Moderator:Forum Administrators
Wait, so juerga isn't just the Andalusian pronunciation of huelga? Are these two words a doublet in Spain? (We don't use juerga at all in El Salvador.) Why are you surprised they come from the same Latin word?loqu wrote:sa wulfs wrote:loqu wrote:Yes, that always striked me, because we Western Andalusians pronounce the 'h' that comes from a Latin 'f' the same way we pronounce the 'j', but that one is accepted in Standard Spanish as 'j'. Must be the only word in that case.
What about juerga alongside huelga, ultimately from follicāre?
Wow, do they really come from the same Latin word? This is even more interesting, since juerga also has that Andalusian l/r neutralization.
Querubín wrote:Wait, so juerga isn't just the Andalusian pronunciation of huelga? Are these two words a doublet in Spain? (We don't use juerga at all in El Salvador.) Why are you surprised they come from the same Latin word?loqu wrote:sa wulfs wrote:loqu wrote:Yes, that always striked me, because we Western Andalusians pronounce the 'h' that comes from a Latin 'f' the same way we pronounce the 'j', but that one is accepted in Standard Spanish as 'j'. Must be the only word in that case.
What about juerga alongside huelga, ultimately from follicāre?
Wow, do they really come from the same Latin word? This is even more interesting, since juerga also has that Andalusian l/r neutralization.
mōdgethanc wrote:I always found this one to be interesting:
[flag=]ar[/flag] قتل qatala "kill"
[flag=]he[/flag] קָטַל qāṭal "kill"
The Hebrew word has an emphatic /t/ while the Arabic doesn't, and there is no phonological reason why this would be so.
Aisling wrote:[flag=]tr[/flag] karpuz - watermelon
[flag=]el[/flag] καρπούζι - watermelon
Isn't that one accepted definition of "cognate"?Johanna wrote:Aisling wrote:[flag=]tr[/flag] karpuz - watermelon
[flag=]el[/flag] καρπούζι - watermelon
Those aren't cognates, one language simply borrowed the word from the other.
linguoboy wrote:Isn't that one accepted definition of "cognate"?
It depends very much on context. When it comes to comparative work (and "cognate" is most often used in comparative contexts), what you care most about are inherited cognates, since these are what yield proof of genetic relationships. But in discussions of, say, mutual intelligibility, a cognate is a cognate regardless of how it got that way. After all, the average speaker has no way of distinguishing borrowings from inherited vocabulary (and, in fact, frequently focuses on the former in discussions of how "close" two languages are). I think the notes to the Wikipedia article for cognate make this point quite well.Johanna wrote:linguoboy wrote:Isn't that one accepted definition of "cognate"?
Is it? I haven't heard anyone talking about loan words as cognates before, not when one of the languages involved is the source anyway, then it's simply been 'loan'. But you know these things better than me
Johanna wrote:I see. Thanks for the explanation and checking the OP
linguoboy wrote:I would not have assumed the Hungarian was borrowed from the German. I'm used to seeing impermissible initial clusters broken up with a prothetic vowel, as in Ibero- or Gallo-Romance (e.g. Strang > istrang).
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests