Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Words for chin and cheek?

Expand Messages
  • David
    English cheek sort of includes part of the face that could be considered jaw. The dubious origin of EN cheek means yes it could be related to the NL and SV
    Message 1 of 74 , Feb 3, 2010
      English "cheek" sort of includes part of the face that could be considered jaw. The dubious origin of EN cheek means yes it could be related to the NL and SV word if the reconstruction is *kæk-

      An interesting evolution in the germlangs is the words for beacon. It looks like it's from PG *bækn-, cf NL baak, baken, DE Bake, DA båke, SV båk, RU бакен / baken.
      But most of the continental words are from Old Frisian bâcen originally. Old Saxon had bokan and Old High German bouhhan, along with Old English béaken and the normal reconstruction is *bauknan

      And it's for a conlang, so the standards of certainty for etymology shouldn't really have to be quite so high as a doctoral thesis.

      Assuming that cheek/kaak/käke are related, I'd say the *kak would make a valid word for at least part of the jaw. It might not be the only word for jaw or the entire jaw. The chin is a part of the lower jaw. Maybe *kak is an upper jaw only or only the lateral parts of the lower jaw (the bits that aren't chin).

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "adam.skoog" <adam.skoog@...> wrote:
      >
      > Swedish käke means jaw. It's my native tongue, so I would know. The meaning I've heard for the Dutch word is similar.
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:
      > >
      > > David wrote:
      > >
      > > EN cheek doesn't seem to mean exactly the same as NL kaak or SV käke.
      > > And is probably not related etymologically. Etymonline says Old English
      > > céake is from WG *kaukon which could not produce NL kaak or SV käke.
      > > (unless they were both borrowed from Old Frisian)
      > > _____________________________________________________________________________
      > >
      > > Whether it is related etymologically is debated.  However, both primitive Germanic *kaukôn and primitive Germanic *kæ:kôn would show up as <céace> in West Saxon and as <céce> in Anglian, which are exactly the forms that are found.  The controversy is mainly due to the fact that the spelling <ceoke> occurs once in late West Saxon, and this sole form seems to agree with Frisian forms (tsiake, etc.) which suggest an original *keukôn, and therefore a form *kaukôn could exist by ablaut variation.  My personal opinion is that since the normal forms in West Saxon and Anglian agree fully with Dutch <kaak> phonologically, and often mean "jaw, jawbone" as in Dutch, beside "cheek", then the English word "cheek" is probably fully cognate with the Dutch word and its Swedish correspondent.
      > >
      > > Andrew
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • Stephan Schneider
      Both are correct. Stephan ________________________________ Von: Andrew Jarrette An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: Donnerstag, den
      Message 74 of 74 , Feb 11, 2010
        Both are correct.

        Stephan



        ________________________________
        Von: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
        An: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Februar 2010, 3:05:20 Uhr
        Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [folkspraak] Re: Words for chin and cheek?


        Thanks. Does one say rather "er traf mich am Schenkel", or is "er traf meinen Schenkel" correct?

        Andrew

        --- On Wed, 2/10/10, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@yahoo. de> wrote:

        From: Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@yahoo. de>
        Subject: AW: AW: [folkspraak] Re: Words for chin and cheek?
        To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
        Received: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 10:11 AM



        Hello Andrew, for me "Schenkel" is the thigh, not the shank. For instance, the two arms of an angle in geometry are "Schenkel" in German, too. Another nice word with "Schenkel" is "Schenkelklopfer" , i. e. a joke that makes you hit your thigh with your hand. (It is used often ironically, saying that something was intended to be very funny, whereas the joke was rather dull.)

        Stephan

        ____________ _________ _________ __

        Von: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@ yahoo. ca>

        An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. Februar 2010, 2:17:39 Uhr

        Betreff: Re: AW: [folkspraak] Re: Words for chin and cheek?

        Hej, Stephan,

        Concerning what we were talking about earlier ('Bein' vs. 'Knochen' etc.), I have developed a question: if someone were to say to you, "er traf meinen Schenkel", would you understand 'Schenkel' as the person's thigh or the person's shank? My dictionary says 'Schenkel' can mean either and that 'Oberschenkel' and 'Unterschenkel' can be used to specify the sense. But alone what does 'Schenkel' normally refer to, the shank or the thigh?

        --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@yahoo. de> wrote:

        From: Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@yahoo. de>

        Subject: AW: [folkspraak] Re: Words for chin and cheek?

        To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        Received: Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 6:39 AM

        We've got some activity lately, haven't we? :)

        You're right with "ritter". But it does have a suffix already. That's why it cannot receive another one in the plural form. If it were "ritt" (a "ride"), then it's plural form is "ritte". So any plural form in German has a suffix, if added or not. Therefore I don't see why you consider not having a plural suffix in FS.

        Stephan

        ____________ _________ _________ __

        Von: David <parked@woosh. co.nz>

        An: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        Gesendet: Dienstag, den 9. Februar 2010, 12:02:32 Uhr

        Betreff: [folkspraak] Re: Words for chin and cheek?

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Stephan Schneider <stefichjo@. ..> wrote:

        >

        > I don't understand, german plurals always have a suffix (sometimes the singular form has it, too). Why do you consider not having a plural suffix?

        >

        >

        Hi Stephan, I'm try to keep track of your replies, while writing my own musings. And get off to bed.

        I assume that above is in response to my Leichtdeutsch ideas? What about all those German words that end in -er in the singular? Don't they have the same form in the plural? Just the words that have to agree with them change. eg Der Ritter. Die Ritter. In the dative plural they add -n, but otherwise... .

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

        Do You Yahoo!?

        Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.

        http://mail. yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

        Do You Yahoo!?

        Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.

        http://mail. yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.