equivalent "excessive pressure" it depends on your educational level if you
understand it the first time you hear it used.  However, even that may be an
overstatement, because most speakers know the words "excess(ive)" and
"pressure," and their Romance origin is really immaterial.

So, again, what we are really talking about here is frequency of use.  If a
word is used frequently and everyone knows exactly what it means it is not
important if it is easily analyzed and what its origin is.  Most people
don't analyze (and few of them even as much as think).  For instance,
"origami" doesn't need an explanation to most people these days, yet it (of
Japanese origin) is just a string of "random" sounds or letters.  (And if
you are Australian or have been so privileged as to behold this most
edifying recent Australian cultural export, you even know what "the art of
genital origami" is -- but that's just a teetering aside.)  Sure, so "paper
folding craft" might be more descriptive at first encounter, but -- hey! --
"origami" does it for me.

Then there are Romance-derived prefixes and suffixes.  Most English speakers
are very much familiar with the most commonly used ones.  In fact, some have
become so common that most people might swear they are of Germanic origin,
and they use them with Germanic-derived stems, especially in North America.
Take for example "re-" for "again": "rewind," "rewrite," "rewrap," "reheat,"
"reset," "resettle," "retake," ... now even "regift" (e.g., "I bet this
fruitcake is regifted")!

Hey, "excess" and "overhang" may overlap semantically a teensy bit, but they
are far from being mutually exchangeable!

Tom, was your post triggered by my silly fake-ignorant talk today, the one
that Gabriele suspected of coming from a bottle?  (No booze here -- rest
assured!)  It capitalizes on a person's uncertain command of "big words"
that happen to be Romanisms:


> I most empathetically resemble the tagged-on negative > implification of
> that remark, and I'm undeservedly unanymous > in that!Some people with
> less firm proficiency of English may wonder about it (or so they should).
> It was just silliness.  It was based on a British situation comedy's
> character (Mrs. Slocum) who often uses "big words" wrongly and likes to
> say "And I am unanymous in that!" (the joke being that a single person
> cannot be unanimous, that she believes it means something like "adamant,"
> "unyielding," "steadfast" or "firmly convinced").  It is also based on the
> commonly quoted "ignurnd" phrase "I resemble that remark" in place of
> correct "I resent that remark."  To make matters worse, I wrote
> "implification" instead of "implication" (cross-pollenized by
> "amplification"), "undeservedly" instead of "unreservedly," and
> "empathetically" instead of "emphatically," two very different things.

You see?  Thanks to its Romance heritage in English you get to have oodles
of fun and games, so much more fun than in those "drab, pure" Germanic
sister languages.  ;-)

On the slightly more serious side of things, though, I can always justify
all this silliness by saying that play is very important in learning and
discovery.  At the very least it make folks think about words, their usage
and history.

Regards ... oops! ... greetings,
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.
=======================================================================