űѸ sc ɽ蘆벻ŵŪˤ /ʃ/ Ȥ롥ʳ /sk/ (palatalisation) ȻΤΤŪǤ롥ñˤäƤϤβѲФ/sk/ ˤȤɤޤäƤΤ⤢СξΤɤΤ⤢롥/sk/ ˤȤɤޤäΤϡž (metathesis) ˤ /ks/ Τ⤢ꡤñˤäƤʣʰ۷֤Ȥˤʤ롥ˤĤơʲε濴˵Ƥ
#60. ž ( metathesis ) ([2009-06-27-1])
#1511. űѸ sc θ ([2013-06-16-1])
#5626. űѸ sc θ (2) ([2024-09-21-1])
ϡˤĤ Lass (58--59) θ˲äƤߤ
A different sort of palatalization contributes further to the new series: a change of */sk/ > /ʃ/. The mechanics are not clear, but one reasonable suggestion would be something like [sk] > [sc] > [sç], with a later 'compromise' articulation /ʃ/ emerging from the back-to-back alveolar and palatal. Or, the [k] may have weakened first to [x], as in modern Dutch, without palatalizing; in this case we could see at least three of the stages mirrored in modern Germanic, in the verbs meaning 'to write': Swedish skriva /skri:va/ representing the original, Dutch schrijven /sxrɛivə(n)/ a further development, and German schreiben /ʃraebən/ the final stage (cf. English shrive).
The reason for this palatalization is obscure; it occurs in both front and back environments, and before consonants, so it is not obviously assimilatory like the ones discussed above. The OE spelling <sh> for instance appears to represent /ʃ/ not only in scīnan 'shine' (cf. OIc skína), sc(i)eran 'shear' (OIc skera), but also in scofl 'shovel' (OSw skofl), scanca 'shank' (Dutch skank), scūr 'shower' (Go skūra).
There is however occasional failure in back environments, as shown by the spelling <x> = /ks/, which is due to metathesis (/sk/ > /ks/), in places where <sc> would be expected. This must have occurred while the cluster was still /sk/. Palatalized and nonpalatalized variants of one lexeme may even occur in the same text: the poem Andreas has for 'fish' (Go fisks) both gen sg fisces and dat pl fixum. Failures of palatalization (or dialectal variants: see below) also lead to doublets in later periods, even including ModE: hence ask (OE āscian, ācsian), now frequently with the nonstandard doublet ax (which was the norm in many pre-modern standard varieties). Another example is tusk (OE tūsc, pl tūscas, tūcas), where the nonpalatalized form has come down in most standard varieties, but there are so many dialects with tush.
žȤŪڵˤꡤäƤʤ֤뤳ȤǤȤΤ⤷۷ (variants) ϡ¿ʸŪˤĤƵŤʻǤ롥
Lass, Roger. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: CUP, 1994.
1130ˡǯ٤ī㡼ɶǤΥֺ¤8֤ޤϡֱѸ졤ȸήפꤷơѸˤǤϤޤܤ뤳ȤΤʤȤθܿˤĤޤˤ90ʬιֵͤơޤɤ䤷Ƥޤʤˤʤäơ줬۹ͫǤ뤳Ȥ狼ޤ̤ӥ饤ǡ¿ˤä꤬Ȥޤ
ֺ¤Ƥmarkmap Ȥ֥ġˤޥɥޥåײƤߤޤʲȤƤɤˡ֤줿ѤˡǤʤϹֺƤָ뵡ȤƤѤ
Poutsma (878) ˡ1;ʣ̤̾ˡȤ royal_we ꤬夲Ƥ롥ѸȤƤ "Plural of Majesty or Plural of Dignity" ѤƤ롥
As in Dutch, the plural of the first person is sometimes used by sovereigns, especially in public utterances, when speaking of themselves.
About this Plural of Majesty or Plural of Dignity, as it is commonly called, Sweet (N. E. Gr., §2095) observes: "We see the beginnings of this usage in Old-English laws, where the king speaks of himself as iċ, and then goes on to say wē bebēodath .. 'we command ..', the wē being meant to include the witan or councillors." Compare also Kellner, Hist. Outl. of Eng. Synt., §276; Onions, Advanced Eng. Synt., §221.
We were not born to sue, but to command. Rich. II, ii, 1, 196.
Fair and noble hostess, | We are your guest to-night. Macb., I, 6, 24.
Should our host murder us on this spot --- us, his king and his kinsman, ...our fate will be little lightened, but, on the contrary greatly aggravatated, by your stirring, Scott, Quent. Durw., Ch. XXVII, 354.
The Queen said ...: "We are this day fortunate --- we enjoy the company of our amiable hostess at an unusual hour. Id., Abbot, Ch. XXI, 225.
Note. This practice seems to have become unusual or extinct in the personal utterances of sovereigns to their audiences, having been preserved only in public instruments.
Thus King George V in his reply to the address of the Corporation of Bombay uses I, etc.:
You have rightly said that I am no stranger among you [etc.]. Times, No. 1823, 974b.
Similarly in his Address on the occasion of the opening of the Coronation Durbar:
It is with genuine feelings of thankfulness and satisfaction that I stand here to-day among you [etc.]. Id., No. 1824, 1001d.
But in the instrument announcing the fact that the seat of the Government of India will be transferred from Calcutta to Delhi, we find we, etc.: We are pleased to announce to Our People [etc.]. Ib.
20ƬޤǤ royal we ϻ¾äƤȤǧǤ롥Ȥ뤳Ȥˤ衤ŪˡΧʸˤŪˡȤƤǤꡤ쥸ϤƸꤵƤȤ狼롥
Poutsma, H. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II, The Parts of Speech, 1B. Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1916.

1130ڡ 17:30--19:00
ꡧī㡼ɶ
̡饤Υϥ֥åɷ1֤θƨۿ
ߡī㡼֥
ǯ٤ī륷ָֺ츻ŵǤɤѸˡ˰٤ΥڡǽĴ˿ʤǤޤرѸ츻ŵ١ʸҡȤʤ顤ѸûˤɤäƤǤ
1ָ˳֤8ǤϥȱѸθܿޤѸˤϡɤϥޤ (the Low Countries) ȤξŪʸήǡŪˤǻܿäȹͤƤޤŪʱѸ˵ҤˤƤϡȤθܿϡƥ졤ե졤ťΥɸʤɤȤθܿ٤٤㤯硹Ūˤ뤳ȤϤۤȤɤޤפʥѸĤƽꡤȤȤŪǤαѸؤαƶŪˤϰ̤˹ͤƤʾ礭ֺ1ʬεβͤϽʬˤȻפޤ
ιֺ¤Ǥϡޥɤˤ륪ʤӴϢ졦ˤΰ֤ŤǧĤġƱ줬Ѹθä䤽¾ͿƶˤĤƵޤޤطʤȤƤαطˤˤܤޤˡñ줬ܸä¿Ǥ¤ˤܤȻפޤ
ܥֺ¤γƲΩƤޤΤǡؤλáԻäˤ餺餴äȤǤޤ7ʬˤĤƤϡơפޥɥޥåפˤޤȤƤޤΤǡʲε
#5625. ī륷ֺ¤1ֱѸ츻ŵڤפޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-09-20-1])
#5629. ī륷ֺ¤2ֱѸäˤѤפޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-09-24-1])
#5631. ī륷ֺ¤3ֱñȡ֥ˡ§ספޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-09-26-1])
#5639. ī륷ֺ¤4ָαѸ˻ĤűѸκספޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-10-04-1])
#5646. ī륷ֺ¤5ֱѸ졤ƥȽвפޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-10-11-1])
#5650. ī륷ֺ¤6ֱѸ졤θȸפޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-10-15-1])
#5669. ī륷ֺ¤7ֱѸ졤ե˿פޥɥޥåײƤߤޤ ([2024-11-03-1])
ֺܹ¤ξܺ٤ȤߤɤرѸ츻ŵ١ʸҡϡ˵֤Ĥļ֤Ф¸ޤʴϢդޤΤǡŵʤȤ֤ˤꤢޤˡ

ʰʲ嵭2024/11/27(Wed)
߷ ˧ͺԽ紴ˡرѸ츻ŵٿǡҡ2024ǯ
ε#5682. Low Dutch ȤάΡ ([2024-11-16-1]) ǡ䤽ȴϢѼ狼θüѤ˿줿εǤ⡤Ʊؿ#4445. ʤѸˤˤϽ줫αƶᾮɾƤΤ ([2021-06-28-1]) ʤɤǵƤ
ѸȥϤȤޥɤϥɥĸ췲°Ƥꡤñ褯Ƥ롥äơñ줬Ū˱ѸʤΤѸʤΤοäȽꤹΤϡФкǤ롥κطʤˤĤơDurkin (356) ⤦ǫ˲⤷ƤΤǡѤ
Normally such certainty is only available in cases where the absence of an English sound change or the presence of a Dutch or Low German one demonstrates borrowing: the situation is similar to that explored with reference to early Scandinavian borrowings . . . , with the added complication that there are fewer sound changes distinguishing English from Dutch and Low German. The same problem even affects some words first attested much later than the Middle English period, especially those found in regional varieties for which earlier evidence is in very short supply.
Ѹ줫Ѹ줫ݤȽˤơѲ̵ͭȤäŪʾڵʤ㤤ȤǺޤǸťΥɼѸȽˤ뺤ȤӤ뤬ťΥɸξˤϡ̥ޥɤ°ʤΤǡ⤦Ūʺۤ뤳ȤǤΤ
ޤ¸Ūڵ˳ϰѼˤäȤʤȡȽ꤬ˤʤȤΤ⤦ʤ롥ġñˤĤơŪʾڵǤʤ쳰Ūʾڵ̩˹θƤʤФʤʤʤǤ롥
Durkin, Philip. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: OUP, 2014.
#2646. Ѹ˴ؤס ([2016-07-25-1]) ǡѸˤˤ륪Ѹᤰä Durkin Ȥ Dutch Ǥ Low German ǤʤŪ Low Dutch ȤѸ줬ȤƤ줬ؤΤȤСDurkin Ȥǫ˲⤷ƤƤ1 (354) ɤǤߤ褦
Loanwords into English from Dutch (including Flemish) and Low German are normally considered together, because it is so difficult to tell them apart. This is partly because word forms in both languages were, and to some extent still are, so similar, and partly because the social and cultural circumstances of borrowing into English are also often hard to tell apart. 'Low Dutch' is sometimes used as a collective cover term for borrowings from either or both languages into English, although it is important to note that Low Dutch is not itself a language name, but simply a terminological shorthand for referring to a complex situation.
Dutch Low German ϳơ̤ѼǤϤ뤬ñη֤ߤˤ褯ƤꡤѸƱʸ̮ˤƤϡºݾ̤ĤʤȤ¿ˡص2Ѽ碌ѸȤ Low Dutch ꤷƤȤȤ̣ Low Dutch ϥեȤȤˤʤ롥եѸ줫ƥѸ줫Ƚ̤ĤˤȤˡص֥եƥϼѸפʤɤȰ礷ƸƤ֤Τ˻Ƥ롥
ѸΥե켫Τ٤Ȥ⤤뤫⤷ʤȤΤϡ嵭 Dutch ˤƤ Low German ˤƤ⡤ֶ̤ѼפȰΤȤҤ٤ϤϤ겿餫٤ˤƥեǤ⤢뤫ˤĤƤϡ#415. All linguistic varieties are fictions ([2010-06-16-1]) ȡ
˻ȤΤǤ Low Dutch Ȥϰʤ
Durkin, Philip. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: OUP, 2014.
