# Verkleinwoorden op -je en -ke



## Joannes

*Split from this thread.*
*Frank*

The *ke* and *je* diminutive systems are mixed in a great part of the Brabantic dialect area. In certain phonetic environments, people would rather choose a *-je* suffix. Typical examples are diminutives of words ending in /n/ preceded by a long vowel, diphtong or shwa (*teentje*, *tuintje* rather than *teeneke*, *tuineke*), or words ending on /t/ preceded by a long vowel or consonant (*zoetje*, *hondje* rather than *zoeteke*, *hondeke*).



HKK said:


> Ok, I put it too generally. But I think if you'd make everyone in Flanders (except maybe in Deep West Flanders) pronounce zoetje, the majority would make it 'zoocha'.


West-Flanders is a bad example here. They would typically pronounce it as a [č], I think. 



HKK said:


> I'd say 'zoeteke' is from another register than 'zoetje'. One person could use both of these words in different contexts.


Register will certainly play a part in the sense that people who would usually pronounce it as *zoeteke* would choose a different pronunciation in certain (non-linguistic) contexts. However, linguistic (phonetic) context plays its part too. The sentence below, in which a *-je* _and_ a *-ke* morpheme are used, could very well be attested.

*Zoetje, zette gij 'ns 'n schijfke-n-op?*



HKK said:


> People of my age in Leuven (Brabant ) would use 'zoetje' rather that 'zoeteke', I think.


Leuven is generally considered to be in the middle of '*ke*-territory'. Are these people from Leuven or _kotstudenten_? Dialect loss and the popularity of _tussentaal_ will play their part too.

Try to go and listen to what people say well out of the city centre and report please. 



Frank06 said:


> I have the impression that the -ke diminutive is still overwhelmingly used over here (Antwerp, so please skip 'Brabantian' in my previous post), despite the growing concurrence of diminutive forms with -je...


 
The *je*-system is definitely winning terrain; I would say it's about 50-50 by now for a word like *zoetje* / *zoeteke*. (By contrast: *mannetje* / *manneke* would be about 20-80, I guess. )



Frank06 said:


> But until your post, I never heard about 'zoetje' in the meaning of a sweetener.


 
Me neither.



Frank06 said:


> I only know such a thing by one of the brandnames.


Hehe, exactly, me too. 



Frank06 said:


> Nevertheless, it would surprise me if 'zoetje', as a way to call a beloved one, would have been inspired by Candarel .


 
With those romantic Dutch, you never know.  (_van uw paard_, I'm just kidding )


----------



## HKK

Joannes said:


> West-Flanders is a bad example here. They would typically pronounce it as a [č], I think.


What I meant to say: I can't say anything about our western province 



Joannes said:


> Register will certainly play a part in the sense that people who would usually pronounce it as *zoeteke* would choose a different pronunciation in certain (non-linguistic) contexts. However, linguistic (phonetic) context plays its part too. The sentence below, in which a *-je* _and_ a *-ke* morpheme are used, could very well be attested.
> 
> *Zoetje, zette gij 'ns 'n schijfke-n-op?*


 That's about how I'd say it. Except 'ns -> is/ies and 'n -> e
*Zoetje, zet gij is e schijfken op?*



Joannes said:


> Leuven is generally considered to be in the middle of '*ke*-territory'. Are these people from Leuven or _kotstudenten_? Dialect loss and the popularity of _tussentaal_ will play their part too.
> 
> Try to go and listen to what people say well out of the city centre and report please.


I have several pure blooded Leuvenish friends and contacts But we don't speak the way older Leuvens people speak. Maybe they'd go for 'zoeteke', but that sound old fashioned to me. We speak in a kind of youth dialect/accent which is common from west of Brussels to east of Leuven and on which I will be glad to report in another thread


----------



## Joannes

HKK said:


> That's about how I'd say it. Except 'ns -> is/ies and 'n -> e
> *Zoetje, zet gij is e schijfken op?*


Ja, dat was wat <'ns> moest voorstellen  -- ik ging daar voor een etymologische spelling eerder dan een fonologische. Ik zeg ook [is] en ik gok dat weinigen dat anders zouden zeggen in de Brabantse dialecten.

De variatie *'n* [ën] - *e* [ë] als Brabants onbepaald lidwoord voor onzijdige substantieven in bepaalde fonetische contexten is een gekende. (Ik zeg de eerste.)

