Words for "ordinal 2" in Germanic languages.
Adam Funk
"second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the following
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.
Rummaging through the dictionaries I can find for modern Germanic
languages, I find that Danish has _anden_ for both "second" and
"other"; Swedish has _andra/e_ for "second" and a slightly different
word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
sometimes "second"). Finally, German has mainly _zweite_ for "second"
but some uses such as _am anderen Tag_ (on the next day) that look as
if they might be vestiges of a broader use of "ander". But I don't
have access to any historical or etymological resources for those
languages at the moment.
I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal words
late --- is this correct?
Is there an explanation of why OE "failed" to develop such a word
natively (as German and Dutch have), or why Danish is satisfied with
one word for both senses?
--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
benl...@ihug.co.nz
1) IE undoubtedly had an ordinal-forming suffix (Germanic -th-, Latin -
t-, etc.)
However...
2) "The words for 'first' have no connection with the cardinal for
'one'. Most of them belong to a group in which the original sense was
'foremost'". (Buck) Exs English first, Lat primus, Gk protos, Skt
prathama-
3) Some words for 'second' also seem to be derived other than from
'two': Latin secundus ('following'), Slavic vutoru (may be cognate
with 'other'), even Greek deuteros (acc to Watkins) is from *deu
'want, be lacking'.
During the discussion of "one" I gave some examples from Vanuatu to
show that "one" may be quite unstable in form compared to "two, three
etc.". I'm guessing that the sheer frequency somehow makes it
susceptible to all kinds of replacements and modifications. "Two" is a
distant second but it's still second.
I'm skeptical of the intolerable-homophony (twoth/tooth) and the
intolerable-ambiguity (other) theories. I'll just note also that
English at the same time also borrowed "prime" (first) from French,
though it did not replace "first" generally, but survives in
expressions like "Prime Minister" and extennded meanings.
Ross Clark
Paul J Kriha
Looking at the Vasmer's Old Slavic and PIE etym. of Russian 'вторoй'
(vtoroy) it looks more like 'next' or 'further'.
Some West Slavic languages don't use a cognate of 'vutor-'.
For example, in Czech, the Old Slavic 'vutor-' survives only in 'úterý'
(Tuesday). To the native speakers the reflex of 'second' is
completely opaque by now.
A different word for 'second' was derived from yet another source,
'druh-'. Cz 'Second(masc/fem/neut)' = 'druhý/á/é'.
The noun 'druh' means something like a partner/friend/comrade.
I guess, in the context of 'second' and before the more recent
disappearance of dual, it had more specific meaning of
"the second one of two".
pjk
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
And of course in Russian (at least) drugoj = '(an)other'.
Ross Clark
Paul J Kriha
Exactly. 'Drugoj'/'vtoroj' is just one of many traps (hundreds?)
waiting to ensnare an unwary WSlav when speaking Russian.
One must always beware of unfamiliar easy-looking cognates.
Sometime ago, I saw a TV interview with a Russian teacher
of Russian in a Czech secondary school. The conversation was
conducted in Czech. She introduced one of her pupils as her
'pitomec'. The Russian 'pitomec' and 'uchenik' both mean roughly
the same, a pupil. I guess she used the Cz word 'pitomec'
because it looked like a convenient and obvious cognate of one
of the Russian words.
Except, the correct Czech word for 'pupil' (žák) is AFAIK not
a cognate of any Russian word and 'pitomec' means an idiot. :-)
pjk
Craoi...@gmail.com
>
> I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal words
> late --- is this correct?
Well, I tend to suspect the same. Icelandic has "annar", i.e. a
cognate of "ander-" and "other", and all other Scandinavian languages
have AFAIK cognates of this.
In Irish, btw, "one" is "aon" and "two" is "dhá", but "first" is
"chéad", "second" is "dara" or "tarna". (Those two are standard, but
of course there is also the mixed form "darna".)
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
>sometimes "second").
"Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
Also "anders" = different(ly).
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Adam Funk
> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:34:23 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: in
> sci.lang:
>
>>word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
>>sometimes "second").
>
> "Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
Yes, I meant "ander" there.
In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
for "second"?
--
Pengo is having second thoughts about his years working for the KGB.
(Stoll 1989)
Harlan Messinger
> On 2008-09-18, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:34:23 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: in
>> sci.lang:
>>
>>> word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
>>> sometimes "second").
>> "Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
>
> Yes, I meant "ander" there.
>
> In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
> for "second"?
>
>
(prescriptively) the second of two, while "deuxième" is the second of
more than two. At least, that's what I learned at some point, perhaps in
fr.lettres.langue.francaise, perhaps in school.
Peter T. Daniels
It's how they actually write, at least in linguistic and ANE
publications.
Harlan Messinger
> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent discussions of
> "second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the following
> 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.
That seems fallacious. If the absence of a "proper ordinal" was so
sorely felt, then pre-French English speakers could perfectly well have
created "twoeth" just as German does have "zweite" and Dutch does have
"tweede". In fact, the failure, over centuries, to come up with a
distinction between "second" and "other" until one happened to come in
conveniently from French gives the impression that it wasn't a pressing
need.
Harlan Messinger
OK, I wasn't sure about that.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> 2) "The words for 'first' have no connection with the cardinal for
> 'one'. Most of them belong to a group in which the original sense was
> 'foremost'". (Buck) Exs English first, Lat primus, Gk protos, Skt
> prathama-
Magdalenian BIR means fur, especially the fur
on which a newborn was laid. One Porphyrios
described a custom of laying a newborn on
a bear fur in the third century AD, and according
to Marija Gimbutas this custom survived until
the twentieth century in eastern Slavic regions,
where the grandmother laid the newborn on
a bear fur. Being laid on the fur called BIR was
then the first event in life, wherefrom PIE *per(hx)-
Albanian pare Avestan paurva Sanskrit purva
Lithuanian pirmas English first, while Turkish
bir means one. (The bear is present in the art
of Göbekli Tepe, in form of a strongly weathered
sculpture of a bear holding a human head between
the forelegs -- I assume in a protecting gesture,
lending it regenerative power for a second life
in the beyond. The above custom may also have
survived for a considerable time in Anatolia,
long enough to account for bir 'one'.)
For two and second I have not yet Magdalenian
explanations, but perhaps one for other, namely
AD DA meaning toward (ad) from (da), to you
from me, involving me and another person.
The same compound may be present in Italian
andare 'go', going toward a place, coming from
another place. The same compound could also
be the origin of Celtic ada English water,
flowing toward a place, in the end to the sea,
coming from another place, originally from
a source, a spring, a well.
Brian M. Scott
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:6jf6hdF...@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent
>> discussions of "second" in English, I looked it up in
>> the OED, which includes the following 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.
There was also OE <æfterre> 'second, following, next,
latter, lower'.
> That seems fallacious. If the absence of a "proper
> ordinal" was so sorely felt, then pre-French English
> speakers could perfectly well have created "twoeth" just
> as German does have "zweite" and Dutch does have
> "tweede".
