Odp: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> But all Germanic forms of "tooth" go back to the same PGmc. form

*tanT! The Dutch version is closest to the original. OHG had zand
which has become zahn in Modern German
Aha. But how?

("ah" cannot continue Germanic *o: < PIE *o:) In English, we have pre-
fricative nasal deletion with compensatory lengthening *tanT > *ta~:T

> OE to:T. Old Norse had tann < *tanT by regular assimilation (so

still in West Scandinavian). The Danish/Swedish -d is of later
origin, as in mand, and should NOT be directly compared with Dutch
tand.
Aha. And where does that suddenly appear from?
BTW, "mand" is only Danish, not Swedish.

>
> BTW, the zero grade *dnt- probably survives in tusk < tu:sc < *tu:T-

sk- < *tunT-ska-z

>
> Piotr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:36 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar
>
>
>
> Yes, as I thought. Someone ought to do a systematic exposé of of
> this. Actually I thought up something around "tooth". Something

like:

>
> Nom. do:n
> Acc. dent-
> Gen. dnt-
>
> I know this is horrible and with all kinds of details wrong. But

look:

>
> German Zahn-
> Du., Sca. tand-
> English tooth