LL-L "Etymology" 2008.06.26 (05) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 26 June 2008 - Volume 05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: Roland Desnerck <desnerck.roland at skynet.be>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.06.26 (02) [E]

Beste allen,

In oude Oostendse teksten vind ik zowel "cleene" (klein) als "smal".
Voorbeeld: "de smalle zeesteden" = de kleine zeesteden.

Nu zijn in het Oostends (en in het Nederlands) "klein" (little) en "smal"
(narrow).
Wat smal is, doet natuurlijk aan klein denken.
De Oostendse uitspraak is "smol" (net als bolke, kolk, volke ... voor balk,
kalk, valk ...).
Voor "veel" kennen we "vele" en "menig" (many). "Enig" beantwoordt dan aan
"any".

Toetnoasteki,
Roland Desnerck
Oostende, West-Vlaanderen

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.06.26 (02) [E]

 Beste Ingmar,

Du schreyvst:

> My intuition says that the usage of small and little in English is
> originally from Scandinavian, i.e. Old Norse, Old Danish, Old Norwegian.
> In the other West Germanic languages (other than English) "smal"
> and "schmal" have a different meaning, in Dutch and German "klein" in the
> word for both little and small.
I'm not sure about a Scandinavian influence here, because in our Low Saxon
you may use 'small' the same way like in English. And in Standard German we
use terms like e.g. 'schmale Kost', meaning E 'slender diet'= 'small meal'.

> It looks like the difference between much and many.
> In the Scandinavian languages we see myck etc. and menge etc., whereas
> German has only 'viel' and Dutch 'veel'.
What about Standard German '(eine) ganze Menge', meaning both 'much' and
'many'?

Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm

----------

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

"Little" is not a Scandinavian loan. It goes back to Old English *lýtel* ~ *
lytel*, cf. Old Saxon *luttil*, Old German *luzzil* (> dialect. *lützel*),
Middle Dutch *luttel* (> *luttel*), Old Norse *lítell*, Gothic *leitils* <
Germanic **lîtilo*. This is a diminutive form based on Old English
*lýt*(cf. Old Saxon
*lut* >  Modern *l**ütt*, cf. Scandinavian *lítt* < Germanic **lut ~ *lût*)
which gave dialectical English *lite* 'small', 'insignificant'. Another
derivation with the meaning 'small' are Old Saxon *luttik* (> *l**üttig*),
Old Frisian *littich* and Old German *luzzîg.*

My theory is that, if not semantically intended from the outset, the
diminutive form favored the semantic inclusion of "cuteness" (e.g., "the
(cute/poor) little bird" vs "the small bird" = "small in size").
"Little-ness" tends to be associated with vulnerability, hence appealing to
one's protector instinct with "cuteness," while "small" refers to size
without this emotional appeal. "Little" is therefore often associated with
"poor" in the sense of "pitiable." In "poor", semantic inclusion of
"destitute" and "deprived" and in extension "pitiable" seems to have come
with importation of Norman *pover ~ pore ~ pour ~ povere ~ poevere ~ puvre*,
since all Romance cognates can be used in the sense of "pitiable" as well,
just as they do the Germanic equivalents.

*Klein* for 'small' and 'little' is normal in Dutch and German. There are
some Low Saxon dialects that use *kleen* [klɛˑɪn] ~ *klein* [klaˑɪn], but
most use *l**ütt* [lʏt]. In all three languages you can use *arm* the same
way as you use "poor", i.e. with the extended sense of 'pitiable'. (In the
very north, Low Saxon *Stackel* can be used for 'pitiable person', probably
derived from Jutish *stakkel*, related to the adjective
*stakkels*'pitiable', possibly derived from an old sense of "cripple"
or perhaps
"toddler" = "someone that staggers about").

In some Low Saxon dialects you can use *pover* strictly in the sense of
'poor' = 'indigent'. This is a French loan, a more recent one than English
"poor". Note that this can *not* be used in the sense of 'pitiable'.

English "small" is related to German *schmal* and Low Saxon *smaal*, both
usually meaning 'narrow' but, as Jonny points out above, 'small' in some
idiomatic expressions.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080626/ffcbf927/attachment.htm>