Why is Danmark called "Denmark" in English?
Bertel Lund Hansen
Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Bertel
--
Denmark, Europe
http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish)
Cheryl L Perkins
Danish sounded like 'Anna' in English.
Speaking as an English-speaker, I have to confess that the Nordic
languages sounded like they should be understandable, but weren't.
It didn't help that my teachers kept trying to teach me French.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
khann
>
> Hi all
>
> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Good question! I could see how the English spelling might spark a land
claim from the Dene.
Native English speakers feel compelled to alter the spelling and
pronunciation of foreign names. It saves all the trouble of learning all
those tricky vowels. But I see the habit creeping into Danish as well,
with some of the natives using the English pronunciations of Köbenhavn*
og Sjælland.
* sorry about the "ö", but I can't find the proper symbol for the "ur"
vowel
P&D Schultz
> Hi all
>
> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Maybe the English version preserves a pronunciation which predates the
modern Danish version. I notice that the German word for your country is
"Dänemark," with an umlauted "a" which is nearly the same as the English
vowel in "Denmark."
//P. Schultz
Kevin Wald
Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> wrote:
>Hi all
>
>Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>have trouble saying "Danmark"?
The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_, as in the opening lines
from _Beowulf_:
Hwaet! We Gar-Dena in geardagum
theodcyninga thrym gefrugnon . . .
("Ahem! We've heard about the Spear-Danes' nation-kings' glory in
days of yore . . .")
Thus the Old English term _Denemearc_ for the land of the Danes
also had that "e", and that has been preserved in Modern English,
even though "Danes" got its rightful "a" back centuries ago.
As to why _Dene_ had an "e" instead of an "a": This is the result of
a vowel shift (umlaut). When a pre-Old-English short /a/ before a
nasal consonant was followed in the next syllable by the high vowel /i/,
the /a/ was generally raised to an /e/. So, for example, the singular
_mann_ (from pre-OE *_mann_) kept its original /a/, while the plural
_menn_ (from pre-OE *_manniz_) had /e/, a distinction that survives to
the present day ("man" vs. "men"). In the case of _Dene_, the original
form (reconstructed as *_Daniz_) had that /i/ (as part of its stem),
so the OE form ended up with an /e/ instead of the original /a/.
Kevin Wald, wa...@math.uchicago.edu | "Catalog of ships -- I'll remember that."
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~wald | -- Homer, _The Huntress and the Sphinx_
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Yes, but why should English-speaking people speak Danish?
Is "Dan" an unfamiliar name for an English-speaking person? That
is the name of a legend king that is found in "Danmark".
The funny thing is that you *do* speak danish - in the second
syllable. "Mark" means "field".
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
>modern Danish version. I notice that the German word for your country is
>"Dänemark," with an umlauted "a" which is nearly the same as the English
>vowel in "Denmark."
Maybe the Danes think it all belongs to just one Dane? Otherwise, why
isn't it *"Danemark"?
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Mark Brader
> The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_, as in the opening lines
Interesting. Today, the "Dene" (two syllables, dennay or day-nay) are
the native peoples of a large chunk of northern Canada: according to one
source, the term includes the Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Loucheux, and
Slavey tribes. See <http://www.magick.net/~ebarnard/dene.html>.
Presumably these two words "Dene" are completely unrelated, one from Danish
and the other from a Dene language.
--
Mark Brader "By this time I was feeling guilty. No, correction,
Toronto I was feeling that I *should* feel guilty ..."
msbr...@interlog.com -- Jude Devereaux
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike Barnes
>Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Good question. As a matter of interest, what do you Denish-speaking
people call "England", "Scotland", "Wales", "Ireland", "Britain",
"America", and other English-speaking countries?
--
-- Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
-- If you post a response to Usenet, please *don't* send me a copy by e-mail.
Donna Richoux
> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Are you complaining? Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far
different the English names are from local names for Switzerland,
Greece, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India,
China....
Do I take it that the Danes, probably alone in Europe, use only
placenames in the forms employed by the local populations? You are
indeed a highly sophisticated people.
Some other people are tackling the historical angle. But please, can we
drop the "why can't you folks pronounce our name right" approach?
I find it antagonistic.
Forcing myself to be charitable, I realize you probably mean only,
"Since it's not a difficult pronunciation, what *is* the reason?"
Foreign sounds and the inability to pronounce them probably have
something to do with the derivation of placenames, but, as you are
saying, not everything.
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Blade Runner
Hansen wrote:
>Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>have trouble saying "Danmark"?
Do Danes call England 'England'?
And hey, we call La France, 'France' but what do they call us?
Angleterre!
Hummmmphhh!
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Newsgroups: alt.uk.virgin-net.oldbies, uk.local.north-staffs
North Staffs Oatcakes Homepage http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
You may have to put the cat out to reply via e-mail
dcou...@my-dejanews.com
de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
> In article <371FD66F...@erols.com>,
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >Maybe the English version preserves a pronunciation which predates the
> >modern Danish version. I notice that the German word for your country is
> >"Dänemark," with an umlauted "a" which is nearly the same as the English
> >vowel in "Denmark."
>
> Maybe the Danes think it all belongs to just one Dane? Otherwise, why
> isn't it *"Danemark"?
Nah. Truth is, the whole country belongs to me.
Cheers,
Deny Coughlan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
khann
> [...]
> Good question. As a matter of interest, what do you Denish-speaking
> people call "England", "Scotland", "Wales", "Ireland", "Britain",
> "America", and other English-speaking countries?
England, Skotland, ???, Irland, Storbritannien, Amerika, Australia,
Canada
khann
>
[...]
> Do Danes call England 'England'?
Yes.
> And hey, we call La France, 'France' but what do they call us?
> Angleterre!
What do you expect, they are French.
"If Germany is the fatherland, and Britain is the mother country, what
then of France?"
Skitt
Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:371fce7...@news.image.dk...
> Mimi Kahn skrev:
>
> >Yes, but why should English-speaking people speak Danish?
>
> Is "Dan" an unfamiliar name for an English-speaking person? That
> is the name of a legend king that is found in "Danmark".
>
> The funny thing is that you *do* speak danish - in the second
> syllable. "Mark" means "field".
Aha! So it should be "Danfield", in English usage, of course.
--
Skitt http://i.am/skitt/
Central Florida CAUTION: My veracity is under limited warranty
Donna Richoux
> "If Germany is the fatherland, and Britain is the mother country, what
> then of France?"
L'Enfant de la Patrie?
Best -- Donna Richoux
M.J.Powell
<khann....@hitchhhiker.ca> writes
>Blade Runner wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> Do Danes call England 'England'?
>
>Yes.
>
>> And hey, we call La France, 'France' but what do they call us?
>> Angleterre!
>
>What do you expect, they are French.
That's the trouble.
--
Mike The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_, as in the opening lines
>from _Beowulf_:
Thanks for a very thorough explanation.
Bertel Lund Hansen
Close. It's "Australien". And Wales is "Wales" with
english^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H british pronunciation.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Maybe the Danes think it all belongs to just one Dane?
Yes, his name was "Dan" and he was a King. He is not a
historical, but only a mythical person, though.
Much like you might say "The Queens England" we say "Dans mark".
However "Dannevang" is another name, not commonly used, but well
known to all. It's mostly used by poets. "Vang" is a rarer word
for "field".
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Do Danes call England 'England'?
Yes, only we haven't kept the hard sound of the "g".
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Forcing myself to be charitable, I realize you probably mean only,
>"Since it's not a difficult pronunciation, what *is* the reason?"
Eh ... oh yes ... that was of course what I thought.
N.Mitchum
-----
> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
No trouble at all, but we *don't* say it. Neither do we say
"Deutschland," and can't even manage the relatively easy "Paree."
Why should we?
----NM
Kevin Wald
Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> wrote:
>The funny thing is that you *do* speak danish - in the second
>syllable. "Mark" means "field".
However, the "mark" in the English "Denmark" is perfectly good
(albeit archaic) English. The Old English _mearc_ meant "border"
or "region", and so the OE _Denemearc_, from which (as I mentioned
elsewhere in this thread) the modern English term derives, looks
to be a straightforward compound meaning "the region of the Danes".
Kevin Wald, wa...@math.uchicago.edu | "There is nothing like a Dane . . ."
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~wald | -- Hrothgar & Hamorstan, _North Atlantic_
M.J.Powell
<b...@nospam.dk> writes
>Blade Runner skrev:
>
>>Do Danes call England 'England'?
>
>Yes, only we haven't kept the hard sound of the "g".
'Enjland'?
Donna Richoux
> Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> writes
> >Blade Runner skrev:
> >
> >>Do Danes call England 'England'?
> >
> >Yes, only we haven't kept the hard sound of the "g".
>
> 'Enjland'?
Think of the difference between "anger" and "hanger." "Anger" comes out
like "ang-ger" and "hanger" like "hang-er." (At least in the US, I trust
in the UK also?) I feel sure this is what Bertel is referring to.
Best --- Donna Richoux
Skitt
Cheryl L Perkins <cper...@stemnet.nf.ca> wrote in message
news:7fo9ki$j1k$2...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
> Well, it's our language. It took me ages to figure out that 'Anne' in
> Danish sounded like 'Anna' in English.
That's because English pronunciation is strange, looking at it from a
non-English European perspective. <g>
--
Skitt http://come.to/skitt/
... and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
Cheryl L Perkins
: Cheryl L Perkins <cper...@stemnet.nf.ca> wrote in message
It's perfectly normal to English-speaking people! And when you are a
Canadian who is expected to read French, even though she can't speak it,
and is expected to at least recognise Inukkitut and Innu Ainum (being two
native languages), even if she can't speak them either!
<sniffles> I can at least know when people speak the Native languages
which are common in this part of Canada. And I can read French, even if I
can't speak it without an accent which sends the native Francophones
screaming in horror. So I pronounce English the way I please.
Cheryl <good enough for my mother and father, good enough for me.
Specially since they didn't agree on how to speak English.<G>>
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
Paul Juhl
>... Today, the "Dene" (two syllables, dennay or day-nay) are
>the native peoples of a large chunk of northern Canada...
>
>Presumably these two words "Dene" are completely unrelated, one from Danish
>and the other from a Dene language.
According to Merriam-Webster, the name the Indians have taken is from
"Canadian French, of Athabascan origin; akin to Chipewyan and Slave
(Athabascan languages of Canada) dene person."
However, I have a hunch M-W may have missed the mark. Clarification anyone?
--
Regards, Paul Juhl
Quebec
Paul Juhl
>Maybe the Danes think it all belongs to just one Dane?
In a way, I suppose. It's a constitutional monarchy. But Dan is long gone,
so now the whole enchilada "belongs" to Queen Margrethe.
>Otherwise, why
>isn't it *"Danemark"?
I don't know why it would be. Adding an e to Dan doesn't make it plural. Not
in Danish, anyway.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>like "ang-ger" and "hanger" like "hang-er." (At least in the US, I trust
>in the UK also?) I feel sure this is what Bertel is referring to.
Precisely.
Bertel
--
Denmark, Europe
http://image.dk/~blh/ (in Danish)
Bertel Lund Hansen
>'Enjland'?
I think not. You can say "hang". The "Eng" in Danish has the same
ending sound. So try "hung-land" and change it to "Eng-land" (and
remove the final hard d-sound, something like "Eng-lan"). That
would be near perfect.
Mark Brader
> Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far different the English
> names are from local names for Switzerland, Greece, Finland, Germany,
> Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India, China....
Finland *is* their local name -- in one of their two official languages.
Admittedly not the majority language, but still...
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Not looking like Pascal is not
msbr...@interlog.com a language deficiency!" -- Doug Gwyn
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Markus Laker
> Think of the difference between "anger" and "hanger." "Anger" comes out
> like "ang-ger" and "hanger" like "hang-er." (At least in the US, I trust
> in the UK also?)
For most speakers, yes. However, there are some English accents well
North of here where 'anger' and 'hanger' and 'longer' and 'singer' all
contain a /g/.
Markus
--
Delete the 'delete this bit' bit of my address to reply
Sean Holland
Hansen) wrote:
>Hi all
>
>Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
How do Danes say "England"?
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from prodigy will not reach me.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>How do Danes say "England"?
I tried to explain that in this message:
3731f60e...@news.image.dk
But of course dialects may play a role.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Paul Juhl <pj...@jbsyndicate.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote about Danmark, aka Denmark...
>
>>Maybe the Danes think it all belongs to just one Dane?
>
>In a way, I suppose. It's a constitutional monarchy. But Dan is long gone,
>so now the whole enchilada "belongs" to Queen Margrethe.
Vive la reine!
>>Otherwise, why
>>isn't it *"Danemark"?
>
>I don't know why it would be. Adding an e to Dan doesn't make it plural. Not
>in Danish, anyway.
Not even in the case of a fossilised genitive plural?
Maybe Danish doesn't like 'em. Modern Icelandic seems to be under a
similar delusion that Denmark belongs to one guy named "Dan", much as
France belongs to one guy named "Frakk".
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Mark Brader <msbr...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Donna Richoux writes:
>> Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far different the English
>> names are from local names for Switzerland, Greece, Finland, Germany,
>> Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India, China....
>
>Finland *is* their local name -- in one of their two official languages.
>Admittedly not the majority language, but still...
And what is the local name for Iran if not "Iran"?
David McMurray
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > Think of the difference between "anger" and "hanger." "Anger" comes out
> > like "ang-ger" and "hanger" like "hang-er." (At least in the US, I trust
> > in the UK also?)
>
> For most speakers, yes. However, there are some English accents well
> North of here where 'anger' and 'hanger' and 'longer' and 'singer' all
> contain a /g/.
Why have you included "longer" in your list? I have always been under
the impression that there are very few English accents in which "longer"
does not contain a /g/.
The accent which the OUP editors refer to as "RP" has it. Is that an
exception?
--
David
Donna Richoux
> And what is the local name for Iran if not "Iran"?
Oh, darn, I hoped no one would call me on that one. I had glanced on a
list that had Persanes = Iran, and only afterwards did I notice the same
list had historical entries like Indochine and Siam. Scratch Iran.
Best -- Donna Richoux
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>David
The RP of it is that some things last lonGGer than other things
but if you miss something for a greater duration than most then
you become a lonGGer longer than your fellows.
Markus might not know that: some "educated" cockneys have a
thing about "finks" like the pronounced "g", especially on their
"tores" outside the Estuary area.
Markus Laker
> Markus Laker <lakerDele...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> > For most speakers, yes. However, there are some English accents well
> > North of here where 'anger' and 'hanger' and 'longer' and 'singer' all
> > contain a /g/.
>
> Why have you included "longer" in your list?
For parallelism: to show that, in the accents in question, the 'nger' is
pronounced identically in all four words, as /Ng@/ or /Ng@r/. (Some of
these accents are rhotic and some not.)
> I have always been under
> the impression that there are very few English accents in which "longer"
> does not contain a /g/.
Quite so. The same applies to 'anger'.
> The accent which the OUP editors refer to as "RP" has it. Is that an
> exception?
Not at all.
Incidentally, since my previous article in this thread I've discovered
that this /g/ is common not only in the West Midlands but in a small
area arond Maidstone, which (as we geographers say) is at the bottom on
the right.