#5675. ܸäñ ([2024-11-09-1]) ³ԡ줫ܸؼѤ줿Ϥޤޤ롥Ƚʣñ⤢뤬ʲ2Ĥʸäޤ (548) ꡥ
ڰʳشطۥ륳롤֥顼ȡơƥ롤ꡤ륭顤եϥȥȥȡ
ʪ̾ۤۥ饹ҡååסࡤåס֥ꥭӡ롤ԥȡڥۡݥסޥɥ
³ơƣ (179--80) ɲä롥
ڰءشطۥƥ (ether)֥顼 (oblaat) (extract)륷 (calcium)ե (kamfer, kampher) (cholera)ڥ (pest) (mes)ҥ (morphine)
ڲءʪŷʸۥƥ쥹 (telescoop) (lens)ԥ (brandpunt)ѥ (kompas)륫 (alkali)륳 (alcohol) (soda)쥭ƥ (eletriciteit)
طۥ (kofij)ӡ (bier)å (siroop)å (kop)ޥ (diamant) (gom)֥ꥭ (blik)ڥ (pen)ڥ (pek)ݥ (pomp) (lamp)å (doek)å (jak)ۥå (hoek)
ڷطۥ٥ (sabel)ԥȥ (pistool)ɥ (ransel)
ʹߤܸ˼Ѥ줿ñȻ¾ƱΤΤ뤬ʾΤΤϥ줫μѤǤ뤳Ȥαդ
顡ܸˡ١˼Ҥӡ2017ǯ
ƣ ˡŸ˾ܸ١ҡ1996ǯ
ǯθǡѸˤˤ륪 (dutch) ΰ֤ŤѤäƤƤ뤳ȤˤĤƤϡʲεǼ夲Ƥ
#3435. ѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ ([2018-09-22-1])
#4444. Ѹĺ15 ([2021-06-27-1])
#4445. ʤѸˤˤϽ줫αƶᾮɾƤΤ ([2021-06-28-1])
#4446. Ͻ줬Ѹ˵ڤܤðʳαƶ --- TH-stopping 3ñΥ ([2021-06-29-1])
ȤθܿȤСѸˤΤߤʤ餺ܸˤǤפʥơޤǤ롥ܸˤ륪ѸˤĤơޤܸɴŵ٤Ƥߤ1027ڡˡֹͻθפꤹ1ꡤǥ줫μѸ줬Ƥ롥ɤǤߤ褦
ͻäθϤۤȤɤ٤ƥǤ롥Ĺˤ륪ͤȤǰפˤ롤ǰפ˴ϢѸ줪ӹ˲ˤäƤˤʤäؤ˵ʳصѤѸǤ롥
ǰפ˴ϢѸˤϡȤС
ǥIndiëʡˡådoekˡܡȥboterХˡ饹glasˡ륯kurkˡåסkopˡ֥ꥭblikˡסlamp
ʤɤ롥شطѸȤƤϡ
֥顼ȡoblaatˡmesѶˡ륭kalkˡʡkinaޥꥢˡեsaffraanˡ襸jodiumˡ륫alkaliˡ륳alcoholˡ쥭ƥelectriciteitˡȥthermometerˡlens
ʤɤ롥
ȵѴطǤϡ
饤ХdraaibankסˡХȡbeitel϶ˡݥסpompˡkraanɤΥå
ʤɤ롥
ΥθˤʸüΤ⤢뤬ʤ¿θ줬ߤޤ³ƻȤƤ롥
Ѹоȸ (contrastive_language_history) Ȥ⡤ȤθܿϤäܤƤ褤ȥԥåǤϤʤ
ܸɴŵ١İ ɧۤ ԡ罤ۡ1988ǯ
-er ŵŪټ (agentive_suffix) 1ĤǤ롥̤ưδΤղä뤳ȤǡбټԤ̾ȤƤȤ館Ƥ롥
ϡ̾δΤˤĤơ~˴ط͡פۤɤ̣ټ̾Τä㤨 fisher ʵաˤϡư fish -er ĤΤȻפ뤫⤷ʤ츻Ūˤ̾ fish -er ĤΤʤΤǤ롥
رѸ츻ŵ٤ -er1 ˤȡȤȤ̾ˤΤղä줿ޤѲưˤĤ褦ˤʤꡤ˶ѲưˤĤ褦ˤʤäȤʤŬϰϤưˤȤäȤСޤ˾˵ fish Τ褦̾ưͤΤϤȤʤꡤʬ (reanalysis) ¥Τȹͤ롥
Fertig (35) μκʬϤȤơޤ -er 夲Ƥ롥
An even more striking example is the English/German/Dutch agentive suffix -er (< proto-Germanic *-ārjo-z). Originally, this suffix could only be attached to nouns to produce new nouns with the meaning 'person having something to do with X' (where X is the meaning of the base noun). This use can still be seen in Modern English words such as hatter and is highly productive with place names, e.g. English New Yorker; Dutch Amsterdammer; German Pariser, etc. In the older languages, we see this original use clearly in examples such as Gothic bôkareis/Old English bócere 'scribe', derived from the noun corresponding to Modern English book. As this example suggests, the construction was used especially to designate professions and occupations, and there was very often also a related denominal verb. In Gothic, for example, we find the basic noun dôm- 'judgment', the derived verb dômjan 'to judge' and the noun dômareis 'judge (i.e. person who judges)'. Nouns like dômareis were then reanalyzed as being derived from the verbs rather than directly from the basic nouns.
ˤĤƤϡhellog Ǥ¿夲Ƥʲεʤɤȡ
#1748. -er or -or ([2014-02-08-1])
#3791. ټ -er, -ster ϥƥͳ褹롩 ([2019-09-13-1])
#5392. Ѹȿ̾ ([2024-01-31-1])
Fertig, David. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013.
ƻ졦ӵ顦Ǿκˤϡ -er/-est դŪˡ more/most ֤Ūˡ롥줾ֶӡפȡֶӡפȸƤǤˤĤƤϡhellogheldio¾Ǥ͡˾Ҳ𤷤Ƥ#4834. ӵ顦Ǿˡ ([2022-07-22-1]) ˴ϢޤȤƤΤǻȤ줿
ѸޥˤǤϡӤӤؤѲƤ²˰̤˴ѻ礫ʬϤء (synthesis_to_analysis) Ĭή˱äȤƸ뤳Ȥ¿ѲϡӹʸΩȤʸˡ (grammaticalisation) 1ȤȤ館롥
Heine and Kuteva ˤܿ˴ؤҲ𤷤Ѹ䤤ĤθˤŪ˶Ӥȯã1װȤơޥȤθܿطƤΤǤϤʤȤѸ줬եƥαƶΤȤ˶ӤȯãȤ⼫ΤϸŤ餢ꡤ嵭ΥǤƤ̤Ǥ롥Heine and Kuteva ϡѸΤߤʤ餺¾θˤƤܿθ̤ȤܿŪװäȤϸ鷺Ȥ "an accelerating factor" (96) ȹͤ뤳ȤϲǽǤȽҤ٤Ƥ롥Ѹޤ4Ĥλ㤬Ƥ (96)
a. Analytic forms were still rare in Northern English in the fifteenth century, while in Southern English, which was more strongly exposed to French influence, these forms had become current at least a century earlier . . . .
b. In German, the synthetic comparative construction is still well established, e.g. schön 'beautiful', schön-er ('beautiful-COMP') 'more beautiful'. But in the dialect of Luxembourg, which has a history of centuries of intense contact with French, instances of an analytic comparative can be found, e.g. mehr schön ('more beautiful', presumably on the model of French plus beau ('more beautiful') . . . .
c. The Dutch varieties spoken in Flanders, including Algemeen Nederlands, have been massively influenced by French, and this influence has also had the effect that the analytic pattern with the particle meer 'more' is used increasingly on the model of French plus, at the expense of the inherited synthetic construction using the comparative suffix -er . . . .
d. Molisean has a 500-years history of intense contact with the host language Italian, and one of the results of contact was that the speakers of Molisean have given up the conventional Slavic synthetic construction by replicating the analytic Italian construction, using veče on the model of Italian più 'more' as degree marker. Thus, while Standard Croatian uses the synthetic form lyepši 'more beautiful', Molisean has più lip ('more beautiful') instead . . . .
Τ褦ʥǤϡȯãȯãϡܿˤäɬ ("propel") 줿ȤϸʤΤΡ® ("accelerate") ȤϸΤǤϤʤȤΤ Heine and Kuteva θǤ롥
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. "Contact and Grammaticalization." Chapter 4 of The Handbook of Language Contact. Ed. Raymond Hickey. 2010. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. 86--107.
Ѹ줬ˤ̤¿θܿ (contact) ƤȤϡѸˤδŪμǤ롥ܿκפϡˤǾäƤޤäΤ⤢뤬ߤޤǻĤäƤΤ¿פΤʤܤ䤹ΤϼѸäʸˡȯʤɸðʳǤܿΥѥȤ뤳ȤǰƬ֤Ƥ
ѸθܿˤûΤϻζȤSchneider (334) ˤ븷8ʻ¤٤Ƥˤͤˤʤ롥
continental contacts with Latin, even before the settlement of the British Isles (i.e., roughly between the second and fourth centuries AD);
contact with Celts who were the resident population when the Germanic tribes crossed the channel (in the fifth century and thereafter);
the impact of Latin through Christianization (beginning in the late sixth and seventh centuries);
contact with Scandinavian raiders and later settlers (between the seventh and tenth centuries);
the strong exposure to French as the language of political power after 1066;
the massive exposure to written Latin during the Renaissance;
influences from other European languages beginning in the Early Modern English period; and
the impact of colonial contacts and borrowings.
褯ФƤ8ȻפȤƤϤ3ۤդä1ĤϡŪʱѸˤǤ礭夲ʤΤΡѸʹߤĹˤ錄äƷ³ȤܿǤ롥ˤĤƤϡ#4445. ʤѸˤˤϽ줫αƶᾮɾƤΤ ([2021-06-28-1]) 䤽δϢȤ줿
2ܤϡ嵭ǤϥͥθܿȤƥƥʽաˤΤߤƤ뤬ŵꥷʽաˤθƥۤΩʤΤϻ¤ͥʹߡꥷαѸؤΥѥȤ礭#516. ľܤΥꥷѤ15 ([2010-09-25-1]) ӡ#4449. ꥷαѸؤΥѥȡ ([2021-07-02-1]) ȡ
ǸܸüԤȤƤΤҤܤǤ뤳ȤǧĤĤ⡤19ȾʹߡѸ줬ܸȰճǻܿƤ¤θ줿ˤĤƤϡ#126. 7ˤѸؤαƶӡ ([2009-08-31-1])#2165. 20ȾμѸ쥽 ([2015-04-01-1])#3872. Ѹ˼Ѥ줿ܸμǯ ([2019-12-03-1])#4140. Ѹ˼Ѥ줿ܸΡ֤ġפȡ֤ɤΤ餤ס ([2020-08-27-1]) ȡ
Schneider 8ˡ3äǤθ11δ
Schneider, Edgar W. "Perspectives on Language Contact." Chapter 13 of English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Ed. Laurel J. Brinton. Cambridge: CUP, 332--59.