For that matter, German <zweite> only replaced <ander>
'second' (cognate with <other>) in the 16th century, and it
wouldn't surprise me if <tweede> was also a late innovation.
Icelandic still uses <annar> (ON <annarr>), another cognate.
Still, OE could have innovated a *twe:geþa (cf. <nigeþa>
'ninth') or, adding the suffix to the full stem, *twe:genða
~ *twe:gende (cf. late OE <nigonða, nigende> 'ninth'), in
which case we might have ended up with *twai(n)th.
> In fact, the failure, over centuries, to come up with a
> distinction between "second" and "other" until one
> happened to come in conveniently from French gives the
> impression that it wasn't a pressing need.
I suspect that the explanation will disappear when the 3rd
edition revisions reach <second>.
Brian
Craoi...@gmail.com
The tendency to use the same word for "second" and "other" seems to be
quite widespread: in Finnish "toinen" means both "second" and "other",
too. The cardinal number two is "kaksi". "Toinen" seems to be
connected with "tuo" = "that (one)" (as opposed to "tämä" = this
[one]), so it means something like "that-one-ish, not this-one-ish".
Harlan Messinger
Hungarian one and two are egy and kettõ (or két); first and second are
elsõ and második (where -dik is the regular ordinal suffix for numbers
from 3 on up). Where are those ordinals from?
Peter T. Daniels
Which, of course, is rather distant from how they actually talk ...
Peter T. Daniels
Peter T. Daniels
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:22:35 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Nu, what's "together"?
Harlan Messinger
"Samen", similar to modern German "samen".
Harlan Messinger
Peter T. Daniels
That wasn't the question!
Adam Funk
> On Sep 18, 12:34 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal words
>> late --- is this correct?
>
> Well, I tend to suspect the same. Icelandic has "annar", i.e. a
> cognate of "ander-" and "other", and all other Scandinavian languages
> have AFAIK cognates of this.
Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
from developing something like tweede/zweite?
--
| _
| ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
| X Against HTML email & news
| / \ www.asciiribbon.org
Adam Funk
[Adam]
>> > In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
>> > for "second"?
[Harlan]
>> I don't know but a propos of that question, in French "second" is
>> (prescriptively) the second of two, while "deuxième" is the second of
>> more than two. At least, that's what I learned at some point, perhaps in
>> fr.lettres.langue.francaise, perhaps in school.-
[Peter]
> It's how they actually write, at least in linguistic and ANE
> publications.
I've been taught that too, but I've never quite been able to ascertain
whether it's "100% natural" for native speakers or an official/taught
distinction.
(Of course, until the third thing in the series appears, you may not
know whether the second is the last one or not.)
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent discussions of
>> "second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the following
>> 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.
>
> That seems fallacious. If the absence of a "proper ordinal" was so
> sorely felt, then pre-French English speakers could perfectly well have
> created "twoeth"
(I'm going to use "twainth" in my green-ink letters.)
> just as German does have "zweite" and Dutch does have
> "tweede". In fact, the failure, over centuries, to come up with a
> distinction between "second" and "other" until one happened to come in
> conveniently from French gives the impression that it wasn't a pressing
> need.
On closer inspection, the citations for "second" only go back to 1297,
whereas "other" (in sense 2a, "That follows the first; second (of two
or more); next. Obs.") goes back to early OE (translation of Bede).
I suppose waiting 500 years (or so) doesn't count as a *pressing*
need!
(Of course, this still doesn't explain why French needs two words
now, with a subtle distinction.)
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
Trond Engen
> On 2008-09-18, Craoi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 18, 12:34 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal
>>> words late --- is this correct?
>>
>> Well, I tend to suspect the same. Icelandic has "annar", i.e. a
>> cognate of "ander-" and "other", and all other Scandinavian
>> languages have AFAIK cognates of this.
>
> Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
> from developing something like tweede/zweite?
Nah. Or rather: It's not answering the question, just pushing it to
Scandinavia: Why didn't Scandinavian develop something like *þveiði?
--
Trond Engen
- tvi, tvi
Franz Gnaedinger
Magdalenian origin of our numbers
EIS --- reality behind all appearances, ideas and notions,
idea of all ideas // ultimate reality behind all apparent
realities, possible origin of words meaning one, Swiss
Eis, ancient Greek heis, German Eins ein eine eines
BIR --- fur, especially the fur on which a newborn was laid //
being laid on the fur was the the first event in life, origin of
English first (while Turkish bir means one)
DPA --- floor, ground // world in which we live, realm of
many beings and phenomena (as opposed to eis above),
possible origin of English two and twice, close derivative
Sanskrit dva for the female form of two
SEC --- safety provided by a camp // a newborn needs
a warm fur, a child needs a save camp, possible origin
of English second
AD DA --- toward (ad) away from (da), to you from me,
involving me and another person, possible origin of
English other German -ander, also of Italian andare 'go',
going toward a place coming from another place (while
the first form vado 'I go' is a derivative of pad for the
activity of feet), also of Celtic ada 'water', a river flowing
to the sea, coming from a spring or well
TYR --- overcome (in the double sense of rule and give),
TRY - triumph // a newborn needs a warm fur, a child
needs a save camp, boys and girls growing up must learn
to survive and cope with all sorts of challenges, possible
origin of English three and third
KOD PIR --- hut (kod) fire (pir) // fires burning around
a camp, keeping wild animals at bay, providing the
dwellers of the camp with glowing coals for cooking
and other purposes, allowing orientation by night,
we may assume four fires indicating the cardinal
directions, possible origin of English four and fourth,
close derivatives Sanskrit catvaras 'four' and Lithuanian
ketvirtas 'fourth'
Five and fifth, six (Italian sei) and sixth, seven and seventh,
eight and eighth, nine (Latin novem) and nineth, ten (Latin
decem) and tenth would come from the names of the
months number 5 6 7 8 9 and 10 of the Late Magdalenian
calendar: PAS SAI SAP OKD NOPh and DEC.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>>>word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
>>>sometimes "second").
>>
>> "Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
>
>Yes, I meant "ander" there.
>
>In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
>for "second"?
Eh, we use 'tweede' when it means 'tweede' and 'andere' when it means
that. What's the problem?
A native speaker can't explain such thing, they just do it.
Craoi...@gmail.com
Adam Funk
> 3) Some words for 'second' also seem to be derived other than from
> 'two': Latin secundus ('following'), Slavic vutoru (may be cognate
> with 'other'), even Greek deuteros (acc to Watkins) is from *deu
> 'want, be lacking'.
Also, Modern French has the doublets "second" and "suivant", which I
doubt the average native speaker would suspect are related (unless
they teach this in French schools).
> During the discussion of "one" I gave some examples from Vanuatu to
> show that "one" may be quite unstable in form compared to "two, three
> etc.". I'm guessing that the sheer frequency somehow makes it
> susceptible to all kinds of replacements and modifications. "Two" is a
> distant second but it's still second.
Yes, except in computing, where the first element is usually numbered
0 (but we ought to follow mathematicians and call it the zeroth).
