Re: Why there is t- in German tausend "thousand"?

2013/11/9, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
> Germanic *th yielded d in German. So, we would expect *dausent "1000"
> (cf. Eng. thousand, Old Saxon thu^sundig etc. (+ attestation of t- in
> Balto-Slavic). Dutch duizend is regular, as well as OHG du^sunt is.
>
> If the MHD and modern German forms with t- are borrowings, from what
> dialect/language?
>
> And if their development was regular, are there more German words with t-
> on the place of Germanic th-?
>
> Kluge only states "Lautlich zu erwarten wäre nhd. d-" - this is just
> statement, no way explanation. If d- was expected like Kluge says, why t-?
>
> [DGK:]
>
> Another example is _Traube_, MHG _tru:be_ against OHG _dru:bo_, OS
> _thru:bo_, Du. _druif_ 'grape' (with the same semantic development 'bunch of
> grapes' > 'grape' as in Fr. _raisin_ and Eng. _grape_ itself).
>
> Both _Tausend_ and _Traube_ are explicitly stated to be of Upper German
> origin by K.G. Goblirsch, "Notker's Law and Consonant Strength", North-West
> European Language Evolution 31/32:135-43, 1997:
>
> "Modern [Upper German] dialects also show a great confusion in the
> development of Gmc. /b/, /d/, /g/. In many areas, secondary strengthening
> to /p/, /t/, /k/ is reported. Compare the following examples: _kukkN_
> 'gucken', _pitt@... 'bitter', _platt_ 'Blatt', _klass_ 'Glass', _pi@...
> 'Bier', _pa:n_ 'Bahn', _ko,:fn_ 'gaffen'. OHG /d/ is also reportedly
> strengthened to /t/ as in the following examples from the Zürcher Oberland:
> _ti,kx_ 'dick', _tun@_ 'Donner', but _do:rff_ 'Dorf', _diNN_ 'Ding' ([A.]
> Weber [, Die Mundart des Zürcher Oberlandes, Btr. zur schwd. Gr. 10,
> Frauenfeld] 1923). The examples are diverse, varying not only from dialect
> to dialect, but also from word to word. Some, like _Traube_ and _Tausend_,
> entered the standard in their 'strengthened' forms. Across-the-board
> strengthening of the OHG /b/, /d/, /g/ is also reported in a few isolated
> areas, that is, Burgenland in Middle Bavarian and in (former) Middle and
> North Bavarian dialects bordering on the Czech-speaking area. In view of
> such findings, it seems there would be no functional opposition of strength
> in initial position in Upper German, were it not for unaffricated [kh-] and
> aspiration in borrowings transmitted through the literary standard."
>

(...)

*Bhr.: I fail to understand the treatment of German /d/ < PIE */t/
together with German /b/ /g/ < PIE */bh/ */gh/: aren't they different
isoglosses? Upper German /p/ /k/ for German /b/ /g/ are the regular
outcome of 2nd Sound Shift (in those areas where it included most
developments) and are therefore a more complete version of German /t/
< PIE */dh/ (or Verner Proto-Germanic */d/ < PIE */t/, of course)