New answers tagged

0

Thou art asking a good question, so I shall answer thee! There is something the others aren't telling thee that'll help explain this better. Thou/thee was informal, ye/you was formal and also the 2nd person plural form, so eventually people became more polite and used the formal/polite you over thou, but if this were the case then why hasn't french/spanish/...


7

I assume you mean ὄφις, not ὄψις. The process where kʷ etc become [kp] is reasonably well-attested in the languages of Africa as well as in Indo-European where the outcome would be [p] ([kp] is a typologically anomalous outcome limited mostly to a band of languages in Africa). The lingual outcome can be explained as an acoustically-driven modification of the ...


0

No research is being done as we know but an Australian substratum in Dravidian is a very intriguing area of research awaiting some dedicated researchers.


2

The shift of /k/ to /h/ is regular in Germanic (assuming that the borrowing from Celtic to Germanic is very old: i.e. pre-Grimm). But I do not see why the Romance forms should derive from Gothic, rather than directly from Celtic. The development of -kt- to Italian -sc- and then to French -ss- does not seem problematic.


7

I think a likly path to the "s" is through "kt" (as in ambactus) which then palatalized before j. A variety of spellings are apparently found in this word and related words such as ambascia: single s, double ss, x, sc, c. It's a bit hard for me to find similar examples of the outcome of Latin -cti- in Romance languages, but perhaps the -...


0

mawjūd is the passive participle of the verb wajada “to find”, so its literal meaning is “having been found”. As a participle it is common in classical Arabic, but as far as I can see, in the meaning “existing” it is modern, or in case not common in the classical language. It might help if you could direct us to the mentioned link.


1

It is a word in both modern standard Arabic and classical Arabic. Just because it was not mentioned in the Qur'án does not mean it is not a word. The Qur'án is not a dictionary, and it does not have every word in the Arabic language. Further proof of it being a word is the fact that other words of the same root are indeed found in the Qur'án, it is just that ...


8

Kartvelian is not only not demonstrably related (note: this is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence) to Indogermanic, but also on the same level unrelated to other Kaukasian language families such as North-East Kaukasian languages (including Chechen, Awarian, and Lezgian) or the North-West Kaukasian languages (including Abkhasian and Cherkessian). ...


11

Kartvelian is not part of Indo-European, and in fact is not known to be related to any other language family. Some linguists have connected it with IE as part of a proposed larger family called Nostratic, but this is not widely accepted.


Top 50 recent answers are included