The way this is written is incorrect. German is not a daughter of Latin, and the word "house" has a fully understood old Germanic origin .
Borrowings from Latin to German starting with the hard c sound retain that sound.
The relationship between the old Germanic and old Latin is that of cousins. The various Proto-Indo-European "k" sounds became "h" in Germanic and retained their "k" pronunciation in Latin.
English PIE Latin
hound kyon canis
who kwo- qui
> From Proto-Germanic hudjǭ (“hut, shelter”), from Proto-Indo-European (s)kewdʰ- (“to cover, wrap, encase”), from *(s)kew- (“to cover”).
So the article is indeed incorrect in attributing it to Latin - it came straight from Proto-Indo-European.
PS: if Haut "cutis, skin" and Haus "house, family, sex" ("race"?) share a root, is that a remnant of racism? Scandalous!
No, because even if they did share a connection related to "skin", there are far simpler speculative explanations, like animal skin being used as a covering for a tent like house structure, like on a yurt.
A Scheuerlappen, "rag cloth" like a burlap, might be out of leather, though usually of rather coarser material. Just saying so because yurt (from mongolic) reminds of shirt, skirt and Schürze, in rhyme. However the r implies another root, "to cut", same as for Geschir "cutlery, dishes; harness [of horses]; vessel" (though zurren, zerren "to strap, stretch" might be akin, also see zieren, too).
I don't think your notion is implausible, but we have the words tent and Zelt already, and howmany more. housing in that sense, as something movable, could be paradox for a immobilia, but who knows.
While "to hide, conceal" might explain the connection reasonably (note that hide~leather is related closer to Haut than hiding), that would have to be the connection to rule out all others, but it's not that simple. Many \ske- roots relate to "to cut", and in my mind many figurative idioms can be derived from that sense to explain this or that. On the other hand, s-mobile may be treated as a prefix, and, assuming the prefix was sek- originally (i.e. "off"?), then we are left with a load of short stems -et, -es, .... Which reminds of some Akkadian words, and the question about who invented the se-dentry life style.
I think it is interesting how words got their gender established as part of their etymology. It baffled me when learing german that every other word had it different and it's important for grammar.
Nope, just a historical linguistics enthusiast, like a few others around here.
> I have no idea what other language would have "language" as feminine =).
Quite a few languages' words for language is grammatically "feminine", OTTOMH:
But grammatical gender of words without obvious gender associations shouldn't be interpreted in the biological sense of gender.
For example, there are languages whose "gender" system is actually more transparent, representing dichotomies like "animate" vs "inanimate", or "rational" (an entity capable of reason) vs "irrational".
Calling this phenomenon "gender" reflects a historical bias from the study of traditional Indo European and Semitic languages, which repurpose biological gender for grammatical gender, but it should really be called "noun classification" or something similar.
tongue (can mean language as well): a língua portuguesa, la lengua española.
language is different, Portuguese is feminine, and Spanish is masculine: a linguaguem de programação, el lenguaje de programación.
idiom is masculine in both: o idioma português, el idioma español.
While learning the language I've noted that in Portuguese words ending in ~gem are generally feminine regardless of their gender in French:
un garage -> uma garagem
un langage -> uma linguagem
un abordage -> uma abordagem
un bagage -> uma bagagem
And many, many others. My point is that I'm guessing that the diference in gender here is purely morphological and not tied to the meaning of the word and whether it's semantically tied to masculine or feminine traits (I'm sure you already knew all of that but I also know that English speakers often have misconceptions regarding how genders work in Romance languages, so I thought I'd clear it up).
When the transition from 3 gender to 2 happened, neuter words had to be "assigned" to one gender or another. Sometimes this was just arbitrary, other times conditioned by phonology or semantics.
The same phenomenon occurred when Sanskrit's 3 gender system gave way to the dual gender system of the new-Indo-Aryan languages like Hindi. In that case, most neuter words became masculine because they were often already phonologically similar to masculine words in the accusative case.
I have misconceptions about other Romance languages as well. I often confuse genders when trying to speak French, last week I learned moustache is feminine, while in Portuguese and Spanish it's masculine.
In spanish and english there are a version masculine (El lenguaje / The language) and other feminine (La lengua / The tongue) with subtle differences in meaning but equivalent basically. The feminine term is polysemic.
It seems that French use only the second version, in a polysemic sense also.
We only use "langue" for natural (for lack of a better word) languages. Programming languages are always "langages de programmation". I believe that the usage is strictly the same in English (you wouldn't lay "a programming tongue" either).
I was born in Brooklyn, to a Yiddish speaking family. Occasionally I use a Yiddish word in Israel and I'm met by a blank stare. 60% of the Jewish population here came from countries like Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, etc, where nobody knew Yiddish.
