|
deux / dos vs duo, duae
|
|
05-10-2009, 11:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2009 11:56 AM by Quasus.)
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
deux / dos vs duo, duae
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?
|
|||
|
05-10-2009, 04:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2009 04:28 PM by Giannico di Gatti.)
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
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. |
|||
|
05-10-2009, 08:43 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
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. )
|
|||
|
06-30-2009, 10:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2009 10:54 AM by Giannico di Gatti.)
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
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. Me is broken Inglish spicker
|
|||
|
07-01-2009, 12:26 AM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
| RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae | |||
|
10-30-2009, 07:46 AM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
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, 10:15 AM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
(10-30-2009 07:46 AM)Sergio Wrote: in most cases this U before final X descends from earlier L: journal > journaux, metal > metaux,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. Robo-Puppy commencing two hour yipping session. Yip yip yip yip yip yip... |
|||
|
10-30-2009, 12:52 PM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
(10-30-2009 10:15 AM)paqra Wrote:Eventually there was a diphthong [a͡u], which contracted to [o].(10-30-2009 07:46 AM)Sergio Wrote: in most cases this U before final X descends from earlier L: journal > journaux, metal > metaux,I think your interpretation is wrong. Velarized L (IPA: [ɫ]) in these cases shifted to [w]. |
|||
|
10-30-2009, 02:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2009 08:38 PM by rawonam.)
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae
Quote:I think your interpretation is wrong. Velarized L (IPA: [ɫ]) in these cases shifted to [w]. 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, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2009 03:34 PM by Quasus.)
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
| RE: deux / dos vs duo, duae | |||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|

Search
Member List
Calendar
Help



)
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>.