--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001)
Harlan Messinger
> On 2008-09-18, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>> 3) Some words for 'second' also seem to be derived other than from
>> 'two': Latin secundus ('following'), Slavic vutoru (may be cognate
>> with 'other'), even Greek deuteros (acc to Watkins) is from *deu
>> 'want, be lacking'.
>
> Also, Modern French has the doublets "second" and "suivant", which I
> doubt the average native speaker would suspect are related (unless
> they teach this in French schools).
Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin was
"sequi"?
Franz Gnaedinger
Killrated ergo repeated. Rating is no means of
a scientific discussion. Only scientific arguments
count, and the better arguments win. These are
the rules of the scientific game. Barren minds
lacking ideas and arguments try to get around them
by spouting invectives and ad hominems and leading
killrating campains (Panu Petteri Höglund aliass
craoibhi). Doesn't help them any. Rating has a place
in the commerical world, but now proved to be
a dubious instrument in economics. Rating agencies
undermined the safety mechanisms of the financial
system and contributed considerably to the present
turbulences, the worst since the 1930s.
As for the ordeals first, second and third. They refer
to the age of a child. First age: a newborn laid on
a fur called BIR. Second age: a child living in the
safety provided by a camp. Third age: boys and girls
learning to survive and cope. Once more I am pleasantly
surprised at how much people of the Ice Age valued
their children.
Craoi...@gmail.com
>
> Killrated ergo repeated.
Ergo spamming, and you have already been reported for spamming.
And your fantasies are not scientific and can thus neither be refuted
nor confirmed by scientific means.
Trond Engen
> Adam Funk skreiv:
>
>> Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
>> from developing something like tweede/zweite?
>
> Nah. Or rather: It's not answering the question, just pushing it to
> Scandinavia: Why didn't Scandinavian develop something like *şveiği?
*tveiği
--
Trond Engen
- under tvil
Trond Engen
> Only scientific arguments count, and the better arguments win. These
> are the rules of the scientific game.
So why are you repeating yourself?
--
Trond Engen
- preferring quaintity to quaility
Harlan Messinger
> Killrated ergo repeated.
That makes no sense. What is this, a childish game? "I'm going to keep
annoying you by repeating it over and over and over until you stop
criticizing it?"
Trond Engen
I've been waiting for someone with Brian's or Antonio's knowledge of the
history of French to come along, but they won't take the cue, so now
I'll have a go at it, myself.
I first thought of hiatus hardening along the lines of
sekuV(r)- > *seguwV(r)- > *swywV(r)- > swiw(V)(r)-
But I glean from
<http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv4/showps.exe?p=combi.htm;java=no;>
that the word was written <siwir> etc. in the twelfth century. My next
idea was that the <u> is intrusive by analogy to forms like, say, <suit>
where the first vowel was lost. But even that was written <siut> in the
twelfth century. And since the first attested form in French seems to be
the gerundive <segoan> late in the tenth century, I think its
development has been quite regular
sekwV- > segwV- > sewV-
Now my best idea is a (semi)vowel metathesis
~ -iw(i)- > -wi(w)-
But that doesn't mean it's any good.
--
Trond Engen
- per suivant
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk skreiv:
>> Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
>> from developing something like tweede/zweite?
>
> Nah. Or rather: It's not answering the question, just pushing it to
> Scandinavia: Why didn't Scandinavian develop something like *þveiði?
Fair enough. Let me try a different angle.
Based on what I've seen, it seems that the West Germanic languages
developed a distinct ordinal (tweede/zweite), whereas the North
Germanic languages kept using the same word as for "other". Is this
just coincidence?
(Of course, English is a special case since it's a hybrid (that's the
nice word for it) of various bits of W Germanic, N Germanic, and
Norman French.)
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger skreiv:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-09-18, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3) Some words for 'second' also seem to be derived other than from
>>>> 'two': Latin secundus ('following'), Slavic vutoru (may be cognate
>>>> with 'other'), even Greek deuteros (acc to Watkins) is from *deu
>>>> 'want, be lacking'.
>>>
>>> Also, Modern French has the doublets "second" and "suivant", which I
>>> doubt the average native speaker would suspect are related (unless
>>> they teach this in French schools).
>>
>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin was
>> "sequi"?
>
> I've been waiting for someone with Brian's or Antonio's knowledge of the
> history of French to come along, but they won't take the cue, so now
> I'll have a go at it, myself.
>
> I first thought of hiatus hardening along the lines of
>
> sekuV(r)- > *seguwV(r)- > *swywV(r)- > swiw(V)(r)-
Where's the "r" from, given an infinitive of "sequi"? (Deponent verb.)
Could the new infinitive come from the old first person singular "sequor"?
> But I glean from
> <http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv4/showps.exe?p=combi.htm;java=no;>
> that the word was written <siwir> etc. in the twelfth century. My next
> idea was that the <u> is intrusive by analogy to forms like, say, <suit>
> where the first vowel was lost. But even that was written <siut> in the
> twelfth century. And since the first attested form in French seems to be
> the gerundive <segoan> late in the tenth century, I think its
> development has been quite regular
>
> sekwV- > segwV- > sewV-
>
> Now my best idea is a (semi)vowel metathesis
>
> ~ -iw(i)- > -wi(w)-
>
> But that doesn't mean it's any good.
>
Besides that, I don't how how the metamorphosis of the finite forms from
Latin to French (or other Romance languages) works for deponent verbs.
Surely we don't have "sequor" > "suis" and "sequimur" > "suivons"? If
not, I guess the verb became reconjugated from "suivre" at some point.
wugi
> For that matter, German <zweite> only replaced <ander>
> 'second' (cognate with <other>) in the 16th century, and it
> wouldn't surprise me if <tweede> was also a late innovation.
> Icelandic still uses <annar> (ON <annarr>), another cognate.
My guess is that the early use of "ander" words for indicating the two-eth
corresponds to the use of dual forms: the other = of two; (isn't "other"
itself a dual relict?). When the dual was abandoned and the need of counting
series systematised, the "tweede" forms came in quite logically.
> Still, OE could have innovated a *twe:geşa (cf. <nigeşa>
> 'ninth') or, adding the suffix to the full stem, *twe:genğa
> ~ *twe:gende (cf. late OE <nigonğa, nigende> 'ninth'), in
> which case we might have ended up with *twai(n)th.
Why would you want to stick a particle of the "nine" (D. ne-gen) word to the
"two" word?
Twain looks and sounds to me rather as a plural or an ancient case like,
say, "met zijn tweeën" in Dutch. Not from any "twe:-gen" that is.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499
Harlan Messinger
> On 2008-09-18, Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk skreiv:
>
>>> Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
>>> from developing something like tweede/zweite?
>> Nah. Or rather: It's not answering the question, just pushing it to
>> Scandinavia: Why didn't Scandinavian develop something like *þveiði?
>
> Fair enough. Let me try a different angle.
>
> Based on what I've seen, it seems that the West Germanic languages
> developed a distinct ordinal (tweede/zweite), whereas the North
> Germanic languages kept using the same word as for "other". Is this
> just coincidence?
