Re: Re[2]: [tied] -kt- (was: Alb. katër)

Brian M. Scott wrote:

>
> No, you don't: as Richard said, these are examples of
> GERMANIC *k, from PIE *g or *g^. OE <tæ:can> 'to teach' has
> /k/ intervocalically in the infinitive but /x/ before /t/ in
> the 1,3sg.pret.ind. <tæhte>. Similarly, <þencan> 'to think'
> has /k/ (that's Germanic *k) in the infinitive but /x/
> before /t/ in the 1,3sg.pret.ind. <þo:hte>. The point is
> that Gmc. *kt becomes /xt/, but in most environments *k
> remains /k/.
>
> Brian

Do I understand you false woe you mean here with " *k remains /k/" the
Gmc *k and not the PIE *k ?
I was speaking about the PIE *k if I remember right.

>> That is a bad examle: The german "rupfen" is Latin
>> "rumpere", Thracia "rompaia ( rendered by Greek as
>> rompaia); The lost of "m" is in Rom. today of old "rumpe"
>> to actualy "rupe", so I think. My dictyionary gives german
>> "rumpfen" from "ruppen" belonging to the same family as
>> rubbeln; IE cognates are shown by "rubbeln" I have no
>> ideea how you would get from root *reuk Latin "rumpere"
>> and German rupp, both having already the "p" there; in
>> fact it doesnt matter how you draw it, you cannot avoid
>> the stage "p".
>
> This is irrelevant nonsense. The point is that English
> <rough>, with /f/, is from OE _ru:h_, from Gmc. *ru:hwa-;
> this Gmc. *h is from PIE *k (Watkins gives *ru&-k- as the
> source), so English <rough> is in fact an example of the
> change /k/ > /f/ (by way of /x/).
>
> Brian
>

I got it now. Just one question. Why do you make me belive you think
English "ruff" is not deriving from the same root as German "raufen"?

Alex