Zompist Bboard Again

I didn't even know that Pfrnak existed (but it's Austrian, and I'm not). Instead of pfauchen I have the form fauchen IMD.
Pfiat di is th outcome of the Bavarian equivalant to behüte dich (Gott) "May (God) preserve you"; There is frequently apocope of schwa in Bavarian and /pf/ was substituted for the rare sequence /bh/, or so it says here (#15).

What is the origin of historical German orthographic ⟨th⟩, which is still sometimes seen in names that preserve old spellings? It would make sense if present in loans of words spelled in Greek with ⟨θ⟩, but it is found in unambiguously Germanic words like historical Thal (modern Tal), which is familiar to English-speakers in the word Neanderthal.

I don't know its origin, but its purpose is to indicate the length of the following vowel.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 6:37 am I don't know its origin, but its purpose is to indicate the length of the following vowel.

Before the vowel itself. Thank you, I didn't know that. Now that's weird.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 6:37 am I don't know its origin, but its purpose is to indicate the length of the following vowel.

But what about cases like historical Rath, modern Rat? Does it lengthen the preceding vowel in these?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 9:37 pm What is the origin of historical German orthographic ⟨th⟩, which is still sometimes seen in names that preserve old spellings? It would make sense if present in loans of words spelled in Greek with ⟨θ⟩, but it is found in unambiguously Germanic words like historical Thal (modern Tal), which is familiar to English-speakers in the word Neanderthal.

I don't think it has anything to do with vowel length. I would guess it is just an example of a redundant silent letter ("Letternhäufelung") like e.g. the dt in Stadt, or using rck or rtz (still found in some modern names) instead of rk or rz. Since the digraph "th" was available for /t/ based on its use for etymological reasons in Greek-based vocabulary, it could also be extended to words where it had no etymological justification.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 12:30 pm But what about cases like historical Rath, modern Rat? Does it lengthen the preceding vowel in these?

Yes

Estav wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 5:00 pm I don't think it has anything to do with vowel length. I would guess it is just an example of a redundant silent letter ("Letternhäufelung") like e.g. the dt in Stadt, or using rck or rtz (still found in some modern names) instead of rk or rz. Since the digraph "th" was available for /t/ based on its use for etymological reasons in Greek-based vocabulary, it could also be extended to words where it had no etymological justification.

No; the rule (which was abolished in 1901) was as I described:

Bis 1901 war in Deutschland die th-Schreibung gängig. Es wurde damals ‹Thore› statt heute ‹Tore› geschrieben. Am Wortanfang deutscher Wörter zeigte das ‹th› an, dass der nachfolgende Vokal, und am Wortende, dass der vorherige Vokal lang zu lesen ist.

Note that this wasn't the only reason to write "th"; it also was (and still is) used in Graeco-Latin loans where Greek has theta; in those words it is written independently of vowel length. More details on the pre-1901 rules can be found in the linked WP article.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 3:59 am

Estav wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 5:00 pm I don't think it has anything to do with vowel length. I would guess it is just an example of a redundant silent letter ("Letternhäufelung") like e.g. the dt in Stadt, or using rck or rtz (still found in some modern names) instead of rk or rz. Since the digraph "th" was available for /t/ based on its use for etymological reasons in Greek-based vocabulary, it could also be extended to words where it had no etymological justification.

No; the rule (which was abolished in 1901) was as I described:

Bis 1901 war in Deutschland die th-Schreibung gängig. Es wurde damals ‹Thore› statt heute ‹Tore› geschrieben. Am Wortanfang deutscher Wörter zeigte das ‹th› an, dass der nachfolgende Vokal, und am Wortende, dass der vorherige Vokal lang zu lesen ist.

Note that this wasn't the only reason to write "th"; it also was (and still is) used in Graeco-Latin loans where Greek has theta; in those words it is written independently of vowel length. More details on the pre-1901 rules can be found in the linked WP article.

Oh, I see! Thanks for the correction, I didn't realize that people had actually come up with a rule intended to govern the use of "th" in native German words prior to its abolishment. I can see that William Winston Valentine's "New High German: A Comparative Study" (1894) prescribes not using it in words that already have another mark of vowel length (p. 76), such as "Tier", but it seems like this comment was necessary because some people had in fact been in the habit of writing things like "Thier" prior to this point. I wonder how much the "don't use 'th' in words with a short vowel" rule was actually followed. I see an old spelling "Thurn" (not technically native, but not with etymological theta): I don't think this word would be expected to have a long vowel, would it?

Estav wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:57 am I see an old spelling "Thurn" (not technically native, but not with etymological theta): I don't think this word would be expected to have a long vowel, would it?

No. But that spelling is older than the rules I referred to.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 4:26 am

Estav wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:57 am I see an old spelling "Thurn" (not technically native, but not with etymological theta): I don't think this word would be expected to have a long vowel, would it?

No. But that spelling is older than the rules I referred to.

That raises the question of what was the origins of using ⟨th⟩ in cases outside of borrowed Greek theta if it was also used in words with short vowels and was only later rationalized into being a mark of vowel length.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 11:02 am That raises the question of what was the origins of using ⟨th⟩ in cases outside of borrowed Greek theta if it was also used in words with short vowels and was only later rationalized into being a mark of vowel length.

That goes beyond what I know.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 11:02 amThat raises the question of what was the origins of using ⟨th⟩ in cases outside of borrowed Greek theta if it was also used in words with short vowels and was only later rationalized into being a mark of vowel length.

I think you shouldn't try to over-analyze ancient spelling from a time when spelling standards were non-existent and people basically just did what they liked, or followed some convention that some monk or other scribe once came up with without anyone knowing how or why.


JAL

Question for the German-speakers here: Do you see Besteck as a subcategory of Geschirr, or do you see it as a different category? I'm not sure myself.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Aug 19, 2025 11:44 am Question for the German-speakers here: Do you see Besteck as a subcategory of Geschirr, or do you see it as a different category? I'm not sure myself.

I'd rather consider it a subcategory.

For me it's a separate category when talking about laying the table ("Das Geschirr ist auf dem Tisch, aber das Besteck fehlt noch"), but a subcategory when talking about washing the dishes. If someone who is asked "Spül bitte das Geschirr" wouldn't wash the Besteck, I'd think they'd be trolling.

Thank you for your feedback!

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:14 amFor me it's a separate category when talking about laying the table ("Das Geschirr ist auf dem Tisch, aber das Besteck fehlt noch"), but a subcategory when talking about washing the dishes. If someone who is asked "Spül bitte das Geschirr" wouldn't wash the Besteck, I'd think they'd be trolling.

What's the semantic domain of "Geschirr" and "Besteck"? Would serving spoons still be "Besteck"? Would serving dishes be "Geschirr"? I'm asking because we have several words in Dutch that seem to have overlap but not the exact domains, if I have to trust Google.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:02 am What's the semantic domain of "Geschirr" and "Besteck"? Would serving spoons still be "Besteck"? Would serving dishes be "Geschirr"? I'm asking because we have several words in Dutch that seem to have overlap but not the exact domains, if I have to trust Google.

Serving spoons are Besteck and serving dishes are Geschirr, yes.

The German words "Eidechse" and "Echse" both mean "lizard". According to wiktionary (which quotes the "Handbook of Germanic Etymology" ( https://archive.org/details/Orel-AHandb ... 1/mode/2up )), the latter is a clipping of the former, and the former is from Proto-West-Germanic "agiþahsijā", which is a compound word of PIE *h₁ógʷʰis (the usual PIE word for snake, that Sanskrit "ahi" and Greek "ophis" come from) and PG *þehsan, meaning "to swingle".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/agi%C3%BEahsij%C4%81 wrote:From otherwise unattested *agi (“lizard, snake”), from Proto-Germanic *agiz, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁ógʷʰis, + *þehsan (whence Middle High German dehsan (“to swingle (flax)”), from *þehsaną, from Proto-Indo-European *tetḱ- (“to cut, hew”), +‎ *-jā (agent suffix).[1]

But how exactly does "snake + swingle + er" mean "lizard"? I understand how "snake" relates, being another reptile, but not "swingle". Not knowing what "swingle" meant, I found this video ( https://youtu.be/7Eec859dAhg?si=mAWhLruSJm3VMri_&t=72 ) about the process of making linen from flax ("scutch" is apparently a synonym of "swingle"), but it doesn't illuminate anything. Does anybody here understand this etymology?