>
>
> (Of course, English is a special case since it's a hybrid (that's the
> nice word for it) of various bits of W Germanic, N Germanic, and
> Norman French.)
Come to think of it, given OE's or its ancestors' free adaptation of
"two" for other purposes ("twain", "twice", "between", "betwixt",
"twin") it's even more especially surprising that English didn't
innovate a "two"-based ordinal.
Adam Funk
>> Also, Modern French has the doublets "second" and "suivant", which I
>> doubt the average native speaker would suspect are related (unless
>> they teach this in French schools).
>
> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin was
> "sequi"?
My _Larousse Dictionnaire d'Étymologie_ says:
suivre: 980, Passion (_siuvre_); 1080, Roland (_sivrat_, fut.);
XIIe (_sivre_); XIIIe (_suivre_, d'après _[il] suit_, métathèse de
_siut_, du lat. pop. *_sequit_); lat. pop. *_sěquěre_, en
lat. class. _sequi_.
and gives _suivant_ spelt that way in 1120.
Well, that clears it up slightly. Also:
second: 1119, Ph. de Thaon (_secunt_); 1155, Wace (_second_, avec
_c_ d'après le lat.); _en second_, 1690, Furetière;
lat. _secundus_, suivant, second, de _sequi_, suivre.
(As a side curiosity, the units of time _seconde_ and _minute_ come
from Latin "minuta secunda" and "minuta prima".)
Adam Funk
>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin
>> was "sequi"?
...
> Now my best idea is a (semi)vowel metathesis
>
> ~ -iw(i)- > -wi(w)-
>
> But that doesn't mean it's any good.
Just saw this ... there is a bit of metathesis, to _il suit_ from _il
siut_ (from Latin _sequit_), in the excerpt I just quoted from the
_Larousse Dictionnaire d'Étymologie_.
--
"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult
times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence
against chaos." (McMullen 2001)
wugi
>
> >>>word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
> >>>sometimes "second").
> >>
> >> "Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
> >
> >Yes, I meant "ander" there.
> >
> >In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
> >for "second"?
>
> Eh, we use 'tweede' when it means 'tweede' and 'andere' when it means
> that. What's the problem?
> A native speaker can't explain such thing, they just do it.
So the correct answer would be "we don't use 'ander' for 'second'" ;-)
Except perhaps, in the aftermath of what I suggest elsewhere, in "dual"
cases:
de ene en de andere (the one and the other)
but even then, rather not as:
*de eerste en de andere (*the first and the other).
BTW, Dutch/German didn't however 'revert' to a "one-th" form as they did to
the "two-eth".
If "eerste" may seem deceptively a derivation from "een", it is actually
one from "eer", so we don't say "een-de". (I'm not sure right now of a link
between D. eer/een or E. ere/one).
D. eer-ste ~ 'E.' "ere-st", compare "first" ~ "voorste" (foremost).
I guess it could remain unbothered as there is no relation with an obsolete
(dual) form, and because of frequency of use.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499
wugi
>
> >word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
> >sometimes "second").
(ander =/= second)
> "Ander/andere/anderen", actually. Typo, no doubt.
>
> Also "anders" = different(ly).
and = else, otherwise.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499
Adam Funk
>>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin was
>>> "sequi"?
...
>> I first thought of hiatus hardening along the lines of
>>
>> sekuV(r)- > *seguwV(r)- > *swywV(r)- > swiw(V)(r)-
>
> Where's the "r" from, given an infinitive of "sequi"? (Deponent verb.)
>
> Could the new infinitive come from the old first person singular "sequor"?
...
> Besides that, I don't how how the metamorphosis of the finite forms from
> Latin to French (or other Romance languages) works for deponent verbs.
> Surely we don't have "sequor" > "suis" and "sequimur" > "suivons"? If
> not, I guess the verb became reconjugated from "suivre" at some point.
I *guess* that the answer to both questions is analogy.
The Larousse excerpt I quoted earlier gives _sěquěre_ as the
"pop. lat." form, so it seems to have started before "French" as such.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
Adam Funk
>>> 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.
>
> There was also OE <æfterre> 'second, following, next,
> latter, lower'.
Good point.
> For that matter, German <zweite> only replaced <ander>
> 'second' (cognate with <other>) in the 16th century, and it
> wouldn't surprise me if <tweede> was also a late innovation.
> Icelandic still uses <annar> (ON <annarr>), another cognate.
Thanks; I was hoping someone would tell me when that happened.
> Still, OE could have innovated a *twe:geþa (cf. <nigeþa>
> 'ninth') or, adding the suffix to the full stem, *twe:genða
> ~ *twe:gende (cf. late OE <nigonða, nigende> 'ninth'), in
> which case we might have ended up with *twai(n)th.
I like "twainth".
>> In fact, the failure, over centuries, to come up with a
>> distinction between "second" and "other" until one
>> happened to come in conveniently from French gives the
>> impression that it wasn't a pressing need.
>
> I suspect that the explanation will disappear when the 3rd
> edition revisions reach <second>.
Watch this space!
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of
the American public. [Mencken]
Trond Engen
> On 2008-09-19, Trond Engen wrote:
>
>>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin
>>> was "sequi"?
>>
>> Now my best idea is a (semi)vowel metathesis
>>
>> ~ -iw(i)- > -wi(w)-
>>
>> But that doesn't mean it's any good.
>
> Just saw this ... there is a bit of metathesis, to _il suit_ from _il
> siut_ (from Latin _sequit_), in the excerpt I just quoted from the
> _Larousse Dictionnaire d'Étymologie_.
Yes, I can see that. But now i wonder: Could both spellings represent
*sJuit < *sewuit < *seguit?
--
Trond Engen
- se quittant
Trond Engen
> Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Harlan Messinger skreiv:
>>
>>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin
>>> was "sequi"?
>>
>> I first thought of hiatus hardening along the lines of
>>
>> sekuV(r)- > *seguwV(r)- > *swywV(r)- > swiw(V)(r)-
>
> Where's the "r" from, given an infinitive of "sequi"? (Deponent verb.)
>
> Could the new infinitive come from the old first person singular
> "sequor"?
I really don't know this stuff, but does it need to come from anywhere?
Didn't Old French make an infinitive with r from any Latin verb?
>> [...]
>
> Besides that, I don't how how the metamorphosis of the finite forms
> from Latin to French (or other Romance languages) works for deponent
> verbs. Surely we don't have "sequor" > "suis" and "sequimur" >
> "suivons"? If not, I guess the verb became reconjugated from "suivre"
> at some point.
Was there a major difference in the inflexion of deponent verbs between
literary Latin and Vulgar? There's an infinite number of ways to
reanalyse the verbal paradigm in the process of turning it around.
--
Trond Engen
- turning in
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger skreiv:
>
>> Trond Engen wrote:
>>
>>> Harlan Messinger skreiv:
>>>
>>>> Any idea where the "v" came from in "suivre", given that the Latin
>>>> was "sequi"?
>>>
>>> I first thought of hiatus hardening along the lines of
>>>
>>> sekuV(r)- > *seguwV(r)- > *swywV(r)- > swiw(V)(r)-
>>
>> Where's the "r" from, given an infinitive of "sequi"? (Deponent verb.)
