LL-L "Names" 2007.05.28 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  28 May 2007 - Volume 02

=========================================================================

From: "Fred van Brederode" <f.vanbrederode at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2007.05.23 (08) [E]

Mike Wintzer wrote:

Heiko, I think (Ron to confirm) that Uelzen and Uetersen have nothing to do
with

Umlaut. The "e" is an archaic indication of vowel length, so the correct

pronounciation (long lost in the collective memory) is Uulzen and Uutersen
(like

English "oo").

Could the (German) concept of the "dehnungs-e" shine any light on this
matter?

The dehnungs-e is not only in use in German (next to the dehnings-h), but in
a way also in Dutch. In older texts adding an e to a vowel changes the
length of the vowel (as well as the sound) and the meaning of the word
derived. Since the official "De Vries en Te Winkel"-spelling rules (late 19
th century) the function of the extra e was taken over by simply writing the
same vowel twice. So no longer 'ae' but 'aa' and no longer 'ue' but uu''.
Dutch has: a aa (kas - kaas) , e ee (mest – meest), o oo (ros – roos), u uu
(sorry, could not quickly find a simple example for u and uu). There is
however not i ii. This is where Dutch kept the extra e: i and ie (nis –
nies).

Older texts show the use of oe for a long oo as well. This is complicated,
for the Dutch "oe" is also pronounced as the German "u". Using the same
vowel twice (oo) in stead of adding the e to oe, solves the problem.

Aa en ae may not have sounded the same way. In modern times the difference
is obsolete. The city of Aerdenhout is officially spelled the old fashioned
way with ae. Its pronunciation is simply as it would be in Aardenhout with
aa. In Flanders, city and family names show more often ae in stead of aa
than in the Netherlands. This is taken over in French. Travelling from
France, the Dutch city of Maastricht is post signed as "Maestricht". In
Flanders post signs do not show this old fashioned spelling, since Belgium
and The Netherlands apply the same spelling rules for the city: Maastricht.

There is a lot more to be said about this subject. I am not an expert in the
field so I leave this to others if they choose to do so.

As a reaction to Heiko Evermanns posting Ron wrote:

As for Oevelgönne (rather than *Övelgönne), that's another Saxon name.  I
think we've discussed it before, but I can't find it in the archives.  It
corresponds to some place names in the Netherlands, and it's meaning seems
to be something like "foul-smelling, muddy slough".  This oevel part is
pronounced ['?œ:vl] (with a long vowel similar to "ur" in "hurt" as
pronounced in Southern England), and it's a cognate of German übel and
English "evil".  If it were spelled * övel it should be pronounced ['?œIvl]
(with a diphthong as in French oeil , as in English "boy" in the Lower Elbe
dialects), which is wrong. (Not that this would be of any relevance to
Wikiplatt, mind you, authoritative though it's supposed to be.)

Perhaps the Dutch word "euvel" fits into he picture. The word sounds old
fashioned when used in the expression: "iemand euvel duiden". Google gives
me 350.000 hits on the word. Van Dale returns 'kwaal' and 'gebrek' as
synonyms for euvel.

Regards,
Fred van Brederode
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070528/68822c35/attachment.htm>