# gezellig/silly



## ThomasK

I was surprised to read that etymonline.org considers 'gezellig' and 'silly' related, whereas I had thought 'gezel' had to do with 'zaal', room, German 'Saal'. Now I'll have to consider it linked with 'zalig' (blessed, perfectly happy, etc.) I guess, as this is wat etymonline.org writes: 



> from PIE base _*sel-_ "of good mood, to favor" (cf. Gk. _hilaros_ "merry," O.E. _gesælig_ "happy;" see *silly*).


 
What is correct ?

_(BTW:  I originally searched for the origin of solace, consolation, soelaas in Dutch, but thus arrived at this... )_


----------



## berndf

Ags/OE _gesælig _or_ sælig _is cognate to German _selig_ (long "e") and NOT to _gesellig_ (short "e"). German _gesellig_ is indeed related to _Saal_ and cognate to Dutch _gezellig_. You jumped to conclusions when you identified OE _gesælig _with Dutch _gezellig_.


----------



## ThomasK

I see, thanks.  
_(It seems to be my favorite sport: jumping to conclusions, wishful (and dreadful) thinking, and _te snel door de bocht gaan_... ;-) )_

By the way, Berndf: 
- is there some trace of a word like _zaal/ Saal_ in English? 
- why is there 'ge-' at some point in time, and why does it disappear ?


----------



## se16teddy

The OED gives examples dating from Beowulf to the 15th century of_ sale (Noun No. 1)_ = 
_A hall or spacious chamber; a king's or noble's lodging, palace, castle; occasionally a tent; In Middle English alliterative poetry "in sale" is a frequent tag_.

The OED lists as a separate noun _sale (Noun No. 4)_ = A hall (from French _salle_)! It gives examples from the 17th century. It doesn't explain how it can distinguish this _sale_ from the other. 

The Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names also lists _sele_ as a "dwelling, house, hall" in its _Glossary of some common elements in English place names_, but unfortunately I couldn't find any examples of place names including this element!

Then there are cognates obtained through Romance languages - _salon_ and _saloon _spring to mind.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> - why is there 'ge-' at some point in time, and why does it disappear ?



I believe *ge- *was a prefix used in Old English to indicate a perfective form of a verb (i.e. past participle) then it gradually morphed and was virtually lost completely, but the system still holds in German I think (but I don't know much about German).


----------



## berndf

se16teddy said:


> Then there are cognates obtained through Romance languages - _salon_ and _saloon _spring to mind.


Yes, French _Salon_ is related. It is related to French _salle_ (_=hall_) which is of Franconian origin and obviously cognate to German _Saal_.



Alxmrphi said:


> I believe *ge- *was a prefix used in Old English to indicate a perfective form of a verb (i.e. past participle) then it gradually morphed and was virtually lost completely, but the system still holds in German I think (but I don't know much about German).


That is correct. But the prefix in _gesælig_ seems unmotivated. You find it only in Anglo-Saxon and OE, e.g. in Old Saxon of OHG. I agree with you that the later disappearance of the prefix is probably best explained by the general disappearance of _ge-_ in past participles even though this isn't one.


----------



## se16teddy

Alxmrphi said:


> *ge- *was virtually lost completely,


I suspect that I, and millions of others, still pronounce it regularly when we say, for example _If I hadn't y-been here, .... _


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I suspect that I, and millions of others, still pronounce it regularly when we say, for example _If I hadn't y-been here, .... _


 
Interesting! Can you explain what you mean though?
I thought I was familiar with the Yorkshire dialect but I've not heard this, can you put it into IPA what you're talking about so I can get a better understanding.

Do you think this is something that's been preserved in regional speech although it's been lost from the spelling? (and has been for _ages_) but I recently found out about some (although morphed) uses of thou in regional speech in the midlands, so this doesn't surprise me at all..

But, I'm a tiny  bit sceptical about the _millions_ claim though.


----------



## CapnPrep

Alxmrphi said:


> se16teddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that I, and millions of others, still  pronounce it regularly when we say, for example _If I hadn't y-been  here, .... _
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting! Can you explain what you mean though?
Click to expand...

This is going well off-topic now, but se16teddy gives more details about his hypothesis these two English Only threads:
*had(n't) have + past  participle* (#14)
*a-running ...  prefix a- before verb.* (#22)

So far, though, I haven't seen any strong arguments to back up the idea that _ge-_ survives robustly, but only in this specific irrealis construction.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> So far, though, I haven't seen any strong arguments to back up the idea that _ge-_ survives robustly, but only in this specific irrealis construction.


I agree. Especially not in this case because the ppl. _been_ is of obscure origin. The oldest attested ppl. of _beon-wesan_ is _beon_ in late OE. There are no attested form _*gebeon_ or similar.

If there is really a case we should look for ppl. prefixes in different verbs.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Right, I read both posts, interesting.

I also would probably naturally squeeze in a schwa in the same place, I’m going to deliberately listen out for this in the language I hear around me, I also have a bad habit of using the “If I hadn’t have done”, so I just thought I was one of the millions who are subconsciously rendering this schwa as had, although it’s contradictory to the 3rd conditional protasis format _if I had + <past participle_>.

Maybe the origin of this hypercorrection is the sound that’s inserted in the speech of the people that use it, that generalise it to be analogous with something like _should + schwa_ (should’a) where people are (somewhat) aware that “have” is rendered as just schwa, and then some sort of backformation has been mentally applied to link the schwa in question (prefixed to past participles) is also _have_, thus resulting in the hypercorrection in a form of _If I hadn't have done it_..

