tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 20 01:21:20 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: easy question

Philip Newton ([email protected])

• From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: easy question
• Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:21:06 +0100
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=g0LC/kRWFkAj14Mh5A4su5Y3hkvnk5Qm370qcfzH0jqf0R2UptWWoXBuSNSoB/sjJkbQR95+yAXrdsFizInnvZvcUEgGjRTQF2YvlptA94miA6UcFInWbaA0X89JLu6s1i6r1pmjt8GAaoLBVGyht8ZNXAGC+jzIJ9LSstsHngA=
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 1/14/06, Stephen A. Carter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Technically, though, I don't think we can call {DoS}/{ray'} a case of
> suppletion unless we know for a fact that the two words aren't
> cognate.  They certainly *look* different, but because we don't know
> the details of their etymologies, we can't say for certain that
> they're an example of suppletion.

You mean like French oeil/yeux, for example? They look pretty
different, but AFAIK derive through regular sound change from singular
and plural of the same Latin word (oculus/oculi?).
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: easy question
    • From: "Stephen A. Carter" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: easy question
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
  • Re: easy question
    • From: "Stephen A. Carter" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: nalqaD (noun)
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: nalqaD (noun)
• Previous by thread: Re: easy question
• Next by thread: Re: easy question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level