Two nations divided by a common language?

[Camino Chrissy]

Yet another English - American word difference I for one have a plastic bowl in my sink, however we Americans call them basins.

Not me in Illinois. I call it a plastic bowl or a dish pan...never heard anyone say basin in my neck of the woods.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

And that's change that's happened in only 50 years. Multiply that by roughly 700 years.

Roughly 35,000 square years or 35 square millennia?

What did Shakespeare's plays sound like in his day? Here is a stab at it.

 

[Chris Gi]

I suppose the differences in English in former colonies compared to the homeland isn't so strange - perhaps it is strange that the divergence isn't more.

So .. idly thinking here. 14th Century Geoffery Chaucer, of Canterbury Tales fame. The first person to write published works in the English language. Two children of his grew up and had children. All three generations spoke English to each other without any problems, from grandparents to grandchildren - stay with me here ... those children had children ... down the centuries there were always three, sometimes four, generations, from children to grandparents, even great grandparents, who all spoke clear understandable English to each other, without any known suspicion of change, alteration, or problem.
So - from Chaucer to now is perhaps 26 to 30 generations, all the generations speaking and writing clear and understandable English to each other - so, I ask myself, how on earth did it happen that if Chaucer and I were in the same room today we would be totally unable to speak to each other, each of us would have what appears to be a completely foreign language??? .. just wondering, as you do ....

It is indeed a puzzlement

 

[Camino Chrissy]

It is indeed a puzzlement

Amen!

 

[Chris Gi]

Not me in Illinois. I call it a plastic bowl or a dish pan...never heard anyone say basin in my neck of the woods.

Basins are what I cook Christmas puddings in!

 

[David Tallan]

I suppose the differences in English in former colonies compared to the homeland isn't so strange - perhaps it is strange that the divergence isn't more.

So .. idly thinking here. 14th Century Geoffery Chaucer, of Canterbury Tales fame. The first person to write published works in the English language. Two children of his grew up and had children. All three generations spoke English to each other without any problems, from grandparents to grandchildren - stay with me here ... those children had children ... down the centuries there were always three, sometimes four, generations, from children to grandparents, even great grandparents, who all spoke clear understandable English to each other, without any known suspicion of change, alteration, or problem.
So - from Chaucer to now is perhaps 26 to 30 generations, all the generations speaking and writing clear and understandable English to each other - so, I ask myself, how on earth did it happen that if Chaucer and I were in the same room today we would be totally unable to speak to each other, each of us would have what appears to be a completely foreign language??? .. just wondering, as you do ....

I remember being taught in university classes that you could walk from village to village across Europe and the people in every village would be able to understand the dialects spoken in the neighboring villages. The dialect of French spoken by a village bordering Germany would be so close to the dialect of German spoken in a village bordering France that they would be completely mutually intelligible. I'm not sure if that is still the case, what with the effects of mass communications and common education standardizing languages and moving them away from local dialects, but it was certainly once seen to be the case. If an unbroken line from French to German is possible, an unbroken line from Middle English to Modern English seems easy by comparison.

That said, it is worth noting that there were fewer generations between the earliest Beowulf manuscript and the Canterbury Tales than between the Canterbury Tales and the present.* Yet the English of Chaucer is much closer to ours than it is to the English of Beowulf. Shakespeare would have a much easier time understanding us (despite all of the changes) than he would understanding his countrymen from before the Norman Conquest. And presumably then, too, parents could understand their children and visa versa (at least as far as language is concerned, barring temporary teen jargon).

* That's assuming 400 years between Beowulf and Chaucer and 600 years between Chaucer and the present. Now, some say that Beowulf was written hundreds of years before the earliest manuscript we have. In that case, the same point remains if you substitute another work from around 1000, say the poem The Battle of Maldon, which was certainly not written before 991.

 

[Kathor1]

I remember being taught in university classes that you could walk from village to village across Europe and the people in every village would be able to understand the dialects spoken in the neighboring villages. The dialect of French spoken by a village bordering Germany would be so close to the dialect of German spoken in a village bordering France that they would be completely mutually intelligible.

I think the concept you are looking for is Dialect continuum. Worth looking at the corresponding French or Spanish Wikipedia article as it has different graphics to illustrate the article.

 

[David Tallan]

I think the concept you are looking for is Dialect continuum. Worth looking at the corresponding French or Spanish Wikipedia article as it has different graphics to illustrate the article.

Interesting that the graphics in the French and Spanish articles correspond much more closely to modern political borders. It is certainly what was being talked about in the classes I took, although my memory of the classes 30 years ago was that the line was not presented as so firm between the different language groups in the border areas.

 

[Pelegrin]

In the Spanish/Portuguese border there is only dialect continuum in Galicia and in a very small area of Extremadura.

 

[jsalt]

The classic public french urinal is called a "Pissoir" You also get them in the UK.

I don’t doubt you (well, maybe a teeny weeny bit ), but please be kind enough to give an example of a “pissoir” in the UK (wondering if I’ve stumbled into the Not A Serious Thread by accident . . . . )

 

[Bradypus]

I don’t doubt you (well, maybe a teeny weeny bit ), but please be kind enough to give an example of a “pissoir” in the UK (wondering if I’ve stumbled into the Not A Serious Thread by accident . . . . )

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/526850856379259536/

 

[jsalt]

Ha ha, is that the only one?

 

[Bradypus]

Ha ha, is that the only one?

Nope But there are nowhere near as many as there used to be.

street_urinals

Odd coincidence - I walked past the Sydney Harbour Bridge one only a few weeks ago. Having just made use of a more modern facility I didn't investigate the interior.

 

[sunwanderer]

It's linguistic drift

And then there is Weird Al doing his best to keep everything well anchored: Word Crimes

 

[jsalt]

Nope But there are nowhere near as many as there used to be.

street_urinals

Love it, thank you!

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

It's linguistic drift

And then there is Weird Al doing his best to keep everything well anchored: Word Crimes

More word crimes are found in the amusing book on punctuation that I finally got around to reading last week, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. It has a bit about the difference between British and American punctuation styles.

The title comes from this joke: http://mentalfloss.com/article/14628/punctuating-panda

 

[JabbaPapa]

I remember being taught in university classes that you could walk from village to village across Europe and the people in every village would be able to understand the dialects spoken in the neighboring villages.

That's still often the case in Southern Italy, with the exception of some villages where they speak Greek dialects, and there are some semi-French semi-Italian dialects in the villages along the Alpine border between the two countries.

 

[trecile]

It's linguistic drift

And then there is Weird Al doing his best to keep everything well anchored: Word Crimes

I loved that. Weird Al is awesome!

 

[VNwalking]

Weird Al is awesome!

Haha! I thought all grammarians were pedants.
Obviously not!
(But I disagree and will indulge in a little pedantic opinion. The Oxford comma stays. Sorry. )

 

[C clearly]

(But I disagree and will indulge in a little pedantic opinion. The Oxford comma stays. Sorry.

When it removes ambiguity or is needed for a pause, yes. But otherwise.... pedantry, like many commas, is optional.

 

[Marcus-UK]

Ha ha, is that the only one?

This one is attached to a Pub in Harborne on the high street. In my student days I used to go to concerts at the Pub and use this facility on the way back to my digs.
In the UK it is a serious criminal offence to urinate in a public place. UK Councils have closed most of the original public toilets or replaced them with "Superloos". So the old pissoir was very handy.

 

[nycwalking]

In case no one has mentioned it.

Pudding is a dessert.

It is Not a generic term for dessert.

 

[dougfitz]

In case no one has mentioned it.

Pudding is a dessert.

It is Not a generic term for dessert.

Really!!! Where I come from it absolutely is a generic term for dessert. I don't ever recall using the word 'dessert' in my childhood, whereas 'what's for pudding' was used regularly.

 

[nycwalking]

Really!!! Where I come from it absolutely is a generic term for dessert. I don't ever recall using the word 'dessert' in my childhood, whereas 'what's for pudding' was used regularly.

Are you from the states?

 

[Marcus-UK]

In case no one has mentioned it.

Pudding is a dessert.

It is Not a generic term for dessert.

