The German Question, Part Six

Beginning before the death of Charlemagne in 814 A.D., the eastern border areas of his empire were secured by fortified territories. The territories were given by the emperor to nobles to administer. These nobles had fairly substantial military forces at their disposal, and the areas were called “Marks” or “Marches” (see Word History below the notes). As time passed, these various Marks had their own boundaries and designations changed, one of the most famous being the “Ostmark,” or “East Mark,” which formed what became a substantial part of modern Austria, and another, “Mark Brandenburg,” which became the modern area of Berlin and environs.

From about 1000 A.D. and continuing for the next couple of centuries, Germans began to migrate from densely populated western areas of Europe into many of the sparsely Slavic populated regions of eastern Europe.* Since Christianity had spread throughout most of western and central Europe, and part of eastern Europe, Church authorities looked upon these “Christian” migrations with favor.** The Germans, who brought various skills and even wealth with them, were even welcomed by the Slavic rulers of many of these areas, and much of this relocation was done peacefully. It seems that some of these Germans eventually were assimilated (absorbed) into the Slavic population, thus losing their “German” identity, but many formed essentially all German communities, or the German population overtook the Slavic population in certain areas, eventually absorbing (assimilating) the Slavs, who then lost their “Slavic” identity. These latter were/are usually referred to as “Wends.”

*This was something of a “reverse migration,” as earlier, Germanic tribes, some, but not all, later to be called “Germans,” had tended to migrate from east to west.

** It should be noted that the Franks eventually subdued their main rival among the Germanic tribes, the Saxons, and forcibly “Christianized” them. The wars, which accomplished that feat, continued from about 780 and ended in about 804 A.D. The Saxons are very important to our story, and they were a large confederation of Germanic tribes in northern Europe, part of which migrated to Britain along with other Germanic tribal elements, conquered the local Celtic population after the withdrawal of Roman forces during the 400s A.D., and founded England ("the land of the Angles," after one of those Germanic tribes, the Angles).

WORD HISTORY:
Mark-This word goes back to the Indo European base "mereg," which meant "border, edge, boundary" (Latin, another Indo European language, had "margo," which meant "margin"). The Old Germanic offshoot was "marko." This gave Old English "mearc/merc," which continued the same basic meaning with "boundary, limit," but eventually it also came to mean "a sign of a boundary or border," and this eventually evolved into any sign designating a boundary, perhaps traced on a map. These various general meanings gave us our more modern meanings of "putting a mark on something to show ownership," "marking something on paper," "putting a mark on something (as in "Oops!) and "in taking notice" ("Mark my words"). The other Germanic languages have: German has "Mark" (noun), Low German  has "Mark" (noun) and "marken" (verb), West Frisian has "merke" (both noun and verb form), Dutch has "merk" (noun) and "markeren/merken" (verbs), Danish has "maerke" (noun) and "markere/maerke" (verbs), Icelandic has "merki" (noun) and "merkja" (verb), Norwegian has "merke" (noun) and "merke/markere" (verbs), Swedish has "märke" (noun) and "märka" (verb).

The Frankenstein's Monster Of Republicans

This was first published in March 2010 and it should be noted, George Voinovich retired from the U.S. Senate in January 2011 and he passed away in June 2016.


Both political parties have stalwart supporters, but some of those supporters border on, if not cross over into, being psychos. For more than a year now, the Republican Party has had a public face of some just plain mean-spiritedness. The overheated rhetoric of talk radio and of cable....ahh...news (?) channels has left its mark on the Party of Lincoln.* As this process began, few prominent Republicans, Laura Bush being one, spoke out against the escalating charges by what had been more of a fringe segment of the G(rand) O(ld) P(arty), albeit a strong fringe, at times. Those who dared to openly criticize the extremist talk were begging for forgiveness within about 24 hours of their remarks. This only encouraged a more and even harsher tone to the comments coming from the very hard Right.

Then we saw serious confrontations in town hall meetings across the country, with perhaps the most famous being an angry man pointing his finger in the face of Senator Arlen Spector. The man railed against the government, but then we found out that this government-hating individual lives on government-provided disability payments! Talk about a disconnect! We also saw individuals toting guns to public meetings, just as folks probably did in the Southwest when Geronimo was on the warpath about 125 years ago. Congressional representatives, both from the House and the Senate, and from both parties (the vast majority, however, were Democrats, but if a Republican even hinted that he/she might support some compromises on health care, they were targeted) were shouted down and called every imaginable name. One disabled woman who supported health care was verbally abused by those around her. Is this the "Party of Reagan?" I don't think so.

Now we have David Frum, a conservative Republican, and former member of the G. W. Bush Administration, saying that Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders made an out-and-out decision not to cooperate with President Obama and Democrats on any major legislation, so that Obama would have a failed presidency. So much for putting the country above political party or ideology. Frum also noted that Republicans have courted the most radical elements of the political Right. This is a Republican saying this folks, not a Democrat. The Frankenstein's Monster that has been assembled by such Republican actions threatens to take over their party lock, stock and gun barrel, and indeed threatens our very democracy. When will other Republicans dare to speak out? Senator Voinovich, you made some comments a couple of months ago about the rightwing of your party, but where are you now?** You were quick to denounce gambling casinos being legalized in Ohio, so how about this far more vicious stuff coming from your political party?

In more recent days the thermostat of the rhetoric was turned ever higher, to the point of a blast furnace. With the passage of the health care legislation and its signing by the President, one man (in Alabama, I believe) urged people to break the windows in local Democratic Party headquarters across the country; adding that he and others like him might actually have to use guns against Democrats, if they didn't back down after the window smashings. The little black mustache painted on the pictures of the President (and just about all presidents in recent memory) seems to have been put on the wrong person. (A Word History is below the notes)


* Let's be honest, the cable stations provide information, so that IS news, but they also have many programs that push a point-of-view, some of which may by news. This is the United States, and that is not a crime, but to use terms like "fair and balanced," or "I'm not here to push an agenda," is not being upfront. (I'm sure most of you recognize the first quote as being from Fox News. The second may not be as familiar, as it is fairly recent, but it is from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow ("The Rachel Maddow Show"), a person more or less opposite of Fox News' views. Regular readers know that I have much more in common with Rachel, but I'd prefer that she drop this recent "agenda" comment from her advertisement.)

** Voinovich is the Republican senator from Ohio, who is retiring after this year. He is the former governor and the former mayor of Cleveland.

WORD HISTORY:
Senate-This word ultimately traces back to Indo European "sens," which meant "old." The Latin offshoot was "senex," which meant "old, old man, elder." This then gave Latin "senatus," which literally meant "an assembly or council of elders." Latin-based Old French continued with "senat," and it is from this form that English acquired the word during the 1200s. Various town and regional councils in Europe used the term for their legislative bodies by the 1500s. Use of the term in America for a part of a potential governing body began in the 1770s, just prior to the Revolutionary War.

What Now On Health Care?

It ain't...I mean it isn't over yet. The Senate must now follow through with the so called "fixes" to the legislation that just passed and is now the law of the land.* I must admit, especially after the loss of the senate seat by Democrats in Massachusetts in January, that any attempt to pass health care legislation was doomed. So what changed? Well, the President finally stepped up to the plate just a few weeks ago and actually put some specifics to what HE wanted in the legislation, and also what HE didn't want in the legislation. The President and the Democratic leadership in Congress also made the choice to keep going, in spite of the odds. Many, but certainly not all, Democratic House members seen as either vulnerable in their re-election bids, or pretty much already "toast," along with some retiring members, were convinced to vote for the bill, regardless of any political considerations for the upcoming election. Trust me folks, that is no small accomplishment. In fact, the main reason I thought the legislation was essentially dead, is that congressional members almost always look out for themselves (not unlike "us" out here in the public). It took tremendous courage for some members of Congress to vote "yes." Polls showed an uptick in public support for the legislation to varying degrees, I'm sure at least partially due to "Democrats coming home," if you will, as many Dems were disappointed in the legislation. However, when given a choice between something or nothing, they chose "something," and it is a foundation. It will cover millions of presently uninsured Americans, it will allow children to remain on their parents' insurance until age 26, and it will bar denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.** If you lose your job, at least you will have somewhere to turn for medical help, too. These are some significant and history-making changes. They should help alleviate much suffering and potentially save many lives.

