Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

71579Re: [tied] Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

Expand Messages
  • gprosti
    Nov 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
      > May I state again that it was an etymology only for the aberrant
      > German forms? It would be complete nonsense to replace a phonological
      > impasse (OHG tu^sunt < PIE *t-) with a much greater one (OHG #d- < PIE
      > *dh-)! I'm just suggesting tu^sunt and thu^sunt represent different
      > etyma. Claims that X and Y (in this case, tu^sunt and thu^sunt)
      > "cannot be separated" are justified in a regular system of diatopic
      > phonological variation, otherwise they're quite arbitrary,

      I'm not sure what you mean by "regular system of diatopic variation", but if you have a set of words with a sufficient amount of shared phonetic material, plus matching semantics, this overrides the criterion of regular phonetic correspondence when drawing a connection between two or more forms.

      E.g., I would say that there is no need to find regular sound rules to justify a relationship between Finnish kuningas "king" and OHG kuning. The two share a sequence of six phonemes, and they match semantically (compare thu^sunt/tu^sunt, with at least a five-phoneme match) probabilistically, this is enough to conclude they share a common ancestor.

      None of this implies rejecting the regularity of sound change -- it may turn out that the pair of kuningas/kuning perfectly follows a pattern of Finnish/Germanic sound correspondence from a certain time period. But, it does mean that there are other criteria that can be used independently of regular sound correspondence to conclude that a set of words can or can't be separated from one another.
    • Show all 50 messages in this topic