New answers tagged


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/...


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 ...


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.


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.


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 -...


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.


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 ...


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). ...


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