If you're weary of all this debate over health care, you more than likely will need to be prepared for this to go on for quite some time yet, even if the Senate passes the "fixes" soon, followed by passage by the House and then the President's signature to a final health care measure. By "final," I only mean about the current legislation, as this will undoubtedly be an ongoing process, probably for years to come. The legislation is not perfect, in my opinion, but it is a start. Further, Republicans are drooling to use this legislation to beat Democrats over the head in the midterm elections in an attempt to take control of the House of Representatives, some thing they may well do, although everything will now have to be reassessed since Sunday's House vote.

No question about it, Democrats OWN this legislation. Not one Republican broke ranks. In all of my years of following politics, I've NEVER seen such nastiness come from so many people from one political party. I thought some of the conspiracy stuff about George W. Bush and 9/11 was way out there, but this stuff makes that pale in comparison, as the 9/11 stuff was out on the fringe.*** This was a concerted effort by many Republican officeholders, and as David Frum, a Republican and a former member of the Bush Administration (George W., that is) said in a television interview, the Republicans have been giving encouragement to some of the most nasty elements in our society (that is NOT a direct quote, but rather a paraphrasing of his comments), and attacking a bill that is essentially what Mitt Romney supported while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney is a Republican and a potential presidential candidate for 2012.

The Republicans had some good ideas, like creating more competition for insurance companies by permitting insurance sales across state lines. They had some valid concerns, too, like the overall cost and if the legislation would add to the deficit, but for quite some time, they really just did NOT want ANY legislation to pass. The idea that the Republic is somehow in danger because people might actually get health insurance is pure NONSENSE! (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* Of course the President must first sign the legislation, if he hasn't already.

** To be quite honest, insurance companies are (and have been) only following what is in their best interest (financially). If I go to an insurer and say I have XY & Z wrong with me, they are more than likely going to turn me down, or they'll make the premiums so high that I can't afford the insurance. The rich suffer (no pun intended) no such problem, as they can either afford the high premiums or they just pay for whatever treatments and medications they need, as money is no object.

*** I recently heard some people on the political Right say they believed that "the government was behind 9/11," so it wasn't just leftwingers spouting this stuff. I may be wrong, but I believe they identified themselves as "Tea Party" supporters.

WORD HISTORY:
Hospital-This word goes back to Indo European "ghostis," which meant "stranger." The Latin offshoot was "hospes," which meant "guest or host" (I suppose depending upon usage. For instance, "rent" can mean "something you pay" or "something you collect," depending upon usage). This then gave Latin the stem word "hospit," and then "hospitalis," (with a long "a" sound) which meant "of a guest/host" (again, supposedly depending upon usage). From this later developed the noun "hospitale," for a "guest house, inn, place where guests are sheltered." Old French, heavily Latin-based, continued the word as "hospital/hospitale," but still with the same meaning. English acquired the word from French during the 1200s with the meaning "charitable place to care for the needy." By the 1400s, the meaning also included "care/shelter for the elderly and infirm." During the 1500s the modern meaning of "place to care for and treat the ill or injured" came into use. Hospitality, derived from the same source, still retains the "treatment of guests" notion.

The German Question, Part Five

Updated slightly 7/1/2015, then updated again (the Word History) on 6/9/22

Remember, it is believed by many historians (and seemingly supported by archaeology) that Germanic peoples spread into other parts of Europe, including eastern and central Europe, from the northern areas of Europe. Beginning in the 500s A.D., Slavic tribes* spread into areas often vacated by Germanic tribes in the eastern parts of Europe. It is believed that the primary reason that these Germanic peoples left the area was that they fled invaders from central Asia, especially the Huns.** In modern geographic terminology, the areas involved were Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, part of Belarus, and part of Ukraine (and undoubtedly a part of Lithuania***). Also included were parts of modern Germany, up to the area of the Elbe River. (A Word History is below the notes)

*Many linguists seem to agree that the various Slavic elements didn’t show great diversification in dialects for quite some time, making communication between these tribes relatively easy. Slavic is an Indo European language and is therefore related to English, but further down the family tree.

** The Huns were a nomadic group of people, long thought to be from Asia. They were excellent horsemen and fierce warriors, but their origins are murky. They appear in distant southeastern Europe in the vicinity of the Black Sea in the mid 300s A.D. Historians have generally believed them to be from central Asia and related to the Turks, but even the answer as to why they might have moved westward into Europe has never been clearly established. "Typically" the various tribes moved to find better sources of food, or because they lost their homeland to invaders. The Huns are, of course, best known for one of their leaders, Attila. The Huns took over large parts of Europe for a time, but eventually a coalition, largely of Germanic tribes in eastern Europe, defeated them in the mid 400s. The center of their empire became Pannonia, now basically modern Hungary.      

*** All of these modern countries still speak Slavic languages, with the exception of Lithuania. Many linguists feel there was a period of overlap between the Slavic languages and the Baltic languages, which includes Lithuanian, but that the two diverged from one another. On the other hand, some linguists still use “Balto-Slavic” as the term for these languages, as they feel the two are too closely related to be grouped separately. Lithuanian is thought by some (many?) linguists to be the least altered, and thus the closest, living language to the original Indo European, but this is a subject in its own right, and is thus beyond the scope of this article.

WORD HISTORY:
Toy-While this is a fairly common word in English, its origins are uncertain. In writing, as "toye," it came to be used in the 1300s with the meaning "amorous dalliance;" that is, "casual sexual affair." This later (in the 1500s) brought about the more expanded meaning of anything done for "fun, entertainment, or amusement," including "funny remarks," and by the late 1500s, "object for a child's entertainment" developed. Where did English get it? Did English already have a spoken form of the word in English dialect that was simply not used by the literate element of English society? Did an Old English form die out, ^ only to be resurrected by borrowing the word? The English traded goods heavily with the areas of the North Sea coast, which included the close relatives of English: Dutch, Frisian, and German (both Low German and High German). Low German has "tüg," and standard German has "Zeug" (the "eu" is pronounced as English "oy," and the "Z" is pronounced "ts"), with the generalized meaning "tool/implement (usually as the compound "Werkzeug;" literally, "work implement"), implement, stuff," and standard German has "Spielzeug," meaning "toy." Dutch has "tuig," also generally meaning "tool," and "speeltuig" meaning "toy." Danish and Swedish, also Germanic languages, have "toi/toj," and "tyg," respectively, with the meaning "stuff, gear." The verb "toyed" was derived from the noun during the 1500s. Some linguists have speculated (with good reason) that "toy" could be related to "tug" and "tow." English "tug" and "tow" are part of a "family of Germanic words" related through forms in Old Germanic. One of the other members of this family is German "ziehen" ("ziohan" in Old High German), which means "to pull, to drag, to draw." The Old English form of this word was "teon" (infinitive form, same basic meanings as the German word), and it's important to remember that German "z" is pronounced "ts." In this same family are the nouns, English "tug," and German "Zug," with the English word noun being the word for "a small boat that pulls a larger ship," and the German noun meaning, "a train (an engine that pulls a number of railway cars"). It most certainly seems that "toy" is a member of this overall family of words and it may well trace back to a form in Old English (see note below).

^ English once had "suhlgeteog," which meant "plowing tool/implement." A number of English words lost the ending "g" sound over time, as for instance, "day" and "may" (the verb form) both had an ending "g" at one time ("dæg" and "mæg"), as their German cousins still do: "Tag" and "mag/mög," the second form being the root for the infinitive and for the subjunctive.  

The German Question, Part Four

Updated slightly 6/30/2015

At this point in our story, it should be noted that the Danes were also by now a separate and distinct Germanic group, but we aren’t truly finished with the Danes, as they will be involved in what became northern Germany for quite some time. The area in question is what is generally known as Schleswig, a part of the post-World War Two German state of Schleswig-Holstein.

As the Roman Empire declined, the Germanic tribe the Alemanni* took over much of the regions known as “Alsace” and “Lorraine”, but the Alemanni were then conquered by the related Germanic tribe, the Franks. These two areas were later included in the “middle kingdom” by the Treaty of Verdun (see Part Three), but it wasn’t long before they were conquered, and became a part of the German-dominated Holy Roman Empire.

Similarly, in the area of what is modern Switzerland, the Alemanni settled in a large part of the middle and eastern sections, with the western areas being under the control of the Burgundians. The Burgundians were a Germanic tribe whose members spoke an East Germanic dialect, and they had long since been seen as a distinct Germanic element.** The Franks also conquered this region, but eventually the entire area of modern Switzerland came under control of the Holy Roman Empire, although the Latin-based French language had already overtaken any Germanic dialects in the western areas, and to this day, these areas are French speaking, with slightly more than 20% of Swiss nationals speaking French.*** The extreme southern part of Switzerland was, and still is, Italian speaking (about 8%). There is also a small Romansch-speaking area of Switzerland (less than 1%).**** Nearly 70% of Swiss nationals speak German to this day.^

So we have progressed to about 1000 A.D., and we’re beginning to see “some” borders develop around the general area of Germanic-speaking people in the western sections of Europe. In fact, it might now be more appropriate to start calling these people “Germans,” and their language “German,” although just like other languages of those times, there certainly was no standard language, but rather a great number of dialects. Obviously there were also many non-German speakers within this area, and this mixture would often prove to be a problem as time passed. (A Word History is below the notes)

*The modern Alsatian-German dialect traces back to the Alemanni tribal dialect, while the German dialect in Lorraine traces back to the Franks. The German dialects in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, far western Austria and in the general area of Stuttgart, Germany, all trace back to the Alemanni.

** Burgundy, a province of France, is of course named after the Germanic Burgundians, who ruled that general area prior to being overtaken by the Franks.

*** Again, the Franks conquered much of Gaul, but eventually the Latin dialects spoken there absorbed the Franks’ Germanic dialects, although the name for the country became “France,” named after the Franks, and the language was called “French,” after the language of the Franks. Confusing, but true.

**** Romansch (also frequently spelled Romansh) developed from the Latin spoken in these areas during the time of actual Roman rule. It is “similar” to some dialects of southern France and northern Italy.

^ Within the German language world; that is, native German speakers, regardless of country, people have tended to grow up speaking their own regional dialect, as well as “standard” German. By “standard,” I mean the language taught in the schools. The Swiss are no exception, as they still use their own broad dialect (which has some regional variations of its own), but they also speak and write in standard German, but with some Swiss distinctiveness, especially in governmental and food terminology. So, the point is, a person from Berlin and a person from Bern (Switzerland) can easily communicate with one another in standard German, but not so much so in their respective dialects. Berlin dialect is called "Berlinerisch," and the dialect of Bern is called "Berndeutsch," in standard German, but "Bärndütsch," in the dialect itself.

WORD HISTORY:
Fee-The history of this word may surprise you somewhat. It goes back to Indo European “peku,” which meant “cattle.” The history is rather difficult to follow, since many of the Indo European languages had a form of this word (“peku”), and it is tough to tell when one form was borrowed from another language, or when it was already present in a language, but perhaps reinforced by a similar term from another language. From what I can tell, there must have been an Old Germanic spin-off (spelled with an “f” at the beginning), although I cannot find it. Whatever the term, some of the Germanic dialects began to give additional meanings to their own forms of that term, as, for example, Old English had “feoh,” which meant “property, money,” besides the meaning “cattle,” Gothic had “faihu,” which meant “wealth, money,” Frankish had “fehu-od,” meaning “cattle-property” (literally "cattle wealth" or "wealthy in cattle"), Old Norse had “fe,” also meaning “cattle, money,” and Old High German had "fihu," meaning "cattle." The “cattle, money, property, wealth” connection is that if you owned cattle in those times, you had property, and therefore you were thought to have some wealth/money. Latin seemingly borrowed the term from Frankish (“fehu-od”) as “feudum” or “feodum,” which also had the connotation of “property given for service” (you can see the emerging meaning of modern “fee” in this), although Old Latin had a form of the original Indo European word “peku,” as “pecus” meant “cattle,” and “pecunia” meant “money” (and still does in modern Italian). Old French, a Latin-based language, had “fie/fieu,” and the Normans, who spoke a French dialect, brought their form of the term to England with their successful invasion in late 1066 A.D. The term “feudal” developed from the same word during those times, and “fee” did actually mean “a feudal estate” back then, although that meaning has now died out in English (William the Conqueror gave land to his Norman knights who helped him subdue England as his payment to them; thus “land for service”). Whether this meaning combined with the extended meaning (“money") of the similar and related Old English word, if it was even still around, is unclear to me, but it would make sense (maybe TOO MUCH sense), that we would then have the modern meaning of “money for service.” Modern German still has "Vieh," meaning "cattle" (the "V" is pronounced "F," [all German nouns are capitalized] the "ieh" is pronounced as a long "e," giving us a pronunciation much like the English word "fee").

Gas Cramps

I hope you will take a moment to click on the link below and to check out the article. Americans are easily distracted, and the economy, health care reform , the Winter Olympics, and a fresh pot of coffee can divert attention from other important issues. Trust me, oil and gas prices are VERY important, and the price of both played an important role in bringing the economy to its knees; something glossed over because of the magnitude of the housing mess the "wealthy interests" got us into, although not without a lot of help from others. (A Word History is below the link)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/80-barrel-oil-the-billion_b_471008.html

WORD HISTORY:
Duke-This word goes back to Indo European "deuk," which meant "to lead" (in a very broad sense, as for instance, it is also the source of our word "tug," a small boat that pulls; that is, "leads" a larger boat or ship). This gave Latin "dux," which initially meant "military commander," but later also meant the more specific "military leader of a province," and in some cases just "a type of prince or noble who leads a province." (Mussolini took the name "Duce," or "leader," which is a modern Italian form of the word, and combined the meanings of "military leader and governmental leader.") The Latin gave Old French "duc," and this, in turn, gave English "duke" in the 1100s, but at that time it was only used as a title for foreign leaders who already carried that title, and it was not until the 1300s that English began using "duke" as a title for a particular English nobleman.

The German Question, Part Three

While we now have the beginnings of “German” history at this point, 9 A.D., that history is still not separate and distinct from the history of many of the Germanic tribes. As the Roman Empire declined, the Germanic tribes pushed into imperial lands, including into Gaul, a Roman province, much of which equates to modern France, but conquered by the Romans long before this time period. The Franks, a Germanic tribe that seems to have taken over a number of closely related and allied Germanic tribes, conquered much of northern Gaul (I guess you could say, “they had a lot of Gaul”), which also included a part of what is now Belgium. The Franks established themselves as a formidable group, and Karl, one of their kings, later had the honorary title of “the Great” added to his name. Karl is better known to English speakers by the French rendering of his name, “Charlemagne.”* As the Frankish lands grew, Karl was crowned “Emperor of the Romans” by the Pope in 800 A.D. in Rome (the title was symbolic, rather than literal). The Germans see this as the beginning of The Holy Roman Empire,** which, in the early 1500s, came to be called “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation;” thus, Germans consider Karl as “their” first emperor. Karl lived for the most part in the city of Aachen, in the modern German state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Nordrhein-Westfalen), and he was buried there upon his death. By the time of his death in 814 A.D., Charlemagne’s lands consisted of much of Western Europe, including Italy. His son, Ludwig (Louis),*** actually shared the imperial throne with his father for the last year of Charlemagne’s life.**** A couple of years after Ludwig/Louis died, an agreement was reached to divide the empire between his three surviving sons (The Treaty of Verdun, in 843 A.D.). Charles (I’ll use the English name forms), also known to history as “Charles the Bald,” was given much of what is modern France. Louis, also known to history as “Louis the German,” was given much of what are modern central and southern Germany, Austria, and much of Switzerland. Lothair, was given what are essentially (in modern geographic terms) the northern half of Italy, eastern France (including Alsace and Lorraine, which have a big part in our developing story), the western part of Switzerland, northwest Germany and much of what are termed “the Low Countries.” This division of territory, while granting some peace in those times, set the stage for fierce struggles in the future. (A Word History is below the notes)

