LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.12 (07) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.SEP.2005 (07) * 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: denis dujardin <dujardin at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.12 (01) [D/E]

No problem Roger. Indeed "gans" is a goose (which in westflemish on its
turn is called "GOEZE" ('gu:ze)) (that is a joke...)
Gans is definitely NOT zuidnederlands.

denis

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.09.12 (01) [D/E]

Aha, weer wat nieuws geleerd. Hier in Nederland denkt inderdaad vrijwel
iedereen dat in Belgi "gans" het normale, altijd gebruikte woord
voor "heel" is, zeker in dialectisch gekleurde taal. Waarschijnlijk komt
dat omdat "gans" er toch vaker dan in Nederland gebruikt wordt, althans in
geschreven maar ook in gesproken taal.
In het Vlaamse dialect van mijn moeder en haar familie is het overigens
altijd "ee" (heel), "hans" heb ik nooit gehoord. Maar dat komt misschien
ook omdat het een Vlaams dialect is dat in Nederland wordt gesproken,
namelijk in Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen. Over het algemeen verschillen de
Zeeuwsvlaamse streektalen maar weinig van hun West- en Oostvlaamse zuster-
talen van over de grens.

Ingmar

Roger Hondshoven schreef:
>   There seems to be a slight misunderstanding. The question is not
>whether
>'helegans' is a word of the past. I think I clearly stated that "'gans'
>sounds quaint to me, as something of the past."  'Helegans', to me, is
>simply a dialect word. I also wrote: "On the other hand I stick by my
>opinion that in general Belgian Dutch (and certainly in the one that I
>speak) 'heel' is the normal word. "
>  In that respect I would like to point out that some philologists devoted
>attention to the issue of 'gans' versus 'heel'. H. Heidbuchel (a Fleming),
>in his ABN-Woordenboek, s.v. 'gans', gave as his advice: "(beter en
gewoner)
>heel, geheel, helemaal". P.C. Paardekooper (a Dutchman), in his ABN-Gids,
>categorically rejected 'gans'.
>  Maarten van Nierop (a Dutchman) reserved considerable space to the
>discussion of the usage of both words in his 'Honderd taaie belgicismen'
>(1968): "..in België gebruikt men vrijwel altijd , althans meestal, als
>bijvoeglijk naamwoord en als bijwoord 'gans'; in Nederland daarentegen
>gebruikt men als bijvoeglijk naamwoord gewoonlijk 'geheel' of 'heel', en
als
>bijwoord 'heel' of 'helemaal', en soms: 'gans'./.../ globaal zou ik durven
>schatten, dat tegenover 100 keer 'gans' in Nederlandstalige boeken,
kranten
>en gesprekken (niet in dialect) in België, laten we zeggen 85 keer 'heel,
>geheel, helemaal' en 15 keer 'gans' in boeken, kranten en gesprekken in
>Nederland staat./.../Terwijl het gebruik van 'gans' in het
Nederlandstalige
>gedeelte van België stilistisch ongeschakeerd is (het wordt gebruikt in
>gewone, dichterlijke, banale, precieuze en geleerde stijl), wordt het
>gebruik van 'heel,geheel, helemaal, gans' in Nederland bepaald door
>stijlsferen en stilistische bedoelingen. Ik moet hier nog wel even
opmerken
>dat 'gans' in de Zuidnederlandse dialecten helemaal niet zo algemeen is!"
>(p. 51, 52)  I don't agree with van Nierop now, and I wouldn't have agreed
>either in 1968. Even in those days 'gans' was not all that much used in
>spoken Dutch in Belgium. I am ready to concede that four decades
ago 'gans'
>was perhaps a very widely uused word in written language. But I think
>language use in Belgium has changed considerably since 1968. I think that
at
>that time I, for myself, had already given up 'gans' practically
completely
>for twenty years. Of course, I belong to the generation that lived through
>the German occupation and thought that 'gans' sounded too German. (By the
>way, etymological dictionaries designate Middle Dutch 'gans' as a
borrowing
>from Old High German) Anyway, I have always considered 'gans' as an
>unpalatable word.
>  I have just conferred with a friend of mine, a fellow-student, and asked
>him about his opinion. "I exclusively use 'heel, geheel, helemaal', he
says,
>but I notice that in newspapers 'gans' is still often used. In the
dialects
>of Brabant 'heel' is the rule." To him, 'gans' is obsolete. He also
>disagreed with van Nierop's statement about 'gans' in Belgium. All of this
>seems to corroborate my point of view that 'gans' is a thing "of the
past",
>a word that is not supported by living speech any more.

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