Why are "nine" and "new" so close in Romance languages?

[Erdosain]

I recently became aware that the oldest bridge in Paris, the Pont Neuf, actually means “the New Bridge” in French. I had always assumed it was “Bridge Nine,” as neuf is also the word for nine. Why are nine and new so closely related? There doesn’t seem to be any obvious connection between the words.

In Spanish, new=nuevo/a and nine=nueve. In Italian, new=nuovo/a and nine=nove. Is this a case of convergent evolution, or do new and nine come from the same word?

[Svejk_1]

I don’t think they have any relationship, they just sounded similar to begin with for the simple reason that there’s only so many combinations of consonants and vowels that you can make. If you have similar starting positions and fairly homogeneous ways of transforming words over time, you’re going to end up with the same result eventually.

[Peter_Morris]

Romance languages all derive from Latin, and they are similar words in Latin.
Nine = novem
New = nova

Not entirely surprising that they should be similar in the languages that have descended from Latin.

[thelurkinghorror]

French also has nouveau/nouvelle/nouvel, which also means “new” under different situations. It is a more common word than neuf.

[Erdosain]

@thelurkinghorror

French also has nouveau/nouvelle/nouvel, which also means “new” under different situations. It is a more common word than neuf.

Exactly. I think that’s why I always just assumed the bridge was named after the number. I guess usage has shifted since the bridge was named.

Anyway, based on the posts so far, I guess it was just a case of convergent evolution.

[RadicalPi]

According to this web page (LINGUIST List 5.1079: Nine/New), it’s a fluke:

Larry Trask has found the root of the problem (excuse the pun):
>Calvert Watkins reconstructs the PIE root for `new’ as *newo-, and

that for nine' as *newn (with a syllabic final nasal). Because of >this resemblance in the proto-language, it's hardly surprising that >many IE languages should continue to show similarities in their words >for new’ and `nine’. But I’m not aware that anyone has ever
>seriously proposed a common origin for the two PIE roots.

[Erdosain]

@RadicalPi

According to this web page (LINGUIST List 5.1079: Nine/New), it’s a fluke:

That is a great cite, RadicalPi. Thanks, everyone. I would have been pondering this for years without this board.

[charizard]

If you feel like another fluke - in Chinese “nine” sounds almost exactly like “old”.

[mr.jp]

In Danish they are also very similar. “ni” and “ny”.

[Saltire]

It is also fabulous that someone named RadicalPi posted a cite about PIE roots. I love this board.

[Svejk_1]

@Erdosain

Anyway, based on the posts so far, I guess it was just a case of convergent evolution.

To be fair, neither of the two posts preceding this one by you actually suggest that there is any convergence; both suggest that it is a fluke and that they were alike all along, although neither backs it up with a nice cite like **RadicalPi **did.

[hibernicus]

But I’m not aware that anyone has ever
>seriously proposed a common origin for the two PIE roots.

Such a connection has been seriously proposed, for example by the mathematician Karl Menninger in “Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers”.

See also
(scroll down to p.6)

‘5’ is generally related to ‘fist’ and ‘finger’, but M[artínez] credits the proposal that the word is also related to ‘all’ (207-8); ‘10’ seems problematic, but M prefers the proposal that the I-E root underlies *deks- ‘right [hand]’ (209); and ‘9’ is generally related to ‘new’ (209). M concludes that achieving units for ‘1’ through ‘10’ remains far from demonstrating an original decimal system (212), as the grouping of ‘1’ through ‘3’ as deictic in origin, ‘4’, 5’, ‘8’, and ‘10’ as involving fingers or hands, and ‘9’ as ‘new’ (210) suggests. Thus, we see can bases for at least two, and possibly four distinct counting systems prior to the development of the decimal system.