Tag Archives: British History

Etymology Undusted: Old Norse Borrowings

As we’ve seen over the past few blogs, English is quite a magpie language, snabbling any loose vocabulary it comes across. 

What is known as the Viking Age began in Britain with the raid on the coastal community of Lindisfarne in AD 793. It eventually went from raiding easy targets to Norse colonisation, trade, and cultural assimilation. That’s the simplified version; I could write forever about the age and its impact on the languages, cultures and mentalities of both the raided and the raiders (who came from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). Instead, I’ll focus on the linguistic impact of Old Norse (ON) on Old English (OE).

[Note: The Norse did not refer to themselves as Vikings; that word came into English through “The History of the Anglo-Saxons” by English historian Sharon H. Turner, 1801, meaning Scandinavian pirate. The Norse had the term vikingr, which referred only to Norsemen when they were out raiding (whether on neighbouring shores or fjords, or further afield). Perhaps in that sense, it was similar in use to our gerund noun form.]

During the Viking Age and the subsequent Danelaw period of British history, the Norse introduced more than a thousand words into the English language. The biggest question that arises in my mind when I think of some of the words is, “What did we use before that?”

The Norse introduced third-person pronouns – þeir, þeira, from which we get they, them, and their. We can be thankful for these words, as the Anglo-Saxon terms used before their introduction were hi, hie, heira, and hem. These changes are unusual in that it is rare for additions to a language to replace such fundamental identity markers within the collective speech of a people group.

Some words were a merging of OE and ON terms, such as are (OE had earun/earon, and ON had er). Another merging is awkward – from ON ǫfugr (meaning turned backwards) and OE weard. Other such hybrid words are axle, gawk, and snipe/sniper.

A caveat to Norse influence on English is that many more words than those from the time periods mentioned above flowed into English through Normandy. The term “Norman” itself is a term that arose from an etymological shift: Scandinavian raiders who settled in that region of what would become France were known locally as the Normanz or Normant, meaning Northmen (men of the north). It was eventually Latinized to Normanni.  Their influence on the French language eventually made its way into the magpie language across the Channel.

Here are a few more words we can thank Norse raiders for: Window (vindauge – literally wind-eye); wing (vængr); whisk (viska); want (vanta, to lack); waive (veifa); until (und + til); ugly (uggligr); tryst (from French, probably ON treysta – to trust, or to make firm); stumble (stumla); squall (skvala); sprint (spretta); and trash (tros). Many of our th- words come from ON, aside from those already mentioned, such as: Thrall, though, thrift, thrive, thrust, and thwart.

Aside from individual words, the Norse left evidence of their influence through placenames: The suffix -by means farmstead or village, seen in Whitby and Derby; -ness meant promontory or headland, and is found in Stenness, Durness, Muness, and Snarraness – all of which are in Orkney, Shetland, and northern Scotland – all places frequented by or lived in by the Norse. –Thorpe and –thwaite are more examples of the -th heritage, shown in places like Scunthorpe, Copmanthorpe, Bassenthwaite, and Rosthwaite.

These few examples are just the tip of the isbjerg which we can thank those pirates, who our European ancestors might well have preferred never to have been forced into acquaintance with…

1 Comment

Filed under Articles, Etymology, History Undusted, Liguistics, Linguistics, Military History

History Undusted: Earrings in the 18th Century

I recently watched the film “Emma”, with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam; as the proposal scene was playing, I noticed her earring and wondered if that was historically accurate – did they have pierced earrings in England at that time (the early 1800s)? I’m not into fashion (that’s an understatement – I’m very pragmatic when it comes to clothes!), but the historical aspect fascinated me enough to look into the matter.

While we have probably all heard of “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, painted ~1665 by Johannes Vermeer (doubts have been raised as to whether it is actually pearl or rather polished tin or coque de perle, given the reflective qualities and size, but that’s another issue), it is a Dutch painting from the 17th century and thus doesn’t answer my question. My interest lies more in the 1700s (18th Century) of Britain, and so I began researching 18th C. English portraits.

I discovered that, while there are many portraits with earrings displayed, there are far more without. So it would have been possible, but was by no means as common as it is today. Also, sometimes the current hairstyle hid the ears, such as that of the 1770s and 1780s, or perhaps their ears were hidden by the custom of married women wearing mob caps, even beneath other “public” hats.

 

Mid-to-late 1780s

Typical 1780s hairstyle; such a style would have either hidden earrings or made them obsolete.

 

Mrs. Lewis Thomas Watson (Mary Elizabeth Milles, 1767–1818) by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1789

A married woman wearing a mob cap under her bonnet (though from the black cape and hat combined with a white dress, she may be at the end of a period of mourning, wearing “half weeds”). Mrs Lewis Thomas Watson (Mary Elizabeth Milles, 1767–1818) by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1789

 

 

The portraits do not reveal whether or not they were merely clip-on earrings or studs, though ear piercing has been around for centuries, varying in intensity and use from culture to culture (some for religious purposes, some for ownership such as slave earrings, and others were status symbols for royalty or nobility). I’ve found many portraits from Europe as a whole, between the 16th and 19th centuries which portray women wearing earrings; here are a few, with their details:

1761 Joshua Reynolds. Lady Elizabeth Keppel

1761, by Joshua Reynolds: Lady Elizabeth Keppel. Note that the Indian woman is also wearing an earring(s), and a rope of pearls; I don’t know whether she is portrayed as a servant or merely inferior in rank, due to her placement in the portrait…

 

 

Genevieve-Sophie le Coulteux du Molay, 1788 by Elisabeth Louise Vigee Le Brun

Genevieve-Sophie le Coulteux du Molay, 1788 by Elisabeth Louise Vigee Le Brun. Though this is a French portrait by subject & painter, it is from the period in question and displays a hoop earring, as well as the hairstyle common in this period in England as well.

 

 

Turkish Dress c1776 Portrait of a Woman, possibly Miss Hill

Turkish Dress, c1776 Portrait of a Woman, possibly Miss Hill

 

Young Woman in Powder Blue, ca. 1777

A young woman in powder blue, ca. 1777

 

Thomas Gainsborough, 1727-1788 London, Portrait of Lady Anne Furye, née Greenly - born 1738

Thomas Gainsborough, 1727-1788 London, Portrait of Lady Anne Furye, née Greenly

 

Based on History Undusted Original Post, June 2015

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, History Undusted, Images, Links to External Articles, Research