Not quite true there are savoury puddings. eg steak and kidney pudding (not pie) and Ham and Leek suet pudding.
The language usage has changed from the 18th Century where "puddings" savoury and sweet desert were placed in floured muslin or ceramic pudding basins in boiling water and steamed for a few hours.
In my household after finishing Dinner (mid day meal) or Supper (evening main meal) the cry of "whats for pudding mum?" usually results in any form of after dinner desert.

 

[Marbe2]

Most of the time when I get to a a place on a camino...and sometimes elsewhere....that has a choice of gender designated bathrooms, I do not worry about signage.....I go to the one without a line...no time to wait....

 

[Deleted member 397]

Generally, as others have said,pudding in many Anglo households means "afters"..dessert. just to muddy the waters..it is widely known that the great fire of London started in Pudding lane. Pudding was a very old term for the intestines and offal of animals . These would often slop over the carts taking them to the Thames..hence Pudding Lane

 

[Deleted member 397]

Most of the time when I get to a a place on a camino...and sometimes elsewhere....that has a choice of gender designated bathrooms, I go to the one without a line...no time to wait....

That would always be the mens!

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

I remember some Spanish pilgrims expressing some confusion over the word supper. I suspect that supper/dinner may be a regional or class usage issue more than a national one. Dictionaries seem to make the definition of dinner to be the main meal and it could be the mid-day (especially in the old farming days) and supper a lighter, evening meal if dinner was around noon.

When I was a kid dinner and supper was the same thing and called both but almost always called supper. We were unusual for having it fairly early, about 5:00, with a snack, usually toast later in the evening.

And this brings up tea, the British late afternoon or early evening light fare taken with the drink. Did that cause confusion on the camino?

 

[Marcus-UK]

I remember some Spanish pilgrims expressing some confusion over the word supper. I suspect that supper/dinner may be a regional or class usage issue more than a national one. Dictionaries seem to make the definition of dinner to be the main meal and it could be the mid-day (especially in the old farming days) and supper a lighter, evening meal if dinner was around noon.

When I was a kid dinner and supper was the same thing and called both but almost always called supper. We were unusual for having it fairly early, about 5:00, with a snack, usually toast later in the evening.

And this brings up tea, the British late afternoon or early evening light fare taken with the drink. Did that cause confusion on the camino?

There is a UK North/South divide concerning the name of the mid day meal. In the North especially in working class homes it is called "Dinner" in the South it is called "Lunch" and sometimes referred to as Luncheon.
In my grandparents time in the North of England they classed the meals as:
1) First breakfast - Tea with a slice of bread and scrape (dripping) before going out and seeing to the farm animals.
2) Family Breakfast larger meal with family. It could be quite elaborate porridge, fry up, black pudding, sausages, bacon, eggs, kippers, kedgeree etc.
3) Dinner - Not necessarily a large meal
4) Tea - a meal with Children returning from school in the late afternoon.
5) Supper - evening main meal for the adults. Children usually sent to bed by now.
This sort of meal regime was fine for someone burning 4,000 Calories doing hard manual labour over a 12 to 14 hour day.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Pudding is a dessert.

It is Not a generic term for dessert.

English pudding and French boudin (black pudding) are exactly the same word.

Boudin noir is hardly a "dessert" !!!

 

[JabbaPapa]

I remember some Spanish pilgrims expressing some confusion over the word supper. I suspect that supper/dinner may be a regional or class usage issue more than a national one.

From French souper, originally meaning just "a meal" ...

The word "supper" is used rarely, but still properly, to mean any meal at all -- so one's breakfast can be referred to as a supper.

 

[David Tallan]

English pudding and French boudin (black pudding) are exactly the same word.

Boudin noir is hardly a "dessert" !!!

I really don't think they are the same word.

Generally words have two components: a phonetic component (the sounds) and a semantic component (the meaning). If you have the same sounds but different meanings, it isn't the same word - it's a homonym. If you have the same meaning but different sounds, it still isn't the same word - it's a synonym. In this case you have neither the same sound nor the same meaning. And, in fact, you have completely different languages. That hardly results in exactly the same word.

What you may have is a common etymology. However, etymology is hardly the same thing as meaning. If it were, we'd be paying doctor's and lawyer's fees in cattle all the time.

Or, another way to look at it is that they may be cognates - words in different languages with the same linguistic derivation. However, I would be very embarrassed to say that cognates essentially have the same meaning, especially to someone travelling in Spain (see English "embarrased" vs. Spanish "embarazada")

 

[C clearly]

Pudding is a dessert.
It is Not a generic term for dessert.

Yes, it is a generic term for dessert in some regions - "for pudding we can have ice cream or cake." My English sister-in-law uses it that way, but I never would.

 

[Marcus-UK]

From French souper, originally meaning just "a meal" ...

The word "supper" is used rarely, but still properly, to mean any meal at all -- so one's breakfast can be referred to as a supper.

When you sup with the devil you need a long spoon! In use since at least the 14th Century!

 

[nycwalking]

I really don't think they are the same word.

Generally words have two components: a phonetic component (the sounds) and a semantic component (the meaning). If you have the same sounds but different meanings, it isn't the same word - it's a homonym. If you have the same meaning but different sounds, it still isn't the same word - it's a synonym. In this case you have neither the same sound nor the same meaning. And, in fact, you have completely different languages. That hardly results in exactly the same word.

What you may have is a common etymology. However, etymology is hardly the same thing as meaning. If it were, we'd be paying doctor's and lawyer's fees in cattle all the time.

Or, another way to look at it is that they may be cognates - words in different languages with the same linguistic derivation. However, I would be very embarrassed to say that cognates essentially have the same meaning, especially to someone travelling in Spain (see English "embarrased" vs. Spanish "embarazada")

Traveling during late stage pregnancy could prove embarrassing.

 

[JabbaPapa]

I really don't think they are the same word.

Generally words have two components: a phonetic component (the sounds) and a semantic component (the meaning). If you have the same sounds but different meanings, it isn't the same word - it's a homonym. If you have the same meaning but different sounds, it still isn't the same word - it's a synonym. In this case you have neither the same sound nor the same meaning. And, in fact, you have completely different languages. That hardly results in exactly the same word.

What you may have is a common etymology. However, etymology is hardly the same thing as meaning. If it were, we'd be paying doctor's and lawyer's fees in cattle all the time.

Or, another way to look at it is that they may be cognates - words in different languages with the same linguistic derivation. However, I would be very embarrassed to say that cognates essentially have the same meaning, especially to someone travelling in Spain (see English "embarrased" vs. Spanish "embarazada")

Sorry, but in this case, the French boudin and English pudding are both fundamentally French variants, the one official modern French, the other a phonetically variated Anglo-Norman.

A note in the OED 2nd Edition, 2009, has :

Note. ME. poding, mod. pudding, and F. †bodin, boudin, have so many points in common that, but for the difficulties of form, they would at once be identified as the same word. They both appear first in the 13th century, had at first exactly the same sense (still retained in Sc.), and agree to a great extent in their transferred uses. Even the difference of form is not insuperable; p for Fr. or L. b occurs also in purse, L. bursa, F. bourse, and the existence of Eng. words in pud- (see below) might by a species of folk-etymology facilitate the substitution here; final -in might be identified with Eng. -ing; the interchange of -ing and -in is actually seen in the later puddin, pudden. The identity of the words, though highly probable, cannot however be held to be proved, and the matter is rendered more uncertain by the absence of any certain derivation of the Fr. Word.

Take note that the primary meaning of pudding in English, whilst now used rather little in the standard forms of the language, is :

I. 1.I.1 a.I.1.a The stomach or one of the entrails of a pig, sheep, or other animal, stuffed with a mixture of minced meat, suet, oatmeal, seasoning, etc., boiled and kept till needed; a kind of sausage: for different varieties, see black, hog's, white pudding. Now chiefly Sc. and dial. (ibid.)

(and sorry, but I don't really need the generalities that you wrote of explained to me)

BTW the French for pudding when it refers to the English cake called so is .... pudding.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

In case no one has mentioned it.

Pudding is a dessert.

It is Not a generic term for dessert.

True, NYC! In America at least it is.

 

[Camino Chrissy]

English pudding and French boudin (black pudding) are exactly the same word.

Boudin noir is hardly a "dessert" !!!

Black pudding is blood sausage. I've had it in Ireland and England for breakfast. Definately not a pudding dessert. .

 

[nycwalking]

Black pudding is blood sausage. I've had it in Ireland and England for breakfast. Definately not a pudding dessert. .

I’m gobsmacked!

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I’m gobsmacked!

Oh, you're good, your good! I didn't "catch" a double meaning when I wrote it.
I really like it alot...same as I like you!

 

[David Tallan]

Sorry, but in this case, the French boudin and English pudding are both fundamentally French variants, the one official modern French, the other a phonetically variated Anglo-Norman.

A note in the OED 2nd Edition, 2009, has :

Note. ME. poding, mod. pudding, and F. †bodin, boudin, have so many points in common that, but for the difficulties of form, they would at once be identified as the same word. They both appear first in the 13th century, had at first exactly the same sense (still retained in Sc.), and agree to a great extent in their transferred uses. Even the difference of form is not insuperable; p for Fr. or L. b occurs also in purse, L. bursa, F. bourse, and the existence of Eng. words in pud- (see below) might by a species of folk-etymology facilitate the substitution here; final -in might be identified with Eng. -ing; the interchange of -ing and -in is actually seen in the later puddin, pudden. The identity of the words, though highly probable, cannot however be held to be proved, and the matter is rendered more uncertain by the absence of any certain derivation of the Fr. Word.

Take note that the primary meaning of pudding in English, whilst now used rather little in the standard forms of the language, is :

I. 1.I.1 a.I.1.a The stomach or one of the entrails of a pig, sheep, or other animal, stuffed with a mixture of minced meat, suet, oatmeal, seasoning, etc., boiled and kept till needed; a kind of sausage: for different varieties, see black, hog's, white pudding. Now chiefly Sc. and dial. (ibid.)

(and sorry, but I don't really need the generalities that you wrote of explained to me)

BTW the French for pudding when it refers to the English cake called so is .... pudding.

Of course, I don't disagree with anything that the OED has to say. I will note, however, that the OED is an etymological dictionary with a strong focus on the history of words. In keeping with that, it orders its definitions chronologically rather than by usage. It also includes any word used in English after 1100, so includes many obsolete words and senses. It is a dictionary of historical English rather than Modern English. For them, the "primary" meaning is the earliest meaning, not the most common or typical usage as other dictionaries would have it. The note that you provide is focused, as expected, on the etymology of the word from Middle English. As you say, "the other a phonetically variated Anglo-Norman". None of us are speaking Anglo-Norman.

But if you don't need the generalities explained to you, I am unclear why you seem to be saying that etymologies and obsolete meanings should be used for modern words.

The Anglo-Norman word is not the same as the Modern English word (whether or not they are grouped together in a dictionary). Earlier words in the chain of etymology are not the same as the current word. Hence the word "fee" not meaning "cattle" (from Old English "feoh", livestock, cattle) and our not paying doctors and lawyers with cows. "Pudding" as entrails is not the primary meaning in Modern English.

Were you to say that these were once the same word, I would have no objections. It is when I read that they are still the same word, apparently ignoring centuries of evolution, that I object.

 

[alexwalker]

I would be inclined to think that the first Europeans to establish a settlement in northern America were vikings from Scandinavia.

Norway, to be specific. Leiv Eriksson was the name of the leader. Although he's said to be Icelandic, it's not correct. Long story.

Leif Erikson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JabbaPapa]

None of us are speaking Anglo-Norman.

hmmmm, maybe you've never visited the Channel Islands ...

Of course, I don't disagree with anything that the OED has to say.

Except that you then go on to do so.

I will note, however, that the OED is an etymological dictionary

That is not true, an actual etymological dictionary looks very different to the OED. It is a dictionary of the whole modern language, and so of English as it is used and has been used from about the 17th Century into the present. It is NOT a dictionary of either Old English nor Middle English, even though both are of course referred to in the text of its definitions, in the examples particularly. Some given examples are a lot older than 1100 BTW ...

it orders its definitions chronologically rather than by usage.

Again, not true -- the definitions are ordered semantically ; so that when the ordinary usage is a derived meaning, the definition that it is derived from is listed before. But where possible, OED puts the standard definition first ; in any case as high up in the list of definitions as is possible within that semantic structure. Well, the 2nd Edition does anyway ...