Enfin, voor alle duidelijkheid nog eens fonetisch :
['zučë zεtë'gε:jizë(n)'sxεfkënup]

Met ë = ə, als je die laatste kan zien, want ik krijg enkel een dom vierkantje. (Het zou een sjwa moeten zijn. )


----------



## HKK

Another thing: I think the -ke diminutive is a short form for -ken, as in Manneken Pis. Is that correct, or might -ken be hypercorrective (because you don't say the -n)? Also, is -je the original form or is it an eroded form too?


----------



## Joannes

The Dutch diminutive suffix used to be *-kîn* (in Middle Dutch *-ken* was getting common but I think the morpheme was still mostly spelled *-kijn*).
Je weet, of je weet niet maar dan weet je het nu , dat onze <ij> vroeger een lange /i/ voorstelde, en daarin verschilde van woorden met <ei> die /εı/ werden uitgesproken. Nu zijn ze beide samengevallen in (Standaardnederlands) /εı/. (Eigenlijk was de Middelnederlandse spelling dus een beetje als de Arabische waar men ook een ي gebruikt om een lange kasra aan te duiden. )

(Totaal off-topic maar wel leuk om weten: De meeste mensen weten dat <ae> in vooral persoonsnamen een archaïsche spelling is voor een lange /a/ en die wordt dan ook zo uitgesproken, maar een lange /o/ werd ook geregeld als <oe> geschreven destijds. Die wordt nu vaak orthografisch als /u/ uitgesproken. Een assymmetrie die geregeld vreemde woorden oplevert. )

So, yes, *-ke* is a clipped form. Whether the /n/ in ['zučë zεtë'gε:jizë(n)'sxεfkë*n*up] should be analysed as an 'underlying' phoneme, or rather as a linking consonant, I don't know; I'm not too good with that stuff. 

I have no idea what form grammaticalised into *-kîn*. I would like to know it though. 

I remember having read that the *-je* suffix probably derives from *-ken*. It would have developed from instances with *-tken* in which the /tk/ cluster resulted in [č] and eventually in [j].

The same article claimed that we can see the same evolution happening at different times in different dialects. Indeed, in West-Flanders practically all nouns get a [čë] diminutive suffix, and dialects that preserved *-ke(n)* don't allow their suffix creating /tk/ clusters; a shwa is inserted: e.g. *maateke* (compare to German *Brötchen *where /k/ has become a fricative /x/). (Still, in Brabantic dialects a final /t/ _is_ often a trigger to opt for a *-je* diminutive (always pronounced as [čë]).)


----------



## Lopes

Joannes said:


> The Dutch diminutive suffix used to be *-kîn* (in Middle Dutch *-ken* was getting common but I think the morpheme was still mostly spelled *-kijn*).



Betekent dit dat een 'harlekijn' (het enige woord dat ik kan bedenken dat op -kijn eindigt) een 'kleine harle' is?


----------



## Frank06

Hoi,


Lopes said:


> Betekent dit dat een 'harlekijn' (het enige woord dat ik kan bedenken dat op -kijn eindigt) een 'kleine harle' is?


Gisteren flitsten de woorden 'harlekijn' (Fr. arlequin) en 'mannequin' door mijn hoofd.

Blijkbaar heeft 'harlekijn' heel wat grenzen overgestoken: 
Nederlands harlekijn < Fr. (h)arlequin < It. arlecchino < Fr. harlequin (de oudste Franse vormen: Hellequin, Herlequin, Hierlekin) < ?Germaanse taal?
Het Oud Engels heeft 'helle cyn' en het Oud Hoog Duits 'hella kunni', een samenstelling van 'hel' + *'kunne*', geslacht van de hel, letterlijk 'hellegebroed', duivelsgebroed dus.

In tegenstelling tot harle*kijn* (arle*quin*) vewijst 'manne*quin*' wél naar een (Nederlands) verkleinwoord, namelijk 'manne*ken*, manne*kijn*'. 
Ik denk dat dit een van de betere _deals_ is: we geven de Fransen een houten pop en we krijgen dit en dit terug. Dit doet Geppetto ons niet na!*

We hebben nog de woorden 'baldakijn' en 'palankijn', maar geen van beide hebben iets te maken met het suffix -kijn, -ken.

