Re: numeration system

On 16 Dec 2004, at 4.35 pm, Thomas R. Wier wrote:

> Tristan wrote:
>> Unlike the American system, we don't touch our country code with a
>> ten-foot pole, unless you add a number your mobile phone gives you.
>
> Strictly speaking, it isn't our country code, since Canadians use
> the same system.  From the US, one needn't dial a country code to
> call a Canadian number.
Really? Why's that? It seems the US would easily need more numbers than
Australia, so how come you have to share your numberspace with Canada?

(Is there a better term than 'country code'? 'Region code' is ambiguous
and could easily mean 'area code' and now I'm out of ideas.)

>> I thought MnE 'two' /tu:/ < ME 'two' /to:/ < 'two' /twO:/ < OE 'twa'
>> /twa:/ < PG *twaI, cf 'who' /hu:/ < OE 'hwa' /hwa:/. That was just a
>> guess, but German zwei and Icelandic tveir seem to suggest a PG form
>> of
>> *twai- IIRC.
>
> I'm no expert on English historical phonology, but I had been under
> the impression that the loss of /w/ was before /u/, not a lower vowel,
> and that this had happened twice in the language:  'how' /h&u/ <
> EMidE 'how' /hu:/ < OE 'hu:' /hu:/ < Pre-OE *hwu:, BUT ModE 'who' /hu/
> LMidE 'who' /hwu:/ < EMidE 'who' /hwo:/ < OE 'hwa' /hwa:/. No?
I think you're wrong, from words like 'sword', which tmk never did have
a /u/, but lost the /w/ anyways. But I like you am no expert on English
historical phonology, and was only meaning to say that 'two' came from
the same PG word as _zwei_ and _tveir_, and not a differently-inflected
form.

--
Tristan.

Replies