| Author |
Message |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:19 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
Giles Todd wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:25:32 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
OK - in that case, explain "ij".
naam van de lettercombinatie bestaande uit de tekens i en j, gebruikt
om, in een aantal woorden, de tweeklank ei weer te geven:
deze ij wordt vaak, ter onderscheiding van de ei, de lange ij
genoemd
Graag gedaan en met vriendelijke groeten.
|
OK - now explain how that answers the question.
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:34 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
Giles Todd wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:21:20 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
It might help if you gathered information about ligatures.
Incidentally the German umlauted letters originated from such
ligatures too.
I'm not so sure about that - the Dutch "ij" is supposed to represent
y-umlaut (rather than vice versa).
Is it ballocks. The letter 'y' in standard Dutch is called 'griekse
ypsilon' (nice example of recursion there) and is used only in
borrowed words, so you would need to come up with an explanation for
umlauting a vowel that doesn't exist in the language for that to work.
So far as I can tell, 'y' is only used with its consonantal value in
Dutch (with the caveats regarding archaic spelling stated below).
In Dutch handwriting, 'ij' often closely resembles 'y' with a
diaeresis simply because that is an easy way to write it in cursive
script, but it is rarely, if ever, so in print (I have seen non-dotted
'y' in archaic formations of Dutch words, such as names of places and
people, but that is now a non-standard substitution for 'ij').
The 'Van Dale Groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal' has this to say
on the subject:
het is een misverstand de 'y' gelijk te stellen met de 'ij', zoals in
alfabetische rangschikkingen vaak gebeurt (en in alfabetische
naamlijsten op praktische gronden misschien te rechtvaardigen is): de
'ij' behoort beschouwd te worden als 'i' + 'j'; de 'y' is de Griekse
vocaal u
Rough translation:
it is a misunderstanding that 'y' can be placed with 'ij', as often
happens in alphabetical ordering (and may be reasonable on practical
grounds in alphabetical lists): 'ij' is to be considered as 'i + j',
'y' is the Greek vowel [ypsilon]
|
If 'y' is a Greek vowel, why do you say it is only used consonantally? What
about the name 'Kroymans'?
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Wagg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:54 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
"Ben Shimmin" <bas@llamaselector.com> wrote in message
news:slrn.2005-10-09.23-33-51@candide.bas.me.uk...
| Quote: |
I haven't the faintest idea what it (or any of this) means, but the word
`tweeklank' sounds marvellous.
|
In the typically prosaic fashion of the Dutch, "tweeklank" neither
sounds as pretty (or prissy) as an English-speaking person might
expect, nor means anything more exciting than two-sound.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:35 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
In article <dida8i$4f6$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Nick Wagg
<naw@transcendata.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Ben Shimmin" <bas@llamaselector.com> wrote in message
news:slrn.2005-10-09.23-33-51@candide.bas.me.uk...
I haven't the faintest idea what it (or any of this) means, but the
word `tweeklank' sounds marvellous.
In the typically prosaic fashion of the Dutch, "tweeklank" neither
sounds as pretty (or prissy) as an English-speaking person might
expect, nor means anything more exciting than two-sound.
|
Sounds like most Dutch to me: twee for a while, then clank!
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/24mct-0.htm
4 Mock Curd Tart Recipes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:37:21 +0100, Ben Shimmin
<bas@llamaselector.com> wrote:
No more wondrous than 'diphthong' (ooer, missus).
[IJ]
name of the letter combination consisting of the glyphs 'i' and 'j',
used in a number of words to represent the diphthong 'ei':
often this 'ij', in order to distinguish it from 'ei', is called the
'long ij'
Just to confuse matters, in archaic spellings the formulation 'eij' is
sometimes used in place of 'ei'. A friend of mine has the surname
'Van Bergeijk', for instance. Checking the CD version of the
telephone book, I find that 'Bergeyk' also exists.
Neither of these versions conform to modern standard Dutch
orthography, however. Fortunately, while the Nederlandse Taalunie
might prescribe what is possible in modern standard Dutch, it does not
have the authority to require people to change the spelling of their
names.
Giles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:34:01 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | If 'y' is a Greek vowel, why do you say it is only used consonantally?
|
No, ypsilon is the Greek vowel. 'Griekse ypsilon' is the Dutch
letter. Unsurprisingly, since Greek and Dutch are different
languages, the letters are used in different ways in each language.
