What is Relatedness?

[Eduard Selleslagh]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv at wxs.nl>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:40 PM

> "Eduard Selleslagh" <edsel at glo.be> wrote:

>> English Dutch
>> other ander
>> tooth tand: here the -n- has remained!
>> soft zacht: the ch (jota sound) - f correspondance is systematic: laugh
>> lachen (but English orthography is still witness of a similar pronunciation
>> in times past). With German:kraft kracht.

> These cases are not comparable.  In English, there was a sound
> shift /x/ > /f/ (as well as /x/ > zero, cf. the split of the
> English interdental fricative into T ~ D).  In Dutch, there was a
> sound shift /ft/ > /xt/.  German mostly kept things as they were.
> So:

> sanft  soft   zacht   < *samft- (Ingw. *sa~ft)
> Kraft  craft  kracht  < *kraft-

> vs.

> lachen laugh  lachen  < *hlahhjan

> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv at wxs.nl

[Ed]

My remark about f - ch was actually about ft - cht. I should have said so.
Anyway, it was a side remark, not related to the subject at hand (-n- > zero).
The comparison with -gh > f was unjustified.

Ed.