From: tgpedersen
Message: 46181
Date: 2006-09-22
>What does she have to say about the -ss- forms, assuming she's aware
> On 2006-09-22 14:47, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > I'll read that as: and that is a reason to believe ...
> > If we assume that every lost branch in NWEurope had -tt- > -ss-
> > we will have to separate the words in -tt- from those in -ss- or
> > account for them as taboo distortions. I find it strange that the
> > taboo distortion in both words went -ss- -> -tt-, ie. back to
> > where it had come from. I don't think your restriction holds.
>
> I don't regard *-tt- as a taboo distortion of *-ss- or as a reversal
> of the change, but as a doublet form, closely related but separable.
> I think *-tt- goes back to *-tn- > *-dn- > *-dd- (with occasional
> metathesis producing *-nd- > *-nt-, which escapes nasal assimilation).
> *kunto:n- is discussed in Lühr's Habilitationsschrift among the
> possible examples of "die 'expressive' Nasalierung im Germanischen".
> She notes the -tt- variants but doesn't dicuss the possibility
> of metathesis. Instead, she suspects the contamination of *kutto:n-
> (MHG kotze, etc.) with *kunði- in the meaning 'gender, sex' -->
> 'genitals', which looks a bit far-fetched to me.
> The connection with the Latin word seems to goodOr a common substrate of both in their old home.
> to be rejected lightly (if the Germanic term is a loan, the
> source could even be something "Italoid").