In modern standard Dutch, 'y' is used only in borrowed words and has a
consonantal value. That is why it is nonsense to talk about an
umlauted 'y'. Umlaut involves a change in the sound of a vowel
produced by partial assimilation to an adjacent sound, usually that
found in a subsequent syllable (e.g. German 'Mann' [singular] ->
'Männer' [plural]). In German, the two dots above the 'a' are used to
indicate that umlaut has occurred, but it is a mistake to assume
thereby that two dots above any letter in any other language indicates
the process of umlaut. It doesn't work in English, for a start (cf
'coöperate', now more usually hyphenated). Standard Dutch uses the
'two dots over a letter' to indicate syllable separation rather than
umlaut, although hyphenation is gradually taking over this role as in
English.
If you want to claim that 'ij' is an umlauted 'y' then you first have
to explain what is the original vowel sound and then you have to
explain what it changes into and what influences that change.
| Quote: | What about the name 'Kroymans'?
|
See the bit I wrote about archaic spelling in names of places and
people, most likely deriving from the cursive 'ij'. 'Fortuyn' is
another example. Neither is standard modern Dutch, though.
If you are really interested in the standard Dutch language then a
good place to start is here: http://taalunieversum.org/en/
Giles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Wagg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:25 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
"Giles Todd" <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in message
news:hn8mk1d8221g4f50fe0blh09f4t96qvtsc@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
Neither of these versions conform to modern standard Dutch
orthography, however. Fortunately, while the Nederlandse Taalunie
might prescribe what is possible in modern standard Dutch, it does not
have the authority to require people to change the spelling of their
names.
|
Neither does it have any control over what happened before
the NT was inaugurated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Burke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:02 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
Nick Wagg wrote:
| Quote: | "Giles Todd" <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in message
news:hn8mk1d8221g4f50fe0blh09f4t96qvtsc@4ax.com...
Neither of these versions conform to modern standard Dutch
orthography, however. Fortunately, while the Nederlandse Taalunie
might prescribe what is possible in modern standard Dutch, it does not
have the authority to require people to change the spelling of their
names.
Neither does it have any control over what happened before
the NT was inaugurated.
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/nlij_en.htm |
http://www.answers.com/topic/ij-letter
It seems that it started life just as a printer's convention for the
letter y, much like the s-zett over there ->. Is there any evidence of
it in manuscript BEFORE it was established in print?
Funny how you humans get yourselves into these tangles- the English sore
thumbs are, of course, the taboo on split infinitives, and the
possessive apostrophe, both utterly bogus and unnecessary grammatically.
Paul Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:54:42 +0100, "Nick Wagg" <naw@transcendata.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "Ben Shimmin" <bas@llamaselector.com> wrote in message
news:slrn.2005-10-09.23-33-51@candide.bas.me.uk...
I haven't the faintest idea what it (or any of this) means, but the word
`tweeklank' sounds marvellous.
In the typically prosaic fashion of the Dutch, "tweeklank" neither
sounds as pretty (or prissy) as an English-speaking person might
expect, nor means anything more exciting than two-sound.
When I first read that I split "tweeklank" into "tweek" and "lank"; |
which had me puzzled. Then I moved the first "k" and the pieces fell
into place with a satisfying clunk.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from u.c.l.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:51 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
At 10:02:47 on Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote in
<3r1e66Fh8m7bU1@individual.net>:
| Quote: | Funny how you humans get yourselves into these tangles-
|
Paul, is there something you should be telling us?
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:02:47 +0100, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | http://rudhar.com/lingtics/nlij_en.htm
|
Ruud's interest is in typography. He's usually right as well, but I
note that the page to which you refer has nothing to say on the matter
of 'ij' being an umlauted 'y', which suggestion is what started my
contributions to this thread.
| Quote: | http://www.answers.com/topic/ij-letter
|
No argument with that article either. It also has nothing to say
about the point in contention.
| Quote: | Funny how you humans get yourselves into these tangles- the English sore
thumbs are, of course, the taboo on split infinitives, and the
possessive apostrophe, both utterly bogus and unnecessary grammatically.
|
Funny how you non-humans keep introducing irrelevancies into the
discussion.
Giles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:25:48 +0100, "Nick Wagg" <naw@transcendata.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "Giles Todd" <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in message
news:hn8mk1d8221g4f50fe0blh09f4t96qvtsc@4ax.com...
Neither of these versions conform to modern standard Dutch
orthography, however. Fortunately, while the Nederlandse Taalunie
might prescribe what is possible in modern standard Dutch, it does not
have the authority to require people to change the spelling of their
names.
Neither does it have any control over what happened before
the NT was inaugurated.
|
Nor does it have much control over how people use Dutch at any
particular time. NT just prescribes how people are supposed to use
the language at arbitrarily chosen publication dates and thereafter,
until NT changes its mind. I expect that German, French and Spanish
speakers find their official language definers similarly irritating.
But NT prescribes the official language as of its most recent
publication dates.
Here is a nice rant about Dutch spelling reform:
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j19/duch.php
In the paragraph about the 'tussenletter problem', the writer gives
one example of a silly contradiction introduced by the 1996 spelling
rules ('bessesap' versus 'bessenwijn'). These dictated (with some
exceptions and rules guiding those exceptions) that compound words
using the schwa 'tussenletter' which was previously indicated by the
letter 'e' would henceforth represent that schwa by the letters 'en'.
Now, on the face of it, this reform makes some sense (so long as you
ignore beverages made from redcurrants), since terminal consonants in
Dutch are often unvoiced. Terminal 'b' sounds like 'p', terminal 'd'
sounds like 't', etc. An unvoiced 'n' is usually so quiet as to be
inaudible (try it if you don't believe me). So, the reform still
conformed to common pronunciation.
This change involved changing the spelling of many words. But, for
many nouns in Dutch, the '-en' suffix is the marker for a plural (cf
English 'oxen' and 'children'). Sometimes, this isn't a problem.
'Notekraker' (English 'nutcracker') became 'notenkraker', for
instance. This change was uncontroversial since a nutcracker is an
implement for cracking nuts. 'Nutcracker' could be read as
'nutscracker' in the reformed orthography. Nothing egregiously wrong
with that. The meaning of the word is correctly conveyed with either
spelling.
Things became a little iffy with 'pannekoek' (English 'pancake')
becoming 'pannenkoek' since the new spelling could be read as meaning
a cake that is made in multiple pans. Nevertheless, it was accepted,
albeit with grumbles from pedants.
Where newspaper editorials started to be written, though, was over the
change in the spelling of the word for "Queen's Day" (an important
public holiday celebrating the Queen's official birthday).
'Koninginnedag' became 'koninginnendag'. This could be read to imply
that there was more than one Queen. Much public indignation ensued,
together with (unfulfilled) threats that some newspapers would not
adopt the new orthography. 'Koninginnendag' remains the official
spelling, but things got quite heated for a while.
For what it's worth, I live about 400 metres away from Koninginneweg
(sic) and there is no Koninginnenweg in Amsterdam. I very much doubt
that the name of the street will be changed to accommodate the
official orthography of the day.
I prefer the system of definition by commonly accepted usage, as used
when describing English. At least the spellings don't keep changing
while I am not paying attention (not during my expected lifetime
anyway).
Giles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Wagg
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:22 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
"Giles Todd" <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in message
news:i2lok1htpr255td5chnlbnva7m4h8lnjfv@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
I prefer the system of definition by commonly accepted usage, as used
when describing English. At least the spellings don't keep changing
while I am not paying attention (not during my expected lifetime
anyway).
|
And if the commonly accepted spelling does change in your lifetime,
you can just carry on using the old form. Alright? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:59 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
In article <mekgk1t7vrci0f57af0pj9c9ud97cr2ft1@4ax.com>,
Giles Todd <news.050807@todd.nu> wrote:
| Quote: |
In Dutch handwriting, 'ij' often closely resembles 'y' with a
diaeresis simply because that is an easy way to write it in cursive
script, but it is rarely, if ever, so in print (I have seen non-dotted
'y' in archaic formations of Dutch words, such as names of places and
people, but that is now a non-standard substitution for 'ij').
|
I remember some years ago noting with interest in a Dutch or Flemish
telephone directory that ij and y were considered identical in the
alphabetical ordering of names. So you had "Van Dijck" and "Van Dyck"
all mixed in together.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:50 pm
Post subject: Re: German Letter in the English Language!? |
|
|
Tony Mountifield wrote:
| Quote: | In article <mekgk1t7vrci0f57af0pj9c9ud97cr2ft1@4ax.com>,
Giles Todd <news.050807@todd.nu> wrote:
In Dutch handwriting, 'ij' often closely resembles 'y' with a
diaeresis simply because that is an easy way to write it in cursive
script, but it is rarely, if ever, so in print (I have seen
non-dotted 'y' in archaic formations of Dutch words, such as names
of places and people, but that is now a non-standard substitution
for 'ij').
I remember some years ago noting with interest in a Dutch or Flemish
telephone directory that ij and y were considered identical in the
alphabetical ordering of names. So you had "Van Dijck" and "Van Dyck"
all mixed in together.
|
Outrageous! Anyone would think they were the same...
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in