jerryfriedman wrote:

> I think of "loanshark" as the correct spelling, and what is
> Google Ngrams' opinion against mine?

Did you try an Ngram ("loan-shark,loanshark")? It's quite interesting.
The word appears from 1900 and it has three dominating peaks around
1916, 1940 and 1965 (roughly). The hyphened word took over in 1970 and
peaked in 1980 and yielded again in 2000, but the two spellings are
roughly equal today.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Peter Moylan wrote:

> In my experience the English "It's all Greek to me" rarely refers to
> utterances. It's more about a field of knowledge. For example, "I don't
> understand string theory. It's all Greek to me."

Danes might say: "It is a town in Russia" with the same meaning.

> This might also be true for the expressions cited in other languages. I
> don't know.

The words "volapyk" and "kaudervælsk" are used about utterances, but the
use has spilt over into other regions like your example.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>
>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to comprehend.
>>>>
>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>> 3- Greek }
>>>> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
>>>
>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>
>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>
>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>
> Yes, same root for all.
> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>
>> The Walloons do
>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>
> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
> Dutchman: We don't, you do!

Nice. I must remember that.

It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
*Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
*Chinawoman.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2),  where
>>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
>>>>> comprehend.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>>> 3- Greek   }
>>>>> 4- Dutch   }   -> Chinese
>>>>
>>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>>
>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>>
>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>>
>> Yes, same root for all.
>> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>>
>>> The Walloons do
>>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>>
>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>
> Nice. I must remember that.
>
> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> *Chinawoman.
>

East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a person.

--
Phil B

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>> Dutchman: We don't, you do!
>
> Nice. I must remember that.
>
> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> logic?

It's different in Danish. The names for the people are:

englænder, waliser, skotte, irer, franskmand, hollænder and nordmand.

> Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> *Chinawoman.

"Kinamand" has to me negative associations, but we use it in an idiom to
express something that is impossible (translated):

He doesn't have the chance of a Chinaman to ...

I don't know why.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2),  where
>>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
>>>>> comprehend.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>>> 3- Greek   }
>>>>> 4- Dutch   }   -> Chinese
>>>>
>>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>>
>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>>
>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>>
>> Yes, same root for all.
>> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>>
>>> The Walloons do
>>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>>
>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>
> Nice. I must remember that.
>
> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> *Chinawoman.
>

Also Manxman; and ISTR that the Irish version of the Irish joke features
a Kerryman.

--
Phil B

Ross Clark hat am 13.04.2024 um 02:01 geschrieben:
> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to - German
> phrasebook which is part of a series called Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer
> (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at first the term was being used for
> pidgins etc., but all the other titles in the series seem to be for
> proper languages (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).

They are. "Kauderwelsch" refers to the way a German is likely to speak
those languages after learning the limited expressions and relatively
few words explained in those booklets. Still much better than nothing,
though.

Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> On 13/04/2024 2:09 a.m., J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> >> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
> >> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to comprehend.
> >>
> >> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
> >> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
> >> 3- Greek }
> >> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
> >
> > Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
> > based on the existence of the book:
> > Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
> > <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
> > (sense and nonsense about China)
> > It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
> >
> > Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
> > From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
> > the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
> > (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
> > It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
> >
> > Best translated into English as 'gibberish', or 'gobbledygook',
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >> 5- Estonian}
> >> 6- Romanian -> Turkish
> >>
> >> Please feel free to add to the list.
> >
> > (subtracted from)
> >
>
> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to - German
> phrasebook which is part of a series called Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer
> (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at first the term was being used for
> pidgins etc., but all the other titles in the series seem to be for
> proper languages (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).

I see. It is an enormous series.
Some of the volumes in the seies are for slang variants,
like 'British Slang – das andere Englisch'

Jan

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/04/24 07:55, wugi wrote:
> > Op 12/04/2024 om 10:21 schreef occam:
> >> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
> >> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
> >> comprehend.
> >>
> >> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
> >> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
> >> 3- Greek }
> >> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
> >> 5- Estonian}
> >> 6- Romanian -> Turkish
> >>
> >> Please feel free to add to the list.
> >
> > And is the usage the same, whether hearing utterances in (supposedly
> > or knowingly) one's own language (and its dialects), or in a (known
> > or unknown) foreign language?
>
> In my experience the English "It's all Greek to me" rarely refers to
> utterances. It's more about a field of knowledge. For example, "I don't
> understand string theory. It's all Greek to me."
>
> This might also be true for the expressions cited in other languages. I
> don't know.

Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this,
(lit: I understand not a iota of it,
so, I don't understand even the smallest part)
with the obvious biblical reference,

Jan

On 13/04/24 20:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to - German
>> phrasebook which is part of a series called Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer
>> (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at first the term was being used for
>> pidgins etc., but all the other titles in the series seem to be for
>> proper languages (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).
>
> I see. It is an enormous series.
> Some of the volumes in the seies are for slang variants,
> like 'British Slang – das andere Englisch'

Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I came
across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words, giving me
an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre" that weren't
covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I managed to use the terms
"papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I hadn't learnt in class.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I came
> across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words, giving me
> an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre" that weren't
> covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I managed to use the terms
> "papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I hadn't learnt in class.
>

Nobody learns these words in class .-)

--
Michèle

On 13/04/2024 12:21, Phil wrote:
<snip>
>>
>
> Also Manxman; and ISTR that the Irish version of the Irish joke features
> a Kerryman.
>

Are Irishmen from County Cork referred to as 'Corkers' ?

On 2024-04-12, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 13/04/24 07:55, wugi wrote:
>> Op 12/04/2024 om 10:21 schreef occam:
>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
>>> comprehend.
>>>
>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>> 3- Greek }
>>> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
>>> 5- Estonian}
>>> 6- Romanian -> Turkish
>>>
>>> Please feel free to add to the list.
>>
>> And is the usage the same, whether hearing utterances in (supposedly
>> or knowingly) one's own language (and its dialects), or in a (known
>> or unknown) foreign language?
>
> In my experience the English "It's all Greek to me" rarely refers to
> utterances. It's more about a field of knowledge. For example, "I don't
> understand string theory. It's all Greek to me."
>
> This might also be true for the expressions cited in other languages. I
> don't know.

I'm pretty sure that's the same for "c'est de l'hébreu" in French.

--
Indentation is for enemy skulls, not code!
---Klingon Programmer's Guide

On 2024-04-13, jerryfriedman wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> ..
>
>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>
>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
> ..
>
> Yep. Another one is "walnut", not native to Britain.

Even the "English walnut", which has the more accurate synonym
"Persian walnut".

--
One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and
'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice
drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure'
quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. ---George Orwell

On 2024-04-13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>> Dutchman: We don't, you do!
>>
>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>
>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>> logic?
>
> It's different in Danish. The names for the people are:
>
> englænder, waliser, skotte, irer, franskmand, hollænder and nordmand.
>
>> Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>> *Chinawoman.
>
> "Kinamand" has to me negative associations, but we use it in an idiom to
> express something that is impossible (translated):
>
> He doesn't have the chance of a Chinaman to ...
>
> I don't know why.

The BrE expression is "doesn't have a Chinaman's chance". I also don't
know why.

--
One hundred million years old
Transcendent creature
No bones about it
Hot bottom feeder

On 2024-04-13 10:21:48 +0000, Phil said:

> On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>
>>>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2),  where
>>>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to comprehend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>>>> 3- Greek   }
>>>>>> 4- Dutch   }   -> Chinese
>>>>>
>>>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>>>
>>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>>>
>>> Yes, same root for all.
>>> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>>>
>>>> The Walloons do
>>>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>>>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>>>
>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>>
>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>
>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>> *Chinawoman.
>>
>
> Also Manxman;

Yes. Good one.

> and ISTR that the Irish version of the Irish joke features a Kerryman.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-13 13:17:24 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 13/04/24 20:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to - German
>>> phrasebook which is part of a series called Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer
>>> (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at first the term was being used for
>>> pidgins etc., but all the other titles in the series seem to be for
>>> proper languages (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).
>>
>> I see. It is an enormous series.
>> Some of the volumes in the seies are for slang variants,
>> like 'British Slang – das andere Englisch'
>
> Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I came
> across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words, giving me
> an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre" that weren't
> covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I managed to use the terms
> "papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I hadn't learnt in class.