Its not merely the dialect, its also the accent. The hard Dutch 'g' isn't spoken in everywhere in The Netherlands (for example the south doesn't use it).
A musical piece about the Amsterdam Dutch dialect is Osdorp Posse - Origineel Amsterdams . It contains a lot of Amsterdam Dutch vocubulary. As someone who cannot speak Dutch, see if you can recognize any Yiddish words?
However the closely related "lax", used in some English dialects and in Scotland, also means salmon and comes, via Old English, from the same root: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lax#Etymology_1
So maybe ask your Scottish friends?
Lax is Swedish for salmon, so I would've expected a similar root for that word! Some quick googling suggests the Swedish variant has roots in the Germanic and Baltic languages, which are not directly related to Yiddish afaik. Funny how languages are so similar sometimes, seemingly by chance!
In fact, Yiddish is Judeo-German and has elements from Slavic languages.
A Barn is still a farm building in Scotland
I once went to Norway and it seemed to me like they were speaking German with a Geordie accent.
Of course I'm probably doing a terrible impression of each in my head.
I’m Scottish and pronounce the two words quite differently. “Bairn” sounds like “bear” with an “n” at the end and “barn” has a much harder “a” sound.
Interestingly, “burn” is a common word for a small stream in Scotland, but I digress.
Counter-example: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
For some reason, one of the scenes that stuck in my mind was when the head of the Japanese intelligence services (Tanaka?) and Bond are reviewing the receipts that the latter managed to steal from the company they suspect is acting as a front for Spectre. Tanaka is reading out a perfectly innocent list of items and comes across a huge order for "lox", and asks Bond what that means. At first he just defeatedly dismisses as an American word for smoked salmon, but then has a brainwave and says something like "But... it can also be a shorthand for Liquid Oxygen, which is needed to power rockets!".
Some words that are fully considered English have an even more convoluted history than this. The word for “chocolate” came from Spanish, and came to Spanish from Nahuatl which is completely unrelated to English, and may (though it gets obscure here) have in turn come to Nahuatl from an unrelated Mayan language.
English does have a lot of loan words, but they are comparatively less frequently used than non-loan words. The overwhelming majority of the most commonly used core vocabulary is descended straight from Old English.
In fairness, there are some major counterexamples: “they”, “use”, and “people” are loan words in the core vocabulary.
"does" or at least do-support comes from celtic.
"have" is pretty close ot "avoir", and b/v (viz Ger "haben" is not a common sound correspondance.
"a" is not a word, it's a particle so short so that saying it descended is almost non-sensical. The proper form would be "an" (and even french "un" agrees).
"of", again a meaningless particle. There went so much wrong with prepositions, too, since PIE, they got turned up-side down, literally.
"non" rings of French, not German.
"to be" mostly changed since Germanic, and not straight forward either.
"than", nope, not original.
word has a fine root, most I'll take, core is not core vocabulary, the developed seemingly independently, but analogue to other Germanic languages, this, that are OK but close to Fr. ce, ca anyway, is is still pretty close to Latin est, Germanic or not ...
You were saying?
I.e. saying English stole from French is a bit like saying Hindi, Irish, or Navajo stole from English. Gets the power relations completely backwards.
You could make a case for the validity of this quip for more recent loanwords, but there are relatively few of those compared to French, Norse, and Latin.
The definition of loan word is a bit vague, of course, and the origin of some words is uncertain, and the proportion of loan words will depend a bit on the topic and the style of writing.
(There are 72 words in the previous two paragraphs, if you expand "30%" and "that's". So about 22 of them should be loan words? Seems plausible ...)
Example: Most English accents today don't pronounce an R if a vowel doesn't follow it ("non rhotic"). This is also true in accents of New York, New England, and parts of the US southeast.
However, a few hundred years ago English accents were all rhotic, like the majority of the US. I had heard somewhere that the non-rhotacism was actually adopted in the northeast and affluent south after it became popular in England and also after colonization by people who would have pronounced all the Rs. That is to say some well to do US accents kept up with changes occurring in places like London.
Outside of some parts of Boston we pick up those Rs our friends drop and put them to use.
I grew up with a western mass accent, which is a sort of lighter version of bahston with less non-rhoticity. I can turn it off, but lately choose not to, also for social class reasons.
Distinctive communities get broken up now and disrupted by media.
Not so. Maybe this is true in many cases, but I personally know of at least one outlier: a relative who grew up in West Virginia, lost her accent to work in radio and news, and when older re-married to a man from Texas with a heavy accent and developed one herself.
It is also the case that many people slip back into accents as they age.
