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

71591Re: [tied] Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

Expand Messages
  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
    Nov 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@...>:
      >
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> 2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@...>:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >> 2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@>:
      >> >> >
      >> >> >
      >> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      >> >> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
      >> >> >>
      >>
      >> *Bhr.: What I meant by "chance" is:
      >> 1) every language has different words and these differ because they
      >> have different phonemes
      >> 2) statistically, some couples of words differ by just one phoneme
      >> 3) it's statistically possible that some of these (words differing by
      >> a singole phoneme) have - by chance - the same meaning
      >
      >
      > The question is *how* statistically probable it is that two words with the
      > same meaning, which share five phonemes in the same sequence, are in fact
      > two completely (historically) separate forms.

      *Bhr.: 100% probable. It's not my fault, it's phonology. If two words
      differ by a phoneme, they are minimal couple. If two words have the
      same meaning, but different phonemes (even if just one: one is more
      than zero), they are synonyms. If You want to underline the
      statistically possible - although rare - case that they are synonyms
      differing by just a phoneme, You can label them "paronymic synonyms".
      Are paronymic synonyms possible, or are we obliged to convert them
      into genetic cognates?

      >
      >>
      >> Maybe You mean an *assimilation*, since the OHG term is du^sunt,
      >> thu^sunt (Tausend is in fact [t̺ʰaʊ̯zn̩t]);
      >
      > Yes, that's what I should have said (thanks).
      >
      > in this case, on the other
      >> side, I'd expect the same assimilation in diot 'folk', but I see
      >> nothing like that
      >>
      >
      > Long-distance assimilation/dissimilation are examples of processes that
      > don't necessarily spread through the whole lexical inventory of a language
      > (in fact, it may be the norm for them to be sporadic).
      >
      > Haplology is a similar type of process: e.g., standard Spanish shows the
      > simplification of *tenisista to "tenista", but no haplology of "narcisista"
      > to *narcista.
      >
      >
      *Bhr.: There's no haplology of *tenisista to tenista, rather there's
      a readjustment rule quite like that of narcisista:
      narcis-ismo > delete -ismo > add -ista > narcis-ista
      tennis (< French ten-ez) > delete -is > add -ista > tenn-ista
      (celt-a > delete -a > add -ista > celt-ista)
    • Show all 50 messages in this topic