Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:16 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-09-17, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"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*.
Well, the OED entry for "second" includes this comment in the
etymology:

OE. had no proper ordinal for the number two (like G. zweite,
Du. tweede, F. deuxième), the sense being expressed by óðer (see
OTHER a.); this being ambiguous, the Fr. word found early
acceptance.

HOT DAMN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you Adam for bringing out truth in spite of the gang warfare
carried out by some against anything and everything I say.

I'm not going to bother discussing alternatives to OED's scenario with you (so I'll address them to Adam) since I realize that at this point you won't be inclined to consider a damn thing that might put a damper on your fun, but just consider whether there's any logical reason for a US 50-cent piece to be a "half dollar" (Anglo-Saxon) while a 25-cent piece is a "quarter (dollar)" (Latin), and why "one-quarter" is common while "one-tierce" has gone by the wayside, and why "one-half" has always remained resolutely "one-half". Oh, and check out the Romance color terms again.

yet another Saussurean triumph.

Oh, please.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading