Discussion:
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
(too old to reply)
Hen Hanna
2018-02-13 00:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?

I think... (addition of) [Nun] is more likely to require
reordering of words. Is this right ?


Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde, die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?


3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?



[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.

I don't understand this [sollte]
António Marques
2018-02-13 04:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I think... (addition of) [Nun] is more likely to require
reordering of words. Is this right ?
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde,
die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott
gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field
which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had
said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.
I don't understand this [sollte]
Translations of the Old Testament are the last thing you want to use for
learning a language. Most try to render as literally as possible a language
that in many places is poorly understood. This passage would work just fine
in popular brazilian: Verdade que Deus disse vocês não come de nenhuma
árvore do jardim?

German ‘sollte’ is used in more cases than ‘should’; here it conveys a
potential, ‘should it be understood that God has said’.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-13 07:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 04:18:16 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I think... (addition of) [Nun] is more likely to require
reordering of words. Is this right ?
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde,
die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott
gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field
which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had
said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
De slang nu was listiger dan al het gedierte des velds, hetwelk de
HEERE God gemaakt had; en zij zeide tot de vrouw: Is het ook, dat God
gezegd heeft: Gijlieden zult niet eten van allen boom dezes hofs?

Litterally: is it also, that God has said ...?
Which I interpret: Didn't God tell you?
Mind you that this Statenvertaling is in 17th century Dutch. But is
shaped the Standard language.

https://www.debijbel.nl/bijbel/BGT/Genesis-3
God heeft zeker gezegd dat ...

God surely said that ..., I suppose God told you that ...
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-13 07:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From a translitterated Hebrew plus litteral Dutch translation that I
have I find that the original Hebrew here uses a single word "af"
translated to Dutch as:
(is het) inderdaad (waar)
is it indeed true

ki amar Elohiim
dat God gezegd heeft
that God has said / said

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A3
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A3#Etymology_2

The Aramaic rendering seems to fit better:
ap = and, also, as well, too, truly, indeed, yea, with
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-13 07:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I think... (addition of) [Nun] is more likely to require
reordering of words. Is this right ?
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger
Stimmt, auch im Niederländischen.

En de slang was ...
Nu was de slang ...

Such introductory "and" is now considered bad style in Dutch, used in
how children relate what has happened. But in older Bible translation,
the Hebrew "wa" is translated litterally, and just about any other
sentence in the Bible begins with it.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-13 07:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I think... (addition of) [Nun] is more likely to require
reordering of words. Is this right ?
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger
Stimmt, auch im Niederländischen.
Und/en/and is a conjunction, nun/nu/now is an adverb. That is why.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
En de slang was ...
Nu was de slang ...
Such introductory "and" is now considered bad style in Dutch, used in
how children relate what has happened. But in older Bible translation,
the Hebrew "wa" is translated litterally, and just about any other
sentence in the Bible begins with it.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Christian Weisgerber
2018-02-13 13:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
Take two main clauses:

I asked a question. / Ich stellte eine Frage.
I received an answer. / Ich bekam eine Antwort.

Now combine them with a coordinator ("and", "or", etc.):

I asked a question and I received an answer.

Which clause does the coordinator belong to?
The likely answer is "neither" and the German syntax reflects this:

Ich stellte eine Frage und ich bekam eine Antwort.

This remains unchanged if you cut the coordination into two sentences
again:

I asked a question. And I received an answer.
Ich stellte eine Frage. Und ich bekam eine Antwort.
Post by Hen Hanna
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde, die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.
I don't understand this [sollte]
It's the same dangling counterfactual conditional clause as in
English and it uses verb-first syntax as these often do in German.

When I actually want to understand a Bible passage, I use a modern
translation. Einheitsübersetzung 1980:

Die Schlange war schlauer als alle Tiere des Feldes, die Gott,
der Herr, gemacht hatte. Sie sagte zu der Frau: Hat Gott wirklich
gesagt: Ihr dürft von keinem Baum des Gartens essen?

Is there a corresponding modern English Bible translation that is
widely accepted across major denominations?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-13 14:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I asked a question. / Ich stellte eine Frage.
I received an answer. / Ich bekam eine Antwort.
I asked a question and I received an answer.
Which clause does the coordinator belong to?
Ich stellte eine Frage und ich bekam eine Antwort.
This remains unchanged if you cut the coordination into two sentences
I asked a question. And I received an answer.
Ich stellte eine Frage. Und ich bekam eine Antwort.
Post by Hen Hanna
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde, die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.
I don't understand this [sollte]
It's the same dangling counterfactual conditional clause as in
English and it uses verb-first syntax as these often do in German.
When I actually want to understand a Bible passage, I use a modern
Die Schlange war schlauer als alle Tiere des Feldes, die Gott,
der Herr, gemacht hatte. Sie sagte zu der Frau: Hat Gott wirklich
gesagt: Ihr dürft von keinem Baum des Gartens essen?
Is there a corresponding modern English Bible translation that is
widely accepted across major denominations?
NRSV is the most likely to be used in scholarly work (New Revised Standard Version);
NIV seems to be popular across the evangelical [American sense, not the British or German
sense] spectrum, because it is somewhat tendentious (New International Version). For
Roman Catholics, JB is beautiful but even the giant pulpit edition is so plagued with typos
that it's dangerous to use it as such; NAB is probably the best all-around version
(Jerusalem Bible [based on the French Bible de Jérusalem; it was said that J. R. R.
Tolkien had an editorial hand in the wording of some of the poetical books], New
American Bible).

In Britain, the NEB was a reaction to the RSV, but its principal OT consultant, G. R.
Driver, had some strange ideas for emendations, and they issued the REB not much later
(New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible).
António Marques
2018-02-13 18:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I asked a question. / Ich stellte eine Frage.
I received an answer. / Ich bekam eine Antwort.
I asked a question and I received an answer.
Which clause does the coordinator belong to?
Ich stellte eine Frage und ich bekam eine Antwort.
This remains unchanged if you cut the coordination into two sentences
I asked a question. And I received an answer.
Ich stellte eine Frage. Und ich bekam eine Antwort.
Post by Hen Hanna
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem
Felde, die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja,
sollte Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field
which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had
said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.
I don't understand this [sollte]
It's the same dangling counterfactual conditional clause as in
English and it uses verb-first syntax as these often do in German.
When I actually want to understand a Bible passage, I use a modern
Die Schlange war schlauer als alle Tiere des Feldes, die Gott,
der Herr, gemacht hatte. Sie sagte zu der Frau: Hat Gott wirklich
gesagt: Ihr dürft von keinem Baum des Gartens essen?
Is there a corresponding modern English Bible translation that is
widely accepted across major denominations?
NRSV is the most likely to be used in scholarly work (New Revised Standard Version);
NIV seems to be popular across the evangelical [American sense, not the British or German
sense] spectrum, because it is somewhat tendentious (New International Version). For
Roman Catholics, JB is beautiful but even the giant pulpit edition is so plagued with typos
that it's dangerous to use it as such; NAB is
probably the best all-around version
(Jerusalem Bible [based on the French Bible de Jérusalem; it was said that J. R. R.
Tolkien had an editorial hand in the wording of some of the poetical books], New
American Bible).
And the NAB tries to adhere to the original text, whereas the NJB is very
free with it - the text, not the meaning, which with few known exceptions
everyone has historically tried to be true to.

Being associated with the RCC, Protestants won’t touch the NAB; the NJB is
more for literary use than devotion.

Oddly enough, the same Protestants seem to have no problem (thankfully!)
basing their Lectionary on that of the RCC.