*Charlemagne was the French rendering of Latin “Carolus Magnus.” In German his name is “Karl der Grosse.” While the French and Germans have had many disputes over the centuries, Karl is the one prominent person they share as part of a common history. The language that developed in Gaul during the Roman period was heavily based upon Latin, and though the conquering Franks spoke a Germanic dialect (Frankish), eventually that dialect was absorbed into the Latin form spoken in the conquered lands, but not before Frankish loaned a fair number of words to its Latin-speaking subjects, including the terms “France” and “French.”

** The term “Holy Roman Empire” was not used until the 900s.

*** I’ve seen his name as both, but I “assume” he was called by the Germanic form “Ludwig,” at least at first.

**** Ludwig/Louis, who later came to be known as “Louis the Pious,” was the only surviving “legitimate” son of Charlemagne.

                                                                   

WORD HISTORY:

Game- We have two distinct words "game" in English. (1) By far the most common is "fun and amusing pastime, contest, sport," which is a compound going back to Old Germanic "ga," a collective prefix, and "mann," which meant "person," and which is also the ancestor of the English word "man." The notion behind the Germanic compound is "people participating together." This gave Old English "gamen," which meant "fun, amusement." The other Germanic dialects/languages had similar forms long ago, with Old High German, for instance, having "gaman," which meant "glee," and Old Frisian (a very close relative of Old English) having "game," but most have now died out. One source mentions Swedish as still having "gamman" and Danish still with "gammen," and although I could not find them in dictionaries, they may not be considered "standard" in either language, but rather as dialect words). In English, by the late 1200s and early 1300s the word took on the meaning of "contest played by a set of rules" (this obviously retained the notion of "participation for amusement"), and not much later the idea of "hunting wild animals" was added, which then transferred the term for the activity to the object (wild animals) of the sport; thus we have "game" (noun) used for "wild animals," not that the term isn't used for humans at times, too. This also gave us the form "gamey" during the mid 1800s to denote "the taste or flavor of wild game." And since wild animals were (and still are) hunted in contest, the term "fair game" developed for anything not off limits (supposedly first used in the 1820s). Also, during the early 1700s the sense of "spirited, feisty, brave, plucky" developed as an adjective, seemingly from the spirit of wild animals to defend themselves, and perhaps also from game birds used in "fighting events" (cock fighting). By the way, the spelling "gamen" (and the variant "gammon") remained with some in English clear into the 1500s, and is still with us in "backgammon."

(2) The second word "game," meaning "lame," came into common English usage from a dialect in the north Midlands of England during the latter part of the 1700s as "gam." The origins are uncertain, but an old French dialect word (which presumably would have been brought by the Normans), "gambe," has been suggested. It meant "leg," and since "game leg" was/is a common term associated with "game," that "could" be the source. And while I could not find this term, one source suggests "gambi," supposedly an old French word, as a possible source, since it gives the meaning as "crooked." Whatever the source, "gammy," a non-standard word once used in England, developed from it in the 1800s, and meant "bad."