>>
>> Could the new infinitive come from the old first person singular
>> "sequor"?
>
> I really don't know this stuff, but does it need to come from anywhere?
> Didn't Old French make an infinitive with r from any Latin verb?
I suppose so, when Latin didn't supply it: esse, posse, velle. And in
the case of "posse" French also managed to come up with a "v", in "pouvoir".
John Atkinson
> On Sep 18, 5:22 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent discussions of
>>> "second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the
>>> following 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.
>>
>> sorely felt, then pre-French English speakers could perfectly well
>> have created "twoeth" just as German does have "zweite" and Dutch
>> does have "tweede". In fact, the failure, over centuries, to come up
>> with a distinction between "second" and "other" until one happened
>> to come in conveniently from French gives the impression that it
>> wasn't a pressing need.
>
> quite widespread: in Finnish "toinen" means both "second" and "other",
> too. The cardinal number two is "kaksi". "Toinen" seems to be
> connected with "tuo" = "that (one)" (as opposed to "tämä" = this
> [one]), so it means something like "that-one-ish, not this-one-ish".
In Lithuanian, "second" is "antra", which also seems to be sometimes used
where English would have "other" -- although "kitas" is the main word for
"other". One suspects that "antra" is borrowed from Norse (?)
Is this tendency to use the same word for "second" and "other" just a
European thing? It doesn't happen in a few non-European languages that I've
got dictionaries of.
John.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:3UZAk.37861$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> In Lithuanian, "second" is "antra", which also seems to be
> sometimes used where English would have "other" --
> although "kitas" is the main word for "other". One
> suspects that "antra" is borrowed from Norse (?)
Don't think so: <annarr> is from PGmc. *anşara- < *antero-,
so the Lith. looks like a cognate, not a borrowing.
[...]
Brian
paul....@gmail.com
> On 2008-09-18, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
[...]
> > During the discussion of "one" I gave some examples from Vanuatu to
> > show that "one" may be quite unstable in form compared to "two, three
> > etc.". I'm guessing that the sheer frequency somehow makes it
> > susceptible to all kinds of replacements and modifications. "Two" is a
> > distant second but it's still second.
>
> Yes, except in computing, where the first element is usually numbered
> 0 (but we ought to follow mathematicians and call it the zeroth).
When I write computing related text I have no problem with "zeroth",
but referring to the next, i.e. second item as "first" gets tricky.
pjk
Joachim Pense
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:14:07 GMT, John Atkinson
> <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> <news:3UZAk.37861$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
> sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
>> In Lithuanian, "second" is "antra", which also seems to be
>> sometimes used where English would have "other" --
>> although "kitas" is the main word for "other". One
>> suspects that "antra" is borrowed from Norse (?)
>
> Don't think so: <annarr> is from PGmc. *anþara- < *antero-,
> so the Lith. looks like a cognate, not a borrowing.
>
Cognate to Gk anti?
Joachim
paul....@gmail.com
> Trond Engen skreiv:
>
> > Adam Funk skreiv:
>
> >> Is it plausible that the Norse influence in England discouraged OE
> >> from developing something like tweede/zweite?
>
> > Nah. Or rather: It's not answering the question, just pushing it to
>
> *tveiði
>
> Trond Engen
> - under tvil
I don't doubt you, it must be selv-tvil.
pjk
Trond Engen
I used to think so, but apparently not. *anþara- is said to be from
*h1on-t-er-o, based on *h1on- "that one over there", and cognate with
OInd <ántarah> "far away, different from, other". The root is found in
OCS <onu>, Lith. <anàs>, Arm. <ayn> and Hitt. <an(n)a>.
Gk. <anti> etc. is related to Eng. <end>, Ger. <End> < *andijó- and the
Gmc. prefix *anda- in words like Eng. <answer>, Ger. <Antwort> and Norw.
<andføttes> "with the feet towards eachother". This prefix is built on
the prepositional root an- "towards".
Still I can't free myself from believing that they're related. It's a
strange coincidence that <on> < *h2eno- and <other> < *h1on-ter- while
<of> < *h2epo- and <after> < h1op-t-er-. But to prove anything one would
have to unwind the derivational series *-t-e-r-o applied on different
(quasi-)prepositional roots and yielding reflexes with various semantic
specializations. (Yes, I do have a hangup on those suffixes, and I
really wish I knew more about them.)
--
Trond Engen
- suffering
Trond Engen
> On Sep 20, 3:37 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> - under tvil
>
> I don't doubt you, it must be selv-tvil.
Browsing my books for some good punning material, I ended up with a
couple of odd etymological points instead:
Norw. <tvil> "doubt" and e.g. Ger. <Zweifel> < Gmc. *tweifl- are
cognates of Lat. <dupli->. OE had instead <tweogan>, which looks like a
calque of Lat. <dubito>. There's also Sw. <tveka>, a k-derivation of
tvi-, but I don't think it can explain the OE word.
<selv> (or, as I write and say it, <sjøl> [Sø:L]) is certainly based on
the pronominal root *s(w)e-, but the rest is just half-explained.
Bjorvand and Lindeman are admittedly uncertain, but they think it looks
like a derivation from an ancient -l-genitive, pointing to Hitt. <tuel>
"your (sg.)", <ukila> "myself" and <zikala> "yourself" (Lindeman is fond
of Anatolian evidence). They don't say anything about the suffix *-bho-.
*se- is also the root of the Lat. prefix <se:-> < <sed> "apart, away <-
on its own", known from <se:qui> in another thread. In Gmc. the dative
of the pronoun developed a similar function and has survived as e.g. the
Scand. adjective and recent prefix <sær> "special, peculiar, apart
etc.". Lat. <se:d> is a cognate of the root of Gk. <idios> etc. <
*swed-jo-. I wonder if another half-explained Gmc. word, Scand. <sed>
"custom", Ger. <Sitte>, Du. <zede>, could be another cognate. Could
*s(w)ed-jo- be manipulated into Gmc. *sidu- or *seidu-?
--
Trond Engen
- ending up in idiocy
Dušan Vukotić
<paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 3:50 pm, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>> On Sep 18, 9:34 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >>>> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent discussions of
> >>>> "second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the
> >>>> following 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.
>
> >>>> languages, I find that Danish has _anden_ for both "second" and
> >>>> "other"; Swedish has _andra/e_ for "second" and a slightly different
> >>>> word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
> >>>> but some uses such as _am anderen Tag_ (on the next day) that look as
> >>>> if they might be vestiges of a broader use of "ander". But I don't
> >>>> have access to any historical or etymological resources for those
> >>>> languages at the moment.
>
> >>>> I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal words
> >>>> late --- is this correct?
>
> >>>> Is there an explanation of why OE "failed" to develop such a word
> >>>> natively (as German and Dutch have), or why Danish is satisfied with
> >>>> one word for both senses?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
> >>>> pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
> >>>> illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
>
> >>> t-, etc.)
>
> >>> However...
>
> >>> 2) "The words for 'first' have no connection with the cardinal for
> >>> 'one'. Most of them belong to a group in which the original sense was
> >>> 'foremost'". (Buck) Exs English first, Lat primus, Gk protos, Skt
> >>> prathama-
>
> >>> 3) Some words for 'second' also seem to be derived other than from
> >>> 'two': Latin secundus ('following'), Slavic vutoru (may be cognate
> >>> with 'other'),
>
> >> (vtoroy) it looks more like 'next' or 'further'.
>
> >> Some West Slavic languages don't use a cognate of 'vutor-'.
> >> For example, in Czech, the Old Slavic 'vutor-' survives only in 'úterý'
> >> (Tuesday). To the native speakers the reflex of 'second' is
> >> completely opaque by now.
>
> >> A different word for 'second' was derived from yet another source,
> >> 'druh-'. Cz 'Second(masc/fem/neut)' = 'druhý/á/é'.
> >> The noun 'druh' means something like a partner/friend/comrade.
> >> I guess, in the context of 'second' and before the more recent
> >> disappearance of dual, it had more specific meaning of
> >> "the second one of two".
> >> pjk
>
> > And of course in Russian (at least) drugoj = '(an)other'.
>
> Exactly. 'Drugoj'/'vtoroj' is just one of many traps (hundreds?)
> waiting to ensnare an unwary WSlav when speaking Russian.
> One must always beware of unfamiliar easy-looking cognates.
>
> Sometime ago, I saw a TV interview with a Russian teacher
> of Russian in a Czech secondary school. The conversation was
> conducted in Czech. She introduced one of her pupils as her
> 'pitomec'. The Russian 'pitomec' and 'uchenik' both mean roughly
> the same, a pupil. I guess she used the Cz word 'pitomec'
> because it looked like a convenient and obvious cognate of one
> of the Russian words.
> Except, the correct Czech word for 'pupil' (žák) is AFAIK not
> a cognate of any Russian word and 'pitomec' means an idiot. :-)
> pjk
>
> > Ross Clark
>
> >>> even Greek deuteros (acc to Watkins) is from *deu
> >>> 'want, be lacking'.
>
> >>> show that "one" may be quite unstable in form compared to "two, three
> >>> etc.". I'm guessing that the sheer frequency somehow makes it
> >>> susceptible to all kinds of replacements and modifications. "Two" is a
> >>> distant second but it's still second.
>
> >>> intolerable-ambiguity (other) theories. I'll just note also that
> >>> English at the same time also borrowed "prime" (first) from French,
> >>> though it did not replace "first" generally, but survives in
> >>> expressions like "Prime Minister" and extennded meanings.
>
> >>> Ross Clark
In Serbian 'pitom' means 'tamed' and the word 'pitomac' (alumnus,
cadet, pupil) is in connection with the verb 'pri-pi-tomiti" (to
tame). Of course, all these words are related to 'dom' (home). It is a
very short distance from being tamed/domesticated to being a moron/
idiot.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> Inspired (or something like that) by the recent discussions of
> "second" in English, I looked it up in the OED, which includes the following
> 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.
>
> Rummaging through the dictionaries I can find for modern Germanic
> languages, I find that Danish has _anden_ for both "second" and
> "other"; Swedish has _andra/e_ for "second" and a slightly different
> word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
> sometimes "second"). Finally, German has mainly _zweite_ for "second"
> but some uses such as _am anderen Tag_ (on the next day) that look as
> if they might be vestiges of a broader use of "ander". But I don't
> have access to any historical or etymological resources for those
> languages at the moment.
>
> I suspect that Dutch and German developed their distinct ordinal words
> late --- is this correct?
>
> Is there an explanation of why OE "failed" to develop such a word
> natively (as German and Dutch have), or why Danish is satisfied with
> one word for both senses?
Nevertheless, there is the English word 'twine' (entwine) which is
related to Serbian 'udvajanje' (making one of two) and German zweite
(zweien twos; Serb. dvoje; Germ. Zwillinge twins; Serb. dvojke).
English other is related to OSl. въторъ (vtory, utory) and Slavic
'second' (Russ. другой, Serb. drugi, Cz. druhy). In this case, tha
basis of all these words is 'circle' (krug, hring; OSl. крѫгъ). Now we
will see that Slavic drugi (second) and treći (Russ. третий third;
OSl. третии; Gr. τρίτος, Lat. tertius, Goth. þridja) are derived from
the same "associating" primal word (Serb. krug circle; kružok a small
society; therefrom udruženje, udruga (association), drug (friend),
družina (band, company, troop). It means that an "other" (vtory,
drugi /second/) or "others" (tretiy, treći /third/) are necessary for
making a society/community/company (Serb. društvo).
OTOH the Slavic prvi (first; OSl. прьвъ) is related to Latin primus (b
=> m sound change) and it comes from the verb probiti (penetrate,
break out, break through), hence the English words probe and prove as
well as Serbian pravo (right, straight, law)...
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> Joachim Pense skreiv:
>
>
>
> > Brian M. Scott (in sci.lang):
>
> >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:14:07 GMT, John Atkinson
*-ter is derived from "circle" and, as suffix, it always represents
some kind of 'movement' (cruising, h/ran, Serb. kret, kruženje,
teranje, drive, uterivanje).
In order to understand the history of the above words we need to grasp
the essential philosophical messages which are hidden behind/inside
the bare words' appearances.
DV
Richard Herring
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes
>Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>> Killrated ergo repeated.
>
>That makes no sense. What is this, a childish game? "I'm going to keep
>annoying you by repeating it over and over and over until you stop
>criticizing it?"
It's my belief that his alter ego "killrates" the postings himself.
--
Richard Herring
benl...@ihug.co.nz
You mean essential philosophical messages like "some kind of
movement"?
Ross Clark
paul....@gmail.com
I've heard an enterologist use exactly the same turn of a phrase
you've enclosed in quotes.
pjk
paul....@gmail.com
well...yes
> English other is related to OSl. въторъ (vtory, utory) and Slavic
> 'second' (Russ. другой, Serb. drugi, Cz. druhy). In this case, tha
> basis of all these words is 'circle' (krug, hring; OSl. крѫгъ). Now we
> will see that Slavic drugi (second) and treći (Russ. третий third;
> OSl. третии; Gr. τρίτος, Lat. tertius, Goth. þridja) are derived from
> the same "associating" primal word (Serb. krug circle; kružok a small
> society; therefrom udruženje, udruga (association), drug (friend),
> družina (band, company, troop). It means that an "other" (vtory,
> drugi /second/) or "others" (tretiy, treći /third/) are necessary for
> making a society/community/company (Serb. društvo).
The first half of the first sentence is correct.
> OTOH the Slavic prvi (first; OSl. прьвъ) is related to Latin primus (b
> => m sound change) and it comes from the verb probiti (penetrate,
> break out, break through), hence the English words probe and prove as
> well as Serbian pravo (right, straight, law)...
The first line of this paragraph is correct.