Garry J. Vass
<wa...@ford.uchicago.edu> writes
>
>Thus the Old English term _Denemearc_ for the land of the Danes
>also had that "e", and that has been preserved in Modern English,
>even though "Danes" got its rightful "a" back centuries ago.
>
One of the top posts so far this year!
--
Garry J. Vass
David McMurray
> ik0...@kingston.net (David McMurray) wrote:
> > Markus Laker <lakerDele...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > For most speakers, yes. However, there are some English accents well
> > > North of here where 'anger' and 'hanger' and 'longer' and 'singer' all
> > > contain a /g/.
[...]
> > I have always been under the impression that there are very few English
> > accents in which "longer" does not contain a /g/.
>
> Quite so. The same applies to 'anger'.
Do you mean there _are_ a very few in which "anger" is /g/-less?
If so, are they the same very few as those in which "longer" is
/g/-less?
[...]
--
David
Markus Laker
> Markus Laker <lakerDele...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> > ik0...@kingston.net (David McMurray) wrote:
> > > I have always been under the impression that there are very few English
> > > accents in which "longer" does not contain a /g/.
> > Quite so. The same applies to 'anger'.
> Do you mean there _are_ a very few in which "anger" is /g/-less?
No. It means I can't think of any, but until I've visited every city,
town, village, hamlet, street and dirt track in the country I'm not
going to claim that there aren't any.
Never say 'never' on a.u.e.
> If so, are they the same very few as those in which "longer" is
> /g/-less?
Which are those?
Garry J. Vass
<lakerDele...@tcp.co.uk> writes
>
>> If so, are they the same very few as those in which "longer" is
>> /g/-less?
>
>Which are those?
>
--
Garry J. Vass
Paul Juhl
>The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_ ...
...
>Thus the Old English term _Denemearc_ for the land of the Danes
>also had that "e", and that has been preserved in Modern English,
>even though "Danes" got its rightful "a" back centuries ago.
Simply stated, though, English-speakers just took a stab at the spelling ...
Danmark was called Danmark a long time before the English got around to
fiddling with the name.
As far as I can see, among the most common reasons for changing the spelling
of a foreign placename are:
1. The new spelling reflects the real or perceived pronunciation in another
language.
And/or...
2. The name contains sounds and/or letters of the alphabet that do not exist
in the language of the speaker.
3. The name is translated.
4. The name describes some feature connected with the place.
1. Roma became Rome in English and Rom in Danish, because that's how it
sounds to careless listeners. Fyn (a Danish island) became Fuhnen in
English, Sjælland (another Danish island) is called Zealand and for some
reason Moskva (I believe that's a fairly accurate transliteration) became
Moscow. The Danes write England like that - England - but if they had
spelled it the way it sounds to them, it would have become Ingland, or
perhaps Inkland.
Perhaps Danmark became Denmark because although the "a" in Dan is hard both
in Danish and English, there is a distinct difference in the pronunciation
of the name in the two languages. A linguist would be able to explain the
difference; I'm not one, so let me just say there is a huge difference
between the Danish pronunciation of "den" and "Dan" - much less between
"den" and "Dan" in English. This may account both for the reason the English
spelled Danmark with an "e" - it was probably because that's how it sounded
to them - and for the fact that Danes can't understand why the English found
it necessary to replace the first "a" with an "e."
2. Österreich became Austria in English, which is not that far from a
phonetic representation of the name in English. Likewise, Nürnberg became
Nuremberg.
It was probably some Cockney who in the process dropped the "H" from
Helsingør so it became Elsinore. København - which has been Denmark's
capital for more than 800 years, used to be called Kjøbenhavn - and it is
easy to see why it had to be changed to suit the alphabet and larynx of the
English. Danes are bemused when English-speakers, in the belief they speak
Danish, pronounce Copenhagen the way the Germans say Kopenhagen (with an
open "a"). It's probably Danny Kaye's fault, since that's how he pronounced
it when he sang "Wonderful Copenhagen" in Hans Christian Andersen. He was
right, of course. The song calls for an open "a" there; an "eyh" sound would
have been awful.
3. The French refer to England as Angleterre (the land of the anglos), the
United States as Etats Unis and Nova Scotia as Ecosse Nouveau. We talk about
Greenland (translated from Grønland) and we say Ivory Coast instead of Côte
D'Ivoire, while the Danes call Austria Østrig, which is not only a
translation of Österreich (eastern kingdom), but sounds a bit like it. The
Danes used to call New York "Ny York," and you may still hear the United
States referred to as "De forenede Stater," although I believe "US" is now
the norm. New York certainly is.
4. The North Sea is, naturally enough called "Vesterhavet" (the Western Sea)
in Danish, because it's on the left, so to speak. To the north of Denmark is
the body of water called Kattegat, which could perhaps be translated as
"cat's arse."
Maybe Schweiz became Switzerland in English because it's the land of the
Schweizzers, er Swiss. (In French it's Suisse, but then that one's of
Switzerland's official languages.)
Perchprism
>From: "Garry J. Vass" <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk>
>Date: 4/25/99 4:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5LnY0cAP...@orkin.org>
Or "Lwn Guy Lnd," interesting in that it contains a word with "w" as a vowel,
and a word with no vowel.
Perchprism
(Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia, USA)
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Paul Juhl <pj...@jbsyndicate.com> wrote:
>Kevin Wald<WA...@FORD.UCHICAGO.EDU wrote...
>>The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_ ...
>...
>>Thus the Old English term _Denemearc_ for the land of the Danes
>>also had that "e", and that has been preserved in Modern English,
>>even though "Danes" got its rightful "a" back centuries ago.
>[clip impressive explanation]
>
>Simply stated, though, English-speakers just took a stab at the spelling ...
>Danmark was called Danmark a long time before the English got around to
>fiddling with the name.
>
>As far as I can see, among the most common reasons for changing the spelling
>of a foreign placename are:
>
>1. The new spelling reflects the real or perceived pronunciation in another
>language.
> And/or...
>2. The name contains sounds and/or letters of the alphabet that do not exist
>in the language of the speaker.
>3. The name is translated.
>4. The name describes some feature connected with the place.
You've completely ignored the possibility of language change. Names are
words like any others and are subject to the same shifts in pronunciation.
>1. Roma became Rome in English and Rom in Danish, because that's how it
>sounds to careless listeners.
Old English 'Rome' sounds almost exactly like the modern Italian pronunci-
ation. But final schwas became mute in the transition from Middle to
Early Modern English, and the vowel became diphthongised. (If it had
followed the normal development of OE. [o:], it would be /rum/ today.
Sometimes, the pronunciation of names can be more conservative than that
of the average lexical item.)
>Fyn (a Danish island) became Fuhnen in
>English,
Or did it become 'Fyn' in Danish? Perhaps English is more conservative in
this case. After all, ON 'Haithabu' became English 'Hedeby' but Danish
'Haddeby'. We kept the /i/ insofar as it raised the preceding vowel to an
/e/, but the Danes just discarded it completely.
[snip]
>2. Österreich became Austria in English, which is not that far from a
>phonetic representation of the name in English. Likewise, Nürnberg became
>Nuremberg.
I'm sorry, but ['Ostri@] is pretty damn far from ['Wst@RaIC]. The English
doesn't "come from" the German anyway, at least not directly. It's from
the Latin, which is based on OHG 'Ostarrihhi' (from earlier *Austarrikja).
And both 'Nuernberg' and 'Nuremberg' come from earlier 'Nurinberg' (IIRC).
It's the Germans who have dropped a syllable here, not the rest of us who
have added one (as in the case of 'Koeln', Dutch 'Keulen', English/French
'Cologne' from Latin 'Colonia [Augusta]). This is only natural--who would
we expect to shorten the word more, those who refer to it occasionally or
those who make reference to it daily?
