From: dgkilday57
Message: 71602
Date: 2013-11-15
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:2013/11/13, dgkilday57@... <dgkilday57@...>:
>*Bhr.: I've written: "it's a completely different etymon". This
>
>
> ---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-.
>
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)
[DGK:]
Clearly I misunderstood your previous post. If I read you correctly now, you are not trying to dump the accepted protoform of Pan-Germanic 'thousand' with initial *þ-, but you are proposing an additional protoform with initial *d- to explain ONLY the OHG forms with initial t- and their descendants.
If I understand this proposal, it would seem to require not one but three incredibly astonishing coincidences. First, your rival protoform differs from the usual one only in the first phoneme. Second, there is no trace of your protoform in Gothic, where we would expect it because the prefix _du-_ was productive there (e.g. _duginnan_). Third, your protoform is reflected only in part of High German, and the reflex happens to have the same form that a borrowing from Upper German would have.
Any reasonable scholar would conclude that borrowing is highly likely, whether or not he found the scenario of _Tausend_ and _Traube_ spreading northward with the wine-trade plausible. Your devotion to Mario Alinei's immobilist doctrine has gone off the deep end. Obviously Alinei exerts a hypnotic hold over his doggedly devoted disciples, and so you are incapable of accepting movement of European peoples, and loanwords in their languages, in Pre-Roman times. Since I know nothing about counter-hypnosis or deprogramming techniques, this is something that I and others must accept about you when discussing languages. But with OHG we are a millennium or more removed from Alinei's purported era of palaeolithic continuity, and I cannot fathom anyone going to such extreme lengths to avoid recognizing a loanword.