Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:51 am
by frank
Edit: sorry, i hadn't read the previous mails which cover the same points while writing this one.
b dude has a point, there is no way to tell whether a very basic word has been borrowed from latinate into germanic or vice versa, such as 'cat' and 'two.'
Oh, quite often (but indeed not always), there is a way to tell! And in the case of the word 'cat', it can be substantiated that it is certainly not a Germanic word originally, but a loan from, or rather via, (Late) Latin. 'Late' because a few very typically Germanic sound changes didn't work at that moment anymore. I read about two possible origins, viz. a Celtic or a North-African origin for the word.
"i drove my wagon off a cliff with our ugly friend as the lights went out all over my little town. I can not understand why writing only in Germanic words is so hard. if the words have sister words in Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, German, then they are from the good old English tongue, before it was undone by the Gauls."
- Germanic: via Latin, prob. from Celtic. ;-)

Frank

PS: I hope this is not regarded as nitpicking. I just love to look up these kinds of things. And as written before, i wouldn't like to write even a short "Germanic-only" note in my (Germanic) native tongue Dutch. :-)

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:45 am
by badandy
[quote]Oh, quite often (but indeed not always), there is a way to tell! [/quote]

I understand that there exists such a thing as language reconstruction, and ways to discover previous forms, and cat, admittedly was a bad example. Maybe if the word was bird or fish we could all agree :wink:
but 'two,' is neither Germanic or Romance or Slavic, etc. and at the same time it is all of the above. its not exclusive to any of these and neither is the word German or Deutsch or Allemagne.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:47 am
by badandy
i just realized i dont know how to use the quote box. if someone could help me thatd be greeat. dont want to appear as too much of a newbie

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
by Brazilian dude
Just hightlight the text you want to quote and press quote and a new window will open where you can post. However, I normally just put the text encircled by (quote) (/quote) (where a [ should be used for a (.

Brazilian dude

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:57 pm
by tcward
badandy, Katy and I responded to your quote problems in another thread. She rightly suggested you check your profile settings, so that "Always allow BBCode:" is set to Yes.

It looks like your replies have the "Allow BBCode" option unchecked.

-Tim

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:43 pm
by badandy
thanks a lot tim n katy! i guess i didnt see the previous one

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:03 pm
by malachai
but 'two,' is neither Germanic or Romance or Slavic, etc. and at the same time it is all of the above. its not exclusive to any of these and neither is the word German or Deutsch or Allemagne.
No, "two" is Germanic in origin.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=two

It's related to the word for "two" in Romance, Slavic, and other IE language branches, because they all descend from the same PIE root.

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:29 am
by Ferrus
But i agree, Gaul is from Gallia and Germany is from Germania.
We use the Roman's name because the Germanic word for the Germans, Deutsch - meaning 'people' - has already been utilised in the appellation Dutch.

Still, it makes more sense than the French and Spanish Allemand, named after a specific tribe.

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:29 pm
by sluggo

Still, it makes more sense than the French and Spanish Allemand, named after a specific tribe.
Not to mention the Anglish...!

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:53 pm
by gailr
Not to mention the Anglish...!
Darn their eyes!

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
by Ferrus

Still, it makes more sense than the French and Spanish Allemand, named after a specific tribe.
Not to mention the Anglish...!
Although there is a degree of logic there - English being but the first half of 'Anglo-Saxon' - although the Jutes (as usual) are ignored.

Actually... after having studied this in some depth it is questionable whether such labels have much meaning beyond the political circumstances that were to later create them as written culture emerged too.

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:56 am
by gailr
Although there is a degree of logic there - English being but the first half of 'Anglo-Saxon' - although the Jutes (as usual) are ignored.
On this side of the pond, Ferrus, we prefer to downplay any alleged historical contributions of the Jutes and the Hemps...
-gailr

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:35 am
by sluggo
On this side of the pond, Ferrus, we prefer to downplay any alleged historical contributions of the Jutes and the Hemps...
-gailr
:lol:
I can knot even string a clever retort to that one.

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:09 pm
by Perry
Not to mention the Anglish...!
Darn their eyes!
Why? Have they come unravelled?

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:36 pm
by Stargzer
On this side of the pond, Ferrus, we prefer to downplay any alleged historical contributions of the Jutes and the Hemps...
-gailr
:lol:
I can knot even string a clever retort to that one.
Let's just say that the Authorities are afraid they will all go up in smoke ...