The more you know…
A surprising amount of Americanisms, and even spellings - like recognize instead of recognise - not only started here, but were once preferred as more correct! It's only fairly recently that The Times - last 20 or 30 years - dropped "Oxford spelling" (As the OED goes that way too). Nowadays if you use that variant someone will inevitably cry Americanism. Web spell checker is, of course, whining about -ize above as it's in GB mode.
Yet it cuts both ways - there's a lot of real Americanisms that have been forgotten in the US and are never identified as such in the UK.
Got/gotten - British laziness or fashion decided gotten was no longer necessary somewhere along the line. Yet we still use forgot and forgotten. Go figure.
Given the sheer quantity of English that's been begged, borrowed and stolen from other parts of the world, I don't understand the singular picking out of Americanisms. Though the US "I could care less" clearly only makes sense as GB's "I couldn't care less".
Shakespeare's jokes and puns work SO much better in original pronunciation. Received pronunciation needs to die in a fire.
And -ize is perfectly acceptable to many British English spell checkers. Unfortunately it seems impossible to find one that will reject -ise spellings when the -ize one is the more etymologically 'correct'.
For instance, I am using Firefox with a British English checker and it, correctly, allows "advertise" but not "advertize"; however, it also allows both "mythologize" and "mythologise" when only the first would be accepted in the Oxford tradition.
I'll be sticking with the advice in Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition.
Have you looked into Korean at all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul is a quite remarkable success story in changing spelling with the aim of increasing literacy rates.
I don't know why some of us dislike 'Americanisms' so much. Some of it will just be resistance to change - the advent of the internet meant a fairly sudden exposure to written en-US.
Anecdotally, I'm the only one amongst my friends who cares about these things. The skyrocketing usage of Americanisms really grinds my gears.
Maybe after Brexit we'll get an Académie Anglais to settle these arguments for those of us who still want to speak the King's.
Course no one ever told the Mail that some of Webster's reforms and American spellings came from Shakespeare either. He was far more phonetic than modern spelling either side of the Atlantic - as was everyone back then. Then you discover Shakespeare's spelling wasn't even consistent with himself and used at least a few words both ways - color and colour springs to mind.
Surely it will be as successful as Académie Française has been preventing French adoption of le computer, le weekend and all the rest? ie not at all. :)
It's all a bit silly. No one yells Indianism, well Tamil, when someone talks of going for a curry, yet we probably acquired almost as many from India as the US.
Edit: Hadn't been aware of of that aspect of Korea - and that North and South hugely disagree on number of letters! Most extensive change I knew was Indonesia after independence, adopting Indonesian from Malay when there's hundreds of native languages, and most spoke something else.
There's a good wiki on the subject if others are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_s...
The reason for this is mountains and isolation. You get a few villages that interact or a region that does so, and it varies wildly over the years before television and radio. People have simply kept the dialects in the modern age. Some are harder for native Norwegians than others, but supposedly they should all be understood.
It's just one of those 'facts' that seems sensible until you think about it a little bit.
I've heard of lachsfisch (sp?) in German for salmon, and I think the Swedish term is similar, so if I ever heard the term, I probably attributed it to German. I've certainly had a lot of smoked salmon spread and smoked salmon by itself, I've just don't recall ever hearing it referred to in English as anything other than "smoked salmon".
So yeah, I recognize that word as German or Swedish, not English.
Nova Lox and Schmear (yiddish for smear/spread which is usually cream cheese or flavored cream cheese)on the menu.
I'd say both terms(lox(originally pronounced lacks) and shmear) are sufficiently commercialized that they are common at any bagel place even outside of cities with large Jewish populations.
At least in the US, maybe not in the UK.
Also note that most lox isn't actually lox.
Traditional Jewish Lox is brined salmon belly. These days lox usually refers to any smoked salmon, especially less salty types then traditional lox
Lax = Salmon
Grava = preparing raw salmon (or other fish/meat) by keeping it in a mixture of salt, sugar and spices.
Salt and sugar keeps the fish from spoling, lactic acid bacteria preserves the fish. Back in the days this was done by digging a hole in the ground, cover the fish with spruce/fresh leaves and salt. Then lleaving it lying there for a couple of days. This also gives the origin of the word "grava" which in this context would bean "bury".
And is cognate to English "grave" as in a burial place! Other cognates are Middle English (and modern Dutch) "graven", and German "graben", both meaning "to dig". Ultimately deriving from Proto-Germanic *grabaną. "Groove" is also related. Interestingly the adjective sense of "grave" in English (as in "serious") is of unrelated Romance origin (cf. "gravid", "gravity", "gravitas").
