comparative etymology

It’s almost more interesting when Dutch and English don’t match than when they do – at least, when it’s a word that should match, by which I mean the sort of short basic words that you’d think would have been in both languages since before they diverged. Though of course some of the borrowed words match too, because both languages borrowed from the same places. No great wonder if “virtual” in English becomes “virtueel” in Dutch, for instance (to cite a random example from my dictionary). Both are borrowed from (I think) Latin.

No wonder either if “eventual” in English becomes “uiteindelijk” in Dutch; the English is borrowed from the Latin word for “outcome”, while the Dutch puts together the same meaning from homegrown ingredients: out + end + like.

But what baffles me is that the Dutch word for “wet” is “nat”. I have no idea where this came from, or why the two languages should use such (apparently?) unrelated words for such a basic idea. The English word is obviously related to “water” and both go back to the Indo-European root wed- . I can’t figure out what the Dutch word is related to unless somehow to “nature” (‘natuur” in Dutch), which is also from Latin via Old French but was borrowed into English by at least Chaucer’s time. (“So priketh hem natur in hir corages…”)

There’s the OED in English. There’s a Dutch equivalent that’s reputedly even bigger, but I wouldn’t be able to read most of one if I had it. What I need is a cross-referenced etymological dictionary. Or an etymological dictionary of Dutch words but with all the definitions in English. I’m pretty sure no such thing exists, dammit.

Also on the “dammit!” front, the absolutely gorgeous weather we encountered in London that came home with us seems to be ending just in time for the weekend. We’re supposed to be rowing both Saturday and Sunday – I have a feeling this may be a bit less fun than I thought it would be.