Nice modern wordplay (last decennium, maybe two):
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blikvanger
which combines the senses of blik (m.) = glance (so blikvanger =
eyecatcher, conspicuous item), and blik (n.) = can (the material, and
what is made of it, like beer cans): so can catcher, a handy type of
trashcan, easy to throw waste into while passing. But many often miss,
or don't even try.

Op 20/07/2021 om 9:07 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> <fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>
>> Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 23:17:16 UTC+2, wugi a écrit :
>>> Op 23/06/2021 om 22:35 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>>> Guido:
>>>>> Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;
>>>> Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
>>>> https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick
>>> Yes, Dutch with the odd neuter* (comp. de blik - the look, vs. het blik
>>> - the can).
>>>
>>> * undoubtedly from French.
>> What is undoubtedly from French ?

The odd neuter gender of "het ogenblik".

I was ironising a statement of PTD earlier:
(Me)
If a Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept
it, and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell
methat this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
world.
(PTD)
Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle, la
mer?

As if our genders would depend on French.

> I don't know. I find this reference:
> https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M047542
> It says:
> "Eigenlijk: een blik; thans alleen in den vorm oogblik, voorheen ook
> oogenblik. Alleen manl."
>
> This is unknown to me.
>
> "–2. Overdrachtelijk. In Noord-Nederland nog slechts in hoogeren
> stijl manlijk, in het dagelijksch leven onz., waarschijnlijk door
> invloed van tijdstip, uur en sommige andere woorden. In België is het
> woord altijd manlijk."
>
> Always neuter to me, never masculin. (But 'blik' per se IS masculine.)
> That about the "hoogere stijl" (= higher register), in which the word
> would be masculine, is unknown to me. But note that this dictionary
> entry was written in 1893.
>
> Is it stil always masculine in Belgium, Wugi?
>
> Unfortunately, the dictionary describes the gender change, but has no
> theorie about why it occurred.

I'm not sure I get much sense out of this 'explanation', so here is
mine, Flemish oriented:

De blik = one's glance, view, a look: masc.; but fem. would be heard
also ("dienem° blik" vs. "die blik").

Het ogenblik = moment, "an eye's glance": (irreg.) neuter. In *dialect*
still masc. ("op dienen° ogenblik": at that moment; instead of, "op dat
ogenblik").

Het blik = the can: neuter.

° die, deze & dat, dit = that/those, this/these = standard Dutch
masc./fem. & n. sing.;
"diene, dienen, dienem" = Flem. dialect - masc., vs. "die" - fem.
similar for other pronouns.

--

guido wugo

Op 20/07/2021 om 9:11 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Nice modern wordplay (last decennium, maybe two):
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blikvanger
> which combines the senses of blik (m.) = glance (so blikvanger =
> eyecatcher, conspicuous item), and blik (n.) = can (the material, and
> what is made of it, like beer cans): so can catcher, a handy type of
> trashcan, easy to throw waste into while passing. But many often miss,
> or don't even try.

Nicer yet: "de blikschade", tin damage, a term for car dents.

But also a witty use as "glance damage", when one starts seeking and
fearing eye contact with a possible date...

--

guido wugi

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:10:49 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:

>Op 20/07/2021 om 9:11 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Nice modern wordplay (last decennium, maybe two):
>> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blikvanger
>> which combines the senses of blik (m.) = glance (so blikvanger =
>> eyecatcher, conspicuous item), and blik (n.) = can (the material, and
>> what is made of it, like beer cans): so can catcher, a handy type of
>> trashcan, easy to throw waste into while passing. But many often miss,
>> or don't even try.
>
>
>Nicer yet: "de blikschade", tin damage, a term for car dents.
>
>But also a witty use as "glance damage", when one starts seeking and
>fearing eye contact with a possible date...

This last one completely new to me. To old for that I guess.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 5:01:40 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 20/07/2021 om 9:07 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> > Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
> > <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
> >> Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 23:17:16 UTC+2, wugi a écrit :
> >>> Op 23/06/2021 om 22:35 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> >>> Guido:

> >>>>> Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;
> >>>> Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
> >>>> https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick
> >>> Yes, Dutch with the odd neuter* (comp. de blik - the look, vs. het blik
> >>> - the can).
> >>> * undoubtedly from French.
> >> What is undoubtedly from French ?
> The odd neuter gender of "het ogenblik".
>
> I was ironising a statement of PTD earlier:
> (Me)
> If a Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept
> it, and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell
> methat this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
> world.
> (PTD)
> Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle, la
> mer?
> As if our genders would depend on French.

Y9u don't know about how bilingualism leads to borrowing of grammatical
features? It's now understood to be a major reason why "genetic relationships"
among languages can be hard to untangle.

> > I don't know. I find this reference:
> > https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M047542
> > It says:
> > "Eigenlijk: een blik; thans alleen in den vorm oogblik, voorheen ook
> > oogenblik. Alleen manl."
> > This is unknown to me.
> > "–2. Overdrachtelijk. In Noord-Nederland nog slechts in hoogeren
> > stijl manlijk, in het dagelijksch leven onz., waarschijnlijk door
> > invloed van tijdstip, uur en sommige andere woorden. In België is het
> > woord altijd manlijk."
> > Always neuter to me, never masculin. (But 'blik' per se IS masculine.)
> > That about the "hoogere stijl" (= higher register), in which the word
> > would be masculine, is unknown to me. But note that this dictionary
> > entry was written in 1893.
> > Is it stil always masculine in Belgium, Wugi?
> > Unfortunately, the dictionary describes the gender change, but has no
> > theorie about why it occurred.
>
> I'm not sure I get much sense out of this 'explanation', so here is
> mine, Flemish oriented:
>
> De blik = one's glance, view, a look: masc.; but fem. would be heard
> also ("dienem° blik" vs. "die blik").
>
> Het ogenblik = moment, "an eye's glance": (irreg.) neuter. In *dialect*
> still masc. ("op dienen° ogenblik": at that moment; instead of, "op dat
> ogenblik").
>
> Het blik = the can: neuter.
>
> ° die, deze & dat, dit = that/those, this/these = standard Dutch
> masc./fem. & n. sing.;
> "diene, dienen, dienem" = Flem. dialect - masc., vs. "die" - fem.
> similar for other pronouns.