Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

On Sep 17, 9:48 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@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.

No I am just saying that its an amazing coincidence that alone among
the Sanskrit-like numerals in Mitanni - 'satta' that would destroy
Witzel's pre-vedic claim conveniently turns out to have 'sinti' in
Hurrian it could have been derived from.

he may still be right - but more evidence is needed than simply "If
this had happened, then it would save my theory".


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"?

yes - there would turn out to be a reason for each of these if someone
were to look for it.




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").

Strangely enough, my error actually makes my point (and I wouldn't say
I was testing you - it wouldn't have occurred to me in a hundred years
that 'second' is a French word). 'Second" now sounds so
quintessentially English that although I was aware of (nullus secundus
from Latin) I only thought of the "french-sounding "deuxieme" and
didn't know that 'second' is (essentially) a synonym in French.

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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thanks but no thanks - although I got some education out of it - but
why English ended up with 'second' is not a very important research
prioroty for me right now.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from
    ... making horoscope in a way I suggested that it is better. ... ignored partly for that reason and partly for the reason I gave above. ... If english is not your first language then good on you for posting here. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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: OT - PatnTonys potatoes
    ... What you suggested above was making a new, alternative rule for apostrophes. ... The reason is, I think, that this is usually how we say it, which is the rule of thumb for most of these things. ... We may lose either the clarity or the beauty of our language, ... You only have to look at other internet forums (and I stick resolutely to the English plural here) to see how garbled and unclear and ugly English can become when it's carelessly used. ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... are purely Anglo-Saxon and second alone came from French. ... community is under the influence of more than one language - the form ... there is a reason for everything, but that reason may be as simple as, "Because this is the way patterns of usage went." ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: why still use C?
    ... only discussion of the language itself ... Of the people who have replied to you, I consider Jack ... subjects, easily rectified, and without any reason ... have caused him to associate your nonfluency with English ...
    (comp.lang.c)