3 ms·

I, too, find it confusing. The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful! I think the ö is significant. It could correspond to English ē, but not ei, -ine.

I, too, find it confusing. The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful! I think the ö is significant. It could correspond to English ē, but not ei, -ine. Under sʜᴇᴇɴ, Partridge [1] states that OE scēne, scȳne are related to G schön, from PIE *skauniz "Ultimately, to E sʜᴏᴡ." I think we have two compartments here: 1. ö/ē words - schön, E shown, shewn. Under Partridge [1] sʜᴇᴇɴ 2. ei words - G schein and E shine. OE scīnan, under Partridge [1] sᴄᴇɴᴇ [1] My favorite reference: Eric Partridge: _Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of English_. More concise than the OED, and you can carry it. As an English speaker, I'm delighted by the borrowing "ser schön". It is the highest grade in English catalogs of ancient coins. "Shiny" is not a good quality in ancient coins!

inkyoto 8mo ago
> The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful! It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with. The correct and more interesting comparison would be with Old High German from around the same time although it did not indicate the umlaut in the spelling at the time (which would happen 400-500 years later) – even though the i-umlaut had already developed. So «schön» was «scōni» (or «sconi») in OHG. Also, ö and ü developed from /o/ and /u/, so juxtaposing them with English ē is likely incorrect.
- LAC-Tech 8mo ago
  It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with. I hear this premise repeated time and time again. Search the internet. I believed this premise, and actually started studying German again while waiting for my Old English textbook to arrive. It did not help.
  - inkyoto 8mo ago
    I do not need to search the internet as I am fluent at German as well. The knowledge of Modern High German helps little to none as far as the comprehension of Old English is concerned. From a modern German speaker's perspective, Old English – with a relatively small number of exceptions – is gibberish.

inkyoto 8mo ago

> The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful! It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with. The correct and more interesting comparison would be with Old High German from around the same time although it did not indicate the umlaut in the spelling at the time (which would happen 400-500 years later) – even though the i-umlaut had already developed. So «schön» was «scōni» (or «sconi») in OHG. Also, ö and ü developed from /o/ and /u/, so juxtaposing them with English ē is likely incorrect.

LAC-Tech 8mo ago
It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with. I hear this premise repeated time and time again. Search the internet. I believed this premise, and actually started studying German again while waiting for my Old English textbook to arrive. It did not help.
- inkyoto 8mo ago
  I do not need to search the internet as I am fluent at German as well. The knowledge of Modern High German helps little to none as far as the comprehension of Old English is concerned. From a modern German speaker's perspective, Old English – with a relatively small number of exceptions – is gibberish.