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

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:01:20 -0000, "tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>> The *-tos in the ordinals 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.

I can leave the "probably" off, if you prefer.

>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).

But that makes my point, doesn't it? The suffix is historically
-de/-te, but the dropping of -n in the cardinals makes it look as if
the suffix is now -nde from 7 on (even though there never was an -n in
8, that's analogical spread).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...