I have to say I find this theory pretty interesting, it seems a very possible explanation, I just had no idea it was deep-rooted in the language our ancestors have passed on to us on a spoken level since it dropped out of literary writing.

Very interesting!

[Edit]: I also think that while we're talking about linguistic analogy of forms, even if this form was present in only certain words, it is certainly possible that over-generalisation has again occured, resulting in the insertion of the sound in past participles that don't have an attested form with a ge- prefix, but maybe have been said but never written, as it is only fairly recently that we've been able to study language in this specific way.

But now we're getting into skeptical hypotheses that can't be proven and much of what will be said is outside of any realm that we can ever check so is based soley on hypotheses, which is where I usually like to stop speculating, when I know I might never get to know the true answer


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I agree. Especially not in this case because the  ppl. _been_ is of obscure origin. The oldest attested ppl. of _beon-wesan_  is _beon_ in late OE. There are no attested form _*gebeon_ or  similar.


??? The OED gives _gebéon_ from the 11th and 12th centuries, and forms with prefixed _y-_ or _i-_ up through the 14th century. Anyway, the insertion of schwa between irrealis _had(n't)_ and the past participle is possible with all verbs, not just _been_.



Alxmrphi said:


> Maybe the origin of this hypercorrection is the sound that’s inserted in the speech of the people that use it, that generalise it to be analogous with something like _should + schwa_ (should’a) […]


I think this explanation is _much_ more plausible. And it can certainly be "proven", inasmuch as anything can be in linguistics.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> ??? The OED gives _gebéon_ from the 11th and 12th centuries.


Now you baffle me. Does it give quotes? (I am not able to access the OED where I am now). It is not here and that is what I recall having learned.


----------



## 0m1

I haven't read thoroughly all that has been said, but isn't se16teddy's y-been a derivative of Chaucer's yseyde (y-said), yspared (y-spared, l. 2301 of Merchant's Tale) etc etc? I give such random examples as I open my copy of the Riverside Chaucer at random, and am in a rush, but of this type of initial y- there are countless Middle English examples... and might it be possily preserved in our modern "enough", which in Chaucer was y-nogh? I'm not sure


----------



## Alxmrphi

> and might it be possily preserved in our modern "enough", which in Chaucer was y-nogh? I'm not sure


Quite possibly! But I'm no expert, I know the ge- / y- didn't happen in Scandinavian and the modern (and I presume older) Icelandic word for enough is *nóg*, so it looks like our _enough_ could be a cognate form with the ge- (y-) prefix attached.

But this isn't related to the verbs and I presume it was used for a different purpose, not sure exactly what though. But it'd explain why we have the *-e-* at the front of *enough* that isn't present in Scandinavian (which is also known not to take the ge- / y- prefix.

*Moderator note:
Discussion of enough, its cognates and relatives move to this new thread.*


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Now you baffle me. Does it give quotes? (I am not able to access the OED where I am now).




*a1107* _OE. Chron._ (Laud MS.) an. 1096 He  heafde ᵹebeon  on þes  cynges swicdome
*c1175* _Lamb. Hom._ 159 Wel  longe ich habbe child ibon
*1205* Lay.  8325 Þu  hafuest ibeon ouer-cumen.
*c1230* _Ancr. R._ 316 Ich habbe  ibeon fol.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> *a1107* _OE. Chron._ (Laud MS.) an. 1096 He heafde ᵹebeon on þes cynges swicdome
> *c1175* _Lamb. Hom._ 159 Wel longe ich habbe child ibon
> *1205* Lay. 8325 Þu hafuest ibeon ouer-cumen.
> *c1230* _Ancr. R._ 316 Ich habbe ibeon fol.


Thanks.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Especially not in this case because the ppl. _been_ is of obscure origin. The oldest attested ppl. of _beon-wesan_ is _beon_ in late OE. There are no attested form _*gebeon_ or similar.
> 
> 
> 
> ??? The OED gives _gebéon_ from the 11th and 12th centuries, and forms with prefixed _y-_ or _i-_ up through the 14th century. Anyway, the insertion of schwa between irrealis _had(n't)_ and the past participle is possible with all verbs, not just _been_.
Click to expand...

After unsuccessfully trying to find more OE examples I am still not convinced. The examples in the OED are 12th to 13th and not 11th to 12th century and still look to me like a Middle English innovation and not an original Old English form.
 
You find the ppl. of _beon-wesan_ with or without _ge-_ only very late. It seems to be like in Romance languages where the ppl. of _esse_ didn't exist in Classical Latin but has a VL innovation which became necessary because compound tenses (_J'ai été - I have been_) require a ppl. for every verb.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I hope this isn't too off topic, but is there a relationship between the discussed words and the Swedish *salig* which means "blessed" or "blissful"? 

 robbie


----------



## ThomasK

berndf said:


> Ags/OE _gesælig _or_ sælig _is cognate to German _selig_ (long "e") and NOT to _gesellig_ (short "e"). German _gesellig_ is indeed related to _Saal_ and cognate to Dutch _gezellig_. You jumped to conclusions when you identified OE _gesælig _with Dutch _gezellig_.


 
This is the link, Robbie. That was where I got led astray. Do you have anything like 'gezellig', cosy, comfortable, in Swedish ?


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

A little out of the previous discussion, but you did ask for any traces of the word "saal" in reference to a room in English.  

Here in Northeast United States, we use "sale" (or maybe salle?) to refer to a fencing club/studio, the room in which most of the activities of the fencing takes place.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for the information; seems quite plausible !


----------



## Outsider

It could also be a French import.


----------

