From: dgkilday57
Message: 71574
Date: 2013-11-13
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:So <t> is old (while e.g. diot and its derivatives have thoroughly
either <d-> or <th->). In my robotical opinion, it's a completely
different etymon - a substantived participle *dhú-h1s-nt-ih2/4 'the
highest numeral not compounded by other numerals', with *dhu > Goth.
du and *h1es- 'be' (Goth. du mostly translates Gk. en; Gk. tò enón,
pl. tà enónta means 'everything possible')
> OHG also *tu^sent*, *tu^sunt *beside *thu^sunt*, *thu^sont du^sont*,
> *du^sent*, *du^sint*, inflected NA *thusunta*, D *thusuntin*, *thusonton*,
> *dusonton*, *dusuntun*; Late OHG *tu^sunt*; MHG *tu^sunt tu^sint* *tu^sent
> *beside *du^sent*, plur. *tu^sent*, apocop. *tu^sen*, Late MHG
> *tu^sung*, *tu^sinc
> *(Alemannic), *tu^seng*, *tu^si^g*
>
[DGK:]
Nice try, but your rather atomistic explanation fails to account for Gothic _þu:sundi_, Old Saxon _thûsundig_, Old Frisian _thûsend_, and Old English _þúsend_, all of which point unequivocally to Germanic *þ-, Indo-European *t-.