>It was probably some Cockney who in the process dropped the "H" from
>Helsingør so it became Elsinore. København - which has been Denmark's
>capital for more than 800 years, used to be called Kjøbenhavn - and it is
>easy to see why it had to be changed to suit the alphabet and larynx of the
>English. Danes are bemused when English-speakers, in the belief they speak
>Danish, pronounce Copenhagen the way the Germans say Kopenhagen (with an
>open "a"). It's probably Danny Kaye's fault, since that's how he pronounced
>it when he sang "Wonderful Copenhagen" in Hans Christian Andersen. He was
>right, of course. The song calls for an open "a" there; an "eyh" sound would
>have been awful.
IIRC, it's again Danish that has changed here, replacing earlier 'hage(n)'
"enclosure" with 'havn' "haven; harbour"--a natural enough folk etymo-
logy--not to mention voicing earlier /p/ to /b/. (You Danes aren't very
kind to your consonants.)
[snip]
>Maybe Schweiz became Switzerland in English because it's the land of the
>Schweizzers, er Swiss. (In French it's Suisse, but then that one's of
>Switzerland's official languages.)
All from the little canton of 'Schwyz'. ('Schweiz' is the form with
Middle High German diphthongisation, a fad that never found purchase with
the stolid Swiss.) I imagine 'Switzer-' comes directly from a German
source and 'Swiss' by a French route, but I'm not certain.
David McMurray
> ik0...@kingston.net (David McMurray) wrote:
[...]
> > Do you mean there _are_ a very few [English accents] in which "anger" is
> > /g/-less?
>
> No. It means I can't think of any, but until I've visited every city,
> town, village, hamlet, street and dirt track in the country I'm not
> going to claim that there aren't any.
>
> Never say 'never' on a.u.e.
I suspect it would be safe to do so in the case of "anger"
> > If so, are they the same very few as those in which "longer" is
> > /g/-less?
>
> Which are those?
Mine, for one (defining "English accent" broadly), bits of which I
inherited from my mother, a native of Reading, England.
I was told by a sci.langer last year that the /g/-less "longer" is heard
in the UK, although it is rare. It is also rare in Canada; I have
retained it even though it earns me frequent puzzled looks and
occasional ridicule.
--
David
Mark Brader
Of the Angles, actually.
> ... and Nova Scotia as Ecosse Nouveau.
Close. It's feminine and the word order is reversed: Nouvelle-Écosse.
--
Mark Brader | "[It] was the kind of town where they spell
Toronto | trouble TRUBIL, and if you try to correct them,
msbr...@interlog.com | they kill you." -- Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid
David McMurray
> > 3. The French refer to England as Angleterre (the land of the anglos)
>
> Of the Angles, actually.
>
> > ... and Nova Scotia as Ecosse Nouveau.
>
> Close. It's feminine and the word order is reversed: Nouvelle-Écosse.
Closer. It's "la Nouvelle-Écosse".
--
David
paul...@my-dejanews.com
> > ... and Nova Scotia as Ecosse Nouveau.
>
> Close. It's feminine and the word order is reversed: Nouvelle-Écosse.
Not really that close. Sigh! I was just out there, too. For the record, the
province next to it is Nouveau Brunswick or Nouveau-Brunswick. If I'd gone
with that one I'd at least have gotten the gender right.
--
Regards, Paul Juhl
Quebec
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Martin Murray
:
: It was probably some Cockney who in the process dropped the "H" from
: Helsingør so it became Elsinore. København - which has been Denmark's
: capital for more than 800 years, used to be called Kjøbenhavn - and it is
: easy to see why it had to be changed to suit the alphabet and larynx of the
: English. Danes are bemused when English-speakers, in the belief they speak
: Danish, pronounce Copenhagen the way the Germans say Kopenhagen (with an
: open "a"). It's probably Danny Kaye's fault, since that's how he pronounced
: it when he sang "Wonderful Copenhagen" in Hans Christian Andersen. He was
: right, of course. The song calls for an open "a" there; an "eyh" sound would
: have been awful.
Surely everyone knows that the English name for the capital of Denmark is
Chipping Haven.
Martin Murray
PJ...@jbsyndicate.com
ISP is acting up again, so I can never be sure if the recipients of this have
seen the earlier stuff. I expected someone to take issue with my previous post
on this subject, but it was not until I started looking for it in Deja News
that I found Daniel's interesting post.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote...
Names are *not* words like any others. Besides, I was careful to say that the
above were "among the most common reasons." However, that's picking nits.
[clip]
>>Fyn (a Danish island) became Fuhnen in
>>English,
>
>Or did it become 'Fyn' in Danish?
That's highly unlikely, although it is quite possible the name had an "h" in
it at one time. Fyhn, perhaps. [clip]
>>2. Österreich became Austria in English, which is not that far from a
>>phonetic representation of the name in English...
>I'm sorry, but ['Ostri@] is pretty damn far from ['Wst@RaIC].
I was pretty sure I'd get an argument here. I guess you're right. I was
reaching.
>...It's from
>the Latin, which is based on OHG 'Ostarrihhi' (from earlier *Austarrikja).
Very interesting. It it may even be accurate, but some scholars appear to be
so convinced that the rest of the world is out of step that they'll grasp at
straws to prove that English has retained the "proper" or original versions
of various words.
Dan's comments about the name of the Danish capital, and the assertion that
Copenhagen may be closer to the original name than the modern Danish
København, is an example of such ridiculous linguistic reverse engineering:
>IIRC, it's again Danish that has changed here, replacing earlier 'hage(n)'
>"enclosure" with 'havn' "haven; harbour"--a natural enough folk etymo-
>logy--not to mention voicing earlier /p/ to /b/.
Those who don't know any better could very well assume that the place was
referred to as "hage"[1] (chin or hook in Danish), because many natural
harbours often sit behind a spit of land forming a "hook" into the sea. Since
that's not the case with Copenhagen (the harbour sits in a narrow passage
between the islands of Zealand and Amager), researchers ought to have taken
another crack it.
The place was referred to back in 1026 when Olaf den Hellige (literally Olaf
the Holy One) summoned the Danes to a "ting" or parliament on the Zealand
side of the Sound, but it was not until 1043 when the name was recorded, and
then only as "Hafn," which later became "Hawn and eventually "Havn" -
harbour. Hafn was then mentioned as the city where Svend Estridssøn sought to
take refuge when pursued by Magnus den Gode, or Magnus the Good. (I'm sure
Hagar the Horrible is closely related to one of aforementioned gentlemen.
Black sheep and all that)
Later, "Harbour" became known as Merchant's Harbour, or "Køpmannæ hawn," which
evolved to Kjøpmandshavn, to Kjøbenhavn and eventually (this century) to
København. Ain't got nothing to do with "hage" or hook. Never did.
I've heard say that in some Danish dialect, Kjøbenhavn may have been
pronounced with a drawn-out sound at the end, something like "...heighvn"
which may have led to the name being spelled Copenhagen and Kopenhagen.
[1] There also those who speculate that it was the Hansa traders who mistook
"hawn" for the Oldnordic word "hagæ" (grassy field), which has evolved to the
Danish word "have" - garden. If that theory is correct, it looks like the
error of the Germans was visited upon the English. København was known as a
centre of fishing, trading and industry, not agriculture.
>(You Danes aren't very
>kind to your consonants.)
I suspect the Danes might reply that it's their consonants, so they'll treat
them any way they like:-)
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>Please forgive me for citing more of the previous posts than I normally do. My
>ISP is acting up again, so I can never be sure if the recipients of this have
>seen the earlier stuff. I expected someone to take issue with my previous post
>on this subject, but it was not until I started looking for it in Deja News
>that I found Daniel's interesting post.
>
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote...