δñѸ in English٤1椬ȯ䤵ޤϢܡˤѸΥܥʵפ22Ȥơ֤ʤ衼åѤοͤϱѸ줬ʤΡפƤޤ

Ѥʵϡ绨Ĥǥʥ䤤˶⤷ޤ衼åѿͤߤʱѸ줬ʤ櫓ǤϤޤ䥢եꥫޤγϤ˱Ѹ줬ʿͤϤޤΤȤϾΤξǡεʤ٤¿ϤȤפ顤ƤΤ褦ɽǤǤ
˱ѸؽᤤʳǤҤȤΤäƤ餤פʤȤޤϡѸȥ衼åѤμȤδطǤؤʤɤ˿ʳؤƱѸʳθؤ֤ȤˤʤäȤ뤤ȳؤ¾ĩǤߤ褦ȻפΩäȤ⤷衼åѤνǰƬˤƤΤǤСұѸ졤ɥĸ졤졤ե졤ڥ졤ꥢʤɤߴطˤĤƸءŪʴƤƤؽǡȤƤμǤ
ضǤŪդäƤޤΤʤˤϡѸˤμȤʤɤDZѸȥ衼åѤνȤδطΤȡ2ȤơǤϤʤե졿ɥĸƤФ褫äʤɤȸˤޤ⤦1ǯ2ǯ֤δطΤäƤ颤ǤΤˡȸƤ褦ʤΤǤ
γϡѸʳθؤֲǽΤǤСѸ¾θȤδطˤĤΤäƤۤǤŪ˳ؽǤ뤳Ȥˤʤ뤫ǤǽŪˤɤθ֤ˤ衤¿ξäƤ˱ۤȤϤޤ
Ѹ衼åѤμϡ⥤ɥ衼åѸ²ȸƤФ²ΰǤޤˤи줬ߤ˻ƤΤǤѸӤƤɤǤɤΤ餤ƤΤ뤤ϻƤʤΤϡ줴Ȥ˰ۤʤޤ
ɥĸȥϡѸȤȤ˥ɥ衼åѸ²ΤʤǤ⥲ޥɤȤȶ°ƤꡤʸˡȯˤƸߤ˻ƤȤޤºݤ˥ɥĸ䥪˿ƤߤȡѸƱȶ°ƤˤϡۤɻƤʤȤݤ뤫⤷ޤƤ뤱ɤƤʤƤʤɤƤ롤Ȥä̯ʵΥǤ
ե졤ڥ졤ꥢʤɤϡĹ餯衼åѤζ̸äƥȤȤ˥ɥ衼åѸ²ΤʤǤ⥤åɤȤȶ°ƤޤѸȤ礭ۤʤȶʤΤǤѸˤ̤ƥեƥ줫¿ñڤƤаޤ뤿ᡤä˴ؤƤϼ¤϶̤ƤΤ¿ΤǤäơθؤǤߤȡɽŪˤϱѸȤ褯ƤȤݤޤ
Ѹϡޥɤ˥롼ĤĤɤ⥤åɤαƶ礭ʤȯŸƤʤΤǤñ㲽ƤСѸϥ衼åѤΤĤθ碌褦ʺȤäƤ褤Ǥ礦Ѹμ˳ؤָݤˤϡҤΤȤͤˤƤߤƤ
ȴϢ Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)ȤƤ#486. Ѹ¾μפʥ衼åѸȤδطʩȸǤҤİ
<ch> ۻ (silent_letter) Ȥʤñ줬4ĤȤȤƤäʵŤʾ꤬Ȥˡdrachm /dræm/, fuchsia /ˈfjuːʃə/, schism /sɪzm/, yacht /jɑt/ Ǥ롥ŵϡ#2518. Ҳۻ ([2016-03-19-1]) Ǽ夲 (7) Ǥ롥
4Τ yacht ܤƤߤθ16Υ jaght(e) ѤΤǡOED ˤȽϰʲʸǤcf. #4444. Ѹĺ15 ([2021-06-27-1])ˡ t λҲߤʤΤˤʤȤǤϤ롥
a1584 S. Borough in R. Hakluyt Princ. Navigations (1589) ii. 330 A barke which was of Dronton, and three or foure Norway yeaghes, belonging to Northbarne.
ѸǤνֻʤ餯ȯˤϡ gh ȯɤΤ褦ˤƼफɤ줬ä餷͡ä褦OED βˤȡ
Owing to the presence in the Dutch word of the unfamiliar guttural spirant denoted by g(h), the English spellings have been various and erratic; how far they represent varieties of pronunciation it is difficult to say. That a pronunciation /jɔtʃ/ or /jatʃ/, denoted by yatch, once existed seems to be indicated by the plural yatches; it may have been suggested by catch, ketch.
<t> <ch> ȿž yatch Ȥʣֻ EEBO ǸƤߤȡ1670ǯ夫1690ǯޤǤ50ۤɾ夬äƤʤߤˡΤ褦ֻȿžѸǤʤȤ櫓 "guttural spirant" ؤˤϤ褯줿Τạ̇̄ǤϤʤѸˤޤǤϤ߽ФƤȤߤ뤳ȤǤ뤫⤷ʤ
yatch ȯֻˤĤƤϡDobson (371) Τ褦˸ڤƤ롥
Yawt or yatch 'yacht' are two variant pronunciations which are well evidenced by OED; the former is due to the identification of the Dutch spirant [χ] with ME [χ], of which traces still remained when yacht was adopted in the sixteenth century, so that it was accommodated to the model of, for example, fraught and developed with it, while OED suggests that the latter is due to analogy with catch and ketch---it is certainly due to some sort of corrupt spelling-pronunciation, in the attempt to accommodate the word to native models.
<t> <ch> ֻȿžȡ³ֻȯ (spelling_pronunciation) η߽Ф줿 yacht ̯ʰ۷ȤȤˤʤ롥
Silent Consonant Letter ʬϡä˱Ѹˤδ鸫濴Ȥơסʡؿʸѡ51, 1973ǯ117--45ǡ
Dobson, E. J. English Pronunciation 1500--1700. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford: OUP, 1968.
Ѹ줬ƻܿƤȤδط̤ƱѸθûˤȤϡѸˤΥɤ1ĤǤ롥ܥ֥Ǥ#1526. Ѹܸθûоɽ ([2013-07-01-1])#2615. Ѹä ([2016-06-24-1])#2966. Ѹä (2) ([2017-06-10-1])#3381. ֺ¡ˤؤֱñθ츻ס ([2018-07-30-1])#4130. Ѹä¿Ͳȳˤв "The OED in two minutes" ([2020-08-17-1]) ʤɤǷ֤Ҳ𤷤Ƥ
Ȥ褽ϢưϤΤΩߤȤơѸ줬ƻܿƤȤδط̤ƱѸΥڥˤȤǤ롥ơλߤɬ⥹ɤǤϤʤѸˤΤʤǤΰϾäȤäƤ褤
ѸΥڥˤȸܿ ˤĤ Horobin (113) Τ褦˽Ҥ٤Ƥ롥
English spelling is a concoction of written forms drawn from a variety of languages through processes of inheritance and borrowing. At every period in its history, the English lexicon contains words inherited from earlier stages, as well as new words introduced from foreign languages. But this distinction should not be applied too straightforwardly, since inherited words have frequently been subjected to changes in their spelling over time. Similarly, while words drawn from foreign language may preserve their native spellings intact, they frequently undergo changes in order to accommodate to native English spelling patterns.
ûˤȥڥˤϡФϢư뤬§ȤΩˤǤ롤ȤªϤȤƤȻפHorobin ƱͤΤʤǡѸˤγƻ头Ȥ˥ڥ˱ƶڤܤ졦ˤĤƼΤ褦ʸޤƤ롥ͤΥȥȴФǤޤȤƤߤ褦
ɸϡ#3701. Ѹ3;ʣг̾ es ϥ줫μѤ (1) ([2019-06-15-1]) ӡ#3702. Ѹ3;ʣг̾ es ϥ줫μѤ (2) ([2019-06-16-1]) Ǽ夲ƤǤ롥
̤˥줬Ѹ˵ڤܤʸˡŪƶϤۤȤɤʤȤ뤬βǽ뵩ʸܤȤơѸΥɳ߽ǹԤʤƤ;̾ es ŦƤʤۤˡ#140. եޥ줫Ѥؾ -kin ([2009-09-14-1])⻲ȡˡ
ΥƶˤĤơThomason and Kaufman (323) ʳ̣θĴǾҲ𤷲⤷ƤΤǡѤ褦
[T]here was a striking grammatical influence of Low Dutch on ME that is little known, because though introduced sometime before 1150, it is found in certain dialects only and disappeared by the end of the fourteenth century . . . .
In the Lindsey (Grimsby?), Norfolk, Essex, Kent (Canterbury and Shoreham), East Wessex (Southampton?), and West Wessex (Bristol?) dialects of ME, attested from just before 1200 down to at least 1375, there occurs a pronoun form that serves as the enclitic/unstressed object form of SHE and THEY. Its normal written shape is <(h)is> or <(h)es>, presumably /əs/; one text occasionally spells <hise>. This pronoun has no origin in OE. It does have one in Low Dutch, where the unstressed object form for SHE and THEY is /sə/, spelled <se> (this is cognate with High German sie). If the ME <h> was ever pronounced it was no doubt on the analogy of all the other third person pronoun forms of English. We do not know whether Low Dutch speakers settled in sizable numbers in all of the dialect areas where this pronoun occurs, but there is one striking correlation: all these dialect areas abut on the sea . . ., and after 1070 the seas near Britain, along with their ports, were the stomping grounds of the Flemings, Hollanders, and Low German traders. These facts should remove all doubt as to whether this pronoun is foreign or indigenous (and just happened not to show up in any OE texts!).
ѤκǸǽҤ٤Ƥ̤ꡤֵʤפȤʤ궯Ω줬ɽƤ롥p. 325 Ǥ "this clear instance of structural borrowing from Low Dutch into Middle English" ȤҤ٤Ƥ롥ȤƤϤȤƤ⤪⤷λεǤ줿褦ˡ⤦ŤɬפȻפ롥West Midland ΦǤ㤬ĤäƤꡤƱñ˻ٻ뤳ȤϤǤʤϢѤƤ Hendriks (1668) ⡤Thomason and Kaufman ΤˤϲŪΩäƤꡤȤƼ夲ƤʤȤոƤ
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.
Hendriks, Jennifer. "English in Contact: German and Dutch." Chapter 105 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1659--70.
濴ȤϽαѸؤαƶˤĤơϢ#4444. Ѹĺ15 ([2021-06-27-1]) ȡ#4445. ʤѸˤˤϽ줫αƶᾮɾƤΤ ([2021-06-28-1]) Ǽ夲ƤϸðʳؤαƶˤĤ Hendriks λŦƤ2夲褦
ޤ1ܤϡѸFlemish üԤαƶˤꡤѸλ [ð] бĺ [d] ֤줿ΤǤϤʤȤˤĤơνнǤ Samuels Ȥ Hendriks (1668) ˤСѸ Kent, East Sussex, East Surrey ꡤ"the" de Ȥơthick dykke Ȥơ"this" dis ȤʸڤȤSamuels ˤС "TH-stopping" Ͼ嵭ϰ15ƬޤǤ˵äƤꡤߤǤؼ˸¤ΤΡθ̤ĤäƤȤ
2ܤϡTrudgill θΤ褦ˤʤä East Midland ˤ3ñΥǤ (cf. #2310. 3ñΥ ([2015-08-24-1])ˡTrudgill ϡϰDZѸϽ줬ܿưޤ¿Ͳʣ̡ǽŪ˿ʿDzߤȤˤ긽ߤ3ñΥ褦ȤƤ롥Hendriks (1668) ˤꡤεΥ˥奢⤦ǫɤäƤߤ褦
In an article first published in 1997, Trudgill (2002) seeks to understand why the present-tense, third person singular verb forms lack -s in the East Anglian dialects. Surviving evidence suggests that from the 11th to the 15th century, Est Anglian dialects had the original -th form, but by 1700, the zero form had become a typical feature of these dialects. Noting a number of zero forms in the early 17th letters of Katherine Paston, he situates the emergence of the zero forms in the 16th century. This time-frame corresponds to massive migration into East Anglia from the Low countries and France as a result of the Dutch Revolt in the southern Netherlands and civil wars in France. Trudgill concludes that the zero from is due to contact at a time when the East Anglian system itself was in flux and this is the key to his argument. There is evidence of variation between the native southern -th forms and the northern -s forms at the same time that this region experience[d] a massive influx of immigrants who would have found the typologically highly marked third person singular verb forms difficult to acquire. In this situation of dialect contact, Trudgill (2002: 185) asserts, "natural forms tend to win out over non-natural ones".
