Re[2]: [tied] Discussion of old english néotan and brúcan

At 6:46:19 PM on Sunday, July 16, 2006, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> On 2006-07-16 21:35, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> At 1:46:29 AM on Sunday, July 16, 2006, Carl Hult wrote:

>>> I Saw this rather interesting discussion today about the
>>> old english words néotan and brúcan, both with a history
>>> far more interesting than I first thought. Brook
>>> (brúcan) is alive and fairly well today, that is clear
>>> but at least one of the members of this forum seems to
>>> be having an idea about neat being in part from the old
>>> english néotan. I agree with him.

>> I don't: the derivation from Anglo-Norman <neet>, <neit>
>> (variants of OFr <net> 'clean, pure') offered in the OED
>> is entirely convincing: already in the 12th century OFr
>> <net> is found in such senses as 'smart, trim, elegant',
>> applied both to people and to things.

> What Brian says is certainly true of the adjective <neat>
> (the ME meanings were 'worthy, good; pure, fine, elegant'
> and 'net' [of prices]).

Which, I should have specified, was the sense under
discussion on the list that Carl was reading.

> The archaic noun <neat> '(head of) cattle, domestic
> animal' comes from OE ne:at (Gmc. *nauta-), related to
> <ne:otan>, but it's a separate lexeme with a separate
> etymology.

> Another ME relative of <ne:otan> was <net, niet> 'peasant
> holding land from a lord, tenant' (from OE gene:at), now
> completely obsolete.

Missed that one entirely. That's <Genosse>, isn't it?

And now I find obs. <nait> 'skilful, deft, effective' and
<unnait> 'useless, unprofitable, vain', apparently from OIc
<neytr> 'good, fit for use'; I suppose that the associated
verb <neyta> reflects PGmc. *nautjan, as against *neutan?

Brian