>
>>Paul Juhl <pj...@jbsyndicate.com> wrote:
>>>Kevin Wald<WA...@FORD.UCHICAGO.EDU wrote...
>>>>The Old English word for "Danes" was _Dene_ ...
>>...
>>>fiddling with the name.
>>>
>>>As far as I can see, among the most common reasons for changing the
>>spelling
>>>of a foreign placename are:
>>>
>>>1. The new spelling reflects the real or perceived pronunciation in another
>>>language.
>>> And/or...
>>>2. The name contains sounds and/or letters of the alphabet that do not
>>exist
>>>in the language of the speaker.
>>>3. The name is translated.
>>>4. The name describes some feature connected with the place.
>>
>>You've completely ignored the possibility of language change. Names are
>>words like any others and are subject to the same shifts in pronunciation.
>
>Names are *not* words like any others.
No? In what important ways are they different? I was speaking specific-
ally in reference to the effects of phonological change. Now, this does
not affect all parts of the lexicon *equally* or *simultaneously*, but
I've seen nothing at all that proves that toponyms, as a class, are immune
or even resistent to it.
>Besides, I was careful to say that the
>above were "among the most common reasons." However, that's picking nits.
>[clip]
True, but I simply think if you're going to reduce the number of reasons
to four, it should be among them. It explains a *lot* of the discrepan-
cies you mentioned.
>>>Fyn (a Danish island) became Fuhnen in
>>>English,
>>
>>Or did it become 'Fyn' in Danish?
>
>That's highly unlikely, although it is quite possible the name had an "h" in
>it at one time. Fyhn, perhaps. [clip]
BTW, where have you seen 'Fuhnen' in English? A survey of the sources
available to me failed to turn it up. The consensus seems to be that the
English for 'Fyn' is...'Fyn'.
(At first glance, I thought you had written 'F"unen', the German form. As
the first cited form (c.1050) is 'Fiun' and the source is O.N. 'fj/on',
the '-en' suffix is puzzling.)
>>>2. Österreich became Austria in English, which is not that far from a
>>>phonetic representation of the name in English...
>
>>I'm sorry, but ['Ostri@] is pretty damn far from ['Wst@RaIC].
>
>I was pretty sure I'd get an argument here. I guess you're right. I was
>reaching.
>
>>...It's from
>>the Latin, which is based on OHG 'Ostarrihhi' (from earlier *Austarrikja).
>
>Very interesting. It it may even be accurate, but some scholars appear to be
>so convinced that the rest of the world is out of step that they'll grasp at
>straws to prove that English has retained the "proper" or original versions
>of various words.
I'm trying to charitable here, but this sounds like a quite uncalled at-
tack on my honesty. I assure you that the information I presented you a-
bout the origins of the toponym 'Austria'/'Oesterreich' are correct. If
you have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you post it here rather
than baseless insinuations. Ditto for your vague "some scholars". Do you
have specific authors in mind or are you just talking through your hat?
>Dan's comments about the name of the Danish capital, and the assertion that
>Copenhagen may be closer to the original name than the modern Danish
>København, is an example of such ridiculous linguistic reverse engineering:
No, it's an example of misremembering. (I covered my ass by typing
"IIRC", which--you'll notice--I didn't include with my etymology of
"Oesterreich" because I had the Wahrig handy to double-check.) I looked
in some authoritative sources today [references upon request] and found
that you are, in fact, quite correct. No reason to conceive of some
Anglocentric cartographical conspiracy theory.
(Incidentally, I also had a chance to double-check the origin of 'N"urn-
berg'. First recorded as 'Nourinberg' from presumed *Nurinberg "mountain
of the Nuri". So 'Nuremberg' is a slightly more conservative form.)
I don't have a problem with that. However, according to your own evi-
dence, *both* English and Danish have greatly altered the original toponym
here. So it's not really accurate to call English 'Copenhagen' a failed
attempt at Danish 'København'; rather, both the modern forms are failed
attempts at earlier 'Kjøpmandshavn'. That was my primary point: That
phonological change can conceal earlier similarities.
TsuiDF
<snip>
>
> I suspect the Danes might reply that it's their consonants, so they'll treat
> them any way they like:-)
>
This probably wouldn't be the place to raise Garrison Keillor's theory
that the Danes speak Danish for the benefit of tourists from 9am to 5 pm
and then come home and collapse, relieved that they can finally speak
English because it's so much easier?
No?
Didn't think so.
But then, it don't mean a ting if it ain't got that . . . havn?
Stephanie M in M20
Paul Juhl
Paul Juhl wrote...
>>Names are *not* words like any others.
>
>No? In what important ways are they different? I was speaking specific-
>ally in reference to the effects of phonological change. Now, this does
>not affect all parts of the lexicon *equally* or *simultaneously*, but
>I've seen nothing at all that proves that toponyms, as a class, are immune
>or even resistent to it.
Of course they're not immune to change, and I never said they were. But this
argument is perhaps better left for another thread.
[clip]
>BTW, where have you seen 'Fuhnen' in English? A survey of the sources
>available to me failed to turn it up. The consensus seems to be that the
>English for 'Fyn' is...'Fyn'.
>(At first glance, I thought you had written 'F"unen', the German form. As
>the first cited form (c.1050) is 'Fiun' and the source is O.N. 'fj/on'...
My error. I should have written "Funen," which you should be able to find all
over the place. I think I have seen "Fuhnen" or Fühnen" on German maps, but I
could be wrong there, too.
>...the '-en' suffix is puzzling.)
I have wondered about that, too. It may have been the result of someone
adding the (Danish) definite article ("-en" or "-et," depending on gender),
the way English-speakers sometimes erroneously refer to "The Yukon" and "The
Cameroons."
Dan wrote that the name Austria is derived from...
> >>the Latin, which is based on OHG 'Ostarrihhi' (from earlier *Austarrikja).
> >
> >Very interesting. It it may even be accurate, but some scholars appear to be
> >so convinced that the rest of the world is out of step that they'll grasp at
> >straws to prove that English has retained the "proper" or original versions
> >of various words.
>
> I'm trying to charitable here, but this sounds like a quite uncalled at-
> tack on my honesty. I assure you that the information I presented you a-
> bout the origins of the toponym 'Austria'/'Oesterreich' are correct. If
> you have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you post it here rather
> than baseless insinuations. Ditto for your vague "some scholars". Do you
> have specific authors in mind or are you just talking through your hat?
There's no need for charity. Just logic. I chose my words carefully because I
did NOT want my comment to be perceived as an attack on your honesty.
> >Dan's comments about the name of the Danish capital, and the assertion that
> >Copenhagen may be closer to the original name than the modern Danish
> >København, is an example of such ridiculous linguistic reverse engineering:
>
> No, it's an example of misremembering. (I covered my ass by typing
> "IIRC", which--you'll notice--I didn't include with my etymology of
> "Oesterreich" because I had the Wahrig handy to double-check.) I looked
> in some authoritative sources today [references upon request] and found
> that you are, in fact, quite correct.
If I wanted to be uncharitable, I would say that an IIRC notation isn't
enough to cover ass in connection with such a fairly detailed statement:
>>>IIRC, it's again Danish that has changed here, replacing earlier 'hage(n)'
>>>"enclosure" with 'havn' "haven; harbour"--a natural enough folk etymo-
>>>logy--not to mention voicing earlier /p/ to /b/.
However, I am certain your recollection is completely accurate, because I
have read or heard it, too. An awful lot of years have gone by since I had
the opportunity to discuss this type of thing in person with various
scholars, so I can't begin to recall names or even places where I have heard
similar assertions being presented as fact. However, I have in the last
couple of days received email on this subject from several people who say
they are regular AUE lurkers, one of them being a lady who wrote that one of
her university professors had (in her words) "spouted that same nonsense."
