I just got curious about the following fact: the word two is deux and dos in French and Spanish correspondingly, whereas in Latin it's duo (m, n), duae (f), (there are no traces of s). I wonder if French x in deux and Spanish s in dos have a common origin and if they both are related to Latin accusatives duōs, duās. Could anyone shed some light on this?

In Old French there was a convention(or m.b. tradition) to write X after U (though, then it was written as V) even if it was pronounced as /s/ or /z/. So you know French spelling is very conservative and keeps this odd tradition.

---

Le Petit Robert Wrote:deux [dø] adj. numér. inv. et n.

• dous, deux XIIe; lat. duos, accus. m. plur. de duo

Thanks for the explanation, Giannico. Actually, I supposed that French deux was never pronounced with a [k], and that it must have been a writing convention. But now I see the reason for the [s] or [z].

Am I right saying that Romance nouns, adjectives, etc. evolved from Latin accusatives rather that nominatives? (These questions reveal my amateurish level in linguistics, but I hope I won't be chastised.)

Hi, Quasus. I misinformed you a little so I should correct my first answer. In Old French manuscripts the letter <x> was written instead of <us> at the end of the words. I'm not sure why they did it but probably to save space in the books. It is obvious that in this case <x> wasn't pronounced as [ks]. But later when the orthography was being normalized <u> was added before <x>. Although <x> wasn't changed to <s> or <z>.
Nevertheless, from a synchronic point of view, we can also say that in Modern French <x> is usually written after <u> at the end of the words (especially after digraphs <eu>, <au>, <eau>). So deux is not an exception from this rule.

(05-10-2009 11:56 AM)Quasus Wrote:  I wonder if French x in deux and Spanish s in dos have a common origin and if they both are related to Latin accusatives duōs, duās.

It's definitely so: most modern Romance (at least French) words are from Latin accusative.

Dear gentlemen,

I think it will be interesting for you to know that in most cases this U before final X descends from earlier L: journal > journaux, metal > metaux,
oeil > yeux, vieille - vieux etc.

(10-30-2009 07:46 AM)Sergio Wrote:  in most cases this U before final X descends from earlier L: journal > journaux, metal > metaux,
oeil > yeux, vieille - vieux etc.

I think your interpretation is wrong. Velarized L (IPA: [ɫ]) in these cases shifted to [w].
(A similar process occurred in Polish). This [w] was represented in the orthography with an u.

(10-30-2009 10:15 AM)paqra Wrote:  

(10-30-2009 07:46 AM)Sergio Wrote:  in most cases this U before final X descends from earlier L: journal > journaux, metal > metaux,
oeil > yeux, vieille - vieux etc.

I think your interpretation is wrong. Velarized L (IPA: [ɫ]) in these cases shifted to [w].
(A similar process occurred in Polish). This [w] was represented in the orthography with an u.

Eventually there was a diphthong [a͡u], which contracted to [o].

Quote:I think your interpretation is wrong. Velarized L (IPA: [ɫ]) in these cases shifted to [w].
(A similar process occurred in Polish). This [w] was represented in the orthography with an u.

Instead of disproving my interpretation you confirmed it by adding only additional info abt intermediary stage of transformation L > [ɫ] > u [w].

Similar processes occurred not only in Polish (where ɫ is still written) but also in Dutch, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Serbo-Croatian & Komi languages (even English had rather similar phenomena: chalk, talk,
walk etc.). If anybody can continue this list, pls kindly do it.

(10-30-2009 02:43 PM)Sergio Wrote:  Instead of disproving my interpretation you confirmed it by adding only additional info abt intermediary stage of transformation L > [ɫ] > u [w].

BTW, what does the first L mean here? As far as I know Latin L was always velarised at the end of a word.