ä˸ԤΡ3ñΥ aave εˤƤ⸰ȤʤȥԥåǤꡤѸ˾夭ƽפǤ롥
Hendriks, Jennifer. "English in Contact: German and Dutch." Chapter 105 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1659--70.
Samuels, Michael L. "Kent and the Low countries: Some Linguistic Evidence." Edinburgh Studies in English and Scots. Ed. A. J. Aitken, Angus McIntosh, and Hermann Pálsson. London: Longman, 1971. 3--19.
Trudgill, Peter. "Third-Person Singular Zero: African-American English, Anglian Dialects and Spanish Persecution in the Low Countries." East Anglian English. Ed. Jacek Fisiak and Peter Trudgill. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. 179--86.
ε#4444. Ѹĺ15 ([2021-06-27-1]) Ǥ줿褦ˡѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ餤 (cf. #3435. ѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ ([2018-09-22-1])ˡϱѸ˵Ҥ˴ؤ뾮ȹͤƤ뤬ʤäΤ
Hendriks (1660) ˤСᾮɾƤͳ1ĤȤơɽȤϽ줬ѸȶǤꡤġñθ츻꤬ǤŦƤ롥ѶŪ˥ͳǤȽǤʤ¤ꡤѸǤȤݼŪȽǤͥ褵Τ̵̤ȤѸˤϤޤäƱѸ¸ߤȤǤʾ塤ˤƶεŸ뤳Ȥ餫˱ѸȤϰۼθ츻ǤȽ䤹եʤơ٤ǤťΥɸˤ٤СϳΤǤ롥
[C]ontributions from the Scandinavian and French languages to the lexicon of English, for example, are discussed in terms of certainty, whereas contributions from the closely related varieties of "Low Dutch" or "Low German" are couched in terms of "probably" or "possibly" or are simply not discussed.
ʾ Hendriks ĴƤΤϡαѸˤɸŪͽطʤ˲ "purist language ideologies" (1659) Ǥ롥Hendriks ϤۤɲʪƤƤ櫓ǤϤʤΤ̤ȤƤŪʱѸ˵ҤФ붯ǿȽȤʤäƤȤäƤ褤ܤ٤ͤȻפ
Hendriks ϵ2˹ʤäƤ롥1ĤϡOED ʸإƥнŤؤȽǤ롥OED ŪˡѸˤʣκ "macaronic" ʥƥȤȤƽƤºݤˤϡΤ褦ʼŪǸŪʥƥȤޤ˥ʤɤοƳηƤ⤷ʤȤOED ˤǧʤäȤȤǤʤܲԻ3ǤˤƤϤDzȤȤ Hendriks (1669) ȤڤƤˡ
⤦1ĤϾ嵭ȤϢ뤬OED ϸɸѸϢʤѸѼˤƤƤʤäȤŦ줫μѸϡषɸѸ줫æ쥸㤨оʬ̾ʬ "macaronic" ʥ쥸ǤƤꤵ뤬OED ʤѸˤɸŪͽǤϡΤ褦ɸŪʥ쥸ϤޤȤ˰ƤʤäHendriks (1662) ۩
Non-literary sources such as macaronic business writings, however, may be more likely to reflect the vernacular of London than the more pure literary texts selected to compile the atlas. Given the literary emphasis in the OED and the LALME, the range of topics which appear in these sources may be considerably restricted. The consequence of this is that entire semantic fields --- such as those pertaining to industrial or commercial relations, that is, fields where the significant contribution of Low Dutch to the English lexicon would be observed --- remain undocumented.
ˡѸʹߤ˸¤СOED "Standard English" ʳΥڻ뤷ƤȤ¤Ŧʤ
פˡѸ줬¸ߴƤϤΥ쥸OED ɮƬȤɸŪեΥˤϴޤޤƤʤäȤȤʤΤϡѸˤ historiography ˤܼŪȸ虜ʤ
Hendriks, Jennifer. "English in Contact: German and Dutch." Chapter 105 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1659--70.
ƤαѸ˳ǤϡDutch, Flemish, Afrikaans, Low German ʤɤ (the Low Countries) ν줫μѸˤĤơ¿εҤ롥ƥ졤ťΥɸ졤ե줫μѸ٤еϤƶ⤺äȾᡤޤǥޥŪʰ֤ŤˤȤɤޤ롥
ȤαѸ˸ǤϡΤ褦˲ᾮɾƤ¤ơϽȤθܿѶŪɾ褦ȤޤäƤƤ롥
ܥ֥ǤϡϢ뵭ȤưʲƤ
#126. 7ˤѸؤαƶӡ ([2009-08-31-1])
#140. եޥ줫Ѥؾ -kin ([2009-09-14-1])
#149. եޥȱѸˡ ([2009-09-23-1])
#2645. 줫Ѥ줿ߤΤñ ([2016-07-24-1])
#2646. Ѹ˴ؤס ([2016-07-25-1])
#3435. ѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ ([2018-09-22-1])
#3436. ɤӤȤܿˡ ([2018-09-23-1])
ϡOED ѤϽ줫μѸ"once-Dutch words" ȾΤƤˤĴ den Otter ˰͵ Hendriks (1667) ꡤ13--17˱ѸäƤѸΥץ
13th century:
asquint, bouse, gewgaw, muster, pack, scour, scum, slight, slip, slop, welter, wiggle
14th century:
bale, bundle, clamp, clock, fraught, grim, groove, keel, kit, mate, miller, north-north-east, north-north-west, rack, rover, school, scoop, slipper, slap, sled, spike, splint, splinter, tear, wainscot, wig, wind
15th century:
brake, cabbage, cooper, cope, cramer, dapper, deck, excise, freight, gold, graft, hackle, hop, leak, lighter, luck, marline, mart, meerkat, misdeal, mud, nappy, pace, peg, pickle, pink, pip, rack, rumple, rutter, scout, scuttle, slip, sod, stripe, stuff, tattle, warble, whirl
16th century:
aloof, anker, beleaguer, boor, boss, bumpkin, burgomaster, bush, cashier, clump, cramp, dike-grave, dock, dollar, domineer, drawl, ensconce, filibuster, flute, foist, forlorn hope, free-booter, frolic, gripe, gruff, jerkin, kermis, landscape, lazy, manikin, mesh, pad, pickle-herring, pram, push, rant, rash, reef, safflower, sconce, scone, scrabble, scrub, shoal, slap, snap, sniff, snuff, snuffle, span, spatter, stake, steady, stump, stutter, tattoo, uproar, wagon, wagoner, yacht
17th century:
back, balk, beer, blaze, boom, brandy, clank, cruise, cruiser, decoy, drill, duck, easel, enlist, etch, furlogh, gas, gherkin, hovel, hustle, kill, kink, knapsack, masterpiece, morass, outlander, plug, polder, skate, sketch, slim, slurp, smack, smuggle, smuggler, snow, snuff, speck, still life, stink-pot, stoker, tea, trigger (den Otter 1990: 265--266)
den Otter Ĵˤȡޤä "once Dutch words" ο1254Ǥꡤαƶĺ15äȤ³ơ161817Ȥ֡ (Hendriks 1667) ѸȤ16--17γѸ줬¿ʥºݤˤŪ̾졤ư졤ƻ¿ޤޤƤ뤳Ȥ狼롥
den Otter, Alice G. "Lekker Scrabbling: Discovery and Exploration of Once-Dutch Words in the Online Oxford English Dictionary." English Studies 71.3 (1990): 261--71.
Hendriks, Jennifer. "English in Contact: German and Dutch." Chapter 105 of English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. 2 vols. Ed. Alexander Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. 1659--70.
ѸˤˤơѸƱޥ췲λǤ Old Saxon ¸ߴǤϤʤε#3819. եå粦ˤ륤ɤγò ([2019-10-11-1]) ǿ줿եå粦ζפ˺ݤơJohn Ȥ̾θťͤ亴̳ƤȤϿ롥ޤGenesis B ȤΤűѻˤϡ9 Old Saxon 줿1ޤޤƤ뤳ȤΤƤ롥
Genesis B ˤϡhearra (lord), sima (chain), landscipe (region), heodæg (today) ޤྯ Old Saxon ͳ褹Ȥܤ줬ǧ롥˼ѤʤäȤǤϡѸ˾ΰյϾȤ虜ʤɬפȤФȤñ¿줫ڤȤȯãѸλŪħűѸˤǤ˸ƤȤȤõƤƤ褤 (Crystal 27)
̤ˡѸˤˤơְŪ״طᤤޥ췲μѸ¿ϤʤŪطᤤΤǤС¤θܿ¿äϤǤϤʤ뤬ǤʤȤСʹϡ˥ɥĸ줫μѸϡ#2164. ѸˤǤޤΩʤɥĸ줫μѡ ([2015-03-31-1])#2621. ɥĸαѸؤܳŪ19 ([2016-06-30-1]) Ǥߤ褦ˡΤȤƤΩʤʤεϤDZѸ˱ƶͿȤΤϡեޥ줯餤Ͻ줫θŪƶˤĤƤϡ#149. եޥȱѸˡ ([2009-09-23-1])#2645. 줫Ѥ줿ߤΤñ ([2016-07-24-1])#2646. Ѹ˴ؤס ([2016-07-25-1])#3435. ѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ ([2018-09-22-1])#3436. ɤӤȤܿˡ ([2018-09-23-1]) Ȥ줿
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2019.
ε ([2019-06-15-1]) ˰³Ѹ them Ѥ es Ȥ;֤̾ˤĤơBennett and Smithers Ѥơ褽 "SE or EMidl" ˻ѤФäƤȽҤ٤LAEME eLALME ѤơѸˤǧƤ
LAEME Ǥ Map No. 00064420 Ȥ "THEM dir obj: 's' forms (sometimes cliticised), e.g. as, es, is, ys, hes, his." ƤʲޡˡeLALME Ǥ Item 8 Ȥ "THEM: 'his' type (incl as, es, is and enclitic -(e)s)." ƤʲޡˡǤϽ̾ƷǤƤΤǡܤϥåƳ

ΤȤ㤬¿櫓ǤϤʤѸ̤ East Midland Southeastern 濴ȤơʬŪˤΦ West Midland ˤȤäʬۤƤ뤳Ȥʬ롥
ȤδϢ뤿ˤϡΥüԽĤΥɤؤΰ̱ʤɤ˼ҲŪطʤĴ٤ɬפ롥ŪˤС#3435. ѸˤˤϽ줫αƶϲᾮɾƤ ([2018-09-22-1]) Ǥߤ褦ˡ14դˤӿʪǰפȯŸˤեɥ쥤ɤδط϶̩ˤʤäȤ顤East Midland ˤ es ֤ʬۤ˴ؤƤϡƶϤ뤳ȤǤ뤫⤷ʤWest Midland λȯŪʻˤĤƤϡ̤˹ͤʤФʤʤ
Bennett, J. A. W. and G. V. Smithers, eds. Early Middle English Verse and Prose. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP, 1968.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow