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

71584Re: [tied] Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

Expand Messages
  • gprosti
    Nov 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
      > 2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@...>:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- 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.
      > >
      > >
      > *Bhr.: (I've added the dash)
      > This is a different case. With tu^sunt / thu^sunt we have a phonemic
      > difference, i.e. one that can change the meaning of a word. If in this
      > very case the meaning doesn't change, it's pure chance;

      By "chance", do you mean random variation within a single language? But if so, that's what needs to be proven rather than assumed: i.e., that tausend is not a dialectal variant of expected *dausend.

      Even if "tausend" is not a dialectal form, couldn't it just reflect dissimilation (*d_d > t_d)?
    • Show all 50 messages in this topic