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

71599Re: [tied] Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

Expand Messages
  • Brian M. Scott
    Nov 14, 2013
      At 7:33:31 PM on Wednesday, November 13, 2013,
      Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:

      > 2013/11/14, gprosti <gprosti@...>:

      >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
      >> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

      >>> 2013/11/13, gprosti <gprosti@...>:

      >>>> 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 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

      English </i:/conomics>~</ε/conomics>, </i:/ther>~</aɪ/ther>,
      </sk/edule>~</∫/edule>, </s/ism>~</sk/ism>,
      <hoofs>~<hooves>, <r/u:/te>~<r/aʊ/te>, <r/u:t/>~<r/ʊ/t>,

      >> 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

      One can’t, with complete certainty. And they are certainly
      not logical laws, unless you mean only that they are
      reasonable, in which case your ‘otherwise ...’ is a non

    • Show all 50 messages in this topic