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

2013/11/13, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
>
> ---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-.
>

*Bhr.: I've written: "it's a completely different etymon". This
unequivocally means, I think, "different from that of the other
Germanic (incl. Old German) forms", whose etymology therefore isn't
affected by my atomistic explanation (otherwise, how could it be
atomistic? We would have again to face a phonological problem, which
is precisely what I intended to avoid)