Well done, keep it up!!!
pjk
> DV
Adam Funk
>
> On 18-Sep-2008, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote in message <gjraq5-...@news.ducksburg.com>:
>
>> On 2008-09-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> [Harlan]
>> >> I don't know but a propos of that question, in French "second" is
>> >> (prescriptively) the second of two, while "deuxième" is the second of
>> >> more than two. At least, that's what I learned at some point, perhaps
>> >> in fr.lettres.langue.francaise, perhaps in school.-
>> [Peter]
>> > It's how they actually write, at least in linguistic and ANE
>> > publications.
>>
>> I've been taught that too, but I've never quite been able to ascertain
>> whether it's "100% natural" for native speakers or an official/taught
>> distinction.
>
> Various threads on the subject in <fr.lettres.langue.francaise>
> over the years have made it clear that it's definitely not "100%
> natural" for all native speakers. Many seem not to be aware of
> the distinction at all, not even prescriptively.
Interesting, thanks.
--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)
António Marques
> On Sep 18, 10:24 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sep 18, 9:04 am, Harlan Messinger>>>>> On 2008-09-18, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:34:23 +0100: Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com>: in
>>>>>> sci.lang:
>>>>>>> word for "other"; Dutch has _tweede_ ("second") and _anden_ ("other",
>>>>>>> sometimes "second").
>>>>> In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
>>>>> for "second"?
>>>> (prescriptively) the second of two, while "deuxième" is the second of
>>>> more than two. At least, that's what I learned at some point, perhaps in
>>>> fr.lettres.langue.francaise, perhaps in school.-
>>> publications.
>
> Which, of course, is rather distant from how they actually talk ...
Maybe it isn't even how they write. It may be how they're copyedited.
--
António Marques
Adam Funk
>>In Dutch, what determines whether you use "tweede" or "ander(e(n))"
>>for "second"?
>
> Eh, we use 'tweede' when it means 'tweede' and 'andere' when it means
> that. What's the problem?
> A native speaker can't explain such thing, they just do it.
Well, yes.
I had a look in a Routledge grammar of Dutch under "ordinals"; the
only hint that there might be another ord(2) besides "tweede" was in
the fixed expression "eenmaal, andermaal, verkocht!"
Oh, and you guys have that silly French "kwart" (plus variations) too.
So there.
--
This sig no verb.
Dušan Vukotić
Serbian 'probati' (attempt, try, taste; Russ. пробовать; Pol.
próbować) is clearly related to the verb 'probiti' (penetrate, break
through; Russ. пробить to punch, to hole; Cz. průbojník puncher),
because the one who is "breaking through" must be the FIRST (prime,
Serb. prvi, Russ. первый; Cz. prvni) one to PROBE (Serb. probati
taste) the new "environment". Serbian 'probijati' (Russ. пробивать to
punch, penetrate, break through) is logically related to other Serbian
words as 'pravo' (straight ahead), pravac (direction; Russ.
правление). There is a Serbian adjective 'is-pravno" (correct, right),
which is the same word as ''is-probano (well-tried, checked, PROVED),
with a slight shift in meaning and with the change of the sound [b] to
[v].
Are you so blind that you can't see the easy perceivable semantic
correspondences among those words? Slavic PRAVDA (justice, right) is a
synonym for the PROVED truth. I can understand people like Harlan,
Brainy or Denials who do not have any knowledge of Slavic; but, you
are a fluent speaker of Czech and you are familiar with other Slavic
tongues and, despite of all your undoubted knowledge, you are still
unable to grasp (at least in outlines) the internal logic of Slavic
vocabulary?
DV
Paul J Kriha
Now you've gone completely and consistently off the rocker.
Serbian 'probijati' and all its Slavic cognates are compounds
of 'pro-' (through) + 'bíti/bijat/bij' (hit). It's quite logical for it
to mean penetrate or break through.
The word is so obviously NOT related to 'prvi', 'prvni' (first)
or 'prime', or 'proved', or 'pravo', or 'pravda', or 'pravac'
that it's not funny.
Is that Franz's humming method you've used again?
> Are you so blind that you can't see the easy perceivable semantic
> correspondences among those words?
Yes! You got it. You see through my blindness.
I am incorrigible, even under this torture I still keep saying
that "perceivable semantic correspondences" has nothing
to do with what are and what aren't cognates.
> Slavic PRAVDA (justice, right) is a synonym for the PROVED truth.
Synonym?
The English 'proof' means right? Truth?
Is the '-ed' also related to '-da' in 'pravda'? Is that it? :-)
> I can understand people like Harlan,
> Brainy or Denials who do not have any knowledge of Slavic; but, you
> are a fluent speaker of Czech and you are familiar with other Slavic
> tongues and, despite of all your undoubted knowledge, you are still
> unable to grasp (at least in outlines) the internal logic of Slavic
> vocabulary?
That's not fair to blame me more than the others.
I am only an irresponsible dabbler and I just obey orders.
Harlan, Brian, and Peter are the real professionals. Surely,
much greater weight should rest on their shoulders for not
'grasping' the infernal (whoops, did you say internal) logic
of your confabulations.
pjk
> DV
Dušan Vukotić
wrote:
The first thing you must understand is why the Slavic verb "biti" (to
beat; Russ. бить, Cz. bit) has the same form as the auxiliary verb
"biti" (to be; Russ. быть, Cz. bytí ). If you are able to grasp it we
can go further and discuss the use of prefix pro- in Slavic as well as
in Germanic and Romance languages. Slavic pravo (law; Serb. pravo,
Russ. право, Cz. právo) comes from the adjective "pravo" (straight
ahead, direct; right hand as in English "right") and it is the antonym
of "krivo" (curved, wrong). In Serbian we have "pravda" (justice),
from "straight", "right" and "krivda" (wrong dong, injustice).
Now, the Slavic word 'probiti' (break through) is a compound word (as
you said above), constituted of pro- (through, over, beyond) + biti
(beat). During the process of "breaking through" is it not normal not
to make 'curves' if you want to achieve your goal. It means, during
"penetration" the most logical movement is "straight ahead" (Slavic
pravo).
DV
Paul J Kriha
The first thing you *must* understand that no matter how it's
pronounced or spelled in the modern times, the Slavic verb
"bíti" (to beat) is *not* the "same form" (whatever you mean
by the "same form") with the auxiliary verb "býti" and its
various grammatical forms, such as "je", "jses", "jsem", "jest",
"byl", "bude", "bývá", etc., etc.
It helps if you understand that
i not= y
и not= ы
> If you are able to grasp it we
> can go further and discuss the use of prefix pro- in Slavic as well as
> in Germanic and Romance languages. Slavic pravo (law; Serb. pravo,
> Russ. право, Cz. právo) comes from the adjective "pravo" (straight
> ahead, direct; right hand as in English "right") and it is the antonym
> of "krivo" (curved, wrong). In Serbian we have "pravda" (justice),
> from "straight", "right" and "krivda" (wrong dong, injustice).