Baldakijn < Fr. baldaquin < It. baldacchino, waarbij Baldac de oude middeleeuws naam voor Bagdad is (!), oorspronkelijk verwijst het naar een fijne stof uit Bagdad).
palankijn < Sp. palanquín < Port. palanquim < Teloegoe pallaki < Maleis pelangking < Oud Indisch palyanka (rustbed)

Groetjes,

Frank

PS Voor de volledigheid even zeggen dat in het moderne Frans 'mannequin' ook kan verwijzen naar een pop/model.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


HKK said:


> Another thing: I think the -ke diminutive is a short form for -ken, as in Manneken Pis. Is that correct, or might -ken be hypercorrective (because you don't say the -n)?


Joannes already answered this one. I just want to ad some extra information.
The suffix '-ki:n' must have had some sort of secundary stress for a long time. Otherwise it couldn't have diphthonguized to '-kijn'. 

The apocope of -n is also a problem:
Some think that the stress must have become weaker and weaker, which might explain -ken (with shwa) < -ke.
But that is a bit counterspoken by dialects in which -en _is_ pronounced, except in the case of the diminutive -ken, which is produced as -ke.
Also, even in the oldest Middle Dutch texts (from various regions), we already can read -kin, -ken, and -ke.



Joannes said:


> I have no idea what form grammaticalised into *-kîn*. I would like to know it though.


If I understand Schönfeld well, then -ki:n should be analysed as 
1. PGm morpheme *-k- and morpheme *i:n
2. *-i:n with an intrusive consonant -k -
3. A merger of 1 and 2

*-i:n (<PIE *-i:n) was used to refer to (a) names of materials (stofnamen, see 'baldacchino' in previous mail) and (b) young animals. 
What Dutch is concerned, we still have 'kuiken' and veulen'. But even 'varken' and 'zwijn' originally referred to a _young_ animals.
*-k- is more problematic: it was used as a diminutive in names (vleinamen), but also as a pejorative (vuilic > vuilak; viezik > viezerik).

[A similar analysis can be made for -lijn, that other old diminutive suffix.
*-l- (descent, diminutive), to be found back in Lat. Romulus, filiolus, Got. Attila, D. eikel, stengel, korrel,...
* -i:n: see above]



HKK said:


> Also, is -je the original form or is it an eroded form too?


Again Joannes replied to this. I just want to ad some extra information.
There are some transitional forms, and luckily for us, words which appear with different suffixes, even though they were written in the same place and the period.
- tgin, -tgen: ketel*tgin*, Foytgen (but also Foykijn).
- tiaen: both Elletiaen and Ellekijn; both Tydetiaen and Tydetgin
and Ponstghen (hypercorrect), for Pontiaen (also written as Ponskiaen)
- iaen (jaen) (North Holland)
- kiaen (South Holland)

Groetekijns,

Frank


----------



## Joannes

Frank06 said:


> If I understand Schönfeld well, then -ki:n should be analysed as
> 1. PGm morpheme *-k- and morpheme *i:n
> 2. *-i:n with an intrusive consonant -k -
> 3. A merger of 1 and 2
> 
> *-i:n (<PIE *-i:n) was used to refer to (a) names of materials (stofnamen, see 'baldacchino' in previous mail) and (b) young animals.
> What Dutch is concerned, we still have 'kuiken' and veulen'. But even 'varken' and 'zwijn' originally referred to a _young_ animals.
> *-k- is more problematic: it was used as a diminutive in names (vleinamen), but also as a pejorative (vuilic > vuilak; viezik > viezerik).
> 
> [A similar analysis can be made for -lijn, that other old diminutive suffix.
> *-l- (descent, diminutive), to be found back in Lat. Romulus, filiolus, Got. Attila, D. eikel, stengel, korrel,...
> * -i:n: see above]


 
Interessant. Mercikes!


----------



## ablativ

Joannes said:


> However, linguistic (phonetic) context plays its part too. The sentence below, in which a *-je* _and_ a *-ke* morpheme are used, could very well be attested.
> 
> *Zoetje, zette gij 'ns 'n schijfke-n-op?*


 

The same phenomenon can be encountered when the diminutive suffix *-ie* is used: *huissie *(huisje), *apie *(aapje), *koppie *(kopje), etc.

Even though in "*heb je*" (=inversion of je hebt), the *je *has nothing to do with a diminutive suffix, it is sometimes used as if it were one:

*Hebbie *(heb je) dat gehoord?

Since the 'oe'-sound is very short (when there is no 'r' following) like in *bloem* for instance, the diminutive ending can be *-pje *or *-etje*:

*Bloempje *(ABN) vs. *bloemetje *(not quite correct - as far as I know)

abl.


----------