And you doubtless learned that "baiser" doesn't mean what you were
taught at school.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-13 14:36:42 +0000, Adam Funk said:

> On 2024-04-13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>>> Dutchman: We don't, you do!
>>>
>>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>>
>>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>>> logic?
>>
>> It's different in Danish. The names for the people are:
>>
>> englænder, waliser, skotte, irer, franskmand, hollænder and nordmand.
>>
>>> Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>>> *Chinawoman.
>>
>> "Kinamand" has to me negative associations, but we use it in an idiom to
>> express something that is impossible (translated):
>>
>> He doesn't have the chance of a Chinaman to ...
>>
>> I don't know why.
>
> The BrE expression is "doesn't have a Chinaman's chance". I also don't
> know why.

I've never been a cricket enthusiast, but I have the idea that chinaman
is still acceptable in a cricketing context.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <1qryb8a.16duo7tpbyamwN%nospam@de-
ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...

>
> Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this,
> (lit: I understand not a iota of it,
> so, I don't understand even the smallest part)
> with the obvious biblical reference,

Now you've made me wonder about a jot/iota link.

Jot; even less than a tiny amount.

Janet

Janet wrote:

> In article <1qryb8a.16duo7tpbyamwN%nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...

>>
>> Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this,
>> (lit: I understand not a iota of it,
>> so, I don't understand even the smallest part)
>> with the obvious biblical reference,

> Now you've made me wonder about a jot/iota link.

> Jot; even less than a tiny amount.

Your wonder is correct.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=jot

--
Jerry Friedman

In article
<17f30c20f386b314427f4e96daaca53e@www.novabbs.com>,
jerry.friedman99@gmail.com says...
>
> Janet wrote:
>
> > In article <1qryb8a.16duo7tpbyamwN%nospam@de-
> > ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
>
> >>
> >> Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this,
> >> (lit: I understand not a iota of it,
> >> so, I don't understand even the smallest part)
> >> with the obvious biblical reference,
>
> > Now you've made me wonder about a jot/iota link.
>
> > Jot; even less than a tiny amount.
>
> Your wonder is correct.
>
> https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=jot

Thanks very much, that is very satisfying.

Janet

On 13-Apr-24 10:49, Phil wrote:
> On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>
>>>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2),  where
>>>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
>>>>>> comprehend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>>>> 3- Greek   }
>>>>>> 4- Dutch   }   -> Chinese
>>>>>
>>>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>>>
>>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>>>
>>> Yes, same root for all.
>>> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>>>
>>>> The Walloons do
>>>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>>>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>>>
>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>>
>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>
>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>> *Chinawoman.
>>
>
> East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a person.
>
It also deviates from the usual 'ships are female' convention.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 13-Apr-24 15:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-13 14:36:42 +0000, Adam Funk said:
>
>> On 2024-04-13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>>>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>>>>
>>>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>>>
>>>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>>>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>>>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>>>> logic?
>>>
>>> It's different in Danish. The names for the people are:
>>>
>>>     englænder, waliser, skotte, irer, franskmand, hollænder and
>>> nordmand.
>>>
>>>> Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>>>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>>>> *Chinawoman.
>>>
>>> "Kinamand" has to me negative associations, but we use it in an idiom to
>>> express something that is impossible (translated):
>>>
>>>     He doesn't have the chance of a Chinaman to ...
>>>
>>> I don't know why.
>>
>> The BrE expression is "doesn't have a Chinaman's chance". I also don't
>> know why.
>
> I've never been a cricket enthusiast, but I have the idea that chinaman
> is still acceptable in a cricketing context.

I believe it's not common, but there will always be some who take the
"It's PC gone mad!" line[1].

[1] I can't imagine traditionally minded cricketers having any truck
with "Woke".

--
Sam Plusnet

Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> In article <1qryb8a.16duo7tpbyamwN%nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl>, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
>
> >
> > Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this,
> > (lit: I understand not a iota of it,
> > so, I don't understand even the smallest part)
> > with the obvious biblical reference,
>
> Now you've made me wonder about a jot/iota link.
>
> Jot; even less than a tiny amount.

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled." (King James)

Jan

Michèle <bondmyrtille@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I came
> > across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words, giving me
> > an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre" that weren't
> > covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I managed to use the terms
> > "papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I hadn't learnt in class.
> >
>
> Nobody learns these words in class .-)

There wouldn't be a need for that, eh?
(for French kiddies)

Jan