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

71593Re: [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, <johnvertical@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> > ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <gprosti@> wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> > 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.
      > >>
      > >> Which itself can be overriden if the similarities can be shown to have
      > >> divergent origins, of course. In this case that'd require a whole bunch of
      > >> corroborating evidence for the model of forming numerals as "largest
      > >> numeral not yet named", though. The best precedent I can think for
      > >> anything along these lines is from the set-theoretical construction of
      > >> ordinal numbers, a bit advanced for a supposed pre-HG origin :)
      > >>
      > >> I'm going to wonder if analogy may be again at work, perhaps this time
      > >> starting from the rather similar _Dutzend_. Does this have related
      > >> /t/-initial forms that could have influenced the appearence of the same in
      > >> _tausend_?
      > >>
      > >> _j.
      > >>
      > >
      > > True, but "can be shown to have divergent origins" contains a potentially
      > > vast spectrum of plausibilty. E.g., it's one thing to show that OHG kuning
      > > and Finn. kuningas could each be formed from clearly discernible elements or
      > > through clearly productive morphological processes within their respective
      > > languages. It's another thing to derive one or both of these words using
      > > rare, semantically obscure roots or affixes and use this as a basis for
      > > doubting their common descent.
      > >
      > >
      > *Bhr.: isn't it clear that with du^sunt and tu^sunt we are dealing of
      > word in the same language?

      Maybe, but I don't understand the relevance here. "shirt" and "skirt" are also two words in the same language.

      The case of similar, more or less evidently
      > cognate words in different language is completely different! I
      > understand it's very interesting, but nobody is questioning that, the
      > point is that if thu^sunt and du^sunt are (as they are) the regular
      > OHG outcome of Germanic *þūsundī, tu^sunt isn't. If You absolutely
      > want to have a parallel case of kuning : kuningas, You have to find a
      > possible target language in OHG times or before. I'm waiting for that
      >

      Do you mean *source* language/dialect from which the variant with "t-" would have come? Upper German has been suggested on this thread.
    • Show all 50 messages in this topic