# All Nordic languages: Etymology of bli/blive



## ad31677

Hello everyone!

My apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum for this post.  As a regular reader of German and Swedish and a dabbler in Old English and Icelandic, I was wondering if anyone might know about this.  (I have tried to find this out on line in other places but have reached limits inflicted by either my own ignorance and lack of available material)  

So, how is that in modern Swedish, Norwegian and Danish the verb to become (bli/blive) is not like the form in German (werden), Icelandic/Old Norse (verða), Old English (weorþan), which have clear phonetic similarity.

I was trying to find resources on Fornsvenska to see if I could find cognates with the verbs I know but haven't found anything obvious.

Best wishes,
Aidan Dixon


----------



## Dan2

bli/blive has to be related to German "bleiben", right? Both the latter and Norwegian "bli" can mean "remain".


----------



## Dan2

ad31677 said:


> So, how is that in modern Swedish, Norwegian and Danish the verb to become (bli/blive) is not like the form in German (werden), Icelandic/Old Norse (verða), Old English (weorþan), which have clear phonetic similarity.


I think a more general answer to your question is simply that not every word is cognate to its equivalent in related languages: English "child" vs German "Kind" vs Scand. "barn"; French "manger" vs Spanish "comer".  Words drop out of languages or acquire new meanings.


----------



## CapnPrep

And the more specific answer is that the Common Germanic origin is _*bilî__ƀ__an < bi-_ + _*lî__ƀ__an_ "to remain, to be left". Cognates: Goth. _beleiban_, OHG. _bilîban_, MHG. _bilîben_, _blîben_,  OS. _biliƀian_,  OFris. _bilîva_, _blîva_, mod.G. _bleiben_, MDu. _*belîven_,  _blîven_, Du. _blijven_, OE. _bi-_, _belífan_. In English, the only remaining member of this group is the unprefixed causative verb _leave_ (the same root is also found in _live_, _life_). [source: OED, s.v. †_be'live_, _bilive_, _blive_,  v.; _leave_, v.; _live_, v.]

As for Scandinavian, here is a relevant quote from the EWN (s.v. _blijven_): "In de 14e en 15e eeuw hebben de Noord-Germaanse  talen _bliven_ overgenomen uit het Middelnederduits. Het  ontwikkelde er zich in de betekenis ‘worden’ achtereenvolgens tot  koppelwerkwoord en tot hulpwerkwoord van de lijdende vorm." (I.e. Scandinavian borrowed _bliven_ "become" from Middle Low German in the 14th and 15th centuries, and it later developed into the passive auxiliary.)

If you want more details, you can ask for this thread to moved to EHL.


----------



## ad31677

Dan2 said:


> I think a more general answer to your question is simply that not every word is cognate to its equivalent in related languages: English "child" vs German "Kind" vs Scand. "barn"; French "manger" vs Spanish "comer".  Words drop out of languages or acquire new meanings.



Indeed!  I was wondering what the specific evolution was in this case and couldn't find anything.

Off-topic for anyone who cares: the Scandivian "barn" (child) survives in my local Dialect and in the Scots dialect in the word "bairn" with the same meaning.  I suspect many of you knew that anyway.

Thanks for answering.
-a.


----------



## ad31677

CapnPrep said:


> And the more specific answer is that the Common Germanic origin is _*bilî__ƀ__an < bi-_ + _*lî__ƀ__an_ "to remain, to be left". Cognates: Goth. _beleiban_, OHG. _bilîban_, MHG. _bilîben_, _blîben_,  OS. _biliƀian_,  OFris. _bilîva_, _blîva_, mod.G. _bleiben_, MDu. _*belîven_,  _blîven_, Du. _blijven_, OE. _bi-_, _belífan_. In English, the only remaining member of this group is the unprefixed causative verb _leave_ (the same root is also found in _live_, _life_). [source: OED, s.v. †_be'live_, _bilive_, _blive_,  v.; _leave_, v.; _live_, v.]
> 
> As for Scandinavian, here is a relevant quote from the EWN (s.v. _blijven_): "In de 14e en 15e eeuw hebben de Noord-Germaanse  talen _bliven_ overgenomen uit het Middelnederduits. Het  ontwikkelde er zich in de betekenis ‘worden’ achtereenvolgens tot  koppelwerkwoord en tot hulpwerkwoord van de lijdende vorm." (I.e. Scandinavian borrowed _bliven_ "become" from Middle Low German in the 14th and 15th centuries, and it later developed into the passive auxiliary.)
> 
> If you want more details, you can ask for this thread to moved to EHL.



Thank you very much for answering and for the references!
-a.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

ad31677 said:


> Off-topic for anyone who cares: the Scandivian "barn" (child) survives in my local Dialect and in the Scots dialect in the word "bairn" with the same meaning.  I suspect many of you knew that anyway.


I did, definitely. It's a classic case of Scandinavian influence from the Danelaw period. There are many more like that. There are also a huge amount of Old Norse place names scattered throughout North England and Scotland. The Danish Vikings predominantly are to blame (NE England), but to some extent also the Norwegians (Scotland, Ireland and NW England).


----------



## basslop

Interesting thread.

Btw, a follow-up question to Wilma_Sweden’s post: After speaking with British people it seems that they in general have quite good knowledge of the origin of the English words. Here in Norway we don’t. Do you learn this in primary school in UK – and how about USA and other English speaking countries?


----------



## Dan2

basslop said:


> After speaking with British people it seems that they in general have quite good knowledge of the origin of the English words. Here in Norway we don’t. Do you learn this in primary school in UK – and how about USA and other English speaking countries?


Do you mean English words in general?  I am certain that not one American in ten could say what the difference is between these words:
man, hand, moon, water, another, old, freedom
and these:
people, important, very, united, use, public, liberty.
(The answer I have in mind of course is Germanic vs. Romance.)
I'd be very impressed if the situation is different in the UK.

Americans _do_ tend to know the origin of _names_ from the major countries that have sent immigrants to the US.  Most could probably identify MacDonald, Santucci, Garcia, Obermeyer, Chang, and Yamamoto. Larsen, Kolstad? Maybe not.


----------



## ad31677

basslop said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Btw, a follow-up question to Wilma_Sweden’s post: After speaking with British people it seems that they in general have quite good knowledge of the origin of the English words. Here in Norway we don’t. Do you learn this in primary school in UK – and how about USA and other English speaking countries?



Well, I'd have to say no - we don't (generally) learn this in school - primary or  later years.  I guess it is touched upon but not to any useful depth.  (I should say I went to a reasonable quality Roman Catholic comprehensive school.)  I never felt in all my years that English language  teaching was adequate, especially in terms of grammar:  I learned far more about English language and grammar just by reading and by studying other languages (French and German at school, Swedish and Icelandic later of my own volition).  A teacher of French at my school would bemoan this discrepancy, saying that to teach us French at all meant first to teach us English properly.

As such, I'd concur sadly with Dan2's comment (about not 1 in 10 Americans knowing the romance/teutonic origins of his selection of words) and confirm the situation is very likely not greatly different in the UK.

Enough ranting from me.

Maybe basslop you had the luck to meet more educated folks who take an interest in such things.

Best regards
Aidan


----------



## basslop

ad31677 said:


> ......
> 
> Maybe basslop you had the luck to meet more educated folks who take an interest in such things.
> 
> Best regards
> Aidan



When thinking about it, you're probably right.


----------

