-8

Are the Latin word "octo" is derived from the serial number of the letter "h" in the alpabet?

The latin words "veho" and "traho" transform into the latin words "vecto" and "tracto" respectively by analogy with the English word "bear" transforms into the English word "bring". The latin language also has the word "octo". I have tried to reconstruate it origin.

The origin verb   The perfect passive participle   The derivative verb
     veho                      vectus                        vecto
     traho                     tractus                       tracto
     ?oho?                     ?octus?                       octo

a 1
b 2
c 3
d 4
e 5
f 6
g 7
h 8

For better understanding the question:

The origin verb   The past passive participle       The derivative verb     
      bear                     born                          bring        

closed as unclear what you're asking by Mark Beadles, Draconis, bytebuster, curiousdannii, jknappen - Reinstate Monica May 4 at 12:36

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    This is an impressively confused question. I am especially struck by how the section labeled "for better understanding" leads one even farther away from the initial strange question about the alphabetical order of the letter <H>. – Mark Beadles May 2 at 17:42
  • @MarkBeadles The latin words "veho" and "traho" transform into the latin words "vecto" and "tracto" respectively by analogy with the English word "bear" transforms into the English word "bring". The latin language also has the word "octo". I have tried to reconstruate it origin. – prostorech May 2 at 17:47
  • 5
    (1) English "bring" is not a transformation/derivative verb of "bear" (2) The origin of the Latin word "octo" is already well-known - why do you think your theory is better than the accepted one? (3) Latin alphabetical order can't be significant because Greek has the homophonous word word "οκτώ" but has a different alphabet. (4) Latin "oho" is not attested anywhere (5) It's highly unusual to the point of non-existence that a word would be somehow "derived" from the alphabetical order of a letter that doesn't even appear in the word. I'm honestly being too charitable by even responding. – Mark Beadles May 2 at 17:57
  • 3
    You already asked this exact question on Latin.SE and got an answer. What are you hoping will happen by posting it again? – Draconis May 2 at 20:41
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it has nothing to do with linguistics. – Draconis May 2 at 20:41
6

No. That would be very strange considering that alphabets are a relatively late linguistic development compared to speech. There is also no other correspondence between a number and a letter.

Even this correspondence is imaginary since the Latin letter wasn't pronounced okto but .

Moreover, the root *okto(u) is definitely older than the Latin alphabet given that it is speculated to exist in Proto-Indo-European, hence its appearance in Greek, Indic, and Germanic languages.

The verbal paradigms are irrelevant since there is no such verb either.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.