>
> Now, the Slavic word 'probiti' (break through) is a compound word (as
> you said above), constituted of pro- (through, over, beyond) + biti
> (beat). During the process of "breaking through" is it not normal not
> to make 'curves' if you want to achieve your goal. It means, during
> "penetration" the most logical movement is "straight ahead" (Slavic
> pravo).
And your point is?
As I said, 'probiti' and similar coumpounds are not cognates
of any of the non-compound words like 'pravo', 'pravda', at al.
Are you sure you still remember what you were trying to state
in your earlier posts?
> DV
>
>> Is that Franz's humming method you've used again?
>>
>>> Are you so blind that you can't see the easy perceivable semantic
>>> correspondences among those words?
>>
>> Yes! You got it. You see through my blindness.
>>
>> I am incorrigible, even under this torture I still keep saying
>> that "perceivable semantic correspondences" has nothing
>> to do with what are and what aren't cognates.
>>
>>> Slavic PRAVDA (justice, right) is a synonym for the PROVED truth.
>>
>> Synonym?
So, is that it?
>> The English 'proof' means right? Truth?
>> Is the '-ed' also related to '-da' in 'pravda'? Is that it? :-)
Is that it?
Paul J Kriha
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 12:38 pm, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[...]
WORD: бить
GENERAL: бью́, укр. би́ти, др.-русск., ст.-слав. бити, болг. би́я,
сербохорв. би̏ти, би̏jе̑м, словен. bíti, bȋjem, чеш. bíti, biji,
польск. bić, biję, в.-луж. bić, biju, н.-луж. biś, bijom.
ORIGIN: Родственно д.-в.-н. bīhal "топор", также bil, арм. bir
"дубинка, палка", греч. φιτρός "ствол дерева, кол, колода",
ирл. benim (*bhināmi) "режу, бью", biail "топор"; см. Бернекер 1, 117;
Траутман, BSW 33; Уленбек, РВВ 26, 568; Хюбшман 429; Буазак 1027 и сл.
WORD: быть
GENERAL: укр. бу́ти, ст.-слав. быти, сербохорв. би̏ти, словен. bíti,
чеш. býti, польск. być, в.-луж. być, н.-луж. byś.
ORIGIN: Родственно лит. bū́ti "быть", др.-инд. bhū́tíṣ, bhūtíṣ, "бытие,
хорошее состояние, преуспевание", ирл. buith "бытие", далее,
др.-инд. bhávati "есть, имеется, происходит", греч. φύομαι "становлюсь",
лат. fui "я был", futūrus "будущий", гот. bauan "жить", д.-в.-н. bu^an;
см. Бернекер 1, 114 и сл.; М. -- Э. 1, 359 и сл.
Nu, shcho, tovarishch? Udovletvoritel'no? Tak? Sh, sh.
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
> >>> Slavic PRAVDA (justice, right) is a synonym for the PROVED truth.
>
> >> Synonym?
> So, is that it?
Not in a literal way, of course! :-)
> >> The English 'proof' means right? Truth?
> >> Is the '-ed' also related to '-da' in 'pravda'? Is that it? :-)
>
> Is that it?
Let us try the other way: what is the history of the English word
'probable'. Is it not related to 'provable'? In Serbian "provable' is
something what has been 'probed' (što se 'oprobalo'; Serb. oprobano =
Eng. probed, proven). Now you can clearly see that 'pravda' (justice'
is the word which has been derived from the same source as English
'proved' [Serb. opravdano (valid, justified) = Eng. approved; some
small shifts in Germanic and Slavic meanings are quite
understandable].
You may continue to make a fool of your self by denying something what
is self evident, but everyone can see that Serbian 'probati' (examin,
try; Russ. пробовать) is a cognate to Latin 'probare' and English
'prove' and 'probe'.
What conclusion could you draw if you compared two Czech words:
probádat (explore) and probití (pierce; Cz. probodnout)? Would you
like to say that Czech 'probádat' and 'probodnout' are unrelated
words?
Do you know that in Serbian 'probadati' has the same meaning as
'probijati'/'probiti/probosti' (to pierce, break through, hole; Cz.
probodnout, probost)? In your own language you have a clear evidence
that the Slavic verbs 'probiti' (break through) and
'probati' (examine, explore, probe) are indisputable cognates. It
means that both words are in fact compounded; i.e. made of the prefix
pro- and the verb biti (beat).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
On Oct 3, 11:05 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> >>> Slavic PRAVDA (justice, right) is a synonym for the PROVED truth.
>
> >> Synonym?
> So, is that it?
Not in a literal way, of course! :-)
> >> The English 'proof' means right? Truth?
> >> Is the '-ed' also related to '-da' in 'pravda'? Is that it? :-)
>
> Is that it?
Let us try the other way: what is the history of the English word
Paul J Kriha
> On Oct 3, 11:05 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
> wrote:
>> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 12:38 pm, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
>>> wrote:
[...]
So for g-sake, don't call it that then!
>>>> The English 'proof' means right? Truth?
>>>> Is the '-ed' also related to '-da' in 'pravda'? Is that it? :-)
>>
>> Is that it?
>
> Let us try the other way:
Can't you simply say yes or no?
> what is the history of the English word
> 'probable'. Is it not related to 'provable'? In Serbian "provable' is
> something what has been 'probed' (što se 'oprobalo'; Serb. oprobano =
> Eng. probed, proven). Now you can clearly see that 'pravda' (justice'
> is the word which has been derived from the same source as English
> 'proved' [Serb. opravdano (valid, justified) = Eng. approved; some
> small shifts in Germanic and Slavic meanings are quite
> understandable].
Oh jeez.
And Germanic "prov-" is cognate with Slavic "prav-"? :-)
> You may continue to make a fool of your self by denying something what
> is self evident, but everyone can see that Serbian 'probati' (examin,
> try; Russ. пробовать) is a cognate to Latin 'probare' and English
> 'prove' and 'probe'.
>
> What conclusion could you draw if you compared two Czech words:
> probádat (explore) and probití (pierce; Cz. probodnout)? Would you
> like to say that Czech 'probádat' and 'probodnout' are unrelated
> words?
Yes, apart from the prefix they are not etymologically related.
They are both prefixed by "pro-" (through), however the stem
verbs are not cognates.
(I have no idea what specifically you mean by your "related" or
"unrelated". I say they are "not cognates" by which I mean they
are not etymologically related withing the Czech, Old Czech,
and Old Slavonic context.)
I say it again, the verbs "bádat" (to intellectually search) and
"bodnout" (to stab) are not cognates. They *of course* are
semantically unrelated but that is quite besides the point.
>
> Do you know that in Serbian 'probadati' has the same meaning as
> 'probijati'/'probiti/probosti' (to pierce, break through, hole; Cz.
> probodnout, probost)?
In that case your Serbian "badati" is related to Czech "bodati"
and not "bádati". I am not going to waste any more time looking
up "bodati" "badati" and "bádati" in etym.dics.
> In your own language you have a clear evidence
> that the Slavic verbs 'probiti' (break through) and
> 'probati' (examine, explore, probe) are indisputable cognates.
No, I don't.
I am running out of peas. I don't care anymore.
No more peas to throw against the wall.
pjk