We often hear of the Clementine Vulgate because the Sixtine version raised
so many alarms the RCC disowned it as soon as it could. That should be kept
in mind when people take for granted that churches freely adulterate
scripture as they see fit.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In Britain, the NEB was a reaction to the RSV, but its principal OT consultant, G. R.
Driver, had some strange ideas for emendations, and they issued the REB not much later
(New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible).
I never got what the British found so aggravating about the RSV.
António Marques
2018-02-13 17:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I asked a question. / Ich stellte eine Frage.
I received an answer. / Ich bekam eine Antwort.
I asked a question and I received an answer.
Which clause does the coordinator belong to?
Ich stellte eine Frage und ich bekam eine Antwort.
This remains unchanged if you cut the coordination into two sentences
I asked a question. And I received an answer.
Ich stellte eine Frage. Und ich bekam eine Antwort.
Post by Hen Hanna
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde,
die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte
Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
3:1 -- And the serpent was craftier than all the beasts of the field
which the LORD God had made, and said unto the woman, Yes, if God had
said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden?
[Yes, if God had said] must be a translation-error.
I don't understand this [sollte]
It's the same dangling counterfactual conditional clause as in
English and it uses verb-first syntax as these often do in German.
When I actually want to understand a Bible passage, I use a modern
Die Schlange war schlauer als alle Tiere des Feldes, die Gott,
der Herr, gemacht hatte. Sie sagte zu der Frau: Hat Gott wirklich
gesagt: Ihr dürft von keinem Baum des Gartens essen?
Is there a corresponding modern English Bible translation that is
widely accepted across major denominations?
The RSV. But the OP was trying to make sense of that German, not trying to
determine God’s word.
Hen Hanna
2018-02-13 20:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
Is (addition of) [Und] exempt from the [Verb 2nd] rule ?
I asked a question. / Ich stellte eine Frage.
I received an answer. / Ich bekam eine Antwort.
I asked a question and I received an answer.
Which clause does the coordinator belong to?
Ich stellte eine Frage und ich bekam eine Antwort.
This remains unchanged if you cut the coordination into two sentences
I asked a question. And I received an answer.
Ich stellte eine Frage. Und ich bekam eine Antwort.
Thank you... still, for me

X ist xx, und Y ist yy.

X ist xx. Und ist Y yy. <-- this feels natural.

Und ist ein Hund ein Tier.


____________
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Hen Hanna
Gen 3:1 -- Und die Schlange war listiger denn alle Tiere auf dem Felde, die Gott der HERR gemacht hatte, und sprach zu dem Weibe: Ja, sollte Gott gesagt haben: Ihr sollt nicht essen von den Früchten der Bäume im Garten?
ok,
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schlong
came from Schlange

which in German is deliciously feminine ! HH




2015/12/23 - Hillary Clinton addressed a comment made by Donald Trump at a rally in Michigan that many interpreted as crude, saying "nothing really surprises" her anymore. Speaking with The Des Moines Register in Iowa, Clinton criticized the tone of Trump's campaign. On Monday night, Trump referenced Clinton's defeat in the 2008 primaries to President Barack Obama and said, "She was going to beat Obama. ... She was favored to win — and she got schlonged. She lost."
Helmut Richter
2018-02-13 21:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
X ist xx, und Y ist yy.
In order.
Post by Hen Hanna
X ist xx. Und ist Y yy. <-- this feels natural.
Und ist ein Hund ein Tier.
No.

The inititial word of a sentence which connects it to the previous
sentence (or part of a sentence) is sometimes counted for verb 2nd, and
sometimes not. There are three cases:

1) a conjunction combining two main sentences (parataxis):
und, oder, aber, denn

The conjunction is not counted, no matter whether it follows a full
stop, a semicolon, a comma, or (only with "und") a blank.

2) a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause (hypotaxis):
dass, weil, da, während, wenn, indem, seit, ... (many others)

The subordinate clause has the finite verb at its end, no matter
whether it precedes or follows the main clause.

3) an adverb entirely belonging to the second sentence, even though it
references the message of the previous sentence, is counted for
verb 2nd.

There are the following ways to say: a dog breathes because it is an animal.

1) Ein Hund atmet, denn er ist ein Tier.
2a) Ein Hund atmet, weil er ein Tier ist.
2b) Weil ein Hund ein Tier ist, atmet er.
3) Ein Hund ist ein Tier. Deshalb atmet er.

