From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 27404
Date: 2003-11-18
> Brian M. Scott wrote:Yes, Gmc. *k.
>> 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/.
> 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 was the problem: Richard's examples have nothing to do
>>> That is a bad examle: The german "rupfen" is LatinI said nothing about <raufen> at all. There are at least
>>> "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/).
> 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"?