It had a number of sound changes in between, and modern English "lox" just coincidentally resembles PIE's "*laḱs-". It should also be noted that the "k" is palatized, meaning it'd be pronounced more like "lakys" or "laksh".
Wonder if HN can display Norse runic characters. This is the name "Lax Hlaup" in the Younger Futhark runic alphabet: ᛚᛅᚼᛋ ᚼᛚᛅᚢᛒ
HN can display any character as long as the computer rendering the page has a font that supports the glyphs.
I'd agree that there's an element of chance in what's happened to the k since it didn't necessarily have to change back to resemble the PIE form, but I'm not sure I see the other changes as ever having moved far from PIE at all.
Also, dunno how legit this guy is, but he wrote a fiction book about life 32000 years ago, and did some research for it: https://www.livescience.com/39324-shaman-kim-stanley-robinso...
> Kim Stanley Robinson: Once I realized that the narrator had to be talking and not writing, that made a huge difference. Then I had to think about words. I had to think about every word … I realized that as a normal writer, one of my most common phrases to start a sentence would be "in fact." The word fact began to look wrong. They didn't have facts. That's a modern concept … I couldn't use all kinds of words. I tried to examine every word ... I did develop a different vocabulary for all of the words for sexual parts. That was because the English language words are all heavily weighted by Judeo-Christian or modern pruderies or concerns. They all had baggage. I went back to Basque and Proto-Indo-European and I used real words. I just used real words from their time. What we're finding is that Basque is amazingly old, Proto-Indo-European is amazingly old ... There are about 100 words that linguists now have determined are probably as old as 15,000 years old that never changed like "mama" and "aye." I've been getting a fair amount of incredulity and a little bit of objection to having my characters say "mama mia," but it turns out that both of those words are outrageously ancient.
That is a incredible claim. Is common that all the languages across history to have an explanation in how was pronounced or have sound samples of how the people talk about?
Because that is the only sure way to do that claim.
Just taking in account the changes I see in my own city, is impossible that words not change the sound. Heck, you can bet it change among people in the same HOUSE!
ie: I truly want to know how this can be proved...
They wore chest beards back then.
I first read about this in the fantastic book "Ideas" by Peter Watson
For one, dating of the stories does not really match, I believe.
It's a much more recent dispersion than Indo-European, but I still found it fascinating that the Spanish, Turkish and Indian restaurants in my town have this connection in their cuisine.
The first time I heard the word was from my GF's (and future ex-wife's) mom; whose sister was married to a Jewish man. Sadly, due to a then recent bad taste experience with a pickled herring in wine sauce--I never sampled any until years and years after that. Oy vey; a lot of wasted years there!
Richard the Lionheart was actually Richard (probably pronounced something like Rishaa?) Cœur de Lion and spoke French:
Apparently only one fourth of English words are of Germanic origin:
Turkey as the name of the bird is however something still unclear. It's not called so in Turkey.
AFAIK, "lox" came to English through Yiddish, which got the word from German. And in German, the vowel was always "a" not "o" (e.g. https://ia600301.us.archive.org/32/items/etymologisches00klu... traces the word to "lahs"), so the vowel quality and the final consonant appear to have changed.
In Australia I have never heard the term - we goyim would just refer to a smoked-salmon bagel.
It's a /k/ in all "-achs", e.g. "Dachs", "wachsen", "Flachs", exactly as in "bochs" the emulator (compare "boxen"), except across boundaries, e.g. "wachsam, wach-sam" (wakeful, at guard), or contractions, e.g. "[Meister seines].Faches/Fachs".
although... if the language "Tocharian B" is extinct, how can we know its pronunciation? There must be a way, but I can't fathom it myself.
Speakers of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish can usually talk to eachother without major issues although the kids seem to be preferring to speak English nowadays.
Spoken Icelandic or Faraoese on the other hand? I usually manage to get a single word or phrase. The rest is gibberish.
The letter changed, but the pronunciation didn't - hence "not changed in sound". German "a" == English (short) "o".
You could go to the Eurasian steps in 3000 BC and ask for lox and they will know exactly what you mean.
Gives meaning to the phrase, "Not the end of the world."
In particular sound symbolism hypothesizes that the initial "m" of many similar "mother" words is related to the sound of a lips sucking milk, like the verb "mamare" in Latin meaning "to suck".
Not to say that sound symbolism of the "ma" sound isn't a real thing, but rather that its adoption for the "mother" word is far from universal, but just frequent enough to be interesting.
Incidentally, the Wikipedia page for "Mama and papa" says that in Old Japanese the word for "mother" was papa.
In a few years, "lox" is going to mean something entirely different, like a stray thread on a shirt or something.