--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > bund "bottom" Danish
> > botten "bottom" Swedish
> >
> > (cf
> >
> > vand "water" Danish
> > vatten "water" Swedish
> >
> > Two different case forms in Da. and Sw.?)
>
> Hey, isn't <nd> just a Danish spelling of a long /n:/ (with a
> palatal touch) arising from any of several sources, including *tn ?
>
Yes, that is the standard explanation. The old pronunciation /nY/
(not just a touch of palatality) is secured from an 18th century
textbook on Danish which compares Danish -ld- and -nd- with Spanish
-ll- and -ñ-. (They later went > -ll- and -nn-, obviously, except in
spelling, where the insistence of Danish orthograpy of doing without
written geminates word-finally made that spelling spread into roots
in etymological -ll- and -nn- (vinde, falde, impv vind!, fald!).
I just don't think the standard explanation of an earlier
*-tn- > -nY- sounds right. A hypothetical development
*-Vtn- > *-VDn- > *-Vyn- would get stuck there with all the other
Danish words in diphthong + -n which show no inclination to
go > -nY- .
Torsten