Sveiks, Miku!

(Not to disrupt the fascinating financial thread with a condiment…)

It’s also synapi in Latgallian, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s also a Slavic localism.

According to Karulis (II:184), the Latvian sinepes (variants siņepe, sinape, sinupe, siņupe, arch. sineps) is a loan word from Gothic or Middle Dutch sennep (not from Middle Low German—whence most of our Germanic loans—because that would give us a “z,” as with ziepes). Mustard appears in Latvian surnames in the 16th C, so we borrowed the word a while back.

I don’t get the grand theory you seem to be building, though. Yes, Lithuanian had more Slavic influence (not only from Polish but from Ruthenian, which was the principal administrative language of the Grand Duchy)—but Latvian had more Germanic influence. Both Latvian and Lithuanian were subject to “purification” from the 19th C (quite a while before what you call the “1st independence language ‘cleansing’”). Latvian “purification” was primarily intended to reduce the German influence, not the (minimal) Russian influence.

Loan words not rarely reflect a linguistic group’s earliest acquaintance with what’s named. Hence baznīca—the Latgallians first encountered Christianity through the Orthodox Church. Pagasts—the place a Russian princeling and his administrators would reside when collecting taxes (the Latvian novads is also related to nodevas). We change loan words, too, of course—birojs/ofiss, kompjūters/dators. Russians borrow the English word for “computer”—we did, too, until linguists told us not to; how do datori fit into a mustard theory?

...Latvians were mistakingly associated with Slavics because of her closeness to Lithuanians… Who associates Latvians with “Slavics,” and in what sense? As to political closeness—some of the proto-Latvian state-like formations paid tribute to the Princes of Novgorod, which is a political tie; trading with the East was significant even in prehistoric times. Eastern Latvia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from its inception until 1772; after that it was part of the Polotsk, Pskov and Vitebsk gubernii; one would be hard pressed to show that Latgallia had less Slavic influence than Lithuania.

As the joke goes: “Latvian is bad Lithuanian spoken with an Estonian accent.” If you try to analyze the cocktail that is Latvia—and many nations are cocktails, primordialist fantasies aside—it is quite difficult to say which ingredients matter most. Nationalisms tend to define themselves against an other—the Vadonis was still struggling against the Germans in 1940, scraping away surnames and toponyms reminiscent of feudalism whilst the Germans were “repatriated” (sent to occupied Poland, in actuality). English rather than Russian or German was the primary foreign language taught in the schools. And yet, even with almost no Germans left, the Germans’ imprint on our culture remains deep and indelible. Often indirectly, or without the German content; as molds—our fraternities, for example, are essentially Latvian copies of German Burschenschaften.

As to the Slavic and Baltic—is it oil and water? Lithuania may have experienced the deepest Slavic influence historically—but today’s Latvians are far more influenced by Russian culture than they are. Many more Latvians read Russian books than Lithuanians do, for example. How does one measure the Polish influence on Lithuania? The Jewish influence?

Vysu lobu,
/P

PC states: Latvian “purification” was primarily intended to reduce the German influence, not the (minimal) Russian influence.

Ah, with your admittance that it “was primarily intended to reduce the German influence”; I have no disagreement with that. But now you are claiming that “cleansing” was with Germanic terms only? (Okay, you are covering yourself with “the (minimal) Russian influence”—-Despite that you are now going against most of what you had claimed via old posts! Regardless, are you now saying that “sinepe” had no Russian nor German connection?)

PC then asks: “Who associates Latvians with ‘Slavics,’ and in what sense?” Again another past contradiction of yours?

Mikus E.

P.S. PC offers yet another senseless skirmish with his: “It’s also synapi in Latgallian, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s also a Slavic localism.” Hmmm, is that anywhere near to “Gorczyca” or the “mustard” variations?

Well I am at least glad you admit as well to: “Lithuanian has more Slavic influenc”?

Despite that you are now going against most of what you had claimed via old posts!

Sorry, but you’ll have to be specific—I don’t know what you’re talking about, which is why I asked “in what sense” with regard to somebody supposedly associating “Latvians with ‘Slavics’”; since that was a question, I can’t see how it could contradict anything I’ve written in the past. Lithuanian had more Slavic influence, past tense—the literary language introduced by Jablonskis purged it of Slavic elements. Lithuanians use knyga, not grāmata—but grāmata also comes through Old East Slavic.

