LL-L "Lexicon" 2009.11.09 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 09 November 2009- Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2009.11.08 (05) [EN]

I agree with the sentiments, but as causes go, this must be about as lost as
they get.  Most English-speakers aren't English, or even British. In fact
most probably don't even have origins in these islands.  "The speech of our
forbears" could means practically anything on Earth.

There's nothing stopping anybody picking a "Saxon" word over a Latin one if
they feel like it though.

Paul
Derby
England

----------

From: DAVID COWLEY <DavidCowley at anglesey.gov.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Lexicon" 2009.11.08 (05) [EN]

Thanks John (Howland) - the quotes from Mollee are fascinating. You may be
aware that Dorset poet and 'polymath' William Barnes was saying much the
same kind of thing somewhat earlier in the 1800s - I wonder whether Mollee
had been influenced by him?

You touch on the idea of 'ethnocentrism' too, and I also note one of Ron's
comments in another e-mail:
'I have heard people insist that English developed from Latin or French, and
they seemed to think I was cuckoo (or perhaps a rampant Nazi) for insisting
it was essentially Germanic, which to them had a negative ring'...

I go out of my way NOT to risk folk thinking the restoration of OE words is
somehow about being ethnocentric (or worse). Barnes and Mollee were of
course writing before the two world wars, and use words like 'Saxon' and
suchlike in ways which might today be more open to being hijacked by far
right-wingers. I try to emphasise that if we get back any updated words from
Old English, that's something which can be positive for all English speakers
today, whatever hue or ethnic origin. Although 'Germanic' is a valid
linguistic term,  its a sadly understandable fact that it can have a
negative ring to many. I find it more helpful to speak in terms of 'getting
back to the roots of English', 'restoring lost words to English' and so
forth - which is far more likely to get listened to  (in the UK at least,
probably elsewhere too).

Back to the positive - I just feel that the use of some of these words would
be clearer - in fact Mollee's point about them being self-explaining is
valid for many.
B.t.w. Ron you say 'afterfollower' sounds a bit 'silly' - I think again
that's part of conditioning: you'd say the same about 'afterbirth' and
'aftermath' if they hadn't lasted as established words. You ask why use
'after' - if one said 'who's the king's follower?' it would have an
obviously different meaning, so the 'after' is there to show the
distinction. Surely you'd agree that 'oathbreach' and 'mouthroof' are
clearer than 'perjury' and 'palate' and could get back into English very
easily?

David

----------

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

Thanks, David.

B.t.w. Ron you say 'afterfollower' sounds a bit 'silly' - I think again
that's part of conditioning: you'd say the same about 'afterbirth' and
'aftermath' if they hadn't lasted as established words. You ask why use
'after' - if one said 'who's the king's follower?' it would have an
obviously different meaning, so the 'after' is there to show the
distinction. Surely you'd agree that 'oathbreach' and 'mouthroof' are
clearer than 'perjury' and 'palate' and could get back into English very
easily?

I do understand, and I do appreciate your points and intentions.

I am not quite sure, though, if you and Luc, got my point that, semantically
speaking, "afterfollower" is what in German is called *doppelt gemoppelt* in
that "to follow" already implies "after."

On the other hand, now archaic "to forego" (as in "foregone conclusion," not
to be confused with "to forgo") is one of those surviving Germanic-rooted
constructions. It uses "to go" which in itself does not imply "fore." And,
indeed, there is the equally archaic derivation "foregoer," denoting
'predecessor' and often specifically 'preceding messenger'.

Therefore, just for the sake of argument, I'd suggest that a suitable
alternative to "afterfollower" might be "aftergoer" or, in my opinion
better, "aftercomer." This would be symmetrical with "foregoer" and would
avoid the (seeming) redundancy. If you choose "aftercomer" in the sense of
'successor', then "aftergoer" could denote 'pursuer'. I hope you can see my
intentions in the choices of "come" and "go." This would be consistent with
expressions such as "This sentence comes after (= follows) that sentence,"
and "I'll go after (= pursue) the thief." (Of course, in modern parlance
both of them can mean 'to pursue' depending on context, as in "He came after
me" and "I went after him.")

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20091109/0f87ca95/attachment.htm>