[tied] Re: to buy-revised

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
>
> > But this "au" from Gmc reflects an Latin "u" for instance: murus--
>
> maur mauer
> > Doesn't it?
>
> No. I'm talking of words with PGmc. *au or with early Germanic *au
> from Lat. au. What you mention above is a different phenomenon:

PGmc.

> (or borrowed Latin) *u: (a long vowel), diphthongised in German (and
> also in English, as a result of the Great Vowel Shift), e.g. PGmc.
> *xu:saz > Ger. Haus, Eng. house. The two sounds partly merged in
> German, but their normal English reflexes are completely different
> (except in some cases where they were affected by umlaut):
>
> PGmc. *au > OE e:a > ModE /i:/ (typically spelt <ea>);
> PGmc. *u: > OE u: > ModE /aU/ (typically spelt <ou> or <ow>).
>
> ModE cheap comes from OE ce:ap 'trade, bargain' < *kaup- (the names
> Chapman, Koopman and Kaufmann have the same etymology).
>

Dutch goedkoop "cheap" (<? 'bonne marché').

One might argue that Latin caupo is a loan from some unknown source,
that the -u- of that was from an original -mw- (or that -au- was
naslised) and that kupit' was from the same source as the Latin side
form kup- (or that Polish borrowed the kupic´ from Russian, pretty
unlikely). Then it would fall into place with the "wash" word. But
that's a lot of machinery to assume.

Torsten