Lexical influence is not as important as grammatical influence—and it matters least in loan words like garstyčios or sinepes; what’s the difference between a birojs and an ofiss, really? I mention Latgallian not to start a senseless skirmish—which activity seems to be your métier—but because Latgallian subdialects and openness to foreign influence often mean that there are radically different choices in vocabulary. Is it skūla or škola, for example? Latgallians bicker, with some calling the latter “Russian” (it’s doubtless older, as in the Polish szkola). The word for “school” is a loan word in any case, in Latvian also—it comes from Middle Low German and/or Middle Dutch.

Regardless, are you now saying that “sinepe” had no Russian nor German connection? I was quite specific—I said that according to Karulis (II:184), the loan word comes from Middle Dutch or Gothic. Most Germanic loan words in Latvian come from Middle Low German. They were borrowed before Germany existed as such—to be precise, the people who conquered what is now Latvia (there being no Latvians or Latvia then, either) were Saxons, not Germans. Some of these loan words even predate the conquest. I cannot tell you whether the first mustard got here in a Dutch ship or not, obviously, or whether the word was taken from a Frisian. With schools—that’s rather clearer.

Vysu lobu,
/P

“Sinepes” is originated from the Latin word “sinapis.”
“Skola” came from the Greek word “schole”, which the Romans transcribed as “schola” or “scola.”

Your “lingvistic” discussion is definitely off base!!!

No it is not off base. Not only origins matter—how the word enters Latvian matters. Filozofija, which some Latvian philosophers would like to see written filosofija to more properly reflect the Greek meaning, comes to us through German, for instance (hence the “z”). Most loan words didn’t enter Latvian directly—many English and French words entered by a back door even recently, for example through Russian.

Vysu lobu,
/P

A few words about the “ch” pronouciation.  The Greek letter X is pronounced as the guttural KH.  A lot of confusion among Latvians was caused by the Romans, who transliterated the Greek X as CH, which got confused with the German"ch” in words borrowed from the Greek, such as technika, mechānika, schema.  Soviet Latvian linguist Aina Blinkena,to please the Russians, confused it with the Russian X, which is pronounced as “h.” If the Latvians really wanted to simplify the spelling of Greek words, the CH should be replaced by K.  We already pronounce the Greek word “schola” as skola, not hola, “chymia” as ķīmija, not himija, “chirurgia” as ķirurģija, not hirurgia.  Why not go the whole way, and spell “technika” as teknika, “mechanika” as mekānika”, “schema” as skēma.” “H” sound is not in the Latvian language (or any other Baltic language), and it would follow the original Greek pronounciation more closely.

I’ve never encountered anyone who pronounces the former “ch” as “h,” though, even though such words are now written with only the “h”—the “h” in “tehnika” is hard when said (the lost “ŗ,” on the other hand, is rarely palatalized now, whether written with the diacritic or not).

Vysu lobu,
/P

As a little boy in the 50’s, mustard plaster was something quite popular in our household.  I recall my Riga grandmother calling it “sinaps….” something.  Reading this thread I just assumed it was one of her many germanisms for common foodstuffs and other household items that would befuddle Russian Russians whenever I used them in their presence.

But just to make sure I looked this up in my modern Russian dictionaries and found nothing other than gorczyca or gorczycnik.  Then I dug out Volume 4 of my trusty Vladimir Dahl (St. Petersburg/Moscow, 1882) and there it was: sinapism—textile coated with mustard, applied to the body.

Alas, no etymological footnotes attached.  But the usage clearly extended beyond Baltic Russians.

ak

AK, I would put more trust in the Bible and less in your “Volume 4 of my trusty Vladimir Dahl (St. Petersburg/Moscow, 1882)”. If it “clearly extended beyond Baltic Russians”, why then your accompanied note of the missing “future” presence in current Russian dictionaries? (Not that it really matters to USSR nor to “new” Russia, but Dahl’s father was a Danish physician named Johan Christian Dahl, and his mother was of German and Russian descent. Hmmm, another true “Russian”?)
...But other sources state that 1863-66 was the original publishing date. You must have the second or third edition?—-I wonder just how much the first edition is worth these days?

Mikus E.

P.S. The most telling aspect comes from a summary: “The encompassing nature of this dictionary gives it critical linguistic importance even today, especially because a large proportion of the dialectal vocabulary he collected has since passed out of use.” Perhaps Dahl got “confused” or was extremely hopeful that Latvians could eventually become a “lost” Russian tribe?
But AK, you are aware USSR had an army of linguistics whose sole purpose was to continue in the ways of Vladimir Dahl. (—-And as for groups that were later thought they could never remotely be swayed, was it not then forced, physical isolation from the “others”?)