Kruiseke Village

[Marc Thompson]

I have come across several different spellings of this village near Ypres (Ieper) in relation to the actions of 2nd Scots Guards in October 1914:

British Battalions in France & Belgium 1914 - KRUISEECKE

The Scots Guards in the Great War - KRUISECKE

The Seventh Division - KRUISEIK

War Diary - KRUISIEK

Can anyone indicate which of the above would have been correct in October 1914?

Marc

[Aurel Sercu]

Marc,

I know this reply will not really answer your question, but being from Ypres, 10 km (6 miles) from that hamlet...

What would have been the correct spelling in 1914 ? Hard to tell.

Do you mean the correct spelling in British documents ? The problem is that the "correct English" spelling could be the "wrong Flemish" spelling. Look what you did to our Ploegsteert ! You turned it into Plugstreet !!!

All I can say that the modern spelling is KRUISEKE.

Not uninteresting is the etymology of this toponym.

First part "kruis" = cross (could be cross roads, or a cross or crucifix).

Second part = modern Dutch "eik" = oak tree.

So : the hamlet near the oak tree with the cross, or at the crossroads near the oak tree. I know it is a bit pedantic, but considering the rest not unimportant.

So KRUISECKE en KRUISIEK cannot possibly have been the spelling at the time. There is no way the second part can be justified. Vowel totally wrong.

KRUISEECKE and KRUISEIK sound and look perfect.

And indeed, the former is what I find on a trench map. So that should solve your problem. However, the latter looks fine too. Actually that should in my opinion be the modern spelling of that hamlet now, being the correct transposition in our standard language of the pronunciation of that name in our dialect. (I think that strictly spoken this "Kruiseik" should be preferred to "Kruiseke", which it is now.)

But saying that also reveals my doubt : "Kruiseik" looks a bit too modern. (I see you found it in Atkinson's Seventh Division, published in 1927. So maybe at that time it was more or less acceptable...)

You know what, I will have a look next Wednesday in Ypres at some other trench maps.

Aurel

P.S. Sorry for speaking like a teacher. After three years of retirement it is time I stopped doing that.

[Marc Thompson]

Aurel,

Many thanks for your informative and interesting explanation.

I was after the correct Flemish spelling. As the spelling KRUISIEK appears to be common throughout the War Diary and associated maps for the 2nd Scots Guards my guess would be that this particular version may have been another play on words by the English at the time in the same way as Plugstreet?

If you are able to clarify KRUISEECKE or KRUISEIK on Wednesday then that would be great, but please don't go out of your way to do so.

Regards

Marc

[Aurel Sercu]

As the spelling KRUISIEK appears to be common throughout the War Diary and associated maps for the 2nd Scots Guards my guess would be that this particular version may have been another play on words by the English at the time in the same way as Plugstreet?

As to KRUISIEK being a play on words... Actually I don't think so. But I think that you being a native speaker will be a better judge of that.

What is typical of PLUGSTREET and WHITE SHEET (instead of "Ploegsteert" and "Wijtschate"), and what they have in common, is that the British soldiers distorted these names into something that sounded English, though the meaning of the resulting product, though amusing, was not at all related to the original meaning of the Flemish name. In the meaning and etymology of the original Flemish names "Ploegsteert" and "Wijtschate", there is nothing that can justify the "plug" and the "street" and the "white" and the "sheet" in your PLUGSTREET and WHITE SHEET. (Actually, a literal translation of "Ploegsteert" would produce "Ploughtail", which means : the end part of the field, where the farmer turned his plough and went back).

I am not sure if the linguistic term "folk (or popular) etymology" exists in English, but both deformations of our Flemish toponyms are very good examples. (I may be wrong, but I think I remember reading how "asparagus" was distorted into "sparrow grass" ?)

Back to "Kruisiek". In my opinion this is a bit different, because as far as I see, this does not look or sound like a familiar English word (amusing or not). So I think that the War Diary just made an error, swapping the E and the I of the original "Kruiseik". And an understandable error it was. For - sorry, I can't resist, but I feel something naughty coming up - I have noticed in this Forum more than once that some members write "recieve" and beleive".

(No !!! I do NOT want to give that "spelling" thread of some weeks ago a second life !!!)

Aurel

P.S. My apologies for speaking like a teacher again. I really should do something about it, and try to remember that the Forum members are not a class !

But you tempted and provoked me !

[Marc Thompson]

Aurel,

Sorry for tempting and provoking you! As for being in class - I take the view that we are never too old to learn.

Your suggestion makes far more sense. A transposition of letters is the most likely answer. As you say, we don't want to revisit that "spelling" thread of some weeks ago.

Thanks again.

Marc

[Joris Ryckeboer]

Hello,

KRUISEECKE would have been correct. I found a program of the anual festivities from the year 1889. There it is speld Kruiseecke.

Now the name of this hamlet is Kruiseke. I don't know when it has been changed, but Kruiseke is the modern spelling of Kruiseecke. That's for sure. Names of Belgian towns or hamlets changed several times during history. I mean the spelling, because the pronunciation didn't!

Greetings,

Joris Ryckeboer (Westouter, Flanders)