In sentence (3), "deshalb" has position 1, and the verb has position 2.
In sentence (2b), the entire subordinate clause has position 1 of the
main clause, and the verb has position 2.

Note that although "denn", "weil", and "da" are more or less
synonymous, one of them is paratactic, and the other two are
hypotactic.

There is one more case: A conditional clause can have a hypotactic
conjunction ("wenn", "falls") or no conjunction at all. In the latter
case, the finite verb is at the beginning:

2) Wenn ein Hund tot ist, atmet er nicht mehr.
4a) Ist ein Hund tot, atmet er nicht mehr.
4b) Ist ein Hund tot, so atmet er nicht mehr.

--
Helmut Richter
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-14 13:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
There are the following ways to say: a dog breathes because it is an animal.
1) Ein Hund atmet, denn er ist ein Tier.
2a) Ein Hund atmet, weil er ein Tier ist.
2b) Weil ein Hund ein Tier ist, atmet er.
3) Ein Hund ist ein Tier. Deshalb atmet er.
1) Een hond ademt, want het is een dier.
2a) Een hond ademt omdat het een dier is.
2b) Omdat een hond een hond een dier is, ademt hij.
3) Een hond is een dier. Daarom/dus ademt hij.
2) Wenn ein Hund tot ist, atmet er nicht mehr.
4a) Ist ein Hund tot, atmet er nicht mehr.
4b) Ist ein Hund tot, so atmet er nicht mehr.
2) Als een hond dood is, ademt hij niet meer.
4a) * Is een hond dood, ademt hij niet meer. (* Incorrect in Dutch!)
4b) Is een hond dood, dan ademt hij niet meer.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Christian Weisgerber
2018-02-15 16:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
und, oder, aber, denn
dass, weil, da, während, wenn, indem, seit, ... (many others)
A matter of terminology: These are also called (1) "coordinating
conjunctions" or "coordinators" and (2) "subordinating conjunctions"
or "subordinators".
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Helmut Richter
2018-02-15 23:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Helmut Richter
und, oder, aber, denn
dass, weil, da, während, wenn, indem, seit, ... (many others)
A matter of terminology: These are also called (1) "coordinating
conjunctions" or "coordinators" and (2) "subordinating conjunctions"
or "subordinators".
Yes, that is better. The terms parataxis and hypotaxis do not mean the
conjunctions but the way of composition of the resulting sentence. To
some extent, the same sematics can be expressed by either:

Please do help me, and I will always be grateful. (parataxis)
If you help me, I will always be grateful. (hypotaxis)

Please do help me, or I will always be angry with you. (parataxis)
If you don't help me, I will always be angry with you. (hypotaxis)

In the paratactic sentences, the implication is not unambiguously
expressed but must be inferred from the context.

--
Helmut Richter

Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-14 12:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Strange case in Dutch: daarom (therefore) and waarom (why) do trigger
inversion, but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/want#Etymology_1
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-14 12:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hen Hanna
Thank you... still, for me
X ist xx, und Y ist yy.
X ist xx. Und ist Y yy. <-- this feels natural.
No, doesn't feel natural to me at all. It's impossible that way. But
I'm Dutch and Dutch and German works the same in this respect (with
perhaps very rare exceptions).

"Und ist Y yy." would be a question with an omitted question mark.
Post by Hen Hanna
Und ist ein Hund ein Tier.
Ja sicher, das ist er! Hast du noch mehr Fragen?

In the world as we know it ist eine Katze schnell und ist ein Hund ein
Tier.

Here, the adverb/adverbial expression "In the world as we know it"
trigger the inversions, here in both subphrases connected by the
conjunction. Also possible:
In the world as we know it ist eine Katze schnell, und ein Hund ist
ein Tier.

The comma separates the subphrases and limit the impact of the adverb
to the first one.

But a conjunction like "and/und/en" does not have that effect.

