(no subject)

Date: 2012-06-01 09:32 am (UTC)
gerald_duck: (Oh really?)
From: [personal profile] gerald_duck
From the Biblical perspective, surely the English language doesn't exist yet?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-06-01 09:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lethargic-man.livejournal.com
Well, true, but I was assuming the word צִפּוֹר would be less accessible to readers of this blog...

(no subject)

Date: 2012-06-01 09:48 am (UTC)
gerald_duck: (babel)
From: [personal profile] gerald_duck
Mmm. But whereas various English words like "nice" and "naughty" have drifted considerably in meaning over the centuries, in this case it might simply be that "צִפּוֹר" doesn't translate exactly as "bird"?

Though I admit I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that "bird" had also included bats at some point in the history of the English language…

(no subject)

Date: 2012-06-01 03:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.com
The OED says that in English bats "were formerly classed as birds" and gives the quotation from 1340, "Bringen her a nihte-bird . a bakke . or an oule."

In Old English a bat was a hreaðemūs — "The first element may represent the stem of Old English hrēran to move, to shake, to agitate". Later this became rearmouse or reremouse, which survived in some rural dialects and in heraldry.

The word bakke comes from a Scandinavian language (perhaps Danish) and first appears in the 14th century; this became bat by the late 16th century.
Edited Date: 2012-06-01 04:03 pm (UTC)

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags