False cognates

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False cognates

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 19:58

Prinsessa wrote:Germanic h does not correspond to Latin h so the determiners are most likely unrelated. The Germanic word is most likely related to a word starting with <c> or <qu> in Latin, indeed common onsets for certain pronouns.
Ahh, OK. That makes sense. It's because of Grimm's law, right? I should have thought of that… oh well. Thanks!

I've sometimes seen words that were borrowed from Latin into an older Germanic language, so I guess I was thinking maybe that was the case with hic/hōc and hiu, but again, I should have realized that that type of word (demonstrative pronoun, as far as I can tell) isn't typically borrowed.
Avo wrote:The first part in heute has the same origin as the English pronoun he. There is also heuer meaning "this year" (<*hiu jāru), but outside of the High German area this word is archaic or entirely unknown. A shame, I like the word. [:(]
Wow, cool! I'd never heard heuer before, even though I thought I was learning High German (although I might be incorrect in assuming that High German in this context is synonymous with Hochdeutsch/Standard German… I really should learn more about German dialectology; it's a shame that never really came up in my classes).
User avatar
Avo
light
light
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2010, 02:04
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: False cognates

Post by Avo » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 21:30

shimobaatar wrote:
Avo wrote:The first part in heute has the same origin as the English pronoun he. There is also heuer meaning "this year" (<*hiu jāru), but outside of the High German area this word is archaic or entirely unknown. A shame, I like the word. [:(]
Wow, cool! I'd never heard heuer before, even though I thought I was learning High German (although I might be incorrect in assuming that High German in this context is synonymous with Hochdeutsch/Standard German… I really should learn more about German dialectology; it's a shame that never really came up in my classes).
High German can be used to mean Standard German, but it's also used to mean "all German dialects that aren't Low German". I should have said Upper German here though, it's an Upper German word. Also yay for German dialectology. Fascinating stuff! :D
shimobaatar
darkness
darkness
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013, 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False cognates

Post by shimobaatar » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 22:33

Avo wrote:
shimobaatar wrote:
Avo wrote:The first part in heute has the same origin as the English pronoun he. There is also heuer meaning "this year" (<*hiu jāru), but outside of the High German area this word is archaic or entirely unknown. A shame, I like the word. [:(]
Wow, cool! I'd never heard heuer before, even though I thought I was learning High German (although I might be incorrect in assuming that High German in this context is synonymous with Hochdeutsch/Standard German… I really should learn more about German dialectology; it's a shame that never really came up in my classes).
High German can be used to mean Standard German, but it's also used to mean "all German dialects that aren't Low German". I should have said Upper German here though, it's an Upper German word. Also yay for German dialectology. Fascinating stuff! :D
Ahh, OK. Thanks for the clarification! [:D]
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: False cognates

Post by Aszev » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 07:40

Image

Seems to be a Bavarian and High Alemannic thing [:)]
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: False cognates

Post by Prinsessa » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 07:43

You sure do have a map for everything.
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: False cognates

Post by Aszev » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 07:45

Prinsessa wrote:You sure do have a map for everything.
Can't have enough linguistic maps!
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: False cognates

Post by Prinsessa » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 08:11

Now try to map up those who say "(i) förrigår" instead of "i förrgår"!

Or "suddigumm" instead of "suddgummi".

On a more serious note I'd be really interested in seeing where in Scandinavia people add random -s to various adverbs and prepositions and the like and where they don't (hjå/hos, medan/mens, tilbake/a/s, förr än / förr äns, til/tils…).
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: False cognates

Post by Aszev » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 11:25

Prinsessa wrote:On a more serious note I'd be really interested in seeing where in Scandinavia people add random -s to various adverbs and prepositions and the like and where they don't (hjå/hos, medan/mens, tilbake/a/s, förr än / förr äns, til/tils…).
Can't say where, off the top of my head, but most of these words belong(ed) to the standard language as well, meaning they're not part of a dialectal periphery. Their etymologies are mostly unrelated tho, it seems.

hjå is West Norse (does it occur in Sweden at all?)
hos < OEN hús 'house'

tills < OEN til þæss

mens has an analogical -s from other expressions of time.

tillbaks has either a singular genitive -s, or one that has been added to the plural gentive: tillbakas (which is an attested older version).

förr(ä)ns doesn't seem to be old at all. My guess would be the same process as mens, i.e. analogical -s from other such expressions of time.
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: False cognates

Post by Xonen » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 11:52

Aszev wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:You sure do have a map for everything.
Can't have enough linguistic maps!
[+1]
User avatar
DrGeoffStandish
banned
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun 19 Feb 2012, 00:53

Re: False cognates

Post by DrGeoffStandish » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 19:26

Aszev wrote:hos < OEN hús 'house'
So, how did hús begin to be used as a preposition? An Old Swedish (using Old Norse orthography) sentence like
      • Barnit er í húsi Leifs 'The child is in Leif's house'
must somehow have become evolved into
      • Barn­it er hús Leifi 'The child is with Leif'
Damn, how did it happen? A key here is probably that Old Swedish hús was not so much associated with a physical structure as hus is in Modern Swedish, it was more abstract.

Note that the western form hjá is derived from hús, at least that's what's claimed here. But how? Any ideas?

Note that in Jamtish we have neither hús nor hjá. WE have something that in Swedish spelling would be "hemmä" where the latter part "" is clearly the same as ON með 'with'. I'm not sure what the former part "he(m)" is, though. Could be (1) ON hér 'here', (2) ON heima 'home' or (3) ON hjá (or rather some intermediate form between hús and hjá - héa?). Or something else. So, which one of (1) ON hér með, (2) ON heima með and (3) ON hjá með seems most likely as the etymology for Jamtish "hemmä"?
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: False cognates

Post by Ephraim » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 21:04

DrGeoffStandish wrote:
Aszev wrote:hos < OEN hús 'house'
So, how did hús begin to be used as a preposition? An Old Swedish (using Old Norse orthography) sentence like
      • Barnit er í húsi Leifs 'The child is in Leif's house'
must somehow have become evolved into
      • Barn­it er hús Leifi 'The child is with Leif'
Damn, how did it happen? A key here is probably that Old Swedish hús was not so much associated with a physical structure as hus is in Modern Swedish, it was more abstract.
Something like that, I think. At one stage, the phrase *į̄ hūsi would probably have worked as a complex preposition governing the genitive, and as such it would receive less stress which caused the phonological developments. Many North Germanic prepositions are actually derived from nouns (such as til) and these typically govern the genitive (which make a lot of sense).

And at some point, the preposition must have shifted from governing the genitive to governing the accusative, which Old Swedish hos did according to Söderwall (unlike Icelandic hjá which of course governs the dative).

French had a similar development with chez from latin casa (or perhaps the dative casae).
DrGeoffStandish wrote:Note that the western form hjá is derived from hús, at least that's what's claimed here. But how? Any ideas?

Note that in Jamtish we have neither hús nor hjá. WE have something that in Swedish spelling would be "hemmä" where the latter part "" is clearly the same as ON með 'with'. I'm not sure what the former part "he(m)" is, though. Could be (1) ON hér 'here', (2) ON heima 'home' or (3) ON hjá (or rather some intermediate form between hús and hjá - héa?). Or something else. So, which one of (1) ON hér með, (2) ON heima með and (3) ON hjá með seems most likely as the etymology for Jamtish "hemmä"?
Cleasby/Vigfusson proposes that the preposition hjá may derive from a element PG *hīwa- ‘household’ (PIE < *ḱei-wo-), also seen in Ic hjú, Sw hjon, Ic hý-býli and Go heiwa-frauja. If this is true, it would not be related to hús at all, but maybe distantly to heimr (*haimaz < *ḱoi-mo-).
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: False cognates

Post by Prinsessa » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 21:31

There mustn't necessarily ever have been any preposition í in this phrase.

Do you have the answer to that too, Aszev?

I used to theorise myself that 'hos' came from 'hus' (being aware of the French 'chez' mentioned above) but then later figured it's probably the same as 'hjå' (and should be spelled *<hås>) with this typical addition of -s. Apparently the first theory was the right one! Interesting.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: False cognates

Post by Ephraim » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 23:03

I think hjá might be an oblique singular form of the same noun that gave OIc hjú and hjún~hjón (originally the same noun), and Sw hjón, from a PG *hīwô. Note that this noun is otherwise only attested in the plural in North Germanic, although Swedish and to some extent Old Icelandic has reinterpreted the plural form as singular (it is mostly plural in OIc though).

This would have been a neuter n-stem declined like Ic auga. I would reconstruct an earlier declension like this:
case: singular — plural
nom: *hīa — *hīun
acc: *hīa — *hīun
dat: *hīą — *hīum
gen: *hīą — *hīna

Compare the Icelandic loss of n in augu vs Sw ögon.

So hjá could have developed very similarly to hos but from another noun.
Prinsessa wrote:There mustn't necessarily ever have been any preposition í in this phrase.
I think the older stage i hos is actually attested in Old Swedish. Note that especially in Late Old Swedish, the accusative was often used with the preposition i in the locational meaning, and not just in the directional.

Hellquist writes:
hos = fsv., da.; svagtonig form till hus; jfr fsv. i hoss, invid, i närheten, 1 gg. Samma betyd.-utveckl. i fra. chez, hos = lat. casa, hus. - Isl. hjó, no. hjaa, hos, höra till hjon.
Last edited by Ephraim on Thu 23 Apr 2015, 18:54, edited 1 time in total.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: False cognates

Post by Prinsessa » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 08:04

Isn't the Swedish -n in ögon simply analogous with the -n added to any neuter plural of a stem ending in a vowel (in the standard dialect) rather than an archaism?
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: False cognates

Post by Aszev » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 10:53

Prinsessa wrote:Isn't the Swedish -n in ögon simply analogous with the -n added to any neuter plural of a stem ending in a vowel (in the standard dialect) rather than an archaism?
Not in this case [:)] Old Swedish had ǿgaǿgun !
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
User avatar
HinGambleGoth
greek
greek
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue 01 Jul 2014, 04:29
Location: gøtalandum

Re: False cognates

Post by HinGambleGoth » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 14:25

Aszev wrote:
Prinsessa wrote:Isn't the Swedish -n in ögon simply analogous with the -n added to any neuter plural of a stem ending in a vowel (in the standard dialect) rather than an archaism?
Not in this case [:)] Old Swedish had ǿgaǿgun !
And retained -in as 3rd person imperative, that apparently spread to the present paradigm at some point, and later skipped from the verb to the pronoun I to make :swe: ni

Oswe also had Þǿn corresponing to Oic Þau, Ogut had Þaun I reckon this nasal is analogical, much like the *R in ÞæiR
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: False cognates

Post by Prinsessa » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 14:39

Weird.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: False cognates

Post by Ephraim » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 21:19

To avoid going to far OT, I've made a reply about the North Germanic declension in the Early Old Norse thread instead.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4489&p=187779#p187779
Squall
greek
greek
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu 28 Nov 2013, 14:47

Re: False cognates

Post by Squall » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 02:28

clawgrip wrote:Not false cognates, just a weird coincidence, but where else am I going to post this

English "to" and "two" essentially translate to Japanese "ni" and "ni". It's just a weird coincidence that they are homonyms of each other in both languages.
There is a countryside dialect in Portuguese that uses 'ni' meaning "in" or "to" in the spoken language.
'ni' appeared from the hypercorrection of 'no/na', which mean "in the". The correct preposition is 'em'.
The dialect also replaces "go to" with "go in".
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
:bra: :mrgreen: | :uk: [:D] | :esp: [:)] | :epo: [:|] | :lat: [:S] | :jpn: [:'(]
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: False cognates

Post by Aszev » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 13:20

Ephraim wrote:And at some point, the preposition must have shifted from governing the genitive to governing the accusative, which Old Swedish hos did according to Söderwall (unlike Icelandic hjá which of course governs the dative).
Ephraim wrote:I think the older stage i hos is actually attested in Old Swedish. Note that especially in Late Old Swedish, the accusative was often used with the preposition i in the locational meaning, and not just in the directional.

Hellquist writes:
hos = fsv., da.; svagtonig form till hus; jfr fsv. i hoss, invid, i närheten, 1 gg. Samma betyd.-utveckl. i fra. chez, hos = lat. casa, hus. - Isl. hjó, no. hjaa, hos, höra till hjon.
Reinhammar (2005) only manages to find one example of i hos, in the translated poetic work Historia sancti Olai where it occurs in the sentence "tha hördis klocker j nidaros som the varo hart j hoss".

There is no occurence in Old Swedish of hos governing the genitive, but in the Elder Westrogothic law it governs the dative!
Ephraim wrote:
DrGeoffStandish wrote:Note that the western form hjá is derived from hús, at least that's what's claimed here. But how? Any ideas?
Cleasby/Vigfusson proposes that the preposition hjá may derive from a element PG *hīwa- ‘household’ (PIE < *ḱei-wo-), also seen in Ic hjú, Sw hjon, Ic hý-býli and Go heiwa-frauja. If this is true, it would not be related to hús at all, but maybe distantly to heimr (*haimaz < *ḱoi-mo-).
I think it is generally accepted that hjá is related to hjú, my guess is that the Nynorsk dictionary has just copied the definition from Bokmål hos. I haven't seen that etymology suggested elsewhere.
DrGeoffStandish wrote:Note that in Jamtish we have neither hús nor hjá. WE have something that in Swedish spelling would be "hemmä" where the latter part "" is clearly the same as ON með 'with'. I'm not sure what the former part "he(m)" is, though. Could be (1) ON hér 'here', (2) ON heima 'home' or (3) ON hjá (or rather some intermediate form between hús and hjá - héa?). Or something else. So, which one of (1) ON hér með, (2) ON heima með and (3) ON hjá með seems most likely as the etymology for Jamtish "hemmä"?
It's from hér með. Reinhammar notes both hermä and hemä (with varying spellings, of course). Also common is dä(r)mä (< þær með) and just .

It can be noted that Jamtish is not alone in lacking hos - it is a thouroughly southern word.
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
Post Reply