Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:19 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:13 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
yeah right - one, three, five and nine are purely Indian but seven
alone got influenced by Hurrite.
First, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth
are purely Anglo-Saxon and second alone came from French. Once again you
are expressing strong and disdainful disbelief of a phenomenon that is
readily demonstrated to exist.
Because the place of "twoth" was already taken by "tooth"?
But interesting as this maybe - why should the only Mitanni form (from
amongst 1,3,5,7,9) that is undeniably MIA if it is IA be the only form
that was influenced by Hurrite?
It may be true - but simply asserting it isn't proof.
Simply questioning it isn't proof that it isn't.

When a speech
community is under the influence of more than one language - the form
chosen for a word from among different choices would never be through
an "eeney-meeny-miney-mo" mechanism.
Really? Why not? Because you used the words "would never"? Keep in mind
that once a language has several synonyms for each of a number of
related concepts, no one remembers any longer which words came from
which languages. So if the selection later comes to favor one word for
each of those concepts, there isn't any reason why it would be uniformly
down the line of language of origin.

I didn't say that.

It's the whole basis for your insisting on some significance to the treatment of "seven" among the Mittani numbers.

Look at the mix-and-match nature of the basic color names among the
Romance languages. Seehttp://www.ielanguages.com/romlang.html#colors.

If the establishment had looked for it - reasons would have been found
why exactly the chosen forms were chosen (different substrate/adstrate
languages that produced a different final outcome?).

As someone--Ross?--pointed out to you, at the most trivial level, yeah, there is a reason for everything, but that reason may be as simple as, "Because this is the way patterns of usage went." What makes you think it's any more significant than that? Your argument relies on an underlying premise that every time people open their mouths and use on particular word instead of a synonym, they go through a whole, conscious selection process. Your use of the word "chosen" encapsulates this fallacy. It's ridiculous. Do you think there's some nontrivial reason why different Americans in different parts of the country say "grinder", "hoagie", "hero", "sub", etc.? Why some say "bag" and others say "sack"?


Any number of pre-existent forms
for related words (and also the need to fit in with pre-existing rules
of inflection) would affect the choice
Really? What pre-existing rules prevented the substitution of "second"
for the Anglo-Saxon word? Oh, wait, that's right, nothing prevented it.
There is no such barrier. (One might wonder how you think English has
ever absorbed any vocabulary from any language that has inflections
foreign to English.)

I forgot that there would have been a word like "twoth" before the
English encountered deuxieme (is second really from deuxieme?) and for
some reason (which I am sure can be found even now from attested
evidence) second fits in better with the whole language and displaced
the Anglo Saxon word.

"Second fits in better"? [shaking head] Yes, reality must rewrite itself to keep from shattering your preconceptions. Yes, there must have been something mindbogglingly cosmic about "second" that made it fit English so much better than the word it replaced, that wasn't the case for the other French ordinals vis-a-vis their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. *Not*.

And here you are again, arguing unabashedly from a lack of knowledge on *two* counts. For your information, the Anglo-Saxon word for "second" was not "twoth" or anything related to "two". And "second" is not from French "deuxième", it's from French "second". Amazing that you can't even be bothered to look up things like these before questioning them (even in the face of something so unlikely-looking as "second" coming from "deuxième"). Well, if my two sentences in this paragraph about Anglo-Saxon and French words for "second" have opened up any new questions for you (they should have), why don't you do your own homework this time and see if you can find the answers?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... community is under the influence of more than one language - the form ... there isn't any reason why it would be uniformly ... (One might wonder how you think English has ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... community is under the influence of more than one language - the form ... there isn't any reason why it would be uniformly ... (One might wonder how you think English has ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Embedding assembler in a language
    ... be used to improve the performance of the main language instead. ... This is also the reason why I see ... for handcoded assembler, although there are a few rare exceptions. ... I decided to provide a solution in the Seed7 runtime library. ...
    (comp.lang.misc)
  • Re: Controlling Javascript from server side
    ... but five different language implementations here. ... 'true' means that the request must be handled asynchronously. ... There is exactly *no* reason for such a thing here. ... | percent-endoded string). ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: subroutine stack and C machine model
    ... Don't you know that all C programs that are run from the command line ... good reason, I disagree. ... Using an older form of language it was to allow free men to act freely ... his continued publication suggests that his reputation hasn't ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading