Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

Odysseus wrote:
In article <4e87e3c7-69fb-49a2-a12e-9a177b59e6d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:13 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
First, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth
are purely Anglo-Saxon and second alone came from French. [...]
Because the place of "twoth" was already taken by "tooth"?

Why didn't "forth" drive out "fourth", then? I think it's safe to say that English is scarcely averse to homophones.

True, by that logic "too" should have driven out "two" by now! And "for" should have driven out "four".
.

Relevant Pages