Strange case in Dutch: daarom (therefore) and waarom (why) do trigger
inversion, but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-14 13:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Strange case in Dutch: daarom (therefore) and waarom (why) do trigger
inversion, but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
Sorry, want = omdat (because).

Ik zeg dat niet, want het is niet waar.
Ik zeg dat niet, omdat het niet waar is.
Ich sag' das nicht, denn es ist niet wahr.
Ich sag' das niet, weil es niet wahr is. (weil, not *umdas(s)).
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
António Marques
2018-02-15 01:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Hen Hanna
Thank you... still, for me
X ist xx, und Y ist yy.
X ist xx. Und ist Y yy. <-- this feels natural.
No, doesn't feel natural to me at all. It's impossible that way. But
I'm Dutch and Dutch and German works the same in this respect (with
perhaps very rare exceptions).
"Und ist Y yy." would be a question with an omitted question mark.
Post by Hen Hanna
Und ist ein Hund ein Tier.
Ja sicher, das ist er! Hast du noch mehr Fragen?
In the world as we know it ist eine Katze schnell und ist ein Hund ein
Tier.
Here, the adverb/adverbial expression "In the world as we know it"
trigger the inversions, here in both subphrases connected by the
In the world as we know it ist eine Katze schnell, und ein Hund ist
ein Tier.
The comma separates the subphrases and limit the impact of the adverb
to the first one.
But a conjunction like "and/und/en" does not have that effect.
Strange case in Dutch: daarom (therefore) and waarom (why) do trigger
inversion,
Cf
- por isso ela foi lá
so she went there

- por isso foi ela lá
that’s why she went there
more commonly:
por isso é que ela foi lá
Post by Ruud Harmsen
but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
Some contraction with het?
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-15 08:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:56:35 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
Post by António Marques
but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
Some contraction with het?
http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/want3
Word order after "want" was variable in the past. Historic development
difficult to track, because in the oldest attested Dutch the word
order was strongly influenced by Latin, which probably didn't reflect
the living language.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-15 08:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:56:35 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
Post by António Marques
but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
Some contraction with het?
Don't know. Found:

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/want3
==
Os. hwanda ‘want, omdat’ (mnd. wande, wende, want, went); ohd. hwanta
‘id.; waarom’; ofri. hwande, hwende ‘want, omdat’ (nfri. want); < pgm.
*hwande.
Ontwikkeld (met assimilatie van -m- aan de dentaal) uit pie.
*kwom-dhe-, afgeleid van de vragende voornaamwoordstam *kwo-, zie ?
hoe.
==

(os = Old-Saxon, mnd = Middle-Dutch, ohd = Old High German, ofri = Old
Frisian, nfri = Modern Frisian.)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Christian Weisgerber
2018-02-15 15:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Strange case in Dutch: daarom (therefore) and waarom (why) do trigger
inversion, but "want" (same mening as daarom, and 'denn' in German)
does not. The Dutch word has no cognate in German.
German used to have a conjunction "wande" that was replaced by
"denn" late in the 15th century.

The process was complex. Originally there were two competing
particles "wan" and "denn" used in comparative constructions.
Eventually "denn" won out. Since the particle "wan" and the
conjunction "wande" had frequently collapsed in pronunciation,
"denn" proceeded to also displace the conjunction. At least I think
that's what happened, assuming I correctly understood this piece
of academic writing:

Friedrich Roemheld
"Die deutschen Konjunktionen * wande, denn und weil *"
Ph.D. thesis, 1911
https://archive.org/details/diedeutschenkonj00roem

Meanwhile, comparative "denn" has also become obsolete, apart from
some vestigial uses.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-15 17:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:58:41 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
The process was complex. Originally there were two competing
particles "wan" and "denn" used in comparative constructions.
Eventually "denn" won out. Since the particle "wan" and the
conjunction "wande" had frequently collapsed in pronunciation,
"denn" proceeded to also displace the conjunction.
We solved it, I suppose, by lengtening wann to wanneer.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wanneer
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Loading...