Page 7 of 46
Re: False cognates
Posted: 21 Apr 2015 20:58
by shimobaatar
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).
Re: False cognates
Posted: 21 Apr 2015 22:30
by Avo
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
Re: False cognates
Posted: 21 Apr 2015 23:33
by shimobaatar
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!
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 08:40
by Aevas
Seems to be a Bavarian and High Alemannic thing
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 08:43
by Prinsessa
You sure do have a map for everything.
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 08:45
by Aevas
Prinsessa wrote:You sure do have a map for everything.
Can't have enough linguistic maps!
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 09:11
by Prinsessa
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…).
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 12:25
by Aevas
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.
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 12:52
by Xonen
Aszev wrote:Prinsessa wrote:You sure do have a map for everything.
Can't have enough linguistic maps!
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 20:26
by DrGeoffStandish
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 "
mä" 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"?
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 22:04
by Ephraim
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 "
mä" 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-).
Re: False cognates
Posted: 22 Apr 2015 22:31
by Prinsessa
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.
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 00:03
by Ephraim
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.
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 09:04
by Prinsessa
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?
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 11:53
by Aevas
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
ǿga –
ǿgun !
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 15:25
by HinGambleGoth
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
ǿga –
ǿgun !
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
ni
Oswe also had
Þǿn corresponing to Oic
Þau, Ogut had
Þaun I reckon this nasal is analogical, much like the *R in
ÞæiR
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 15:39
by Prinsessa
Weird.
Re: False cognates
Posted: 23 Apr 2015 22:19
by Ephraim
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
Re: False cognates
Posted: 25 Apr 2015 03:28
by Squall
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".
Re: False cognates
Posted: 25 Apr 2015 14:20
by Aevas
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 "mä" 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
mä.
It can be noted that Jamtish is not alone in lacking
hos - it is a thouroughly southern word.