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

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 71599
Date: 2013-11-14

At 7:33:31 PM on Wednesday, November 13, 2013,
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:

> 2013/11/14, gprosti <gprosti@...>:

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

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

>>>> The question is *how* statistically probable it is that
>>>> two words with the same meaning, which share five
>>>> phonemes in the same sequence, are in fact two
>>>> completely (historically) separate forms.

>>> *Bhr.: 100% probable.

>> It's 100% probable -- i.e., physically or logically
>> necessary -- that two semantically matching words with a
>> long, matching sequence of phonemes, but one non-matching
>> phoneme, must have no historical affinity whatsoever?

> *Bhr.: if they irreducibly differ even in just one
> phoneme in the root, especially word-initially, they ARE
> different by definition

English </i:/conomics>~</ε/conomics>, </i:/ther>~</aɪ/ther>,
</sk/edule>~</∫/edule>, </s/ism>~</sk/ism>,
<hoofs>~<hooves>, <r/u:/te>~<r/aʊ/te>, <r/u:t/>~<r/ʊ/t>,
<v/ɑ:z/e>~<v/eɪs/e>.

>> Even if historical affinity doesn't include these cases,
>> the probability is still not 100%, because the laws (=
>> tendencies) of sound change are not laws of mathematics
>> or physics.

> *Bhr.: they are logical laws, otherwise one could not
> demonstrate whether a given etymological hypothesis is
> correct or not

One can’t, with complete certainty. And they are certainly
not logical laws, unless you mean only that they are
reasonable, in which case your ‘otherwise ...’ is a non
sequitur.

Brian