sometimes

[Michael]

Why is sometimes written sometimes and not some times, while many times is written many times and never manytimes?

Michael

[Enmos]

In the Dutch language we have a word that sounds very similar and that also has the exact same meaning. It is not in use anymore, as it's kind of antique Dutch.

If we translate "time" to Dutch we get "tijd".

The word in question is "somtijds" and it means "sometimes" (today the word has been abbreviated to "soms").

Perhaps the English word "sometimes" has the same origin as our word "somtijds". Or maybe the English borrowed it from the Dutch..

[Fraggle Rocker]

Why is sometimes written sometimes and not some times, while many times is written many times and never manytimes?Don't look for a lot of logic in English orthography. Why are someone and anyone written as one word but no one is not? Or cannot versus has not and does not?

Sometime and anytime are each one word when used as adjectives or adverbs: Anytime you want to go... She's my sometime friend. But as nouns they're written separately: I don't have any time for you... This is going to take some time.

Why do I have a birdhouse but the zoo has a monkey house? I drive a sportscar and my wife drives a family car?

[cosmictraveler]

Instead of some times I use often in its place.

[Enmos]

Fraggle what do you think of my hypothesis ?
I looked around for the etymologies of "sometimes", "somtijds" and "soms" but wasn't able to come up with anything.

[tim840]

Don't look for a lot of logic in English orthography. Why are someone and anyone written as one word but no one is not?

Because it looks to an American (at least me) like perhaps an English spelling of "noon" (noone)

Like that one member, Noone Special... I was really confused about his name for a while, and then I finally realized it said no one

[Fraggle Rocker]

Instead of some times I use often in its place.But they don't mean the same thing. "Sometimes" means "occasionally." That's quite different from "often."

Fraggle what do you think of my hypothesis? I looked around for the etymologies of "sometimes", "somtijds" and "soms" but wasn't able to come up with anything."Some" and som are the same word from Proto-Germanic. But "time" and tijd are not. "Time" is a word of Latin origin that we got from the French after the Norman Invasion. (From Latin tempus.) We have the authentic Germanic word "tide" but we only use it for the daily movement of the ocean in response to the sun's and moon's gravity. We also have the gerund "tidings," which means "news," just like the German cognate Zeitung.

We don't use "time" quite the way the Germans use Zeit, the Dutch tijd, the Scandinavians tid, etc. To them, time is just a flowing commodity. But we can have "a time," as in, "This time you forgot to wipe your shoes before coming inside," or "Next time you won't catch me by surprise." A time can be an iteration. It can also be a point, as in, "What time is it?" When we say "any time" or "many times" or "some time," we are referring to an instance in time. The Germans would use mal in that case, and I don't know how the Dutch would say it.

[Enmos]

"Some" and som are the same word from Proto-Germanic. But "time" and tijd are not. "Time" is a word of Latin origin that we got from the French after the Norman Invasion. (From Latin tempus.) We have the authentic Germanic word "tide" but we only use it for the daily movement of the ocean in response to the sun's and moon's gravity. We also have the gerund "tidings," which means "news," just like the German cognate Zeitung.

We don't use "time" quite the way the Germans use Zeit, the Dutch tijd, the Scandinavians tid, etc. To them, time is just a flowing commodity. But we can have "a time," as in, "This time you forgot to wipe your shoes before coming inside," or "Next time you won't catch me by surprise." A time can be an iteration. It can also be a point, as in, "What time is it?" When we say "any time" or "many times" or "some time," we are referring to an instance in time. The Germans would use mal in that case, and I don't know how the Dutch would say it.

But as "some" and som are the same word in Proto-Germanic, the similarity between the words "sometimes" and "somtijds" only gets more convincing.
I would say the Dutch use of the word "tijd" is very similar to the English use of the word "time" though.
In the examples given by you we indeed use another word though, "keer", which is defined as basically a particular moment in time.
The use of the word "time" in the English language may have evolved separately from the word "sometimes" to include the use you indicated earlier.
Or perhaps the Dutch use of the word "tijd" has evolved to exclude that particular use and replace it with "keer".
I don't know, the similarity just seems to great for it to be a coincidence :)

[Fraggle Rocker]

I would say the Dutch use of the word "tijd" is very similar to the English use of the word "time" though.Interesting. I don't know enough about Dutch. I do know that the German version of the same word, Zeit (with the phonetic transformations of Verner's Law) differs significantly from our use of "time." They say manchmal for "many times," not manchzeit.The use of the word "time" in the English language may have evolved separately from the word "sometimes" to include the use you indicated earlier.I was wrong about us getting the word from the Norman French, "time" is actually from the same root as "tide." Still, we seem to have adopted at least some of their usages for their very similar cognate. The French use the modern variant of the word, temps, much differently from the German usage of Zeit, and closer to our use of "time."Or perhaps the Dutch use of the word "tijd" has evolved to exclude that particular use and replace it with "keer".No, the Dutch hew very closely to the original sense of the word tid in Proto-Germanic. It is we who have strayed.I don't know, the similarity just seems to great for it to be a coincidence.You have to recognize the power of the patterns of a language, which transcend the actual words that exist in the language's vocabulary at any point in time. 1500 years after the breakup of Latin, the speakers of Spanish, French, Romanian and the other Romance languages still have some remarkable similarities in the way they think about life and the universe. The same is true of the speakers of the Germanic languages, more than 2000 years after that much older branch of the Indo-European family started to break up. It's not remarkable that an Englishman and a Dutchman would form the same compound word to describe a condition, even if the morphemes from which it's compounded are different. Our thought patterns still have a lot in common.

In contrast, look at the difference between the compound words the Englishmen and the Spaniards invented to describe a man who has the technology to work underwater. We call him a frogman. The Spaniards call him an hombre-rana, a "man-frog." The Germanic and Italic language branches split off from each other about 3000 years ago, and our thought patterns have had much more time to diverge.

[Enmos]

Interesting. I don't know enough about Dutch. I do know that the German version of the same word, Zeit (with the phonetic transformations of Verner's Law) differs significantly from our use of "time." They say manchmal for "many times," not manchzeit.I was wrong about us getting the word from the Norman French, "time" is actually from the same root as "tide." Still, we seem to have adopted at least some of their usages for their very similar cognate. The French use the modern variant of the word, temps, much differently from the German usage of Zeit, and closer to our use of "time."No, the Dutch hew very closely to the original sense of the word tid in Proto-Germanic. It is we who have strayed.You have to recognize the power of the patterns of a language, which transcend the actual words that exist in the language's vocabulary at any point in time. 1500 years after the breakup of Latin, the speakers of Spanish, French, Romanian and the other Romance languages still have some remarkable similarities in the way they think about life and the universe. The same is true of the speakers of the Germanic languages, more than 2000 years after that much older branch of the Indo-European family started to break up. It's not remarkable that an Englishman and a Dutchman would form the same compound word to describe a condition, even if the morphemes from which it's compounded are different. Our thought patterns still have a lot in common.
The English language is heavily influenced by the French language and, although probably at a later date, the Dutch language was influenced by the French language as well.

In contrast, look at the difference between the compound words the Englishmen and the Spaniards invented to describe a man who has the technology to work underwater. We call him a frogman. The Spaniards call him an hombre-rana, a "man-frog." The Germanic and Italic language branches split off from each other about 3000 years ago, and our thought patterns have had much more time to diverge.
Hmmm yes but the words (spelling) themselves are rather different.

When on vacation in Sweden I was struck by an unexpected similarity between Swedish and English as well as Dutch.
I can decipher much of it without any knowledge about the language itself.