Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:18:27 +0200 From: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Spellings Message-ID: <20000410121827.A96662@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> In-Reply-To: <xzpbt3imhwc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@flood.ping.uio.no on Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:20:35AM %2B0200 References: <20000404152346.01398@techunix.technion.ac.il> <20000407233952.A1610@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <8cq06a$1le0$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> <20000410000149.B1241@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <8cr5ic$2ed0$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> <xzpbt3imhwc.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smorgrav: > > English "strike" -> "Streik". > > I very much doubt that "Streik" is a loan word. I'd rather say > "strike" and "Streik" evolved from the same germanic word. You would have to explain - why "Streik, streiken" refer *only* to going on strike. This is a thoroughly 19th century concept. There should at least be residuals of an older meaning. - how the word escaped the High German sound shift, -k- -> -ch-. You could posit a Low German connection, I guess. I'm not sure whether this conflicts with the diphthongization. - in particular why there are apparently 19th century documents that demonstrate an original spelling "Strike" that shifted to "Streik". I don't doubt the Duden etymological dictionary's claim that the word is a 19th century loan. The German cognate of "to strike" is "streichen". -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000410121827.A96662>