(Relax, Dan, it wasn't anywhere near Michigan.)
>... No reason to conceive of some
>Anglocentric cartographical conspiracy theory
Of course not. But I *am* insinuating that some scholars - I wouldn't name
them here so long after the fact even I could remember their names - are
occasionally substituting guesswork for good research, requiring their
students to accompany them as they perform remarkable leaps of faith.
As you, yourself, has pointed out, the "hage(n)" explanation is bogus. I
wouldn't dream of suggesting that you made it up out of whole cloth - that
would have been intellectual dishonesty - but I did reach the conclusion that
your source(s) is(are) unreliable. If it was the same source that supplied the
"Austria" explanation, I think I could be forgiven for taking whatever else
that source has passed on to you with a pound of salt. (Now I know it was not
the same.)
So when you wrote:
>>>...It's from
>>>the Latin, which is based on OHG 'Ostarrihhi' (from earlier *Austarrikja).
I responded:
>>Very interesting. It it may even be accurate...
I'll still maintain that it's quite possibly accurate. If it's not, I wouldn't
suggest it's your fault. Wahrig is IMO no more infallible than the pope. I
simply used the "may even be accurate" remark to lead into my comments about
the Copenhagen explanation, which I knew to be about as inaccurate as it could
be. Again, no fault of Dan's.
[clipsville]
Just a comment about Switzerland. When I wrote about the "Schwitzers," I had,
of course, tongue firmly placed in cheek. Now it appears I may unwittingly
have been on the right track, because someone explained to me in a private
email that in one of the Swiss dialects, the residents of that country are
referred to as Shvitzers ... that's the pronunciation, not the spelling,
which my correspondent wasn't sure of. I hasten to add that there may be
sound evidence to show the name Switzerland is more likely to have come into
being in English by another route.
Paul Juhl
> (Relax, Dan, it wasn't anywhere near Michigan.
(Gads!)
Paul Juhl
>_Odyssey Atlas of the World_ (1994 ed.) "Fyn".
>_National Geographical Atlas of the World_ (Rev. 6th ed., 1995) "Fyn"
>_The Signet-Hammond World Atlas_ (1978 ed.) "Fyn"
>_The Columbia Encyclopedia_ (5th ed., 1993) "Fyn"
>_Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary_ (1977 ed.) "_Fyn_, also
> _Fyen_"
>_The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ (3rd ed., 1996)
> "Fyn"
>_Petit Larousse_ (2. ed., 1959) "Fionie"
>_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (1st ed., 1771) "Funen"
>
>So "Funen" wasn't too hard to find--I just had to go back to the 18th
>century...
Thank you for the interesting research; I have used Fyn, Fyen, Funen as a
starting-off point for a new sub-thread on the subject of names. I did note,
though, that the bibliography omits works published between 1977 and 1771.
-0-
Instead of continuing to quote all the gory details, I'll take the liberty
of summarizing some earlier comments.
Dan explained something about the origin of the name Austria, whereupon I
commented that "it may even be accurate..." and went on to question the
reliability of some unnamed scholars.
This upset Dan no end because he saw it as
>>"... a quite uncalled at-
>>> tack on my honesty.
After I attempted to explain why I had written that and that I had chosen my
words carefully, Dan responded:
>Not carefully enough, I'm afraid. "It may even be accurate" sounds *ex-
>tremely* belittling in English, as if accuracy were achieved by coinci-
>dence or pure dumb luck.
How it sounds is obviously very much in the mind of the beholder, so to
speak. I am a Canadian, my first language is English[1] and I am fully aware
of the possible connotations.
Since I have already explained the reason for my choice of phrase, I would
have let this matter drop here. But it now appears that Dan is unsure of the
vast difference between the English word "recall" (as in IIRC) and the
English term "off the top of my head." The English term "bridging" should
also be considered, it being a device a writer may employ to move more or
less seamlessly from one subject to another by finding ideas or thoughts
that are common to both subjects.
Since Dan said he recalled a certain etymology for the name Copenhagen, and
since it was patently false (I assumed Dan's recall was excellent but knew
that the source of the recalled information was in error), I felt justified
calling into question the validity of *all* his sources. That this was taken
by Dan to mean I was belittling him by (I assume) suggesting he misquoted
certain authorities was IMO a pretty far stretch. I have over the years
developed what I consider a healthy skepticism; while I admire and enjoy
using reference works by established experts in various fields, I do not
necessarily take everything written by these authorities as gospel. I don't
think Dan does, either.
So when I went from the Austria explanation to the one about Copenhagen, I
used as a bridge the words "it may even be accurate..." Dan may believe it
to be a clumsy, inelegant or even uncalled for choice of a bridge, and he
probably does. But there's no need to get all huffy about it. When Dan
accused me of making "baseless insinuations" and suggested I was "talking
through my hat," I didn't get all riled up. I've been in too many debates
for that. Instead, I attempted to show the basis for the insinuation ... as
I have done again in the above. I'll gladly, well, reluctantly, eat crow,
when I feel I've gone off the beaten track and will apologize if I am
persuaded I have gone over the line. This is not one of those cases.
So here we go again. In one post regarding the origin of the name
København/Copenhagen, Dan insisted that
>>> ...(I covered my ass by typing
>>> "IIRC"...
In his last post (da-da-da-daaaa), Dan said ...
>...It's clearly off the top of my
>head.
If in the first instance, Dan had written "off the top of my head" or used
words such as "guess, speculate, reason, surmise," I would have bought that,
noting the coincidence that at least two people had at different times in
different places used the same pattern of reasoning to arrive at the
identical erroneous conclusion. If Dan had expressed himself accurately
here, I would not have been able to use the "may even be accurate" term
which so offended him. I would have been up the post without a bridge.
Just one final note in this silly affair: I use smileys very sparingly, but
might have inserted one after the "may even..." comment if it had not broken
up the sentence. If I had realized such a little bit of sarcasm - clearly
(to me) intended as light relief - would cause such an uproar, I might not
have used it. Then again, I might have. Looks like both Dan and I can be
rather snarky when we feel the occasion calls for it.
-0-
[1] When I retired about three years ago, I decided to try to re-learn my
long-forgotten Danish. To that end I joined a Danish language group -
news:dk.kultur.sprog - where my first few posts, consisting of badly
fractured Danish sprinkled liberally with English, caused a fair amount of
merriment among the Danes. With the aid of that group's correspondents, I
have over the last couple of years achieved a certain level of fluency in
Danish ... although my sentence structure is often bass ackwards.
This fluency, resulting from the fact that I am now able to think in Danish
as opposed to translating in my mind, has not come without a cost. Probably
as a result of an addled old brain, I occasionally find it difficult to
switch quickly from one language to another, such as when I go from writing
one comment in Danish to composing a letter in English. Or rattling off a
post to a group such as this. I have even been known to turn around from the
computer and start speaking Danish to my wife who doesn't understand a
single word of it.
Paul Juhl
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Paul Juhl <pj...@jbsyndicate.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote ...
>
>>_Odyssey Atlas of the World_ (1994 ed.) "Fyn".
>>_National Geographical Atlas of the World_ (Rev. 6th ed., 1995) "Fyn"
>>_The Signet-Hammond World Atlas_ (1978 ed.) "Fyn"
>>_The Columbia Encyclopedia_ (5th ed., 1993) "Fyn"
>>_Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary_ (1977 ed.) "_Fyn_, also
>> _Fyen_"
>>_The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ (3rd ed., 1996)
>> "Fyn"
>>_Petit Larousse_ (2. ed., 1959) "Fionie"
>>_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (1st ed., 1771) "Funen"
>>
>>So "Funen" wasn't too hard to find--I just had to go back to the 18th
>>century...
>
>Thank you for the interesting research; I have used Fyn, Fyen, Funen as a
>starting-off point for a new sub-thread on the subject of names.
What did you entitle it? I can't seem to find it.
>I did note,
>though, that the bibliography omits works published between 1977 and 1771.
I quoted from what I had at hand. If you can find a citation for the 20th
century, please post it.
>Instead of continuing to quote all the gory details, I'll take the liberty
>of summarizing some earlier comments.
[summary snipped]
Why Mr Juhl felt it necessary to do this, I can't imagine. No one else on
a.u.e. has evinced the slightest interest in our little back-and-forth.
His comments would've been better addressed to me directly, via email.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Why Mr Juhl felt it necessary to do this, I can't imagine. No one else on
>a.u.e. has evinced the slightest interest in our little back-and-forth.
>His comments would've been better addressed to me directly, via email.
Is FB176...@midway.uchicago.edu any different in that respect?
Or the message I quote?
Bertel
--
Denmark, Europe
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (only in Danish)
marmm...@gmail.com
> Hi all
>
> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
> Bertel
> --
> Denmark, Europe
> http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish)
Same reason why the name of my city is changed by everyone...It is HABANA, Cuba, but everyone insists on spelling it Havana.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>
>> Bertel
disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English. I suspect that
most Germans are perfectly capable of saying "England" with [ɪ] at the
beginning, but that doesn't stop them from using [e]. Likewise with
other names of countries: people say them in their own languages.
>> Denmark, Europe
>> http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish)
>
> Same reason why the name of my city is changed by everyone...It is
> HABANA, Cuba, but everyone insists on spelling it Havana.
--
athel
occam
clear: for English speakers, either their spelling will be wrong or
their pronunciation.
Peter Moylan
> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
different back in 1999.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Stan Brown
> Normally after 17 years the original poster would have long since
> disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
> We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English.
is that its name in English?
I suspect that the English and Danish names used to be the same,
especially considering that for a while they had rulers in common. I
also guess that afterward one or both underwent a vowel shift. But I
don't know the details of even English-language vowel shifts well
enough to be confident in my guess.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain
Stan Brown
>
> On 2016-Mar-20 13:52, marmm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> >> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
> >
> > Same reason why the name of my city is changed by everyone...It is HABANA, Cuba, but everyone insists on spelling it Havana.
>
> They keep pronouncing it that way, too. But perhaps things were
> different back in 1999.
pronounce b/v the same, but that HOW they pronounce it varies
regionally.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> In my Spanish course, I learned that native speakers generally
> pronounce b/v the same, but that HOW they pronounce it varies
> regionally.
swapping b and v (in Spanish words).
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Whiskers
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 08:08:29 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Normally after 17 years the original poster would have long since
>> disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
>> We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English.
>
> Meaning no disrespect, I hardly think that's a sufficient answer. WHY
> is that its name in English?
>
> I suspect that the English and Danish names used to be the same,
> especially considering that for a while they had rulers in common. I
> also guess that afterward one or both underwent a vowel shift. But I
> don't know the details of even English-language vowel shifts well
> enough to be confident in my guess.
'Danes' /deɪnz/ - the vowels (and sometimes the consonants) depending on
whether the word was singular or plural. This still happens in modern
English to some words; eg 'child' /tʃʌɪld/ (singular) and 'children'
/ˈtʃɪldr(ə)n/ (plural).
The land of the Danes naturally took the plural inflexion /deɪn/ which
modern English has shortened to /den/ and spells it that way too (which
was by no means a foregone conclusion of course).
The Danish language doubtless inflected differently and evolved
differently.
Much more interesting is the comparison of 'Germany' with 'Deutschland'
'Tyskland' 'Allemagne' 'Německo' 'Niemcy' etc.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Young
When I worked in Addis Ababa from 1956-68, the pronunciation of my
employer was "the unibersity".
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Jack Campin
> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Dan
whereas you either hadn't heard of them or thought you were them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
>On 2016-03-20 02:52:17 +0000, marmm...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>>
>>> Bertel
>
>Normally after 17 years the original poster would have long since
>disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
>We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English. I suspect that
>other names of countries: people say them in their own languages.
"Danmark", after all, our country, the "Land of the Angles", is called
by us "England".
Also we pronounce "any" with an "e" sound in place of the "a".
>>> --
>>> Denmark, Europe
>>> http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish)
>>
>> Same reason why the name of my city is changed by everyone...It is
>> HABANA, Cuba, but everyone insists on spelling it Havana.
>
>Funny, I always thought it was La Habana.
--
(in alt.usage.english)
John Varela
the same in Castillian. I have a lot of old family papers in which
Varela is always spelled with a V, but on a monument beside the
cathedral in Santa Fe, NM, there appears the name Barela (no
relation). Another family name, Saenz de Varanda, is sometimes
spelled Baranda.
--
John Varela
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I think we English are entitled to mess about with the
> pronunciation of "Danmark", after all, our country, the "Land
> of the Angles", is called by us "England".
to imply that you couldn't speak as you see fit. That is what
people do. I think I wondered why you didn't keep the 'correct'
vowel since it's part of normal English. But I guess the
difference between "Den-" and "Dan-" is not really that big.
"Angel" is "engel" in Danish.
PS. At present there is a series in Danish tv where two guys test
whether tricks in different movies are realistic. In one episode
the movie "Charlie's Angles" was the subject.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> > Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
> > have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
> different the English names are from local names for Switzerland,
> Greece, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India,
Iran? The local name for Iran *is* i:ra:n
Persia i.e. fa:rs is just a province (Arabized pars
representing the heartland of the Pers Aryan (i.e. i.ra:n)
people that establsihed an empire.
India comes from Greek which comes from Persian
hind which is the regular reflex in Iranian
for Indo-Aryan (Indic) Sindh (the Indus river).
> China....
The English probably comes via Sanskrit.
Sogdian, the extinct (if you don't count Yagnobi
in Xinjiang, China as Neo-Sogdian) East Iranian
language of Transoxania, once the lingua franca
of the Silk Road, seems first to have used
Chinistan from the Qin dynasty.
>
> Do I take it that the Danes, probably alone in Europe, use only
> placenames in the forms employed by the local populations? You are
> indeed a highly sophisticated people.
>
> Some other people are tackling the historical angle. But please, can we
> drop the "why can't you folks pronounce our name right" approach?
> I find it antagonistic.
>
> Forcing myself to be charitable, I realize you probably mean only,
> "Since it's not a difficult pronunciation, what *is* the reason?"
> Foreign sounds and the inability to pronounce them probably have
> something to do with the derivation of placenames, but, as you are
> saying, not everything.
>
> Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Yusuf B Gursey
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> -----
> > have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>
> No trouble at all, but we *don't* say it. Neither do we say
> "Deutschland," and can't even manage the relatively easy "Paree."
Old French vs. Modern French.
> Why should we?
>
>
> ----NM
Yusuf B Gursey
> > Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far different the English
> > names are from local names for Switzerland, Greece, Finland, Germany,
Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (German)
Confédération suisse (French)
Confederazione Svizzera (Italian)
Confederaziun svizra (Romansh)
Confoederatio Helvetica (CH) (Latin)
> > Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India, China....
>
> Finland *is* their local name -- in one of their two official languages.
> Admittedly not the majority language, but still...
> --
> Mark Brader, Toronto "Not looking like Pascal is not
> msbr...@interlog.com a language deficiency!" -- Doug Gwyn
>
> My text in this article is in the public domain.
Garrett Wollman
>On Friday, April 23, 1999 at 10:00:00 AM UTC+3, Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> wrote:
>>
>> > Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> > have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>
>> Are you complaining? Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far
>> different the English names are from local names for Switzerland,
>> Greece, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Iran, India,
>
>Iran? The local name for Iran *is* i:ra:n
pronunciation [,aI'r&n]?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Peter Moylan
> In my Spanish course, I learned that native speakers generally
> pronounce b/v the same, but that HOW they pronounce it varies
> regionally.
between Danmark and Denmark.
Richard Tobin
>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>Perhaps we wanted to distinguish you guys from these folks
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Dan
-- Richard
Robert Bannister
> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>
>> Bertel
Normally after 17 years the original poster would have long since
disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English. I suspect that
most Germans are perfectly capable of saying "England" with [ɪ] at the
beginning, but that doesn't stop them from using [e].
- a long time ago.
--
athel
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 08:08:29 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-03-20 02:52:17 +0000, marmm...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>>>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>>>
>>>> Bertel
>>
>> Normally after 17 years the original poster would have long since
>> disappeared, but in this case Bertel is still around, so I'll answer.
>> We call it "Denmark" because that's its name in English. I suspect that
>> most Germans are perfectly capable of saying "England" with [?] at the
>> beginning, but that doesn't stop them from using [e]. Likewise with
>> other names of countries: people say them in their own languages.
>
> I think we English are entitled to mess about with the pronunciation of
> "Danmark", after all, our country, the "Land of the Angles", is called
> by us "England".
>
> Also we pronounce "any" with an "e" sound in place of the "a".
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Robert Bannister
Dingbat
> On Saturday, April 24, 1999 at 10:00:00 AM UTC+3, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Donna Richoux writes:
> > > Sheesh, we're only off by one letter. Look how far different the English
> > > names are from local names for Switzerland, Greece, Finland, Germany,
>
> Swiss Confederation
> Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (German)
> Confédération suisse (French)
> Confederazione Svizzera (Italian)
> Confederaziun svizra (Romansh)
> Confoederatio Helvetica (CH) (Latin)
>
>
Foedus also means convenant as in Genesis 6:18
Ponamque foedus meum tecum = I will establish my covenant with thee
Bertel Lund Hansen
> - And, of course, Germans call Denmark "Dänemark", so they got
> umlauted - a long time ago.
"Tyskland".
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 21/03/2016 7:18 am, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <bogus-10E73D....@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
>> Jack Campin <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Subject almost says it all. English speaking people shouldn't
>>>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>
>>> Perhaps we wanted to distinguish you guys from these folks
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Dan
>>
>> Or the Danaans (who are to be feared, even when bearing gifts).
>
>Not to be confused with the Tuatha Dé Danann.
Garrett Wollman
>
>> - And, of course, Germans call Denmark "Dänemark", so they got
>> umlauted - a long time ago.
>
>Yeah, but we get back at them by calling their country
>"Tyskland".
"Deutschland"?
The weird ones are where the local word for Germany comes from the
name of a different tribe -- like "Nemecko", "Allemagne", "Saksa", and
"Vokietija". (I was surprised to learn that Italian now uses
"Germania" rather than "Tedesco" -- I suppose if I could read Italian
the Wikipedia article might tell me why.) Forms derived from
"Germania" and "Allemania" seem to predominate, at least on the basis
of Wikipedias, with "Deutsch" reflexes restricted to West and North
Germanic languages. "Nemecko" and cognates are found in central and
southeastern Europe (primarily among Slavic languages, but also
Hungarian). Finnish "Saksa" is the only one I could find that
references Saxony.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>>> - And, of course, Germans call Denmark "Dänemark", so they got
>>> umlauted - a long time ago.
>>Yeah, but we get back at them by calling their country
>>"Tyskland".
> Isn't that just the totally expected North Germanic reflex of
> "Deutschland"?
sounds plausible. Germans are somtimes called "prųjsere", a name
taken from the large region "Preussen", but the Danish word is
loaded with negative connotations - something with military,
cadaver disciplin and ruthless behaviour.
PS. Is "cadaver discipline" understandable?
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Cheryl
> Garrett Wollman skrev:
>
>>>> - And, of course, Germans call Denmark "Dänemark", so they got
>>>> umlauted - a long time ago.
>
>>> Yeah, but we get back at them by calling their country
>>> "Tyskland".
>
>> Isn't that just the totally expected North Germanic reflex of
>> "Deutschland"?
>
> My knowledge is insufficient to answer that question, but it
> loaded with negative connotations - something with military,
> cadaver disciplin and ruthless behaviour.
>
> PS. Is "cadaver discipline" understandable?
>
"Prussian" in English has connotations involving militarism, lack of a
sense of humour, strictness, boring personalities, lack of culture,
etc., but I can't think of anything involving cadavers other than that
military operations (which Prussians are allegedly fond of) often
involve killing people.
I think I've usually heard "cadaver" in the medical school or medical
research context. It sounds odd in a military context.
--
Cheryl
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> PS. Is "cadaver discipline" understandable?
> Not really. It's hard to imagine how one would discipline a corpse!
expression in Danish which means that you obey your superiors
without even dreaming of questioning their plans and commands.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Cheryl
phrase in English, although someone will probably come up with one. I
might say someone obeys like a robot or like an automaton, or perhaps
talk about unthinking obedience.
There are many variations of a common phrase referring to obedience to
social pressure, not to your boss or commanding officer, but they don't
apply here. They're usually from a parent to a child, and along the
lines of "If all your friends jumped off a cliff/wharf, would you do it
too??"
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nx54n/prussian_discipline_is_a_term_that_comes_up_quite/
[–]the--dud 4 points 2 years ago
German is such an amazing language. As a Norwegian I can somewhat
understand the meaning of "Kadavergehorsam". Directly translated it
means "Cadaver-Obedient" wouldn't you agree? Effectively it's an
obedient zombie!
[–]TheMediumPanda 3 points 2 years ago
We have it in Danish as well 'kadaver disciplin' which -needless
to say- translates directly to cadaver discipline.
[–]Kartoffelplotz 2 points 2 years ago
Yeah, it would directly translate to "cadaver obedience", but I
tried to translate it's meaning in the context (the connotations
etc) rather than the literal meaning. But yes, the zombie analogy
is most fitting - a mindless husk, just carrying out orders.
David Kleinecke
> German is such an amazing language. As a Norwegian I can somewhat
> understand the meaning of "Kadavergehorsam". Directly translated it
> means "Cadaver-Obedient" wouldn't you agree? Effectively it's an
> obedient zombie!
>
> We have it in Danish as well 'kadaver disciplin' which -needless
> to say- translates directly to cadaver discipline.
>
> Yeah, it would directly translate to "cadaver obedience", but I
> tried to translate it's meaning in the context (the connotations
> etc) rather than the literal meaning. But yes, the zombie analogy
> is most fitting - a mindless husk, just carrying out orders.
Would it be reasonable to translate Harald Hardrada as Harold the
Disciplinarian or Harald the Martinet?
abc
>> PS. Is "cadaver discipline" understandable?
>
> Not really. It's hard to imagine how one would discipline a corpse!
is what he meant.
abc
> [–]Kartoffelplotz 2 points 2 years ago
>
> Yeah, it would directly translate to "cadaver obedience", but I
> tried to translate it's meaning in the context (the connotations
> etc) rather than the literal meaning. But yes, the zombie analogy
> is most fitting - a mindless husk, just carrying out orders.
Whiskers
Non Angli sed Angeli, to coin a phrase.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
abc
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:47:23 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 2016-Mar-20 13:52, marmm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> have trouble saying "Danmark"?
>>>
>>
>> different back in 1999.
> In my Spanish course, I learned that native speakers generally
> pronounce b/v the same, but that HOW they pronounce it varies
> regionally.
pronounce the two the same, without any significant regional variations
either, but HOW they are pronounced varies depending on the other sounds
that come immediately before or after the b/v. Whether the spelling is
with b or v never affects the pronunciation.