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

71598Re: [tied] Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

Expand Messages
  • gprosti
    Nov 13, 2013
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
      >
      > 2013/11/14, gprosti <gprosti@...>:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      > > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> 2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@>:
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> *Bhr.: 100% probable.
      > >
      > >
      > > It's 100% probable -- i.e., physically or logically necessary -- that two
      > > semantically matching words with a long, matching sequence of phonemes, but
      > > one non-matching phoneme, must have no historical affinity whatsoever?
      >
      > *Bhr.: if they irreducibly differ even in just one phoneme in the
      > root, especially word-initially, they ARE different by definition

      Synchronically, yes.

      > >
      > > Even if historical affinity doesn't include these cases, the probability is
      > > still not 100%, because the laws (= tendencies) of sound change are not laws
      > > of mathematics or physics.
      >
      > *Bhr.: they are logical laws, otherwise one could not demonstrate
      > whether a given etymological hypothesis is correct or not

      I disagree. If enough data is gathered in support of a sound correspondence, a single exception does not immediately invalidate that correspondence (though it may suggest that the correspondence is more complicated than previously thought).

      > >
      > > 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 -
      > >
      > > Rare = a low probability.
      >
      > *Bhr.: well, phonological irregularity is NO probability,

      Proof?

      >
      > >
      > > 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?
      > >>
      > >
      > > If
      > >

      By the way, I meant to write "semantically matching words" in the sentence below:

      > > - a set of words shares a non-trivial number of consecutive phonemes (again,
      > > I would say 5 is a non-trivial number)
      >
      > *Bhr.: Four out of five are suffixes or second members of compound,
      > they are identical in both words in my etymology as well, so they
      > cannot be taken into consideration
      >
      > > - they only differ in one phoneme
      >
      > *Bhr.: The root is constituted by two phonemes, so they differ at 50%
      >
      > > and
      > > - there is no clear process (morphological or otherwise) whereby the words
      > > could have been independently created in each language from separate
      > > components
      >
      > *Bhr.: I can't understand. This is anyway not the case. A preverb
      > *dhu, the root *h1es-, a participle in *-nt- and the feminine ending
      > *-ih2 are trivial elements in Germanic Erbwortschatz

      But how trivial is the combination *-h1s-nt(-ih2)?

      Also, how widely attested is *dhu in the languages where it appears (besides this OHG form, only in Gothic, if I understood you correctly)?

      >
      > >
      > > then I would say the most probable explanation of these words' similarity is
      > > common origin (which, again, can involve loaning).
      >
      > *Bhr.: Were it so easy, I think Kluge, Mitzka, Seebold &c. wouldn't
      > have had to wait for You in order to discover such a perfect solution.
      > In such cases, the solution can be either in something they didn't
      > know (like e.g. Hittite hapax tu-up-ra 'bound' or a kind of evil as a
      > comparandum for Zauber, as I've proposed some years ago) or in
      > something they couldn't admit, i.e. surely not diatopic variation or
      > loans, but - as You too seem completely incapable to accept - the
      > emergence of a couple of paronymic synonyms,

      I'm not unable to accept them in principle, but I don't think they should be the default explanation for an irregularity in an otherwise regular correspondence (between forms of non-trivial size).

      yet Old Norse þúshund
      > (and Runic Swedish þūshundrað) vs. þúsund, Old Slav. tysęšti, tysǫšti
      > &c. show a similar opposition
      >
      > >
      > > This is not the same as dismissing a dissimilarity between phonemes (t- vs.
      > > d-, etc.) entirely.
      >
      > *Bhr.: I really can't understand. Who dismisses and who doesn't?

      You seemed to be contrasting your solution with the dismissal of the t-/d- difference.

      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> *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)
      > >>
      > >
      > > Proof?
      > >
      > >
      > *Bhr.: As proven by celt-ista, -ista does delete stem-final endings.

      Not proof that every speaker of Spanish has done so every time they've formed a word with -ista.

      > There's no word †narcis; tenista : tenis = narcisista : X, where X
      > surely doesn't end in -is like tenis
      >

      Maybe this logic was operating in the minds of the people who originated "tenista", maybe not.
    • Show all 50 messages in this topic