| − | I don't think that the origin of the word in indo-european did not contain the /d/ in English /t/, although written with a 'd' following an error of trascription the way "iland" became "island" in modern english influenced by french "isle". In fact this word although having the termination "ed" is not to be interpreted as a past particicle, in fact of course there are cases in english where past particicle become adgective (e.g. armed, married) but this word is not expressing the sense of some "intelligent influence" like the one I cited: armed (by his/her will, or somebody's will) married (by the priest). I think the original english word must have been "nakt", which somehow became "naked", this is confirmed by othe germanic language: dutch "naakt", old norse "nakt". So the original indo-european must have bee something like n, (of course), o (I suppose IE o> ProtoGerm.a), g( became k in germanic languages, desappeared in latin like in "iuuenis" from IE iuuengis), e ( a VOWEL:rarely IE has two consecutive consonants), d (this is the point). Some "noged". So there is, PG "nakt", classical Latin "nudus" maybe from Old latin "nugdus", and this is a clear tendence of latin to eliminate the voiced consonats before other consonants. Anyway it is quite clear the link between english naked, and latin nudus> neo-latin nudo nude etc. So I put the latin word within the "cognates" in Etymology | + | I don't think that the origin of the word in indo-european did not contain the /d/ in English /t/, although written with a 'd' following an error of trascription the way "iland" became "island" in modern english influenced by french "isle". In fact this word although having the termination "ed" is not to be interpreted as a past particicle, in fact of course there are cases in english where past particicle become adgective (e.g. armed, married) but this word is not expressing the sense of some "intelligent influence" like the one I cited: armed (by his/her will, or somebody's will) married (by the priest). I think the original english word must have been "nakt", which somehow became "naked", this is confirmed by othe germanic language: dutch "naakt", old norse "nakt". So the original indo-european must have bee something like n, (of course), o (I suppose IE o> ProtoGerm.a), g( became k in germanic languages, desappeared in latin like in "iuuenis" from IE iuuengis), e ( a VOWEL:rarely IE has two consecutive consonants), d (this is the point). Some "noged". So there is, PG "nakt", classical Latin "nudus" maybe from Old latin "nugdus", and this is a clear tendence of latin to eliminate the voiced consonats before other consonants. Anyway it is quite clear the link between english naked, and latin nudus> neo-latin nudo nude etc. So I put the latin word within the "cognates" in Etymology {{unsigned-ip|82.59.113.244|00:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}} |
| − | PG is wrong how does it explain that PG /d/ became dutch /k/ also old Norse gave a /nakt/. No way Dutch changes germanic /d/ to a /t/ it has not undergone 2nd germanic sound shift, and anyway this is impossible in a dictionary. I change it | + | PG is wrong how does it explain that PG /d/ became dutch /k/ also old Norse gave a /nakt/. No way Dutch changes germanic /d/ to a /t/ it has not undergone 2nd germanic sound shift, and anyway this is impossible in a dictionary. I change it {{unsigned-ip|82.59.113.244|00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}} |
沒有留言:
張貼留言