(ad partem, the Oxford dictionary I've found best for looking up quick & easy good definitions solely of modern usage is the Oxford Student's Dictionary, which was written with foreign students learning English via ESL or EFL in mind but also studying other subjects in English and so needing a good, but simple vocabulary list -- it goes nowhere near the degree of excruciating detail that the full OED is capable of, and that the shorter versions are sometimes "guilty" of too)

It also includes any word used in English after 1100

erm, again no ... it is NOT a dictionary of Middle English

It is a dictionary of historical English rather than Modern English.

Nope -- hmmmm, maybe I should stop disagreeing with every sentence individually ?

But if you don't need the generalities explained to you, I am unclear why you seem to be saying that etymologies and obsolete meanings should be used for modern words.

I'm not sure if you looked properly at the "Dial. and Sc." mention in the OED primary definition of pudding, but these indicate that it is not an "etymological" or "obsolete" one (which are designated by etym. and obs. respectively), but that it is in current modern usage in dialects of the language and in Scots English. That original definition is also still in use in the standard English black pudding, white pudding, etc.

As for why to use archaisms more generally ? Well, mainly for fun, of course !!!

More to the the point of the disagreement, and no I don't need the generalities explained, and I strongly doubt that you do either, but as to the case in point of boudin/pudding, it's actually a fairly well-known probable exception to the general rules, probably because the word came into being at a time when the original French/English bilingualism was still common in some parts of England (and France !!), so that some vocabulary ended up in both languages simultaneously.

One of those "exceptions that prove the rule" if you like, or if you prefer it's one of those fringe examples that helps towards a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the theories and generalities.

 

[David Tallan]

...
Again, not true -- the definitions are ordered semantically ; so that when the ordinary usage is a derived meaning, the definition that it is derived from is listed before. But where possible, OED puts the standard definition first ; in any case as high up in the list of definitions as is possible within that semantic structure. Well, the 2nd Edition does anyway ...
...
erm, again no ... it is NOT a dictionary of Middle English
...

I'm not sure if you looked properly at the "Dial. and Sc." mention in the OED primary definition of pudding, but these indicate that it is not an "etymological" or "obsolete" one (which are designated by etym. and obs. respectively), but that it is in current modern usage in dialects of the language and in Scots English. That original definition is also still in use in the standard English black pudding, white pudding, etc.

...
One of those "exceptions that prove the rule" if you like, or if you prefer it's one of those fringe examples that helps towards a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the theories and generalities.

You are quite right that it is not an etymological dictionary. I misspoke. It is a historical dictionary.

As a historical dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary explains words by showing their development rather than merely their present-day usages.[6] Therefore, it shows definitions in the order that the sense of the word began being used, including word meanings which are no longer used.

The footnote in the Wikipedia article above points to the OED's own site where it says "The OED is a historical dictionary and very different from dictionaries of current English where the focus is on present-day meanings."

As to the ordering of the entries, I quote the OED itself "The sense section consists of one or more definitions, each with its paragraph of illustrative quotations, arranged chronologically."

I never said that it was a dictionary of Middle English. I said that the scope was to include all words in usage after 1100. I once again misspoke from memory. I should have written 1150. According to the OED itself "The Oxford English Dictionary is the most comprehensive dictionary of the English language. It traces the development of English from the earliest records , and formally from 1150 AD, up to the present day."

And, of course, I shouldn't mention that when we say that exceptions "prove" the rule, we are using an obsolete sense for the word "prove", as in "test the rule" rather than "demonstrate that the rule is correct".

And I certainly don't object to using archaisms! And understanding the origin and evolution of words is of deep interest to me (which is why, when an undergrad, I took all of the courses in the history of English that the English or Linguistics departments of my university offered). It is just also important to me to understand that the history of the word is not necessarily its current state because words evolve.

 

[JabbaPapa]

As to the ordering of the entries, I quote the OED itself "The sense section consists of one or more definitions, each with its paragraph of illustrative quotations, arranged chronologically."

erm, it's the examples for each definition that are arranged chronologically, not the definitions themselves.

And, of course, I shouldn't mention that when we say that exceptions "prove" the rule, we are using an obsolete sense for the word "prove", as in "test the rule" rather than "demonstrate that the rule is correct".

Obviously ... (except it's not "obsolete", case in point)

Pacem ...