[tied] Re: "Will the 'real' linguist please stand up?"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:30:50 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >German has no equivalent to 'iets'. And there is no 'Iks' in Dutch.
> >
> >And if one should follow your metaphor to the full, you should let
> >both seven's be borrowed from a hypothetical *sekt- or *sext- (cf.
> >Standard High German "nichts"; note in German -xs- > -ks-, as in,
> >yes 'sechs' [zeks]).
>

> It wasn't a metaphor, merely an illustration that in modern Dutch,
> /ks/ can be substituted for /ts/.

'father', 'paternity'. This is not a metaphor, merely an illustration
that in modern English, /p/ can be substituted for /f/

>


> >Note the -t- in "p'at'", BTW, from the ordinal;
> >is there a similar extra-IE adjective-forming -t- somewhere?
>
> The *-tos in the ordianls is not properly an adjective-forming

suffix

> (*-os is). It probably became an ordinal forming suffix by accident
> (*dek^mt ~ *d(e)k^mt-os --> *dek^m. ~ *dek^m-tos)

Erh, hmm. If Miguel states it so forcefully, it must be true. A
quirky example from Danish: numerals fem, seks, syv, otte, ni, ti;
ordinals femte, sjette, syvende, ottende, niende, tiende; cf past
participle -te, present participle -nde. Synchronically, therefore,
these Danish ordinals look as if they were participles, thus
adjectives (please don't entertain me with their history, I know it).

Torsten