> --- In email@example.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:I see just "k" > "h" and nothing else; in this "h" I recognise the
>> -why one has to speak about the threatment of clusters "kt", "ks"
>> not about the treatment of "c" before dental/siflant?
> Linguists are taught to think of speech, rather than writing as
> primary. The phonetic symbol for the sound of Latin "c" (I should
> use angle brackets <c> to denote a spelling, but this construction
> sometimes get misinterpreted as an HTML tag, so I'm using the quote
> instead) is /k/. Therefore, rather than talk of Latin "ct" or "x"
> when talking of changes in speech, they prefer to talk of /kt/
> or /ks/.
>> I put this question since the examples with germanic development
> of "ks"
>> seems unsatisfactory to me. I don't see any difference between the
>> develpoment of "k" > "h" and the development "kt" in "ht" or "ks"
>> "hs" this is why I am asking for some explanation.
> For Germanic, the best present-day examples may be in the spelling
> of the grossly irregular weak pasts in English, such as _teach_,
> _taught_ (cf. "token"); _think_, _thought_; _seek_, _sought_;
> _work_, _wrought_ (archaic). Modern English "ght" descends from Old
> English "ht", where as the velar or affricate in the English words
> goes back to Germanic *k, whose various descendant in Old English
> were written "c". The Germanic *k in these words (or parallel
> formations) has often become "ch" in German, so the change is not
> always so visible - _Zeichen_ (noun, not verb); _denken_, dachte;
> _suchen_ (regular!); _wirken_ (OHG _wirchen_ - the modern from may
> be Low German) (regular!).
> I hope this explanation helps.